BIBLE VINDICATED.
A
SERIES OF ESSAYS
ON
AMERICAN SLAVERY.
WITH AN APPENDIX.
BY ELDER JONAS HARTZEL,
PASTOR OF THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, DAVENPORT, IOWA,
CINCINNATI:
PUBLISHED BY JOHN BOGGS.
1858.




ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858,
BY JOHN BOGGS,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for
the Southern District of Ohio.




PREFACE.
THE following Essays comprise a thorough examination of the whole subject of American Slavery, as
far as the Bible is supposed to give it any countenance. That holy book is (we think) fully "vindicated" from the foul charge of being pro-slavery.
The Essays were originally written for the North
Western Christian Magazine, but owing to their universal popularity among the friends of liberty and
the Bible, and the strong solicitation of many of
those who have read them, they are now presented
in their present form.  It has, with the assistance
of the author, been carefully revised and corrected.
We commend the work to the favorable consideration of an enlightened public, believing it will be
found an important auxiliary to the cause of humanity and religion.                     J. B.




CONTENTS.
FAGE.
INTRODUCTION,..........    5
EsSAY I.-Jewish servitude-Servants, how obtained-Duration of servitude-Servitude under the Law not
slavery,....                          8
ESSAY II.-Slavery as mentioned by the Prophets-Contrary
to the Law-Large anti-slavery meeting-Punishment of slaveholders,..                         16
ESSAY III.-Examination of Prophecies continued-Servitude
not slavery-Recapitulation,..                28
ESSAY IV.-New Testament slavery-Preliminary remarksContrasted with polygamy,..   29
ESSAY V.-Roman slavery not founded on color-Slaves obtained by conquest-Cupidity the origin of American
slavery-Apologists reviewed,....   88
EsSAY VI.-Directions to believing servants-Why suffer patiently-Should choose freedom-Christianity opposed to slavery,......   60
ESSAY VII.-Servants under the yoke-Why obey their unbelieving masters-Who are the proud?-Pro-slavery
or anti-slavery preachers,....                68
EsSAY VIII.-Servants with believing masters-Relative condition-Wholesome words what?-From whom must
withdraw?.....               80
ESSAY IX.-Slavery from the master's standpoint-Directions
to believing masters-Their duties as such-To believing servants-To unbelieving servants,..   97
EssAY X.-Examination of Paul's letter to Philemon,.. 108
APPENDIX,... 123
(4)




INTRODUCTION.
I HAVE, for some time past, thought of reviewing
the Bible on the subject of Slavery. Many brethren
of intelligence dissenting, led me to suspect that there
might be some error in my position. I have recently
been called to the task; not, however, with a view to
enlighten the Church on this subject, (a most humiliating necessity,) but to defend the Bible against the
charge of being "pro-slavery in its tendency."  This
calumny was thrown upon the Book that contains the
christian's faith and hope by an open-mouthed, longtongued infidel, in the course of a series of lectures
recently delivered in our place. When this missionary of infidelity referred to great names, great men,
and great expounders of the Scriptures-preachers
standing at the head of literary and theological institutions, etc., as concurring with him in this view of
Bible teaching and tendency-the heart of the christian bled. Why? Because the christian could not
say to the calumniator, you falsify, you have the concurrence of no such men. This feeling was the more
pungent, from a conviction that the unbeliever was
right; so far, at least, that the interpretation of the
Bible, by such men, is the very bulwark of slavery, in
so far as the church participates in the mischief. How
painful to the christian, that this enemy of God's own
Book, in which are contained all the elements of piety
and morality, and hope for the future, has the concurrence of such renowned names, in what the Bible
"admits and sustains;" differing only with them in
the conclusions. They, indeed, affirming that as the
Bible approves the "relation of master and slave for
life,"-and as it is the christian's directory in all ques(5)




1t             INTRODUCTION.
tions of right, therefore, we should acquiesce and offer
no violence to the institution. But the unbeliever draws
a widely different conclusion from the same premises,
viz: that the Bible is not from God, but the production
of wicked men, for God would not justify such a system
of oppression as robs man of his humanity, and degrades him to the condition of a brute. Each, turning
that in which they mutually agree to his own account,
in his own way. The one to sustain slavery (American
slavery, for we have no other) in the church and in the
State, and the other to destroy confidence in the Bible,
holding it up to public scorn and contempt, as being
decidedly unjust and immoral in its tendency.
That slavery always has been demoralizing in its tendency will not be denied by its warmest adherents. If,
then, the Bible, "both Moses and Paul sustain it," and
the "tree is to be known by its fruit," we must ask proslavery christians to meet infidel abolitionists on the
Bible controversy. A discussion between these parties
could be readily agreed upon, as they now agree in the
predicate. All that remains to be settled is simply,
shall the Bible be employed to support American slavery, or shall the guarantee the Bible gives to slavery be
employed for its own destruction?
We hold nothing in common with unbelievers in regard to the Bible. We have nothing to defend but the
book on its own intrinsic merits. We are now engaged
in answering the advocate of infidelity by a course of
lectures, and shall give you the result of our review of
the Bible upon the subject.
I am happy in the conviction that the Bible can be
defended against pro-slavery christians and infidel abolitionists, many of which are making a great outcry
against the evils of society, but are doing nothing towards correcting them, unless it is true, as these selfstyled reformers affirm, that the minds of men must be
emancipated from their reverence of the Bible before
any thing can be affected in the way of reforming society: a position most false and self-destructive.




BIBLE VINDICATED.
ESSAY I.
I WILL now give the result of my review of what
the Bible teaches on the subject of slavery. I was
called upon by some of my fellow-citizens to answer
the gross assaults of the infidel B. against the Bible.
Among other charges of injustice and immorality was
that of slaveholding, viz: that the Old and New Testaments justified the system of involuntary and perpetual slavery. Had we been slaveholders, or even
entertained their sentiments, we should have regarded
this portion of the infidel's sermons as a commendation to the Bible. We'would have been edified. We
would have taken no exceptions. No defense would
have been called for, and no reply would have been
made. Or, if the unbeliever had proven his position,
we should have let the matter rest, as converts to slavery, or opponents to the Bible. But, as his argument consisted in unsustained assertions, and a few
nibbling criticisms, we were of the same opinion still,
that there was not a sanction for slavery-slavery
proper, in the law of Moses.
To approach the subject in logical order, we inquire, first, how the Hebrews were to obtain their
servants, and who were the specified subjects of servitude?
(7)




8           BIBLE VINDICATED.
1st, then,  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.
" But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he
shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year
of jubilee:
"And then shall he depart fiom thee, both he and
his children with him."-Lev. xxv: 39-42.
This looks more like paying debts than it looks like
slavery. God taught the Jews to be honest. He
gave them no bankrupt law, or exemption law. No
legalized swindling was permitted under Moses. There
is no slavery in this statute, but equity to the creditor
and mercy to the debtor. By six years labor, not
as a slave, but as a hired servant, he paid in all his
indebtedness, and was taught a good lesson for the
future.
When the six years' service had expired, the master was required to give his servant, at the time of his
departure, an outfit. "And if thy brother, an Hebrew
man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and
serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou
shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou
sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him
go away empty; Thou shalt furnish him liberally out
of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy
wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord' thy God hath
blessed thee thou shalt give unto him." To withhold
was "sin."  There is, then, no such thing as a Jew
being a slave to a Jew in the law of Moses; but a law
fo favor the insolvent debtor. Infidelity has an " evil
eye.'




BIBLE VINDICATED.                9
2d. If the bond-servants were not slaves, then there
was no slavery under Moses, for the insolvent Jew,
and the neighboring heathen, were the only law-specified servants. "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen
that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of
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 as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever:
but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall
not rule one over another with rigor."
If there was no other law limiting the time of servitude, this would be slavery.
It is a law-established maxim, that one section of
law shall not be so " interpreted as to conflict with
another." 1st, of the " heathen round about you,"
and of the " children of strangers that sojourn among
you," and the " families they begat in your land: and
they shall be your possession." 2d. They could not,
according to the spirit of this law, purchase their
bondmen in a promiscuous slave-market; from kidnappers, from "man-stealers," for then they could not
know whether they were of the heathen round about
them, or from a distant land. This is yet the more
evident when the law says, " IIe that stealeth a man
and selleth him, shall surely be put to death." Would
this law have justified a Jew to purchase a stolen
man?   To purchase stolen goods is to encourage
theft. To patronize theft and violence is to become




10          BIBLE VINDICATE i.
accessory to the crime. The partaker is as bad as the
thief, is a common sense adage. " Of the heathen round
about you shall ye buy." The law required that they
knew who they bought, and from whom they bought.
This was an antidote against man-stealing and slavemarkets. For now, the negotiation had to be between
the purchaser and the individual bought, or such as
had a better claim than a thief could establish. And
if heathen husbands and fathers had no more affection
for their wives and children than to sell them-there
was no injustice in the law, as there was but one law
in the religion of Moses, for the home-born and the
stranger.-Ex. xii: 49. And but one civil code for
the home-born and the stranger —Lev. xxiv: 22. 3d.
"They shall be your bondmen for ever."  The words
for ever " could not, at the farthest, extend farther
than to the end of that dispensation.  " The law
and the prophets were until John," said the Messiah. The law was only a schoolmaster to the Jew
until Christ. Then God said to three Jews, Peter,
James, and John-Moses and Elias being present,
"Hear my beloved Son."    Their covenant was an
"Everlasting Covenant." It was never changed, but
it was abrogated. " Everlasting" and "For ever,"
when applied to things eternal in their being or duration, are equivalent with the word Eternal. But when
applied to things of limited duration, they describe
only the longest period of their existence. In Lev. x:
15, " for ever" means only the time of the law.' The
heave shoulder," etc., to wave it for a wave offering
before the Lord; and it shall be thine, and thy sons'
with thee, by a statute for ever, as the Lord hath
"commanded."   A period less than fifteen hundred




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             11
years. "But Hannah went not up; for she said unto
her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned,
and then I will bring him, that he may appear before
the Lord, and there abide for ever."-1 Sam. i: 22.
Here " for ever " means the lifetime of a man. Other
examples might be given. Bondmen " for ever" cannot extend beyond the longest period of Jewish servitude, which was forty-nine years. "And ye shall
hallow the fiftieth year."-Lev. xxv: 10. "And ye
shall return every man unto his family." Why distinguish the fiftieth year of release from any other?
Not for the benefit of the Hebrew servants, for their
release came every seven years.
The conspicuity given to the fiftieth year as a jubilee, must have contemplated other than Hebrew servants. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and
proclaim liberty throughout all the land, to all the
inhabitants thereof." This language is so explicit that
no infidel can wrest it from its most obvious meaning.
There was one class of servants released every seventh
year, and two classes every fiftieth year. The Hebrew
who did not accept his freedom on the seventh year,
and the bond-servants. These were the "inhabitants
of the land" for whose special benefit the jubilee was
marked with so much importance. The release of the
first class, being provided for, came at the end of
every sixth, and would have come at the end of the
forty-eighth year. The sounding of the "trumpet"
in all the "land," and the "proclamation" of "liberty
to all the inhabitants," has no meaning or significance,
unless for the emancipation of those not released on
the seventh year of their servitude.
3d. " And ye shall take them as an inheritance for




12           BIBLE VINDICATED.
your children after you," etc. Their children could
have no more in those bond-servants than was contained in the original title. If fifty years was the fixed
time for a bond-servant, the heirs-in-law could hold
them no longer, unless by some special enactment.
Where is it? We call for it. Perpetual servitude
enters into the very definition of slavery, the fortune
of the offspring following the condition of the mother,
from generation to generation. We say, then, with
assurance, there was not a guarantee for slaveholding
in the Mosaic law. It was a peculiar kind of servitude, differing in all its elements, from every slave
code under heaven. The Hebrews were a peculiar
people. Their religious and civil regulations were their
own. And that system by which their domestic servitude was regulated, was unique, corresponding as a
part with one great whole.
4th. It was affirmed that the law recognized servants as property. The evidence adduced was Ex.
xxi. 20, 21, " And if a man smite his servant, or his
maid, with a rod that he die under his hand, he shall
be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue
a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his
"'money."  Not literally his "money."' Flesh and
blood are not "money."   By a familiar figure of
speech, that for which money was paid is called
"money." " Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or
two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."
This part of the law was to bear upon the motive
of the master; showing that he did not intend to inflict a fatal blow upon his servant.  The master
wanted his service-had paid his "money" for him.
Therefore he did not intend to kill him. Men do not




BIBLE   VINDICATED.            13
wantonly throw away their money in this way. "He
is his money." The purchaser wanted a living, not a
dead servant. " If he continue a day or two, it, the
law, may presume that the smiting was not the cause
of the servant's death, or, if it was, the master ought
not to be punished, for his object was not to destroy
his servant-he was not influenced by a malignant
motive, and therefore, to be regarded as an accident,
rather than a criminal act.
This, I believe, is the only passage relied upon to
prove that the law acknowledged property in man.
The property feature is the most important element in
any system of slavery, ancient or modern, hence, the
fullness, and definiteness, of the legislation in all slave
codes on that head. If the divine law was the same in
this respect, why so obscure on this point. Only one
passage, and that an incidental one, favoring the interpretation above, rather than the property relation.
Why no law regulating sales, and the recovering of
fugitives? If the law of Moses made servants chattels, it is a piece of blind legislation in this particular,
wholly unlike itself in all other enactments. But as
our opponents have all so signally failed, in proving
their affirmation, we shall proceed to establish a negative, and respectfully submit, that the servants in the
Old Testament were not property.
1st. Servants are not so classified, " Thou shalt not
see thy brother's ox, or his sheep go astray, and hide
thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them
again unto thy brother.-And if thy brother be not
nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then shalt
thou bring it unto thine own house, and it shall
be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and




14           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
thou restore it to him again. In like manner shalt
thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his
raiment; and with all lost things of thy brother's,
which he has lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do
likewise; thou mayest not hide thyself." Here we
have a list of property. Property liable to go astray,
and to be lost. The straying " ox," " sheep," or " ass,"
was to be "returned to his owner," and so of the "lost
garment, or any lost thing." If the owner was not
known, the finder was required to "take care of it
until the owner would call for it, when it should be delivered." Servants are at least as much inclined to
run away from their masters as " oxen," " sheep," or
"asses," are to stray from their owners. If then, the
Hebrew masters held their servants as property, and
the owners of this kind of property were liable to the
same losses, why not place human property in the category to which it belongs? The omission, if it be an
omission, is unaccountable. The law enforced the most
rigid justice between man and man, therefore, that
which the law recognized as property, was in all cases
to be returned to the rightful owner. The fugitive
" ox" and "ass" were to be arrested, and driven back
to the owner, but the fugitive servant was not to be
returned to his master. " Thou shalt not deliver unto
his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. IIe shall dwell with thee, even among
you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy
gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress
him." If the servant was the property of his master,
the law of Moses made him so. And here the same
law says this item of property shall not be delivered to
the owner. Is Moses against Moses?   Did he give




BIBLE   VINDICATED.              15
the master ownership in the person of his servant in
one section of the law, and in another section, say he
shall not have his own? Will we charge such crooked
legislation upon the lawgiver of Israel? " Thou shalt
not deliver unto his master," &c., was controverting
the legality of the master's claim to the person and
the labor of his servants. To affirm that this law had
respect to servants, escaping from heathen masters
only, will not help the infidel. For, then, we ask for
the proof. Does the law say heathen masters? No!
Is there any thing in the statute from which such a
limitation can be inferred?  No! not unless in the
phrase "even among you:"' "even" is a supplied
word. To allow such an inference, is to make the
Bible what sceptics say it is, an " instrument that may
be set to play any tune you please."
Why should the law allow to a Jew property in his
servant, and not to a Gentile? One of two positions
must be assumed. 1st. Master, in the text, applies to
all masters; or, 2nd. That Gentiles could not be masters-could not own man as property, not having a
divine warrant, or permit, from God, to be slave owners.
If the infidel will take the first, then the law did not
recognize the servants held by the Jews, as property;
if the latter then the Old Testament is not chargeable
with any form of Gentile slavery. Inasmuch as God
nOver commanded a Gentile in the Law, the Prophets,
or the Psalms, to enslave man, woman, or child. The
first acquits the law from the property feature-then
no slavery. In either case, the law of Moses is not
the patron of human slavery, and the charge is false.
We have now examined the law, and find nothing
like slavery in it. Next in order will be the Prophets,




16           BIBLE VINDICATED.
where we shall find slavery, the " Yoke," but without
command of God, or the sanction of the Prophets.
There we shall find the type of our own times-with
more than a sprinkling of abolitionism.
ESSAY II.
IN the prophetic writings we find slavery-slavery
proper. The Jews were not pleased with their law of
servitude.  The jubilee! yes! the jubilee! what a
trouble. The years of release came round so quickly,
when every Hebrew servant, by the law of his God, was
at once free from indebtedness and from his master.
What a trouble now! who shall do the work? Must we,
our sons and our daughters? We are unaccustomed to
labor. Meanwhile we must do the best we can, and supply the place of these freed ones as soon as possible.
But there was yet another trouble about these times;
when the servant was free, the master was not free,
but was debtor to the freed servant. " And when thou
sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him
go away empty. Thou shalt furnish him liberally out
of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress, of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed
thee, thou shalt give unto him."  Deut. xv: 13,14.
The year of the "release" was the cause of all fhis
trouble. And as in other cases, when justice and equity are demanded at the hand of the unrighteous, they
will rebel. " At the end of seven years, let ye go every
man his brother a Hebrew which hath been sold unto
thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou




BIBLE VINDICATED.               17
shalt let him go free from thee; but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye
were now turned and had done right in my sight in proclaiming liberty, every man to his neighbor; and ye had
made a covenant before me in the house which is called
by my name: But ye turned and polluted my name,
and caused every man his servant, and every man his
handmaid whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure
to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto
you for servants and for handmaids, " Jer. xxxiv: 14,
15, 16. This was slavery outriyht. The year of release came-it passed-but they held on to their slaves.
Their fathers had done so before them. The Jews
abused their liberty, their legal privileges, and from
servant-holders they became slave-holders, and slavecatchers. They rebelled against the law of the Lord,
and were a law unto themselves. If they treated their
own poor brethren in this way, is it probable that they
would treat the heathen bond-servant better? If they
disregarded the law in the one case, they surely would
in the other. If their cupidity would contravene a law
favorable to their own brethren, they could, without any
qualms of conscience, desecrate the fiftieth year jubilee, and sink their pro-slavery fangs yet deeper into the
bosom of the heathen bondman. Such was the state
of affairs in the days of Jeremiah, and had been long
before his time.
But the reader will ask, how came they at this time
to let their servants go free? If he will read the xxxiv
chapter of Jeremiah from the eighth verse, he will find
it was the result of an anti-slavery convention, as reported by that prophet. Zedekiah called this meeting. It was held in the temple. " The princes of Judah
2




18          BIBLE   VINDICATED.
and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the
priests, and all the people of the land," were in attendance. This was a national convention. They entered
into solemn covenant before the Lord, that they would
let their servants go free. To ratify this covenant,
and make the obligation binding, they " cut the calf in
twain and passed between the parts thereof." Every
thing was calculated to make the occasion solemn and
impressive. The convention was called by royal authority. "This is the word that came unto Jeremiah
from the Lord, after that the king Zedekiah had made
a covenant with all the people, which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them." The king required a pledge from the people, that they would liberate their servants now by them degraded to the condition of slaves. They made the promise, and with
the most solemn formalities ratified this covenant, and
the sincerity of their intentions.  The present condition of the nation would wake them up to a sense
of their guilt.
Eight years before this the king of Babylon had
besieged Jerusalem, "And took the king of Judah and
with him ten thousand captives, including the princes,
the men of valor, the best of the crafts-men, and all
that were strong and apt for war:" 2 Kings, ch. 24.
This was an interesting anti-slavery meeting. It was an
exciting time. It was a popular movement. Zedekiah
was the prime mover.  The "princes " and " priests,'
with the " people," went for immediate emancipation.
"Then they obeyed and let them   go;" verse 10.
"But afterwards they turned and caused the servants
and the handmaids whom they had let go free to return, and brought them unto subjection;" verse 11.




BIBLE VINDICATED.               19
"And ye were now turned and had done right in my
sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbor."  "But ye turned and polluted my name, and
caused every man his servant to return and brought
them into subjection."  " Therefore thus saith the
Lord, ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming
liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to
his neighbor; behold I proclaim a liberty for you saith
the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the
famine." "And Zedekiah king of Judah, and his
princes, will I give into the hands of their enemies."
"Behold I will command, saith the Lord, and cause
them (the Chaldeans) to return to this city, and they
shall fight against it and take it," etc. In less than
three years this prophetic threat was executed. The
king and whole posse of slaveholders, were slaves to
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. He "returned"
with his army in the ninth year of Zedekiah, besieged
the city two years, until the " famine prevailed in the
city and there was no bread for the people in the
land." The city was broken up. The king and all
the men of war fled by night. The victors " pursued,"
overtook the fugitive army and king on the plains of
Jericho, " slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes,"
and then they " put out his eyes," and the captain of
the guard carried all the people "away," save the
"poor of the land."  God liberated the slaves, and let
the masters enjoy the sweets of slavery. " Behold I
proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord!" How
descriptive and how just this irony! What a precious
liberty these slave-masters enjoyed in Babylon!
My thoughts now turn upon the unfortunate Zedekiah. Why visit him with such unmeasured severity?




20           BIBLE VINDICATED.
Did he not convoke this great convention for the abolition of slavery in his kingdom? Did he not make a
covenant with his people that they would liberate their
slaves? Did he not require from them the usual confirmation to covenant engagements? Yes; he did all
this. What more could he do? He was surely a good
abolitionist in sentiment. He also spoke out against
the evil, and took measures to suppress it. Ah! poor
man! HIe failed in the important point. He did not
enforce obedience to the covenant. This he had a
right to do. Nay, it was his duty as the executive of
the nation to enforce obedience to the law, and see that
every Hebrew servant and all bond servants were set
at liberty when their time of servitude had expired.
He knew his subjects were living in open violation of
the law of the Lord.  He saw the need of reform, but
was wanting in firmness to bring it about. Therefore, instead of saying to masters this is the year of
release; now let your servants go free and furnish
them liberally out of your flock and floor," etc., he
adopted a compromising policy, and made a covenant
with them, that they would obey God. And when they
violated this covenant he winked at their iniquity, and
suffered the servants to be recalled into perpetual and
unconditional slavery.
To take sides with the poor against the rich, what a
hazardous business! What havoc with popularity!
Zedekiah was the prototype of many in our own times.
They see the wrongfulness of slavery; they confess it;
they will sometimes speak a hard word against it;
and if by some popular movement slavery could be
abolished, they would give their vote. "They are
as much opposed to slavery as anybody, but;" yes!




BIBLE   VINDICATED.              21
But, we must, be careful when we talk about it, and
where and before whom. The pulpit is not the right
place, and in some college halls it is wholly inadmissible, if slaveholders should be in attendance. Not
to observe these rules, is to be reckless on the subject
of good morals. This, however, may also involve the
question of time and place. The time was, and not
long since, even in Ohio, when to advocate anti-slavery
sentiments was considered so grossly immoral, that the
preacher usually received his stipends in tar, feathers,
and rotten eggs, when they could be had. But now
the preacher is paid with a better and more desirable
currency, for the advocacy of the same sentiments.
Morality and right on some questions are as variable as public sentiment. What may be regarded as
strictly moral, north of a certain line, may not be so
esteemed south of it. But time may even effect a
change south as it has north, inasmuch as morality
and righteousness on the subject are not immutable.
The slave trade was both good and right until the
last night of December, 1808; but on the morning of
the first day of January, 1809, the same trade was
piracy, man-stealing, a crime punished with death.
There is as yet no settled standard of morality on this
subject, outside of the Bible. The morality of that
old book on the subject of slavery, is not current in
some latitudes. But as long as it contains this solemn
charge, " Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a
trumpet and show my people their transgressions, and
the house of David their sins."  "Is not this the fast
(abstinence) that I have chosen? to loose the bands
of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let
the oppresed go free, and that ye break every yoke?"




22           BIBLE  VINDICATED.
it can not in the sight of God be immoral to do what
he has commanded.
But to return to the Jews. The clear and well
defined law of Moses, with all its weighty sanctions,
could not secure to servants their freedom at the appointed time. The nation conquered by a foreign
despot, and the better part of the people in positive
slavery in a distant heathen city; the will of their
king, and their own convictions of duty and right, consummated and ratified in solemn covenant; their better sentiments getting the ascendancy over avarice;
all could not break their hold upon their slaves. Conviction relaxed the iron sinew for a short time. The
Lord said, " Ye had turned and had done right," but
they soon repented for having "done right," and pursued the emancipated, the glad-hearted, and by violence
brought them again into bondage. Neither gold nor
silver, nor any thing under heaven, is held, with a
firmer grasp than the poor slave. The pleadings of
suffering humanity, the interests of humanity, the
honor of humanity, the good of the State, the honor
and interests of religion, the credit of the Bible, and
the voice of God in it, are all unavailing. The master
will hold on to his property in human flesh. So valuable that a living writer once said, "None but God
can own a man," but men aspire to be gods in more
ways than one. For men to invade the divine prerogative, is not a new thing under the sun. To own God's
image impressed upon humanity by himself, and to
degrade that image to a chattel, is not regarded as
any stretch of authority by many professed christians.
So the Jews reasoned, and so they did; but God
vindicated his own prerogative to ownership in man.




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             23
For as soon as they departed from the law of servitude
he had given them, and they became slave-owners, he
required for their slaves an immediate emancipation.
"Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming
liberty."  "Behold I proclaim unto you a liberty!"
But we must also hear Isaiah and Nehemiah on this
subject.
ESSAY      III.
WE will now he" Isaiah and Nehemiah, as intimated in our last   Is not this the fast that I have
chosen? To lo,se the bands of wickedness, to undo
the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free, and
that ye break every yoke." " Then shall thy light
break forth as the morning, and thy health shall
spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go
before thee, the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward.
Then shalt thou call, and the Lord will answer; thou
shalt cry, arid he shall say, Here am I. If thou take
away from the midst of thee, the yoke, the putting
forth of the finger and speaking vanity."-Isaiah lviii:
6, 8, 9.
Between Jewish servitude, according to the law of
Moses, and Jewish slavery, as reported by the Prophets, there is an irreconcilable difference. God allowed the former, but disallowed the latter. In their
early history they had servants, but in their subsequent history they had slaves.
In the first period, say from Moses to Isaiah, there
is no language in their records descriptive of slavery,
and therefore no anti-slavery pleadings.




24           BIBLE VINDICATED.
Can words be more descriptive of absolute slavery,
than the above extract? "Let the oppressed go free!"
This " oppression " was not simply an " oppression"
of the helpless or the poor. The command is not to
cease to oppress such, but to "let the oppressed go
free."  Many of the oppressed are " free," were
always "free," can leave their masters when they
please, and when to their interest do so. The fast
God had chosen consisted1st. In "loosing the bands of wickedness;"
2d. " Undoing heavy burdens;"
3d. "Letting the oppressed go free," and to "break
every yoke."
Here are three specific forms of wickedness to be
abstained from, and how was this to be done? In the
things commanded, we have the imperative words and
the descriptive words. "Loose" in the first is imperative, "bands of wickedness" is descriptive.  In
the second, "undo " is imperative, " heavy burdens"
descriptive. In the third, the words "oppressed" is
the descriptive, and " let" " go free " the imperative.
To do justice to the poor and dependent, God required the Jews to " undo " the "heavy burdens," but
for another class of sufferers he required immediate
emancipation.  Pecuniary embarrassment of some
kind subjected the one to the "heavy burdens" and
an unlawful relation, the other to oppression, therefore the God of the oppressed does not say to the
oppressor, " correct the abuses of this institution,"
leave off your oppression, " treat your slaves right,"
but "let " the " oppressed," by you deprived of freedom, "go free," "and that ye break every yoke."
" If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke,




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             25
the putting forth of the finger "-a sign of contempt.
" Ah! you are a slave, you are of mean, low birth,
you are a nigger, fit only to be my slave," etc.
"The putting forth of the finger and speaking
vanity," are concomitants of slavery. Before one
man can enslave another, he must have contemptible
views both of his person and his personal rights.
These views are of easy subdivision between the
slaveholder and his family, and lordly neighbors.
They become more and more confirmed by possession,
until the "finger" of scorn, and the most emphatic
language of reproach are, as matters of course, of
every-day occurrence. The respectful bow and address are not more necessarily associated with other
relations than the "finger" of scorn and words of
insult are with this. That God whose spirit directed
the pen of the prophet Isaiah, prompted the utterance
"let the oppressed go free, break every yoke."  " If
thou take away from thy midst the yoke, the putting
forth of the finger and speaking vanity;" "' then shall
thy light break forth as the morning;" "then shalt
thou call and the Lord will answer it."
It is unmistakably certain, that the Jews in the
days of Isaiah had become slaveholders. For, had
they observed their law of servitude, they would not
have been charged with " oppression," neither would
that servitude have been represented under the strong
figure of "a yoke," which God required them to
"break," and let those whom they had compelled to
bear that yoke " go free." The jubilees would have
freed their servants at the appointed time, hence there
would have been no occasion for Isaiah's abolitionism.
"Let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke."




26          BIBLE   VINDICATED.
" When you shall keep the fast the Lord has chosen,
then shall your light break forth as the morning," etc.
They would not "break the yoke," they did not "put
away the finger " of contempt, or, to drop the figure,
they would not manumit their slaves as God commanded them, and their darkness became still darker,
and their chastisements more severe. One hundred
years after this faithful pleading to put away the
yoke (slavery) from their " midst," their king and ten
thousand of the best of their people, were carried
down to Babylon, to the greatest slave market in the
world. Soon after this calamity, Zedekiah made a
covenant with the nation to let their slaves "go free."
They did so, but afterwards brought them back again
into bondage. Now the word of the Lord came to
Jeremiah-" Therefore, thus saith the Lord: you have
not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty," etc.;
" behold I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord,
to the sword, the pestilence, and the famine," etc.
In three years from this time, this promised liberty
was sent to them by the Chaldean army, and all, save
a few of the meanest of the nation (perhaps the
slaves,) were slaves to the king of Babylon.  One
would suppose, indeed, that the command of God by
Isaiah would have been obeyed, or that they would
have heeded the last admonition by Jeremiah, and
have liberated their slaves. But no, seventy years of
the most rigorous slavery in Babylon failed to cure
them of their love for slavery. No sooner was the
nation emancipated and permitted to enjoy freedom in
their own land, than the aristocrats began again their
traffic in human flesh. "Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles and the rulers, and said




BIBLE VINI)ICATED.              27
unto them, ye exact usury, every one from his brother.
And I set a great assembly against them, and I said
unto them, we after our ability have redeemed our
brethren the Jews, which were sold to the heathen,
and will you even sell your brethren? Or shall they
be sold unto us? Then they held their peace and
found nothing to answer. Also, I said, it is not good
that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our
God, because of the reproach of the heathen our
enemies?" Neh. v: 7, 8, 9. A scandal to Judaism.
Reader, understand.
The advocacy of anti-slavery sentiments by the
prophets had some effect upon the nation; and their
experience in Babylon perhaps more. In the time of
Nehemiah the great reformer, the slaveocracy were a
minority; the mass of the nation were anti-slavery.
The nobility and the rulers were the only advocates in
the nation. But fortunately the reformer of the nation
was a thorough-going abolitionist. He roused up the
indignation of a great assembly against the few slaveholders. He cared not for their noble blood or their
official standing. He put them to shame before all their
people. We, said he, have done all we could to redeem
our brethren from slavery, and you are "selling them
and causing them to be sold unto us." You are not
walking in the fear of our God. You are giving the
heathen, our enemies, an occasion to reproach us and
our religion.  Condemned and conscience-smitten,
they " held their piece and found nothing to answer."
I have now abbreviated into a synopsis my review
and defense of the Old Testament, in this and the preceding articles; and shall say, with kindly feeling, that
the man who will charge the Old Testament with being




28           BIBLE VINDICATED.
the patron of slavery, does so ignorantly or wickedly.
And now I will say, what I did not then say, viz: the
man who will appeal to this book in defense of slavery,
to justify any system of slavery, does so ignorantly or
wickedly.
RECAPITULATION.
1st. The law of Moses allowed the Jews to have
servants.
2d. It fixed the time of servitude at six years, and
forty-nine years.
3d. The law did not classify servants as property,
but as inhabitants of the land.
4th. Every species of property, lost or strayed from
its owner, was by the law to be returned, but the fugitive servant was not to be returned.
5th. So long as the Jews regulated their domestic servitude according to the law, it is not called
"yoke."
6th. In the time of Isaiah, the Jews had metamorphosed their system of servitude into a system of absolute slavery; then God called it a " yoke," and commanded them to break it immediately, and "let the
oppressed go free."
7th. In the days of Jeremiah they did let their
Hebrew slaves "go free."
8th. God said, " Ye had now done right."
9th. Afterwards they repented for having done right,
and pursued their slaves and brought them back into
servitude; then God pronounced upon them the
heaviest judgment that befel the nation, until its final
catastrophe for the offense.
10th. After the nation returned from seventy years




BIBLE VINDICATED.                29
slavery to their own land and the enjoyment of free
dom, the "nobles" and "rulers" of the nation became slaveholders again.
11th. Nehemiah the reformer, "rebuked " the "no
bles " and the " rulers " for this offense, and the re
proach they had brought upon the nation.
12th. He "put a great assembly against " these offenders. In modern parlance, an indignation meeting.
Finally. Happy that reformer, who, like Nehemiah,
will take sides with God against the oppressor!
A reformation with slavery, the pointing of the
"finger" and speaking " vanity " in its " midst!"
What think you brethren?   Is this the reformation
God has " chosen?"  Did you not begin reformation
in anti-slavery? and will you now make reformation
perfect in pro-slavery? Shall minor evils be corrected
or repudiated, and this "maximum of all evils" remain
as before? Brethren, will you be dumb, or will you
speak   Speak in a way to be heard. If your voice
will not obtain freedom for the oppressed, it may do
something toward removing the "reproach" of our
enemies. God will hold you responsible for what you
can do.




D0           BIBLE VINDICATED.
ESSAY IV.
IN our last we took our leave of Moses and the
Prophets, of Hebrew servitude as approved and regulated by the law of Moses, and Jewish slavery as reproved and condemned by the Prophets, and abolished
by the judgments of God sent upon a nation of oppressors.
We now open to another department, and shall hear
what other parties have to offer by way of divine sanctions in this great contest.
And by way of settling some preliminaries, we shall
say,
1. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles had to take
the world as it was, as they found it, its religious and
civil institutions as they were, and make the best of
the world that infinite wisdom and benevolence could
on moral principles.
2. To destroy sin, and to save the sinner, are leading elements in God's moral government, at least so
far as this world is concerned. These principles pervade every dispensation of God's will to man, from the
first to the second Adam. God has changed his forms
and appliances, but his principles never. These are
immutable. So far as this has been effected have the
ends of the divine administration been accomplished.
The divine clemency looks upon the sinner first as
the child of misfortune.  This favorable view has
opened to man a door of mercy. But if the sinner
will not enter, then he stands before God in the light
of a culprit.
The compassionate Redeemer read his own commis



BIBLE   VINDICATED.             31
sion in the Synagogue at Nazareth.' And when he
had opened the book he found the place where it was
written, The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he
has anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor!
He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach
deliverance to the captive, and recovering of sight to
the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. To
preach the acceptable year of the Lord."
With these instructions God sent his Son on a mission to this world. Look at the specifications in this
commission. The words "poor," "broken-hearted,"
" captives," " blind," "bruised,' describe the condition
of those for whose benefit this mission was instituted.
" To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." To
make compensation to the unfortunate therefore am I
come, to remove the cause, and save from poverty,
broken-heartedness, captivity, etc.
Such then is the caption to the Gospel-the heading
to the work of Jesus Christ. So far as the then existing institutions and relations tended to bring man
into, and hold him in the condition here described,
these were to be corrected. He would make another
effort by new appliances to destroy sin, and save the
poor unfortunate sinner. For in some important aspect his present sorrows are not of his own choosing,
or his own mismanagement.
With this preface we will approach some of the
out-posts. The civil government was an absolute pagan despotism. Jesus Christ and his Apostles were
tax-payers but not voters. They could not propitiate the government to favor the "broken-hearted,"
and the "bruised."  The civilization was of pagan
type. The bible had nothing to do directly in model



32           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
ing society out of Judea. Christianity was not then
responsible for the order of society, as it now is in
what are called christian lands. Whatever was incompatible with sound christian morality had to be corrected. This they aimed to do and did do, by converting the world to christianity. Converting was their
fulcrum, and to teach and perfect the converted was
their only lever to raise up the sunken mass. Not to
convert would have been failure. Not to make the
converted better in their circumstances and relations,
purer, holier, happier in their persons, would have been
defeat, and the "acceptable year of the Lord" would
have been but a golden dream, as many of the so-called
reformations have been.
" Go, preach the Gospel to every creature," is the
most philanthropic, the boldest, the grandest oracle
ever heard by mortal man, and contains more of the
aggressive than the literature of the world beside.
Under this broad behest, the Apostles go forth to convert the nations to righteousness. They must not pass
one "creature."  They must make a tender of the
Gospel to the Jew, to the Gentile, to the white man, to
the black man, to the master, to the slave, to the
polygamist, and to his wives. But right here we turn
up a difficulty. Jesus Christ gave no countenance to
a plurality of wives, shall they withhold the Gospel?
No, "preach it to every creature." Shall they require
the polygamist to repudiate all his wives save one?
The law of God will allow him one, which of the three
or more may he retain?   They are all equally his
wives, he is under the same obligations to all. To
make separation a condition of acceptance, would have
been unjust. The Gospel can not be the minister of




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             33
unrighteousness. Let them come in. He took these
several women when no law forbade him, but law justified him. It was not sin to him then,'" for by the law
is the knowledge of sin," but let it spread no further.
It did spread no further. The Apostles' teachings put
a check to it. Would any preacher of the Gospel
now do as the Apostles did? Under the same circumstances, they should follow their example. But where
christian morality and christian civilization have preceded conversion, we require a formal separation. In
the latter case we wouln be governed by the Apostles'
teachings, and say that every man is to have "his
own wife and every woman her own husband."
If the Apostles had justified polygamy it would have
continued in the Church as before. But having been
abolished by christian civilization, its former extenuation is for ever removed in all christian lands. The
simple fact that Apostles baptized polygamists in their
day and order of society is no evidence that we should
do so now. Not one of my brethren in the ministry
would do so, no, not even those who baptize slaveholders would baptize a polygamist now. They would say,
and with great propriety, the teachings of Jesus Christ
and of his Apostles, are opposed to this relation, and the
man that has more than one wife now has nothing to
palliate his case. With Jesus Christ and the Apostles
before me, I will venture the affirmation that no converted man could become a polygamist. The conclusion then is, that to save the sinner the Apostles took
the parties in polygamy into the Church, but left the
sinful custom outside. This was both mercy and justice, under the then existing circumstances, granting
some extenuation on account of former ignorance. As
3




34           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
christianity progressed the ignorance of past ages was
dispelled, and the evils of society were rebuked in advance of conversion. This being done on a scale so
broad, the proclamation of the Gospel was emphatically "The acceptable year of the Lord" to the
"poor," the " broken-hearted," the " captives," etc.
With the consent of the christian world I may say the
Gospel is anti-polygamy. To take the opposite position would be too monstrous.
To correct the sins of society-we mean organic
sins-as, when the head and heart of the nation are
fixed upon a specific evil-that evil must by some
means be taken into hand, otherwise it is unmanageable. To bring such national lustings under corrective treatment, a degree of allowance must sometimes
be granted, and lesser evils must become matters of
temporary sufferance, in order to prevent, or correct
graver ones. The infinitely wise and benevolent God
has ever acted upon this principle. When the nation
of Israel rejected God as their King, and lusted for
another, that they might be in fashion with their neighbors, he yielded to their repeated importunities and
gave them one, not because the demand of the nation
for a king was right, or pleasing to himself, but as a
choice between evils. For when he told the people by
the mouth of Samuel, that their king would afflict
them sorely, they believed him not, but said, "give us
a king," etc.
Now, hear a comment upon this instructive fact:
" 0, Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is
thy help. I will be thy king; where is any other that
can save thee in all thy cities and thy judges, of whom
thou saidst, give us a king and princes? I gave thee




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             35
a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath."
Hosea xiii: 9, 10, 11. So deep-rooted was this unholy
desire, that it had to be granted, or the nation destroyed. "And Saul was anointed king over Israel."
God gave the Jews a king, therefore the desire to have
a king, was well-pleasing in his sight.
The Apostles admitted polygamists to enter the
Church, therefore polygamy is right, say the inhabitants of Utah. God allowed slaveholders to enter the
Church, therefore slavery is right, for God has given
it his sanction, so says the slaveholder and his apologist. God gave the Jews a king, now let us reject
King Jesus, and have another to rule over us, would
be the same in fact and in logic. But God also recognized the relation of kings and subjects in Israel, and
made their reciprocal duties the subject of special
legislation-did he approve the relation  Is this conclusion legitimate? Let the prophet Hosea decide. "I
gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in
my wrath." To elaborate this principle in the divine
government a little farther, we will hear from David:
" They soon forgot his works, they waited not for his
counsel, but lusted exceedingly and tempted God in
the desert. And he gave them their request, but sent
leanness in their soul. Psalm cvi: 13, 14, 15. Again,
"Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the
beginning it was not so." Matt. xix: 8. In this way
God kept the Jews in abeyance. In mercy, he permitted in given cases, what was not in harmony with
strict moral principle. That through his forbearance
he might save the nation from total apostacy, and
retain in the world the knowledge of his name.




36           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
But hence to argue, that because " God gave the
Jews a king," gave the things they " lusted after in
the desert," and " suffered them to put away their
wives," that, therefore, God justified them in these
things, is to argue most fallaciously. Such conclusions
are dishonorable to God and the Bible, and positively,
" turning the grace of God into lasciviousness."  The
polygamy and slavery of the New Testament belong
to this category. When the gospel was promulgated,
society was so entangled with these relations, that the
masses of the poor, were either degraded wives or degraded slaves. To have insisted upon divorcement and
manumission, as conditions of salvation, would have
been virtually an abandonment of the regeneration of
the world by the gospel. The rich, the influential,
were in favor of these institutions; the weak were
under their power. The popular ear could never have
been reached by the Apostles, if they had assailed
directly these time-honored, law-established usages. It
is indeed questionable whether the christian religion
could have been established at all.  In that event
these evils would have continued until the end of time
to afflict and curse mankind. To remove the evils,
they must be' taken in hand."  To make them manageable, they must be brought under the jurisdiction
of christianity. To accomplish this, the gospel had to
be made available to those who were involved in these
relations. Therefore, the invitation, "Come, all ye
that labor and are heavy laden," was to all classes.
There is a striking analogy between polygamy and
slavery; both are of human creation. The first originated in the lust of the flesh, the second in the lust
of forbidden gain. The former being condemned by




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             37
the law of the land, and the latter legalized, affects not
the quality of the institutions, nor yet their coincidence. Neither can any man on earth give a valid
reason why there should be legal guarantees for slavery, and none for polygamy.  Is not the lust of
"sordid gain," as mischievous in its various workings,
as hateful to heaven, and ruinous to man, as sternly
condemned by the word of God, as is the lust of the
flesh? And the conclusion is both safe and charitable,
that the man who is a slaveholder because the " law of
the State permits him to be such," would also be a
polygamist, if the law of the State did not forbid him.
Slaveholding in the days of the Apostles was a thing
of "good report."  Men became slaveholders without
rebuke. In these United States it was always of "bad
report," of most doubtful morality. The majority of
both Church and State have so regarded the Institution
from the infancy of our country. The man that becomes a slaveholder now, does so in despite of this fact.
The light has shone upon this dark and doubtful
concern.
The Rloman slaveholder had not the light in advance; the American slaveholder has the light, and
"loves the darkness."  The circumstances of slaveholders before the christian era, and since that period
are dissimilar; as dissimilar as pagan and christian
civilization.  Therefore, christian ministers refuse
Church membership to polygamists. Why not refuse
the same to slaveholders?
So much by way of preliminary. In our next we
shall examine the New Testament, and give the result
of our former review.




38           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
ESSAY V.
WE have now opened the New Testament, and shall
ask the reader to read again Essay IV. of this series.
For, that system of Slavery with which the Apostles
and first christians had to do, differed widely in many
essential aspects from that which so grievously afflicts
the American people, both Church and State.
That was not negro slavery, ours is. The right
then to hold slaves was not based upon national inferiority or color, as is ours, but the right of conquest,
claiming the persons of the conquered upon the same
ground they did their lands and chattels.  This was
understood when the belligerent nations met each
other upon the field of battle.  The alternatives
between which hostile nations had to choose, were, to
surrender their national independence, with the liability of becoming slaves, or to maintain it by an appeal
to the sword.
Hence, the captives offered in the slave market were
often whiter than the bidders, and more learned than
their masters. Clerks, amanuenses, philosophers, and
orators, commanded the highest price.  "And the
price, from ten to seventy pieces of gold, was determined by their age, their strength, and their education."
Gib. Rome: vol. 4, page 279.
There was some thing at least apparently evenhanded and magnanimous in their way of obtaining
slaves. They could make as fair a show of right to
their slaves as we can to the conquered Territory of
Mexico. But what show of right can America make
to her four millions of slaves? This question leads




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             39
out something the most contemptible and mean that
ever blackened the history of any nation since the
world began. German, Spanish, English, and American avarice is the origin of American Slavery, and
not manly conquest.   Cupidity, the most sordida cold-hearted selfishness, with which only the most
malignant of fallen spirits could inspire the most
corrupt heart of fallen humanity, is the origin of our
system of Slavery. Away yonder in Africa is a
colored race-a weak and ignorant people. This despised, defenceless race might easily be captured or
decoyed and shipped to other ports and sold for slaves.
In this conception we have the origin of American
Slavery.  When this lust was conceived it brought
forth sin-slavers-crews of pirates (manstealers)
bound for the shores of Africa-with manacles for the
hands, and chains for the feet-all aboard, sailed for
English ports well freighted with the spoils of theft
and robbery. Now markets are opened-auctioneers
are obtained-bidders are invited-sales go off briskly
-the new kind of chattel becomes the subject of
English legislation-Slavery spreads rapidly through
the kingdom-is extended to all her islands adapted
to slave labor-sent with the colonists to Americaand, finally, Slavery becomes a subject of American
legislation; and every State in this great confederacy
can have slaves if it will so decide-and traffic in the
bodies and souls of men to its heart's desire.
A  pebble may turn the current of a river; a
thought may revolutionize an empire; and the conception to acquire wealth by stealing men and women has
agitated kingdoms-will yet shake America like a
reed, and has, and yet is making millions nourn.




40          BIBLE VINDICATED.
Now, reader, when you shall read what may follow
-when you shall hear Paul and Peter talking about
slavery, you will please remember that it is not American but Roman slavery. That which could claim a
more honorable paternity; growing out of the law of
nations, viz: "might gives right," and when might
changed sides, the parties changed sides, and the
present masters by the same law were the slaves.
This, hard as it was, was yet more honorable than that
originated in skulking, kidnapping, and piracy.  It
was not possible for heathenism to originate a system
that would equal ours in enormity.  There is an intricacy and complexity connected with this, to which
Roman slavery was a stranger. The legal restraints
and embarrassments imposed upon manumission have
bound both the master and the slave. And as the
" sweetest wine makes the sourest vinegar," so slavery
by the so called christian nations, will, upon the same
principle, be the most crafty, subtle, base, and most
difficult to uproot.
"Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it:
for if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." 1 Cor.
vii: 21. There was then such a thing as slaves being
made fiee" in Paul's time. The will of the master
was all that was wanting, and the slave was "free."
But an American slave can not be made " free."  If
the master manumits, he must at the same time give
bail for the good behavior of the freed man, or within
a given number of days the slave must leave the State,
or be sold to the highest bidder in behalf of the State.
No matter what his attachments are to the land of his
nativity; no matter if his father, mother, brother,
sisters, wife, and children are there, he must leave or




BIBLE VINDICATED.               41
enter slavery again. Such freedom!! If Paul were
here he would not insult American slaves by saying
what he said to slaves in Greece, "if thou mayest be
made free," etc.
"Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it."
I marvel at the ease with which the apologists of
slavery can pass over this passage of Scripture. They
say, "Be not perplexed about it;" that is only the
same idea with another dress. Art thou called, converted, being a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, a
son, or a daughter, be not perplexed about it. To
stand in any of these relations is rather afflictive, but
being in this fix now, make the best of it; " care not
for it." Either of these would imply that there was
something hard or afflictive in the relation. A kind
mother just now said to her dear little one, who unfortunately got one of its fingers badly pinched when shutting the door, "Don't cry,'care not for it, care not
for it,' do not be perplexed about it," are the same forms
of speech and sayings used for the same purpose, viz:
to comfort in hard allotments, and to express sympathy
for the sufferer. " Care not for it;" to lay it to heart
will not mend the matter so long as you stand in this
relation; but see here, may not your state be changed?
"If thou mayest be made free use it rather."  To desire freedom is right, and obtain freedom if you can.
"If thou mayest be made free," etc. The apostle is
not in this place teaching duty, but what is here said
bears directly upon relation. No good man will encourage the dissolving of right and justifiable relations; while every good man would say to such as
were coerced into a wrong relation-a relation which
had a tendency to oppression and injustice-get out of




42           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
it if you can, do not continue in it if you " may be
made free."  No language could more unequivocally
express the wrongfulness of a relation than to say to
the suffering party in that relation, "If thou mayest
be made free use it rather;" but, as the chances to be
made free were quite uncertain, the apostle said to the
suffering christian slave, if, in your civil relations you
are a slave, in your moral relations, in your relations to
Jesus Christ, you are " free." "He that is called being
a servant is the Lord's free man." Ver. 22. The Lord's
free man; this was some consolation; man's slave, this
was hard-" Ye (christians) are bought with a price, be
not ye the servants (slaves) of man." This language is
imperative; if it is not, " be of good cheer;" John xvi:
35, is not, " be strong in the Lord;" Eph. vi: 10, is not,
" be baptized;" Acts x: 48, is not. Pro-Slavery pleaders slide over this prohibitory command with admirable
facility. They say the apostle only gave a preference
to freedom.  Well, this was something against slavery-themselves being judges. But they give their
preference for slavery, and yet claim Paul as one of
their religious advisers under Jesus Christ-claim to
have been converted to God by that Gospel Paul
preached; they and their leader differ in their preferences. He preferred freedom; they slavery. It is
presumable, however, only when it is theirs to be master and somebody else to be the slave. If they had to
be the slaves they might readily be converted to the
apostle's preference; but we deny that the text, "be
not ye the slaves of men," simply expresses a preference. What? an inspired apostle having and expressing only a preference in reference to an institution of
Ihe gravest importance; so regarded in all ages, and




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             43
by all men, whether "bond" or "free?" an institution
positively right or positively wrong, a positive good or
a positive evil? What an insult to Paul; what slander
upon the spirit of wisdom and righteousness by which
he wrote. They want to make Paul a kind of gobetween, as many of them are, to hide their own cowardly neutrality under apostolic authority. No, Paul
was not the man to set upon two stools; he said to the
church members, "Be not ye the slaves of men," and
by fair implication be not ye the masters of "men,"
for the one implies the other. When he said to the
members of the church, "Be strong in the Lord," and
the power of his " might;" " put on the armor of God,"
etc., he expressed more than a mere preference for
strong christians.  But to expose this Pro-slavery
sophism to the weakest reader, we will have another
parallel from Paul.
" Be not ye therefore partakers with them."  Eph.
v: 7. Above are enumerated "fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, filthiness, foolish talking, jesting,"
etc. " Let no man deceive you with vain words, because
of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the
children of disobedience." Verse 6th. Then comes
the prohibitory command, "Be not ye therefore partakers with them." " For ye were sometimes darkness,
but now are ye light in the Lord, walk as the children
of the light." Ver. 8th. I prefer that ye should no
longer be partakers with them.  But I don't care
much either way. " Let no man deceive you with vain
words." If then, " Be not ye therefore partakers with
them" is a command, " Be ye not the slaves of men"
is also a command. Both are in the imperative mood
and in the passive voice, and command that certain




44           BIBLE VINDICATED.
things should not be done.  "Be not fornicators,"
etc., "Be ye not the slaves of men."  But it will be
asked, did not the apostle command that every man
should abide in the same calling in which he was when
converted?  Yes, brethren, "let every man wherein
he was called therein abide with God."  With this exception, however, Paul would say if the converted
slaves can be made free, let him no longer abide in
slavery; " If thou mayest be made free, use it rather."
Surely the apostle did not command the slave in the
21st verse to abandon his calling, if he had an opportunity, and in the 24th verse command him to abide in
it. This, then, is an exceptional case. But as to all
the other callings or relations inquired after, (see verses
1st to 29th, inclusive,) let these remain as they were
then called. The sum of the apostle's answer to the
church's inquiry in regard to slavery was this, let the
relation be dissolved when it can be, " if thou mayest
be made free," etc. Let not the relation be extended.
Let not the free, by any act or will of their own, become slaves, " ye are bought with a price; be ye not
the slaves of men; ye are called in freedom, abide in
freedom; ye were not masters when called, then abide
as you are, do not become masters, with the aforesaid
exception, brethren, let every man wherein he was
called therein abide with God; let the relation of master and slave be dissolved so far as the present masters
will consent; and to the rest of you, brethren, I say
abide as you are." We appeal to the laws of language,
to logic, and to every correct principle of interpretation for the correctness of this view of the passage.
We challenge criticism. If slaveholders could find
commands as unequivocal for the continuance of sla



BIBILE VINDICATED.              45
very in the church, as these bearing directly upon the
abolition of it in the church, they might with much
assurance appeal to Paul and Peter for authority.
As the passage examined is the only one in the New
Testament bearing upon the abstract question of relation, and as it has been twisted and perverted to subserve pro-slavery ends, we have been at some pains to
wrest it from such prostitution.
If the Apostles so regulated the duties of master and
slave that when the specified duties were discharged,
the relation would be fostered and continued in the
church, then might our opponents claim apostolic
favor in behalf of the relation; but the most artful
apologists have to concede too much to set up such
a claim.
There is now before me the most ingeniously written
apology for American Slavery that has yet come under
my observation. We shall give a few extracts. A. C.
Review, edited and published by Benjamin Franklin,
vol. 1st, No. 2, page 39: "Men whose hearts become
largely imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, gradually
relax the bonds; the converted servant becomes better,
and the feeling of kindness between master and slave
is increased, and in thousands of instances results in
his emancipation. In this way the peaceable, orderly,
and legitimate workings of the religion of Jesus Christ
have legally emancipated more slaves, in these United
States,' etc. That such was the effect of christianity
upon Roman Slavery is a well authenticated fact-that
such would be its influence upon American Slavery we
doubt not-that such is its influence we deny. Where
is the evidence that through the influence of christianity, "thousands of slaves are being emancipated in




46           BIBLE VIND)ICATED.'these United States.'"  We will not charge the
writer with exaggeration, but we do think there is too
much of the hyperbole about this for sober fact. But
in the next sentence he makes large abatements, and
says: "Hundreds of good men, (and of these good
men he names but two,) one is no more, the other is
yet living, these yielding to that preference the bible
gives freedom over slavery in the emancipation of all
the slaves that fell into their hands. Such men show
their faith by legal, good, and peaceable works of
righteousness." Whether a philosopher would smile
or frown at this, would, I imagine, depend upon the
amount of reverence he had for the Bible. Two good
men, A. Campbell and B. W. Stone, have shown their
" faith by legal, good, and peaceable works of righteousness in the emancipation of their slaves."  Their
faith in what?  Their " faith in the preference the
Bible gives freedom over slavery." The legitimate inference from these facts is, that a good man's preferences will agree with Bible preferences, and such will
show their faith by corresponding works. Why not
insist upon this, Bro. Franklin, that all the " good"
slaveholders in the church must do as these have done.
That, as the "Bible gives a preference to freedom over
slavery, so all " good men" must give the same preference, and make their preference manifest by "emancipating" all their slaves. Bro. Franklin says of the
Bible upon this subject: " Here we plant our foot."
This is well. When you next write upon this subject,
cite your readers in the South to those passages in the
Bible where God has "preferences for freedom over
slavery," and then call their attention to those good
men, and say to those slaveholders who will not eman



BIBLE   VINDICATED.             47
cipate their slaves-who have not as yet followed the
example of these "good men," "remember those who
have spoken to you the word of God!" whose faith follow considering the end of their behavior. Brother
Franklin, you should do this, or you should take your
"foot " from the Bible, and your hand likewise. Moreover, this would do more good than your fine declamation about abolitionists making the Church a political
engine. But we must say a little more about this'" Bible preference for freedom over slavery."  Prefer
means to regard something more than something else,
a choice-as, this is good but that is better. There
are such preferences in the Bible as " the eating of
meats and the observance of days."  " He that giveth
her in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not
in marriage doeth better." If the Bible, the exponent of the will of God to man, has placed slavery in
this category, these apologists, these pliant writers are
right enough. Then we will say slavery is good, but
freedom is better. If such were my understanding, if
I could so classify slavery, I would never have troubled
myself about it. We do, then, regard the word "preference " as a mere salvo-an evasion-an artful sophism, most dishonorable to God, who looks upon the
quality of things, who once said to slaveholders, "Let
the oppressed go free,"  break every yoke," and now
says to the Church, " Ye are bought with a price, be
ye not the slaves of men."  And finally on the question of relation-the relation is to the institution what
the foundation is to the building-if that be substantial the structure may be permanent-if the basis is
defective the building can not stand, but by the aid of
braces, props, etc. If the relation of master and slave




48            BIBLE VINDICATED.
is right, the abuse of the relation can form no valid
objection to the relation. That which is of itself wrong
and faulty, can not be abused. To say the thing is
abused, is to pronounce the highest encomium upon its
intrinsic excellence. When husbands and wives, parents and children' become largely imbued with the
spirit of the Gospel," the parties in these relations are
made better, the " feelings of kindness " between husband and wife are "increased," and the relation becomes the more indissoluble. Is not this true with
reference to all parties in right relations? It is true,
How strange that, after brother F. had put forth his
strong hand to support the tottering fabric, after he
had driven away the mischievous abolitionists from
the temple of slavery, he should have uttered the sentence quoted. "Men whose hearts become largely imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, gradually relax
the bonds, the converted servant becomes better, and
the feeling of kindness between the master and slave is
increased, and in thousands of instances results in his
emancipation."
Whether intended or unintended, this is an assault
upon the rightfulness of the slave relation, for which
the editor of the Review can make no amends to slaveholders.
When the " spirit of the Gospel has largely imbued
the heart of the master and the heart of the slave7,
the tendency is to separate, to dissolve the relation;
but the absence of the " spirit of the Gospel" tends to
unite and sustain the relation of master and slave.
In all lawful, domestic, social, and religious relations
the spirit of the Gospel draws: but in this it drives.
Like the centripetal and centrifugal forces in nature,




BIBLE VINDICATED.               49
the one attracting and the other repelling. So soon,
then, as " the spirit of the Gospel shall have largely
imbued the hearts" of all slaveholders, slavery will be
brought to a perpetual end. I believe it with all my
heart, dear brother.
If the spirit of the Gospel, which is but another
word for the "spirit of Christ," will promote the
emancipation of slaves, slavery must be an evil, for
the good spirit of Christ will not destroy good. But
when the "spirit of holiness" is brought to bear upon
evil, the evil will be "overcome" by the "good."
This is a truism of universal application.
But as long as the leaders of the people say Slavery
is good, " both Bible and Testament, Moses and Paul,
admit and sustain the relation of bond-master and
bond-servant for life;" and as this is believed by masters and slaves, it will be difficult-most difficult-to
"imbue their hearts with the spirit of the Gospel," for,
but few, if any, will understand the mystery, how the
Gospel can both " admit and sustain the relation of
master and slave for life," and at the same time influence the master, "largely imbued with the spirit of
the Gospel," to emancipate all his slaves that may fall
into his hands, as brother B. says two "good men"
have done.
But here is something hard for the unlearned to
understand, how a "good man" can refuse to " sustain
that which both Moses and Paul do admit and sustain." Be that as it may, we rejoice in this, that the
aforesaid living " good man" did what he knew both
Moses and Paul would justify, and " emancipated all
the slaves that fell into his hands." In this he has
"shown his faith by legal, good, and peaceable works
4




50           BIBLE VINDICATED.
of righteousness," his position to the contrary notwithstanding.
We feel strongly impressed with the conviction that
all good men will do likewise.
ESSAY     VI.
MY last was devoted mainly to the relation of master and servant, as disapproved by the apostle in his
instructions to the Church of Corinth. "Art thou
called, being a servant, care not for it, for if thou mayest be made free, use it rather."  "Ye are bought
with a price, be not ye the servants (slaves) of men."
In ethics, relation precedes duty. To prescribe
duty, is not necessarily an approval of the relation, as
we have shown in a previous article. The reader will
bear in mind, that while the apostle gave commands to
both slaves and masters, that God neither originated
or approved the relation, for he never commissioned
one Gentile nation to make war with another, and for
the conquerers to enslave the conquered. Whatever
commission God gave the Jews in a given case, as his
executives, has nothing to do with this discussion.
God has given his sanction to civil government, but
for the strong to oppress the "t weak," is not government, but oppression, a perversion, an abuse of government. God approves the civil magistrate only so far
as he is a " terror to evil doers, and a, praise to those
that do well."  The enslavement of the weaker party
by the stronger among the Gentiles never was a " terror to evil doers," because, never commanded by God




BIBLE   VINDICATED.               51
as punishment for crime. Therefore when an apostle
of Jesus Christ was writing to those coerced into the
relation of slaves, a relation that originated in brute
force, he said, let this relation be abolished; "if thou
mayest be made free," etc.
Next in order then, is duty.  "Servants, be subject
to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and
gentle but also to the froward," 1st Peter, ii: 18.
1st. Who is the writer?  2d. Who is he writing to?
3d. What is he writing for? Peter, an apostle, therefore an ambassador for Christ, was the writer of this
quotation.  The persons written to were christians,
but in their civil relations they were slaves. The
object of the writer was to teach these Disciples of
Christ their duties to their masters, and to God, also to
reconcile them to their suffering condition. This epistle is general, but contains specific instructions to particular classes. From the 18th verse to the 25th
inclusive of the 2nd chapter, is to slaves. From the
1st verse to the 6th of the 3rd chapter, inclusive, is to
wives. The 7th verse is to husbands.  The 8th verse
is the beginning of an address to all. These are appropriated teachings, and will apply to no others, only
as the circumstances of others and theirs are similar.
That which was intended by the writer for " servants,"
was addressed to " servants." " Servants, be subject,"
etc. " Likewise ye wives." "'Likewise ye husbands."
"Finally, be ye all of one mind."  These things premised, we will go into a brief analysis of Peter's address to "servants."  "Servants, be subject to your
masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle,
but also to the froward." v: 18. This is a precept,
and as plain as precept. For this is thankworthy; if




52           BIBLE  VINDICATED.
a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering
wrongfully. For what glory is it when you are buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently, but if when
you do well, and take it patiently, this is acceptable
with God, (ver. 19, 20.) This is exhortation, or motive
to the discharge of duty. But it also leads out the
real condition of slaves, viz: that they are exposed to
"grief," to suffer " wrongfully" and from conscience
to God, they should patiently submit to the wrongs
incident to their condition as slaves. "For even hereunto were ye (ye slaves) called." What were they
called unto? to be christians? no, but to suffer patiently the wrongs, the trials, to which their condition
subjected them, "because Christ also suffered for us,"
leaving us in general, an example. That ye (slaves in
particular) should follow his steps; who did no sin,
neither was guile found in his mouth; and yet he suffered. His condition like yours, exposed Him to maltreatment and to suffering. But as He was a passive,
non-resisting sufferer, so be ye;" who, when he was
reviled, reviled not again, when He suffered, He
threatened not, but committed Himself to him that
judgeth righteously." There was no redress for his
grievances before the court of the Jews, or the court
of the Gentiles. His rights were invaded and trodden
under foot. Even one of his judges said to his
accusers, I find no fault in him, John xix: 4. But notwithstanding, he was " crucified."  What now was to
be done? Thanks be to God, there is yet another
judge, and another court besides the corrupt courts of
this world. Jesus Christ, who is here set before the
suffering christian slave for his imitation, " committed
himself to him, that judgeth righteously." Caiaphas,




BIBLE VINDICATED.               53
the High Priest, said " he is worthy of death."  Pilate,
the Roman Procurator, said a take ye him and crucify
him; for I find no fault in him." But Jesus Christ
took an appeal from these judges, to that Judge that
"judgeth righteously." He redressed his wrongs, reversed his sentence. God the righteous judge raised
him from the dead, took him to heaven, sent his spirit
to the world, to be his advocate on earth.
The points of the coincidence, between Jesus Christ
and slaves, are; 1st. His condition in this world exposed him to unjust suffering. The condition of Roman slaves exposed them to " grief, suffering wrongfully." Jesus Christ could have no redress of his
grievances before the judges of this world.  Slaves
had no legal rights. Their only bill of rights was the
will of their owners, liable to be the sport of passion, to
all who might find them at home or abroad, to be whipped or murdered, without sympathy or redress. The
hurt to a slave was estimated as the hurt done to a
brute. 3rd. Jesus Christ was put to death for no
offense. Judge Pilate said three times to his accusers,
"I find no fault in him," and yet he said "take and
crucify him." He was crucified because he was in the
power of his enemies. "For though he was crucified
through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God."
2 Cor. xiii: 4. Roman slaves were frequently butchered by hundreds and by thousands, as the mere occasion of youthful frolic. Being unprotected by the
government, they were put to death through weakness.
4th. Christ was crucified. Slaves were usually crucified.
These are some of the historical points of sameness between Jesus Christ and slaves. Well did Paul say,




54            BIBLE VINDICATED.
" he took on him the form of a servant."  On account
of this similarity, the apostle referred converted slaves
to their patient redeemer for example. He was " reviled," ye are " reviled," follow his "example," "revile
not again."  He "suffered," ye "suffer," follow his
"steps," threaten not. He was bought, and he was
sold, ye are bought and sold. He was "striped," ye
are striped, "by whose stripes ye are healed."'  He
bore stripes patiently for you. Do ye bear " stripes"
patiently for his sake. "For this is thankworthy,"
etc. "For ye were as sheep going astray, but are
now returned to the shepherd and Bishop of your.
souls." No one cared for your souls. Jesus Christ is
now your " shepherd," he will protect you, he is the
"Bishop of your souls," he has espoused your cause;
refer your "griefs" to him, he will make it all right
with you.
Pro-slavery critics say the word that means slave in
the original text, is also applied to Jesus Christ; I believe it, for he " came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister." " But made himself of no reputation, (slaves
have no reputation,) and took on him the form of a servant," Phil. ii: 7. This was necessary that his humiliation on earth might be complete. Suppose, if such a
thing had been possible, he had made himself of reputation, and had taken the form of a slave master, what
then? we would answer almost in the cry of one of old,
" Wo! to the world, and wo! to myself."
The words "Bishop of your souls," close Peter's address to servants (slaves). The next class is to wives,
" Likewise, ye wives," etc. If the condition of slaves
called forth such sympathy and compassion, who will




BIBLE   VINDICATED.              55
say that the apostle admitted and sustained a relation
that inflicted such "griefs" and "sufferings" upon
unoffending men and women?
When Peter said to servants, "servants, be subject
to," etc., would the " servants" addressed conclude from
what follows, that the apostle approved the relation of
master and servant, and sympathized with them because
of their happy condition, and sought to reconcile them
to a right relation, and the happy circumstances growing out of said relation, by referring them to their
suffering Savior for an example of patience?  If
Peter intended to impress the slaves with a sense of
their enslavement being right, he was most unfortunate
in this address, and must have failed in his object;
but if he intended to reconcile them to their hard
allotments, that they might bear the sorrows incident
to their condition with patience, his address was admirably calculated to secure his object.
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling,
in singleness of 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;" etc.'And ye masters, do the same thing unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing that your master, also,
is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with
him." Eph. 6th chap. That any relation may be perpetuated, the duties must be in harmony with the
relation. Parents, "obey" your children, would subvert
the relation in all its practical phases. "And the"
husband "see" that he "reverence" his wife. This




56           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
change in duty would so affect the relation as to extinguish it altogether.
The apostle so regulated the duties of master and
slave, that when discharged the relation was extinct.
This is our affirmation.
"And, ye masters, do the same things unto them.
What are the "same things?"   Above, the apostle
required servants to do "the will of God from the
heart," in respect to their masters. Masters, do the
same, "the will of God from the heart," as it respects
your servants, "forbearing threatening," this was the
"will of God."
To menace, to denounce, to terrify by words, is the
mildest form of slave chastisement. If the "will of
God" disallowed "threatening," it surely would not
allow the more severe forms of corporal punishment,
such as are usually inflicted upon slaves. Let slave
discipline be abolished, and the system is abolished.
That which originates in violence, can only be sustained by violence. Let whipping, manacling, burning,
hanging for misdemeanors, and forcible recapture, be
abandoned, and slavery is among the things that were.
"Forbearing threatening, knowing that your master
also is in heaven." Let the master be influenced by
the fear of God, and the chattel feature is no more.
The property element is the vitalizing spirit of the
system. Let a man realize that he has a "master in
heaven," and he can no more sell his fellow-man into
perpetual slavery, than he could sell himself.
" Knowing that your master also, is in heaven: neither is there respect of persons with him."  "Respect
of persons," is to slavery what the corner-stone is to a




BIBLE   VINDICATED.              57
building, or, what the key-stone is to the arch. The
Romans said their slaves were of "mean birth," of
" servile birth," of "disingenuous birth."  Americans
say, their slaves are the descendants of "Ham," and
that "Ham" means "black," and the negroes are
"black," and that God doomed these "blacks" to be
slaves. Others say that they are of inferior " creation,"
not "human,' not " men," naturally "mean," will
"lie" and "steal," can't " take care of themselves,'
those "born of slave women," are of mean " birth,"
slave mothers have no affection for their "children,"
it don't hurt them to sell their "babies," as it does
the white "mothers."  This is a specimen of proslavery parlance, the unhallowed assumption that
"God is a respecter of persons."  "Neither is there
respect of persons with him." Slaveholders do not
believe this, not a word of it; they believe that God
made their slaves to be slaves, and that they have a
right to use them for the purpose for which God made
them. The accidents of birth, of country, or of color,
have no influence upon God. All can see the bearing
of the doctrine that " God is no respecter of persons"
upon slavery.
The principle contained in this quotation carried
out, slavery can not exist. If Paul had intended the
continuance of slavery in the church of Ephesus, he
would not have said to the masters, " forbear threatening," you " have a master in heaven," " with him is no
respect of persons." In no slave-code under heaven,
are such duties and considerations enjoined upon
masters. Duties incompatible with slavery, and when
discharged it is no more slavery.
" Masters, give to your slaves that which is just and




58           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven."
Cor. iv: 1. This reading suggests an important inquiry, viz: by what standard was the required "justice" and "equality," to be determined?  If, by our
slave-laws, food, raiment, lodging, shelter, medicine
when sick, would be giving what was "just and equal."
No compensation for labor, no education in this bill of
rights. To sell the husband, the wife, the childrento separate as far as the extremes of slave territory, to
inflict corporal punishment, etc., are neither injustice
nor inequality according to this standard.  If the
Roman slave-code was the rule of measurement, then,
the will of the master, be the same more or less, was
"justice and equality." Justice and equality, between
man and man, differ as the moral standards vary in different countries. When a man deals with his neighbor
according to the laws of the community, he has done
all that can be required of him as a citizen, however
he may have injured or oppressed his neighbor.  The
rule of equity in this case, "masters, give to your servants that which is just and equal," was either the law
of the State, or the law of Christ; Roman (heathen)
morality, or christian morality.  If the former, the
will of the master, however his will might be influenced by interest or passion, was the slave's only bill
of rights.
You say not the former but the latter, the law of
Christ-the morality taught by Jesus Christ and his
Apostles. But might not the following be the rule of
equity in this case?  "What, with all the premises
known to yourself, you consider to be just and equitable." Millennial Harbinger for August 1854. This
exposition is in keeping with every slave-code, ancient




BIBLEt VINDICATED.              59
and modern. "What, with all the premises known to
yourself, you consider to be just and equitable." This
leaves the rights of christian slaves in the church,
precisely as -they were in the State, to be meted and
measured by the will of the master.  The master
is answerable to no law.  His own judgment of what
is equitable between him and his slaves, is the law of
right.
Suppose then a master, a member of the congregation in Bethany, Virginia, should be accused of having
cruelly whipped his slave, or any other maltreatment,
might he not say, brethren, I did what, with all the
premises before me, I knew to be right? Or, suppose
the accusation were for withholding food, raiment, or
medicine, would not defendant say, brethren, I gave
my slave what " with all the premises before me I
consider to be just and equitable?"  The Bishop of
the congregation would probably say to the accusers,
there is no cause of action, the brother is only exercising his rightful prerogative over his servant. Such
would be, and such are the practical workings of the
interpretation given by the Harbinger.
With such interpretations of the divine teachings,
slaveholders can not be the subjects of discipline, as
it respects their slaves - a good reason why they are
not.
To arrive at correct conclusions, with respect to the
meaning of the text, "masters, give," etc., we must
first inquire, in what relation did christian slaves stand
to christian masters; " For by one spirit are we all
baptized into one body," " whether we be bond or free."
1st Cor. xii: 13. " One is your master, even Christ,
and ye are brethren." - This was something different




60          BIBLE   VINDICATED.
from the State. In the State they were proprietors and
chattels, in the church they were brethren. Would
the old duties be in harmony with the new relation?
They would not. Would justice and equality be the
same in the church as in the State? " Justice" and
"equality," between the proprietor and his propertynonsense. The demand for justice and equality in the
church must mean justice and equality according to the
moral standard of the church. Now, if the church has
but one moral standard, and that is applicable to all,
then the existence of slavery in primitive times, was
only nominal in the church, not real. Do we find
in the New Testament, one law for the free members,
and another for the bond members?  Let the rights
guaranteed to the free citizens of any slave State be
applied to the slaves, and whatever the condition of
the slaves may be, they are no longer slaves. They
might be still under the yoke nominally for a time, but
their freedom would be as certain as the shining out of
the sun when the clouds have removed. One law based
upon equity, claiming equal rights for all, must remove
all the distinctions, save the natural and official. The
distinctions created by slavery, in the Roman empire,
were artificial, arbitrary, and unnatural. Such distinctions can only be kept up by a special legislation,
arranged with reference to this specific object. Strike
down the law of primogeniture, and you strike down
the distinction between the English Nobility and Peasantry. Let all be " equally" eligible to be promoted
to stations of honor and trust, upon the ground of
merit and competency, and you create one "equal"
political brotherhood.
If, therefore, Paul used the words "just" and




BIBLE   VINDICATED.              61
"equal," in an appropriated sense, in the case of
slaves, as meaning less than their current import, then
is christianity a system of tyranny and despotism. If
this be so, we must understand and apply such scriptures as the following, in a limited sense, when applied to slaves. " Render therefore to all their dues."
" Honor all men."  " Therefore, all things whatsoever
ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so
unto them, for this is the law and the prophets." The
master must fix the limitations, and his own judgment,
" with all the premises before him," will decide how
much less is " due " to his slave brother, than to his free
brother, both as it respects his wife, his children, or
compensation for his labor, and his own decision in
the case would be final. The master too would decide
how much less of "honor" was "due" to his slave
brother, simply because a tyrannical government had
made him his slave, perhaps, to say the least of it, as
aged, as pious, as virtuous, as learned as himself.
Whatever abatements he would make in the practical
application of these moral precepts to his slaves,
would also be made by the other members of the
church.
That unerring rule of right enforced by Jesus Christ
upon his disciples, "All things whatsoever ye would
that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto
them," was a dead letter between the christian master
and his slave, or, it meant less, between the master and
his slaves, than between other parties. When Paul
commanded masters to give their servants what was
"just" and " equal," this precept was not to be taken
into the account, or, not applied as between other parties, on questions of "justice " and " equality."  Nay,




62           BIBLE VINDICATED.
what with all the premises known to yourself, you consider to be "just" and " equitable," "so hermeneutics
and logic decide," says the Harbinger. Why not say
"so" Jesus Christ and his apostles "decide."  They
do not so " decide," " hermeneutics and logic" to the
contrary notwithstanding. But the following is their
decision on all questions of right between brethren:
" That no man go beyond, and defraud his brother in
any matter; because that the Lord is the avenger of
all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified."
1 Thes. iv: 6. They claim justice and "equity" for
every brother and in every thing. That no man "defraud his brother in any matter!"
In the New Testament we have but one law, and
that law is applied to all its subjects; no favoritism, no
partiality in its application. "I charge thee before
God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,
that thou observe these things without preferring one
before another, doing nothing by partiality." This is
Paul's logic.  This is Paul's sense of "just" and
"equal," no "respect of persons," no personal preference, no partiality, what is " due " to one christian
brother is " due " to another, according to the law of
love. "Be ye all of one mind, love as brethren, be
pitiful, be courteous."
" Justice " and "equality " between the master and
servant was not required by the State. If Paul required more than the State, we shall submit the question to the Harbinger or the American Christian Review, to say how much more. Until better informed,
we shall understand Paul to have required " masters "
to give to their servants in all things precisely what




BIBLE VINDICATED.                63
they would give others in their employ, and subject to
their command, neither more nor less.
The doctrine that Jesus Christ, the "one Lord" of
the "one body," would authorize one class of his subjects to enrich themselves at the expense of another
class, because a despotic government had placed them
in their power, is to make christian morality no better
than heathen morality.
The man that so reads and understands the teachings of Jesus Christ and his inspired Apostles, must
look at them through slaveholders' glasses, as the writer
once looked at the Bible through Calvinistic glasses,
and every chapter was full of Calvinism.
We have in this article examined three passages.
The first addressed to slaves only, the others to masters and slaves. The duties enjoined differ not from
the duties in general, and commanded to all. That
christians should bear ill-treatment with patience-that
those in the service of others should be faithful-that
those in authority should " forbear threatening," menacing language, that they should bear in mind that God
did not respect their persons, because they exercised
rule, but should rule in the fear of the Lord. In these
there is nothing peculiar.
Masters, give to your servants that which is just and
equal, has, I believe, no parallel.  But its novelty
consists in form only. It differs not in meaning from
this, "render to all their dues."  There was no occasion for this form of address in any other case. Where
there is a contract, payment is required as per agreement. But there being no contract in this case, Paul,
an apostle of Jesus Christ, in the name of Christ,




64           BIBLE VINDICATED.
espoused the cause of the servant, and demanded for
him, and in his behalf, what was "just " and " equal,"
not as for a servant, but above a " servant, a brother
beloved." Under such regulations slavery could not
exist. It would be as easy to conceive how the rudest
barbarism could exist under the highest and most refined state of civilization, as for slavery to exist in the
apostolic churches, under the direction of apostolic
teaching. There is more than one way of killing an
evil. There is more than one way of killing a wolf.
You may kill him as certainly by starvation as by beheading. Let slaves become unprofitable to their masters, and they will soon abandon the system. Let the
right of selling be denied to the masters, and they will
quit breeding them. Let compensation for their labor
be exacted according to equal standards of appreciation, and they would soon prefer free labor.
" Masters, give to your servants that which is just
and equal," "just, upright, equitable."5 One of the canonized principles of interpretation among our brethren
is this, viz., that the inspired writers used language in
its current meaning.  By the application of this rule,
they have accomplished much toward making the divine word intelligible.  Does the word "just " in this
place mean less than its current value?  If so, the
qualification should have accompanied the requisition;
candor would require this. " If the trumpet gives an
uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the
battle?"  Give him what is "just" according to all
the "premises."  But what are the premises?  The
master is the master, and the slave is the slave. These
are the "premises."  The relation was approved in
the State, and it is "admitted and sustained" in the




BIBLE VINDICATEDJ.               65
Church. Does this belong to the "premises" too?
Yes; but not to Paul's "premises."  For he said to
the slave members of the church,'if thou mayest be
free, use it rather."
Now what are Paul's premises? If your christian
master will not make you " free" he must give you
what is "just and equal."  These are Paul's "premises " and conclusions. As an ambassador for Christ,
he claimed for the servant that which is just and equal,
namely, that christian masters must give their slaves
what will make them equal to other slaves, "equal" in
a comparative sense.  That is, they must give them
what slaves usually receive at the hands of their masters, or, in other words, christian masters must give
their servants as much as heathen masters give their
servants.  This would have been "equal" like others,
as the word imports. But where is the net gain to the
converted slave? Ah, that is the question. "Equal,"
then, according to the usages of the church, namely,
what other christian masters give their servants.  But
this implies that there was some kind of conventional
agreement with masters as to what would be "just"
in the case of slaves. Say justice to a hired-servant
would be to pay him, for his labor, as per contract, to
let him appropriate his own earnings, to let him own
himself, his wife, and children. But, justice to a slaveservant was less than this. If less, then this class of
servants were a class by themselves to whom the word
"just," in its common acceptation, would not apply.
If then one master gave to his servants what other
masters gave their servants, he gave them what was
"just and equal." This rule of equality was special,
to be applied only to this specific class of church mem



66           BIBLE VINDICATED.
bers. If there was in apostolic times an act of special
legislation, to meet this particular case, we ask, where
is it? we ask for chapter and verse. "Equality " in
morals is to make one " equal" to another in his personal rights. The word equal is always used in a comparative sense:
"With equal love their spirits flame;
The same their joy, their song the same."
The question to be decided, is simply this, who are in
the comparison?   "Masters, give to your servants
that which is just and equal."
Here is the issue.  The pro-slavery party assume,
that the comparison is between heathen and christian
masters and their slaves. In the light of this assumption, what has Paul accomplished for the slave? Just
what we see in these United States, —left the slave subject to the will of his master; a chattel in every sense
of the word; to be treated as a chattel by his master;
to be treated by his master's creditors as a chattel; to
be treated by the State as a chattel.  Glorious "justice " and " equality! 
We assume that the comparison is not between masters, but between dependents; that this class of dependents should receive what was "just " and what would
make them "equal" to other dependents, in all the
rights of humanity and religion, as ordained by the
gospel of Christ.
The consideration enforced upon the master, " knowing that ye also have a master in heaven," gives
strength to this conclusion.  Would the masters be
"equal" to other saints in all the gracious rights of
the gospel, then let them extend the same " equal "




BIBLE VINDICATED.               67
rights to their subordinates.  Aside from the plain
obvious import of the text, this interpretation does
honor to Jesus Christ, does honor to Paul, and does
something toward bettering the condition of the slave.
The state had robbed him of his God-given rights, but
christianity gave them back to him again, by claiming
in his behalf what was "just and equal" according to
the same law of moral right applicable to all the members of the church.  More can not be claimed for any
individual, in any organization, secular or religious,
than justice and equality. And when Paul exacted
this from masters, in the most unqualified sense, he
could do no more for any christian brother, in any
relation, who had been deprived of personal rights.
Moreover the command, Masters, give to your servants that which is "just and equal," implies, that
hitherto they had not received what was "just and
equal" in the State, but in the church masters must
give their servants what was just and equal, or else
make them "free."   To give them what was "just
and equal," was only another way to make them
" free," not so summarily to be sure, as the usual form
of manumission, but no less certain. As certain as
the command, "Fathers, provoke not your children to
anger, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," would put an end to the barbarous
practice of exposing infants.




68          BIBLE   VINDICATED.
ESSAY VII.
WE shall now examine Paul to Timothy, 1st Epistle,
6th chapter, to the 11th verse inclusive.
" Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count
their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name
of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they
that have believing masters, let them not despise them
because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved partakers
of the benefit.
" These things teach and exhort.
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about
questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy,
strife, railings, evil surmisings.
" Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and
destitute of truth, supposing that gain is godliness;
from such withdraw thyself.
"But godliness with contentment is great gain.' For we brought nothing into this world, and it is
certain we can carry nothing out.
"And having food and raiment, let us be therewith
content.
"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and
a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts,
which drown men in destruction and perdition.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil;
which while some coveted after, they have erred from
the faith, and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows."




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             69
This is one unbroken connection, therefore this extract entire has some bearing upon slavery.  The
11th verse changes the subject: "But thou, O man
of God, flee these things."
From this passage it is quite evident, that there
was a controversy pending upon the subject of slavery
in the church at Ephesus, and Paul was giving direction to Timothy as to the true issue, and the standard
to which the question in debate should be submitted;
that this question, then agitating the church, should
be brought to the same umpire to which all questions
that had, or might unsettle the peace of the church.
Where there is no authority, there can be neither
reference, nor decision. In all organizations there
must be some standard authority, to which differing
parties may appeal as the end of "strife."
In our civil relations, we refer our differences to
the wholesome words of the statute book, and the
"doctrine" which is according to Blackstone. Some
refer their religious strife to the wholesome words
of John Calvin and the " doctrine " which is according
to the Confession of Faith. Others to the wholesome
words of John Wesley and the doctrine of the Discipline. When the standard authorities have given their
verdict, the controversy is settled. In the Epistles of
the Apostles we find frequent references to that which
was authority in the primitive church. "Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions
and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned, and avoid them." Rom. xvi: 17. "As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went
into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that
they teach no other doctrine."  1st Tim. i: 3




70           BIBLE   VINDICATED
" Teach no other doctrine," is, however, quite indefinite. But the allusion must have been understood.
So intelligible was this form of speech: "other doctrine, doctrine which ye have not learned," that a
reference was all-sufficient.
On the subject of Slavery some were teaching another " doctrine," a " doctrine" which the church had
not " learned" from Jesus Christ and his Apostles.
Therefore,' if any man teach otherwise and consent
not to wholesome words, even the words of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to
godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing," etc. We
do not here affirm on which side of the question these
"proud" know nothings were, whether pro or anti,
but only affirm that the " wholesome words of Christ,
and the doctrine which is according to godliness," was
the theological standard, by which all question of order,
morality, and piety were determined. This is the only
authoritative standard in christianity. All others are
human, and therefore not decisive on any question of
gospel truth and christian duty.  The wholesome
words of our Lord Jesus Christ must have been words
uttered by himself. His words were again brought to
the recollection of the Apostles by the Holy Spirit,
according to promise. This had to be, that the Apostles might fulfil their great commission. "All power
in heaven and in earth is given unto me," "Go ye,
therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them," etc.,
"teaching them (the baptized) to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you." The baptized
" continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine," etc.
Acts 2. The Apostles' doctrine was the all things Jesus
Christ had commanded them to observe, and they en



BIBLE   VINDICATED.             71
joined the observance of these things upon their converts. The wholesome words (teaching) of our Lord
Jesus Christ, was the doctrine of godliness, and the
Apostles' doctrine (teaching) was according to this.
These things premised, it is in order to inquire, in the
next place, upon whom did Paul animadvert, when he
said to Timothy: "If any man consent not to wholesome words," etc., "He is proud, knowing nothing,
but doting about questions and strifes of words," etc.?
This brings the question to a plain issue.
Slaveholders and their friends (apologists) say with
great assurance, this was a rebuke to abolitionists.
There were, then, abolitionists in the church in those
days. Abolitionism  claims an honorable antiquity!
That it was a rebuke to anti-slavery " teachers," or to
pro-slavery " teachers," is a clear case. But to which
is a question yet to be settled. The pro-slavery application is an assumption, a reckless assumption. For
this charge we hold ourselves responsible. If we do
not make it good let us be corrected, and we will take
this back with pleasure. Then, to the work: " If any
man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the doctrine which is according to godliness, He is
proud, knowing nothing."
Has any pro-slavery D.D. or scribe shown that
Roman slavery was "according to the wholesome
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine
which is according to godliness?"  Whatever defence
they may have made of the slavery that then agitated
the church, has not been upon this basis, namely,
"the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ,"
etc. We call upon them now to prove: 1st, That




72          BIBLE   VINDICATED.
Roman slavery was in harmony with the "wholesome
words of our Lord Jesus Christ" etc., and 2d, that
American slavery is so like Roman slavery, that the
"wholesome words" (teachings) of our Lord Jesus
Christ will justify the latter as they did the former.
We submit this to our brethren as an overture, and
as an end of strife. The logical aspects of the controversy require this. If the stern rebuke "he is
proud," etc., means me, I should and will "repent,"
nay more, I will reform, and I think those of our
brethren who are now teaching anti-slavery " doctrine," will confess their wrong, and cease from teaching a "doctrine "contrary to the " wholesome " teachings of Jesus Christ, and the "doctrine which is according to godliness."
Are we not worthy of this effort on your part, or
do you look upon us as incorrigible? Your conservativeness will never convince us of our error, if in
error we be; neither will your occasional sallies of
ridicule and ill-humor turn back the mighty current
of anti-slavery sentiment.  "Come, then, let us reason together."
Paul commanded Timothy to "withdraw" himself
from such as would not " consent to wholesome words,
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness."  Your work is
before you. Proceed, then. But you must do better
service, than simply to say, that Paul was here chastising abolitionists. We shall require of you, by a fair
inductive argument, to show that slavery as it is-as it
now is-as it is among us,-is according to the
"words" of Jesus Christ, and the "Apostles' doctrine." We have, by long and loud profession,




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             73
adopted these " words" and "doctrine" as our directory-our only directory on all questions of morality
and piety. Paul said to his son Timothy, let the controversy be brought to this test, and those who will not
abide its decision, from such do you " withdraw yourself." Timothy's duty was plain. Our duty is equally so. The controversy is the same. The parties in
debate are the same. The authority, by which the difference is to be adjusted, is the same. It only remains
to be settled, whether the "wholesome words of our
Lord Jesus Christ," "and the doctrine which is according to godliness," are on the side of slavery or on
the side of freedom. Here the mind must make a decision. These " words" and " doctrine" can not be on
both sides, nor yet neutral, else why refer the issue to
them?
We will now, with candor, examine the subject.
Verse 1st: "Let as many servants as are under the
yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the
name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."
The reader will observe, that the command to the
christian servant to " honor" his unbelieving master,
is not based upon his duty to his master, because he is
his master; but that the servant, by thus "honoring"
his unbelieving master, might cause him to honor
the "name of God" and his " doctrine." This every
christian is required to do: to treat others with respect, whether worthy of respect or not, that they may
" win them to Christ." To this understanding of the
command to servants, " count your own masters worthy
of all honor," "the wholesome words of our Lord
Jesus Christ" will apply.  "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself," will be quite apposite in this




74           BIBLE VINDICATED.
case. Did the converted slave prize the salvation of
the Gospel for himself, then would he desire the same
blessing for his master. He would willingly "honor"
him, that he might be instrumental in saving him.
Again: " Let your light so shine before men, that they
may see your good works, and glorify your Father who
is in heaven."  Again: "Love your enemies, bless
them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,"
etc., that ye may be the children of your Father who is
in heaven."  "For if you love them who love you,
what reward have you?"
Our space forbids more extracts to this point from
the moral lessons taught by Jesus Christ. Every
moral principle or duty he taught naturally falls into
this view of the subject. The same doctrine pervades
all the apostolic teachings. " Walk in wisdom toward
them that are without."  " This is thankworthy, if a
man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering
wrongfully." " Honor all men."
It is, then, according to the "words of our Lord
Jesus Christ and the doctrine of godliness," that
believing servants should honor their unbelieving masters, with a view to their spiritual and eternal good.
But this is no more than christians in general are required to do, even towards their enemies.
Now let us look at the other side. The advocates
of slavery assume that Paul required servants to
"honor" their masters, because they were their masters. And they, the servants, were "under the yoke"
-the "yoke" the symbol of oppression. This is the
slaveholder's interpretation. But, before this exegesis
of the text can be allowed, we must erase the last
number of the sentence,-" that the name of God and




BIBLE VINDICATED.               75
his doctrine be not blasphemed," must be stricken out.
Then the passage would read: " Let as many servants
as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy
of all honor."' Now, the passage looks quite slavish.
Why did not the apostle add, after the word " honor,"
"for this is right?" When he claims " honor" for parents, he said to the children, "for this is right."
On the slaveholder's hypothesis one member of the
sentence must be cut off-the motive part: "that the
name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."
Here is trouble at the outset.  But, this is only the
"beginning of sorrows."  Where will he find "the
wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
doctrine which is according to godliness," to help him
safely through with the argument?  "The doctrine
which is according to godliness" must inculcate the
practice of love, mercy, justice, righteousness toward
all men; these, with all other godlike qualities.
Will this "word" of our Lord help him: "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?" If slaves are
bought and sold, worked without compensation, deprived of education, etc., because their masters love
them, love them in any other sense than a man loves
an ox, or an ass, or any other brute; when he sells it
for gold, or pays gold for it; then may this be to him
a " wholesome word."  Did ever one man enslave
another because he loved him as he loved himself?
Did the system originate in love? Is it perpetual in
love? Every candid slaveholder would say No! No!
to these questions. Will the following words of our
Lord Jesus Christ be wholesome: "Therefore, all
things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto
you, do ye even so unto them; for this is the law and




76           BIBLE VINDICATED.
the prophets?" The practical application to the case
in hand would be for the master to treat his slave, precisely as he would wish to be treated, if himself were the
slave. So I do, says the slaveholder. Grant it for the
present. But, is there not a manifest fallacy here?
This application of this " word " of our Lord does not
reach far enough back. There was a time when the
master was not the master, and when the slave was not
the slave.
To deal honestly with this " wholesome word," it must
be applied to the time when the master laid his hand
upon his slave, and said, You are my property; and
not the subsequent condition of his slave, who was
once a man, but now, by an act of his master, converted into a chattel, and then say, If I were a chattel
this treatment would be good enough for me. But
who made this man a chattel?-a thing? If I were as
degraded as he, I should neither expect nor deserve
better treatment than I give him. If I were a slave,
said a master, I would not be deserving of that respect
due to a free man. I would only look for what is due
to those of my rank. Ah! master, who made me a
slave?
Every slave-code, ancient and modern, defines a slave
to be a " thing "-not a man, but a " thing"-to be
disposed of as other things. Slaveholders conceive of
their slaves in the light of the statute book of the State,
not in the light of the statute book of heaven. According to their ideas of a slave, that golden rule of
right-" all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye even so to them" —does not
at all apply to the rights of their slaves, as the implied
obligations relate to men, not to things of merchandise.




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             77
Therefore, they never apply it in any question of duty
to their slaves. It may be safely questioned, whether
ever a slaveholder tried the rectitude of his doings toward his slaves, by this heart-searching, unerring rule
of right, and continued to be a slaveholder. " Therefore, all things," etc. That these are some of the
wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, will be admitted by all. But they are not very wholesome to
slaveholders, unless they can honestly say before God,
that they "would that men should" enslave them and
their wives and their children, and hold them in slavery,
and treat them accordingly. But who would believe
such a declaration? No sane man. Therefore, none
but a fool or a hypocrite would make such a statement.
"For the laborer is worthy of his hire," Luke x:
7, is another wholesome word of our Lord Jesus Christ.
On which side is this? On the side of freedom, or on
the side of slavery? Slavery looks quite demurely at
this, and says, by way of reply, "The laborer is not
worthy of any hire; therefore I give my laborers no'hire.'"
We now resign all that Jesus Christ said and commanded to the friends of slavery, and ask them kindly
to bring forward one sentence from Matthew, Mark,
Luke, or John, that would be favorable to the system.
Nay, we challenge them to the effort. They will do it
if they can. The present turn of the controversy requires this at their hands. Mind-the question now
to be settled, is, on which side of the controversy were
Paul's proud men, who would not "consent to the
wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ?" That
the teachings of our Lord are in favor of freedom, is
not a debatable question.  Freedom  is one of the




78           BIBLE VINDICATED.
" things against which there is no law."  But are his
"words " also in favor of bondage?  This is the question. The answer belongs to the affirmative.
But we must also examine the "doctrine" which
grew  out of the great commission-the "doctrine
which is according to godliness."  "Teaching them
(the baptized) to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you." We might assume, without fearing
the charge of being too credulous, that this doctrine is
on the side of freedom. Elder Franklin says "it is."
" Hundreds of good men yielding to that preference
which the Bible gives to freedom over slavery, in the
emancipation of all the slaves that fell into their
hands." This is good testimony coming from the other
side of the house. Paul says, those who will not consent " to these Bible " preferences for freedom" over
slavery, are " proud men of corrupt minds "-as such
they are to be " withdrawn from."
Well, "love worketh no ill to his neighbor." But
"love" works something to his " neighbor."  If not
ill, then good. Yes, good, so all the world would decide. This doctrine suggests a question: is it a good
or an ill to enslave a man, or to hold in slavery those
who are enslaved by others? The direction of this
" doctrine " is too obvious to justify even a comment.
If all the moral principles and precepts found in the
Epistles of the Apostles to the churches were collated,
"Love worketh no ill to his neighbor-therefore love
is the fulfilling of the law," would be but a descriptive
caption to the entire list.
" For, if thou mayest be made free, use it rather."
This is moderate abolitionism. If you may not be
made free, make yourself free by emigration. This is




BIBLE VINDICATED.               79
radical abolitionism. The moderate and the radical
agree in this, namely, that slaves should be' liberated.
They only differ as to the means. But Paul says,
in the same connection, "Be not ye the servants
(slaves) of men."  No radical can be more radical
than this.
"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons."  Why is only one race among the many
doomed to slavery by the American people? Why do
they make large contributions to educate the heathen
in distant lands, and not only make no appropriations
to educate some millions, who are home-born-who
plow their fields-who reap their harvests-who sweep
their houses-wash their clothes-cook their dinnersbut have, by legislative enactments, made it a crime to
be punished by law, to educate one of these native
Americans? The answer is clearly this-they are respecters " of persons." Hence this ungodly partiality.
The man that has one-half-one-fourth-one-eighthone-sixteenth, or less of the blood of these despised
" persons " in him, must be doomed to ignorance-systematically deprived of all and every branch of education-save only what will make him profitable to his
owner, as an ox is broken to the yoke, or an ass to the
harness. Is this according to the " doctrine of godliness?"  When God set on foot a system of education-when he sent his Son into the world on this business, he opened the door to all; nay more, he sent the
word of his salvation to all nations-Ethiopia not excepted. It was this impartiality that made an apostle
exclaim, " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons." " The doctrine which is according to godliness," must recognize this' truth " in all




80           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
its practical phases-must recognize it as God recognized the equality of all nations in the mission of his
Son, as developed by the wholesome words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and more fully elaborated by the
apostle's preaching and teaching.
To advocate slavery is to advocate the doctrine of
partialism in its widest extremes; a doctrine as unlike
God as Christ is unlike Belial; differing from "the
doctrine which is according to godliness," as the blackest of American " black laws " differ from the " wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ."
We shall next examine verse 2d: "And they that
have believing masters," etc.
ESSAY VIII.
" AND they that have believing masters, let them
not despise them, because they are brethren; but
rather do them service, because they are faithful and
beloved partakers of the benefit. These things teach
and exhort." 1st Tim. vi: 2.
The advocates of slavery place more reliance upon
the first four verses of this chapter, than all the New
Testament beside. Whatever may be obscure in the
sense of the 1st and 2d verses, must be made plain
by the 3d verse. " If any man teach otherwise, and
consent not to wholesome words, even the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness," etc. This is the key. It is to
the passage, including the first ten verses, what the
key-note is in music. It must decide on which side of




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             81
the question the teachers were, from which Timothy
was to " withdraw himself."  Teachers, who were
teaching on the subject of slavery, a doctrine contrary
to the doctrine of Christ, were to be the subjects of
correction and discipline. This was the specific object
of this part of the epistle. Slavery is in the passage
only by implication. Some teachers were either ignorant or obstinate. They would not consent to the
standard authority-to the teachings of Christ and his
Apostles.  But for these teachers who are complimented by the apostle with being both proud and
ignorant, we should not have this item of instruction to
Timothy, and through him to the churches; for the
occasion which called it forth, would not have existed.
Now to the issue. Did Paul in his instructions to
Timothy, as to the course he should pursue with these
false teachers, justify slavery, as it then existed in the
Roman empire? Here the teachers differ. Some say
he did, others say he did not. Whatever he taught in
this place, directly or indirectly, upon the practical
aspects of the subject, must have been " according to
the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of godliness."  The teachings of those animadverted upon
were the per contra. Paul and these teachers were
belligerents. Timothy, as the superintendent of the
church at Ephesus, was required to proceed against
them. He was first to charge them to desist from
"teaching another doctrine."  See 1st Tim. i: 3.
Then, if they still persisted, and would not " consent
to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ and
the doctrine which is according to godliness," he was
required to withdraw from them. These teachers were
4eretics, (schismatics,) for they were " causing divisions.




82           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
and offenses contrary to the doctrine which they had
learned." " A man that is a heretic, after the first and
second admonition, reject." Titus iii: 10.
If our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and his Apostles were pro-slavery preachers, these were anti-slavery
preachers. And, vice versa: If Jesus Christ and the
Apostles were anti-slavery preachers, these were proslavery preachers; for on the subject of slavery these
parties taught contrary doctrines.
Pro-slavery pleaders assume that Christ and his
Apostles were pro-slavery preachers.  This is precisely what all errorists have and do assume, whether
Papists or Protestants. Universalists claim, that the
inspired preachers taught the doctrine of universal
salvation; Calvinists claim that they preached the
doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation;
Paedo-Baptists that they taught the doctrine of infant
sprinkling; and slaveholders, whether such in principle or practice, that they were the stanch advocates of
the rightfulness of human slavery. Each, in his own
way, appeals to the Bible for the defense of his own
dogma. No doctrine or practice in professed christendom, however monstrous and absurd, but has looked to
the Bible for justification. But all these, and other
errorists, look to other sources for instruction.  Universalists get their instruction from Winchester, Ballou, and some lesser lights; and then go to the Bible
for the defense of that they never learned from its
pages. Calvinists study Calvin's Institutes, and listen
to some of his retailers for instruction in doctrine, and
then appeal to the Word of Inspiration for defense of
what they learned in other books-were taught by
teachers sent not by God, but by men. Pro-slavery




BIBLE   VINDICATED.             83
teachers, in the primitive church, took their lessons
from the Roman Slave Code, based upon the antichristian axiom, that "might gives right;" and then
sought to incorporate this cruel, bloody doctrine with
the "Gospel of Peace," and universal "good will
among men." In this they followed the judaizers and
philosophers who, to some extent, succeeded in blending their corruptions with the "pure" and "holy"
Gospel of Christ. But the Apostles, endued with a
divine vigilance, descried these corrupters and warned
the evangelists and elders against their innovations.
Hence our text and its parallels: "If any man consent not to wholesome words," etc.
The pro-slavery teachers, with whom we are concerned, have received their instructions from kidnappers-from manstealers; from the national and State
constitutions; local slave laws; fugitive slave bills;
the decision of courts, and a corrupt public sentiment; and to these we may add the self-contradictory
and suicidal teachings of some apologizing scribes,
who say they are opposed to slavery, and in the same
paragraph say, that " both Moses and Paul-Old and
New Testaments-admit and sustain the relation of
bond-servant and bond-master for life." From these
sources they receive their instructions, and then go to
the Bible for justification. They have made at least
a show of defense; so have the advocates of popery
and of prelacy. Can they make a better effort in
defense of slavery by an appeal to the Bible, than
baby sprinklers?
Many of the good, the pious, and the learned, practice infant baptism, and honestly believe it to be the
baptism ordained by Jesus Christ and practiced by the




84           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
Apostles. Thousands have of late years been convinced that it was a mere show of defense; by twisting and bending the Scriptures to support a convenient, a favorite, a popular proselyting dogma. Begotten and born outside the Bible, and then brought to
the Bible for confirmation, to be christened Christian
Baptism.
There is no system of ecclesiastical or civil corruption and tyranny, that has not, by false issues and
interpretations, claimed Bible justification and defense.
In divers times and places, the divine right of kings is
defended with as much argument and logic, as American slavery was or ever can be.  There is no book on
earth more liable to such " wrestings," than the Bible.
This was extensively done in the days of the Apostles;
to which one of them is witness. " Wrest," the Epistles of Paul, "as they do also the other Scriptures,
unto their own destruction." 2d Pet. iii: 16.
This liability to be wrested is unavoidable from its
variety of subject and brevity in detail. Still, there is
a spirit of purity, of righteousness, of benevolence,
underlying the whole, which will ever be a safeguard
to the " single-hearted."
The Bible will defend its own begotten children. It
does this freely, voluntarily. It does this to the satisfaction of children, and the clearest apprehension of
the upright in heart, to all who have no selfish object
to subserve, when they open its inspired pages.  But
illegitimates it will not defend; though often forced
upon it for support, it will not receive them. Though
importuned by adulterous and interested fathers, it will
reject them. It will, with the firmness of God, say they
are not mine. It has always said, and it now says:




BIBLEs VINDICATED.              85
"the Papacy is not one of my children. Though she
has promised the Bible great numbers and emoluments,
but the book says, she is a whore in scarlet attire, and
I will expose her; I will put her to shame."
All questions, which have to be forced upon the
Bible, are foreign and extraneous subjects. When the
subject requires much learning, much talent, and much
special pleading, to gain for it Bible support, you may
set it down as a settled fact that it is not a Bible subject.
It requires no special pleading, no tact in controversy to show, that the Gospel is the devoted friend of
freedom.  A controversy on this subject would be
something new. Its motto is: " Glory to God in the
highest, on earth peace, good will among men."  All
men and all nations are equally involved in sin; equally embraced in the plan of redemption; equally honored with a tender of the gospel; equally eligible to
honor and promotion in the kingdom    of heaven.
There are no preferences originating in a "respect of
persons;" God's love for all, claims a corresponding
love to all, from all its subjects.  In brief, that peace
and good will among men is the all-pervading spirit of
the gospel.  This spirit is underlying the work of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and all
the labors, sufferings, and teachings of the Apostles
and Evangelists of Jesus Christ.
The advocates of slavery must take one of three
positions: 1st, either that this is not true of the gospel; or 2d, that slavery is in harmony with this; or
3d, that this is true of the gospel, with a small exception, namely a few specific passages in the Epistles of
Paul and Peter touching slavery.




86           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
They will not take the 1st; for then all men would
call them infidels.  They will not take the 2d, for
then all men would laugh at their folly. They will
then take the 3d. Let us now see how this will affect
the Gospel as a consistent system, claiming a divine
origin.  The Gospel then teaches both "good will"
and ill will "among men;" (for even slaveholders
will not say that slavery originated in good will to
the enslaved.) It teaches both freedom and slavery.
The man that is not blinded by interest or prejudice,
would stop and think before he would give to the
glorious gospel of Christ such a mixed character, and
involve its benignant author in such gross inconsistency.
It would be modest upon the part of these teachers
to admit at least the possibility that they had mistaken
the true meaning of some five or six short passages in
the Epistles, rather than to make a mere fractional
part conflict with the balance of the inspired volume.
Inasmuch as they have gotten the origin of the system, and all the barbarous regulations by which the
system is kept up, outside the Bible, and only ask the
Bible to canonize it, such admission on their part
would be quite graceful. We ask this for their sake,
not for the sake of the controversy; for to us it appears a little too coercive to require Heaven to father,
and the Church to nurse the child begotten by the
Devil (pirates) and born by their accomplices (purchasers).
Some of the passages here alluded to, pressed into
pro-slavery service, we have examined in former articles; but we shall look at them again, from another
standpoint. If the teachers, from which Paul com



BIBLE VINDICATED.               87
manded Timothy to "withdraw" himself, preached
anti-slavery doctrine, then Paul preached pro-slavery,
and vice versa. Paul does not say affirmatively what
they did teach on the subject of slavery, but negatively, that they would not" consent" to the " words "
of Christ and the "doctrine " of "godliness;' and
affirmatively, the effect of their teaching, namely that
their preachings led " to envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds,
and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness; from such withdraw thyself."
Might we not, without further investigation and
fear of contradiction, claim that these teachers, now
under the ban of excommu ication, were, the advocates of slavery, outright human slavery?  " By their
fruits you shall know teachers, though the wolf should
seek to disguise himself under the fleece of a lamb."
The advocacy of freedom, of equal rights, of human
rights, of love to all mankind, never produced the
bitter fruits here enumerated. But, on the contrary,
such are, and such ever have been, the legitimate
fruits of slavery in the slaveholder's family; in the
slave or negro quarters; in the field, in the church,
in the State; and such must of necessity be the consequences of the system.
" Supposing that gain is godliness." Can this apply
to the man who advocates the principles of universal
freedom? Did those benevolent men, who advocated
the abolition of West India slavery, do so for the
sake of gain? What pecuniary advantage did they
expect to reap as a reward for their toil? What selfish object has aroused so many in our own country to
plead the cause of the oppressed? You may set aside




88           BIBLE VINDICATED.
all who have made it an infidel or political hobby,
and then you have the true anti-slavery stamina left,
who are preaching and praying for the abolition of
American slavery, without the promise or hope of
worldly "gain." Nay, the opposite is true in their
case. "Supposing that gain is godliness" will not
apply to anti-slavery pleaders. " From such withdraw thyself," could not have been from anti-slavery
teachers. But is it not probable that it will apply to
pro-slavery teachers? Slaveholders are the rich. To
secure the favor of the rich is no mean item of gain.
The rich are the honorable, the popular and the influential. To "gain" influence and power, is only to
" gain" the favor of slaveholders. But again, to be
a consistent slaveholder, and to enjoy all the gain
arising from the system, a man must advocate the
rightfulness of one man laboring, and another being
the exclusive receiver of the benefit. And this is not
all: he must also maintain, that it is just and right
of one man to own another man; to own this other
man's wife, and his children, in the same sense that
he owns the horses in his stable, or the cooking utensils
in his kitchen. Any system, profession, or business
that creates wealth, gives ease, power, or influence, is
"gain." Slavery proposes all these objects of human
desire and pursuit to the masters, but places them out
of the reach of the slave, and that for ever; but
universal freedom proposes the equal distribution of
these lawful objects of human industry and ambition,
and upon an equal basis places them within the reach
of all.
Therefore, those who plead the cause of emancipation from principle, influenced by no mixed mo



BIBLE VINDICATED.               89
tives, are beyond the reach of honorable suspicionthat they are actuated by objects of worldly " gain. "
Nay, the history of the past is a sufficient apology for
the purity and disinterestedness of their motives.
They have, without exception, lost place, caste, and
favor with those in power: have been mobbed, tarred
and feathered, whipped, imprisoned, lynched, and murdered; have been denounced as disturbers of the peace,
agitators, fanatics, and men of one " idea;" modernism for fool. Who but an insane man would espouse
and advocate such a cause with the hope of " gain?"
But the other side of the question is full of hope,
full of promise, especially so long as the slave power
is moving all the wheels of society, in every department, as it always has in these United States, and
did in the Roman empire, until the christian religion,
by its godlike, benevolent spirit, in its youthful days,
wrought out for it a most signal reverse.
"' Supposing that gain is godliness." " Gain" in an
ill sense, as the connection shows, was a feature in
those teachers who would not " consent to the wholesome (healing) words of our Lord Jesus Christ." But
there are yet other specifications in relation to those
"teachers."  "But they that will be rich," verse 9.
This has a specific application in this connection. It
is by every correct rule of interpretation applicable
to those in the 5th verse, who supposed that "gain"
was "godliness," and those in the 10th verse, who
had "erred from the faith;" the same who in the 3d
verse taught " otherwise " on the then " controverted
question of slavery," than " the faith," or the gospel,
and would "not consent to the wholesome words of
Christ and the doctrine of godliness."  In the 5th




90          BIBLE VINDICATED.
verse the apostle said to Timothy, 1" from such (teachers) withdraw thyself." Verse 11 changes the subject, and Timothy himself is the subject of address.
"But thou, O man of God, flee these things;" the
things taught by the teachers. Flee both the men
and " the things."  On whatever side of the question
these teachers were, this is their advertisement.
1st, They would "not consent to the wholesome
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which
is according to godliness."
2d, They supposed that " gain " was " godliness."
3d, They had "erred from the faith."
And 4th, The tendency of their teaching was " envy,
strife, railings, evil surmisings," etc.
With this descriptive notice before us, we conclude
that these teachers were on the affirmative of the
question, and Paul on the negative, unless the 2d verse
should lead to a different conclusion. "And they
that have believing masters, let them not despise them,
because they are brethren, but rather do them service,
because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the
benefit."
But for the designations " master" and " servant,"
no one would even suspect that the parties here referred to were master and slave. There is not a word
here that looks like oppression. In the 1st verse,
where the allusion is to unbelieving masters, it is quite
otherwise. There we have the " yoke," "servants
under the yoke." The word yoke here means slavery, and metaphorically, oppression. A deprivation
of right is essential to' slavery. Without this there
is no slavery. As soon as a Roman master and his
slave were converted, they stood in a new relation to




BIBLE   VINDICATED.              91
each other: "they are brethren."  The duties of this
new relation must so change and neutralize the prerogatives of the master over the slave, that the designation "m aster" can no longer be applied in its Roman
or American sense.
"And they that have believing masters, let them
not despise them." Suppose now the master continues
to hold his slave, now a " brother, " as he did when
an unconverted heathen, can the servant obey this
command? He can not help but "despise " him, the
command to the contrary notwithstanding. God never
made a man 9mean enough to honor such a master.
But the master is his brother, therefore he must not
despise him. For this reason he must despise him the
more, if his master still holds him as a chattel, subject
to the same legal and commercial vicissitudes as before their conversion. It would be a christian virtue
to despise such a master; for what a man can approve
in another, he can justify in himself. The enlightened christian slave, that could justify his professed
christian master to continue the same course toward
him as before their conversion, could justify himself in
slaveholding, if he possessed the power.
A brother can only esteem a brother if he acts a
brother's part. If not, the disesteem is in the proportion that one christian brother has a right to expect from another. Therefore, Paul did not command
the servant not to despise his master because he was
his master, but because he was his brother. It is
worthy of remark here, that in all the instructions to
servants, there is not one duty enjoined upon them
toward their masters, because they are their masters. The duty to respect, to honor, or to obey, is




92           BIBLE VINDICATED.
always drawn from some other consideration. We
shall give a few examples.
1st. "Servants be obedient to them that are your
masters," etc., "' 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." Eph. vi.
2d. " Servants obey," etc., " not with eye-service as
men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as unto the Lord
and not unto men," etc., " for ye serve the Lord Christ."
Col. iii.
3d. " That they may adorn the doctrine of God our
Savior in all things." Titus ii: 10.
4th. " Servants, be subject to your masters," etc.,
" for this is thankworthy if a man for conscience toward
God endure grief, suffering wrongfully."  1st Pet. ii:
18-19.
5th. Let as many servants as are under the yoke
count their own masters worthy of all honor." (Why?)
"That the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." " And they that have believing masters, let
them not despise them." (Why not?) "Because they
are brethren."
These examples fully prove the position that the
Apostles could find no motive to respect or obedience
in the relation of master, or they would have enforced
it. In other relations they found the motive to duty
in the relation, and not in some remote consideration.
To this we shall also cite a few examples: " Husbands
love your wives."  "The wife see that she reverence
her husband."  "Children obey your parents in the




BIBLE VINDICATED.               93
Lord, for this is right."' "Fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath."  "Love as brethren."  "Honor
all men." "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates." " Submit
yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto
governors, as unto them that are sent by him." 1st
Pet. ii: 13-14. "Let every soul be subject unto the
higher powers. For there is no power but of God;
the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God,"
etc. "Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to
whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to
whom fear, honor to whom honor."
In all these cases the duty to love, reverence, honor,
obey, etc., grows out of the immediate relation, as
things legitimate. But the relation of master is not
even the proximate cause claiming obedience or honor
from the servant. Here, then, is a marked difference
between the slave relation and the other relations.
This fact has placed a dark seal of reprobation upon
this relation. The relation is recognized, but not respected. Its existence is admitted but not sustained.
It is the subject of special legislation, but no duty is
based upon it. Is the christian servant to honor his
heathen master, it is for the sake of the name of God
and his word. Is the believing servant to respect his
believing master, it is because they are brethren. Let
them not despise them because they are master and
servant-nay, but because they are brethren. The
old relation is named, but the duty to respect is based
upon the new relation "because they are brethren."
" But rather do them service because they are faithful."




94           BIBLE VINDICATED.
"Faithful" as heathen masters? Nay, "faithful as
brethren;" brethren in Christ, beloved by the servant,
because the master is a "faithful" brother in the
Lord-" partakers of the benefit."  "Parteneres of
the benefice." (Tindal's translation.)
Neither of these readings will apply to slavery.
There is no appreciable sense, in which the master and
the slave can be said to be partakers in any thing
touching the product of the slave's labor. It will not
do to say that the slave lived upon the product of his
own labor. This might be affirmed of a horse or a
mule, in the same sense; for neither live for themselves. Their lives are valuable to another. Are they
well fed and strong, it is to the interest of the owner,
as physical debility would be no loss to them. The
masters were partakers of the benefit. They were
sharers or partners with their servants. The idea conveyed is mutual interest, a thing irreconcilable with
slavery, but most reconcilable with christian brotherhood. But for the noun (master) the reader would
not suspect that this passage had even the remotest
allusion to slaves, as it is more descriptive of another
relation, namely that of Landlord and Tenant. The
tenant is a mere occupant of that which belongs
to  another; therefore he is the dependent, and
may with great propriety be exhorted not to despise
his more affluent brother, though more fortunate
in worldly circumstances; he is nevertheless faithful to his poorer brother, and should be beloved by
him. In this relation there is a reciprocity of interest corresponding to the text-" partakers" (parteneres) "of the benefit;" language wholly irreconcilable with slavery. And to urge this upon a slave




BIBLE VINDICATED.               95
as a motive to fidelity would be to add insult to injury.
Whatever Paul and Peter did mean by the designations " master " and " servant," when writing to christians, they did not use them in their current political
import. In the State, the right of ownership, and
therefore the duty to serve, are based directly upon the
relation; in the New Testament never. The duties enjoined are subversive of the relation, because in harmony with the law of brotherly love. The titles Master and Servant, in their political value, can not be
reconciled with christian relations, rights, and duties.
Here is an impassable gulf. But it may be asked, why
use them? It may not be so easy to give a satisfactory answer to this question. Still the fact can not
be denied, that in the apostolic writings they do not
express the rights and responsibilities they so clearly
express in slave-codes, whether ancient or modern. If
there is a difficulty here, the slaveholder has the
harder side. Hard as it may be to reconcile the titles
in their state import, with the duties as specified by
Paul and Peter, he is nevertheless obliged to do it or
give up his claim to the New Testament writers as
pro-slavery preachers.  But should we fail to solve
this difficulty, we fail on mercy's side.  But to the
task:
1st. The parties were properly described by these
titles before they were converted to christianity.
2d. They were still master and servant when converted.
3d. Whatever changes in this relation and duties to
each other, were subsequent to their conversion to
Jesus Christ.




96           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
4th. The change was not an instantaneous, but a
gradual work, effected by the leavening process of the
Gospel, as suggested to the parties by new and holy
relations, new duties growing out of divine relations,
and enforced by new motives-motives quickened into
action by a new spirit, the spirit of God: therefore the
same titles were appropriately applied to those in this
relation, subsequent to their embracing the Gospel,
and no abuse of language, or of principle, to continue
the old titles so long as the parties continue together,
though their relative position was so materially changed,
as to be partakers in what they jointly produced by
the capital of the one and the labor of the other.
This was giving to the servant what was just and
equal. This was consenting to the " wholesome words
of our Lord Jesus Christ." This was saying with him
that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." This, too, was
" according to the doctrine of godliness;" namely "that
no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter."  To require for servants what was "just and
equal," could not fail to be offensive to those teachers
who were opposed to Christ and his Apostles. They
supposed that "gain" was "godliness," and slavery
was "gain."  To give servants what was "just and
equal," to let them be " partakers" with their masters
in the "benefit," was destroying the "gain" of the
business. These teachers had long enjoyed the "gain"
of oppression, and they were unwilling to give it up.
Therefore Paul said: "Timothy, do you'withdraw'
from them."
The 2d verse teaches nothing peculiar, nothing different from the general instructions given to all christians:




BIBLE VINDICATED.               97
1st, That christian brethren should not despise one
another.
2d, That they should be faithful to one another.
3d, That they should love one another.
4th, That they should be partakers in whatever
benefit might result from capital invested or labor performed. This is Paul's instruction to christian masters
and servants. These instructions obeyed, must put an
end to slavery and every form of unrighteous "gain."
We shall in our next look at the subject from a proslavery standpoint, with some remarks on Philemon,
ESSAY     IX.
WE have now, in several articles, examined the few
passages in the Epistles which treat of slaverythe relation of master and servant, their duties, and
the basis of the duties enjoined. To us it is quite certain that these teachings are anti-slavery in sentiment,
and abolishing in tendency; as truly so, as were the
instructions of the same Apostles to the churches opposed to Polygamy, the exposing of infants, and the
abolition of those time-honored and law-established
usages. These could once claim as much legal sanction and popular favor, as human slavery. They were
indeed elements of the same order of society, and
brought under the same corrective treatment by the
gospel.
But, we have examined the subject with strong antislavery prepossessions, and we are fully conscious that
a strong mental bias is not most favorable to a fair,
7




98           BIBLE   VINDICATED.
impartial hearing of testimony. The mind may become as much enslaved as the appetite-may be as
servile as the hand. Knowing this blinding, bewildering liability, in our weak, common humanity, we have
resolved to look at the subject with the "mental bias"
of a slaveholder. And this will we do without respect
to results. No matter, now, how the conclusions may
affect master or servant, Christ or the Apostles, the
Gospel, the Church, or the State.
We have no superstitious reverence for the Bible.
We are not responsible for its teachings on any subject, but we may be, and should be for the state of
mind in which we allow ourselves to listen to its testimonies.
"With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure, and
with the froward thou wilt show thyself froward." Ps.
xviii: 26. In this we have the reason, why "many
are ever learning, and never coming to the knowledge
of the truth."
The man that asks God to justify his selfish, wicked
schemes, is a "mocker," and should be left to " eat
the fruit of his own doings."
In my present imaginary position, I find it most
difficult to approach the subject without suspecting my
motives. My exemption from manual labor, the love
of ease, so dear to myself and family-my property,
that for which I have paid a money consideration-are
all involved in the conclusions to which this investigation shall conduct me. Try as I may, I fear there are
still some mixed motives in my heart. A desire that
my conclusions from inspired premises shall justify my
position as a slaveholder, may " serve as a gift that
blindeth the eye." But, to be as disinterested as possi



BIBLE   VINDICATED).            99
ble, we shall imagine we are living in the city of Corinth, A. D. 59,-members of the church of Christ,
founded by the Apostle Paul in A. D. 54, and some of
us are slaves. The church is desirous for apostolic
instruction on several questions, among the rest,that
of slavery. A letter of inquiry is sent to the apostle;
it has come to hand by return of our faithful messenger. The officiating elder to-day (Lord's Day), is now
reading the epistle to the congregation-has just come
to the seventh chapter-" Now concerning the things
whereof ye wrote unto me," etc. "Art thou called,
being a servant care not for it." I sympathise with
you, " for, if thou mayest be made free, use it rather."
You desire to be " free." You do not sin by indulging
this desire; you should be "free," and if you can be
"made free," use your opportunity. That these reflections are suggested by the text, I am compelled to
admit; also, that this address to my servant implies
that I should grant him his desire, and let him go
c" free."
Men have been suspected for being abolitionists, for
saying even less than this. To encourage slaves in a
desire for freedom-to hint to masters in terms however modest, that they should "free" their slaves, in
the hearing of their slaves, would render a man obnoxious to the slave-power. It would be a violation of
every slave-code, then, as well as now; and that the
penalty would now be inflicted upon such offender, is
as certain as life and death. If Paul would now say in
Kentucky, what he said to the servants in the church
at Corinth, he would be regarded as an abolitionist, and
dealt with accordingly; unless his apostleship should
save him from popular outrage, and penial stripes.




10          Bi; J  vLE VINDICATED.
Imagining myself to be a slaveholder, I would be compelled, from the plain, obvious meaning of words, so to
understand, and so to decide-namely, that this address to the slave members of the church, was directly
calculated to make them  more dissatisfied with the
yoke.
Now, we will go to Ephesus, and hear Paul again on
the same subject. "And ye, masters, do the same
things unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing
that ye also have a Master in heaven; neither is
there respect of persons with him."-Eph. vi: 9.
This epistle was publicly read in the congregation to
masters and servants. The servants heard this injunction read to their masters-"forbearing threatening,"
and enforced upon them by the consideration, "you
have a Master in heaven,"-a Master who respects
the person of the "master," no more than the person
of the slave. How would we slaveholders receive this
address?  Would we not fear the influence it might
have upon our slaves? What! say to us in their presence, that we must quit "threatening" them with corporal punishment? How can we keep them in subjection only through fear? Let the apprehension of
punishment be removed, and how long will they obey
us? But, again, look at this: this Paul said to our
slaves, that in the sight of God we are no better than
they. Will not this make them proud? Will they not
begin to think that they are about as good as we are,
and claim equality with us, and therefore more liberty?
He said, too, that we had a "Master in heaven."
Will they not understand this to be a word of caution
to us masters, to take care how we shall treat them?
that our Master in heaven will hold us responsible?




BIBLE VINDICATED.              101
If Paul had said all this to us privately: but, these
slaves are ever ready to seize upon every thing that
favor the idea of their being free, and this will make
them think more highly of themselves, etc., etc.
Let this passage be stripped of its apostolic garb.
Let its sacredness be laid aside. Let a stanger from
the North use it as his own, when addressing slaveholders in the presence of their slaves, and will they not
feel and speak as above described?  Will not the
speaker be called an abolitionist? intending to stir up
a feeling of insubordination on the part of the slaves.
The language is not pro-slavery, but anti-slavery-the
sentiments inculcated are anti-slavery, and the man
that would so speak to American slaveholders on slave
territory, would expect to be lynched, or hope to escape
on the credit of Paul-a thing quite problematical.
Now we will follow Paul to Colosse, and hear what
he has to say to masters in that church.
" Masters, give to your servants that which is just
and equal; knowing, that ye also have a Master in
heaven."  What is the plain, obvious meaning of this
address to masters, and to myself in particular? How
would I understand it, coming from one claiming no
inspiration? supposing the command, "Masters, give
unto your servants," etc., is enjoined now for the first
time. That we may the better understand it, let us
separate from it its antiquity and apostolic authority,
and look at its bare, naked import. This is something
new, would be the first impression. Does this demand
in behalf of my servants call for more than the established usages in their case; i. e., food, raiment, shelter,
and medicine when sick. This I have always given




102          BIBLE VINDICATED.
my servants. If no more than this, why this new
requisition? If this new lawgiver, by the words "just
and equal," claims more than the law which custom
has ordained, as it would appear, then the question
comes up, how much more? This dictator has not defined how much more. He has made the demand, and
then says to me, "you have a Master in heaven;"
"just and equal," as approved by "your Master in
heaven;'" "just and equal," according to the balances
of the sanctuary.
If now, I shall acknowledge this new command as
obligatory, here is my strait-how can I hold my servants as "things," and give them what is "just and
equal" as men? No art, no sophistry, no play upon
language, can help me out of my difficulty. I must
either rebel against this new requisition made at my
hands as a master, or give up my position as a slaveholder. To test the correctness of this reasoning, suppose some worthy gentleman, say in Virginia-one
who had not been suspected for any anti-slavery leanings-should spring this doctrine upon that community,
and advocate it with pen and tongue, in public and
private, in the presence of masters and slaves-should
enforce it upon Virginia slaveholders, that they should
give their servants what was "just and equal," and apply the same motive to obedience, "You have a Master in heaven," all as his own view of what is right
and dutiful-would he, in the Old Dominion, be considered orthodox or heterodox?-pro-slavery or anti-slavery? Reader, what is your answer? If this teaching
would be opposed to slavery in Virginia, it was in
Colosse. What it would be now, it was then. What
the language would import, though not inspired, it




BIBLE   VINDICATED.            103
would mean when clothed with apostolic authoritythe only difference being, in the latter case it is decisive. I look at it now as a divine law-the word of
God to me in relation to a grave, weighty question, a
question involving my prerogatives as a master-constituted a master by an oppressive heathen government;
but now by the grace of God I am a christian, and
some of my servants by the same grace bestowed upon
them are christians too. I must deal honestly with myself in this, as in all other questions of personal rights
and relative duties. Being in possession of all the apostolic writings, a full and complete copy of the constitution and laws of the kingdom of heaven, I will take
the laws upon this specific subject as a whole, as upon
other specific questions, and then draw my conclusions.
Not what is said to the Corinthians alone, to the Colossians alone, or to Philemon alone, but what in view
of all the divine teachings upon the subject.  This
course will be candid-then may I say, "Lord, I have
heard thy testimonies."  This premised, I open the
Book. The first thing, directly upon the subject of my
present inquiry, is to servants-to my servants-" if
thou mayest be made free, use it rather."  Here it is
taken for granted, that my servants desire freedom;
but, whether this desire, admitted to be lawful, can be
gratified, is yet quite hypothetical. Why so? The
will of the master may contravene. What now? A
will to be "free,' and a will to hold in bondage; opposing wills-conflicting wills between christian breth
ren, are they both holy? Are they both right? This
question is suggested to the master-to myself. Now
I must take an exception to this law, which has decided the desire for freedom to be lawful. This I can not




104          BIBLE   VINDICATED.
do, for the law is from heaven; or, I must reconcile
the conflicting interests between slavery and freedom,
so that no injustice shall be done to my servants, and
we live together on terms of christian peace and brotherly love. Could the master do this? Never could he
extinguish in the heart of an enlightened christian slave,
the love of freedom-a desire declared to be lawful by
the highest authority under heaven, by the Word of
God.   This would have been the more embarrassing,
when we consider that the slaves in the days of the
Apostles were white slaves-a people once as free and
honorable as their masters-differing only, as the present nations of Europe, as the English and Scotch now
differ in their customs and manners.
The master could not have recourse to violence, for
the law says, Masters, "forbear threatening," for you
have a " Master in heaven."  What then? Emancipation or compromise? How compromise? Who shall
settle the terms? The parties? No. Slaves have no
right to negotiate on any subject. True, it is so in the
State; but the parties have become members of the
church, and have come under its jurisdiction. The
obligations of the last associations into which men
enter, are always most binding. And when former
obligations conflict, they must either be set aside, or so
modified as to harmonize with the more recent responsibilities. The parties in question, as soon as one or
both became subject to the law of Christ, incurred new
responsibilities on all questions of morality and religion. Therefore, whatever in the past was incoherent
with the present, had to be subject to correction. This
is so when men enter into any new social compacts,
In this fact, we find all that is profitable in passing




BIBLE VINDICATED.              105
from one social state to another. Aside from this, there
can be no rational motive for change, as a change of
organization would propose no object of advantage.
Upon this universally admitted fact, that the last system of government, law, rule, or order, a man adopts,
must have the precedence, the Apostles based their
right of interference with the former doings and behavior of the members of the church. " That ye put off
concerning the former conversation, the old man, which
is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind: and that ye put on
the new man, which after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness."-Eph. iv: 22, 23, 24. This
right of interference, every master and every slave
conceded when he entered the kingdom of heaven.
By this concession, they voluntarily came under apostolic jurisdiction; therefore, Paul could, without arrogance or stretch of authority, espouse the cause of the
oppressed and remove the yoke, or, so modify it as not
to conflict with the rights and duties of the "new
man," "created in righteousness and true holiness."
Hence, Paul, let it be borne in mind, decided first of
all that servants were entitled to freedom, if thou
mayest be made free," etc.; if not freedom, then, what
is "just and equal."  " Justice and equality" between
man and man, and there never would have been a slave
-there never would have been such an anomaly in the
world as a man thing.  Justice and equality will undo
what injustice and inequality have done; therefore the
philosophy of the command, "Masters, give unto your
servants what is just and equal," as neither less nor
more could be required, " according to the doctrine of
godliness." This done, and the master and servant are




106          BIBLE   VINDICATED.
"partakers of the benefit," and the relations and duties
are so modified, as to make them consistent with the
morality of the gospel. Such would be my understanding of the divine teachings upon this subject, my
bias to the contrary notwithstanding.
But there is yet another feature in this subject,
claiming grave consideration at the hand of every
master, viz.: what is the duty of believing masters toward their unbelieving servants? Upon this we have
no direct instruction; but we have that which is quite
suggestive. "If believing servants were required to
count their unbelieving masters worthy of all honor,
that the name of God and his doctrine would not be
blasphemed" by them, but that their christian deportment toward their masters would have a favorable,
winning and converting influence, upon their masters.
what would this suggest to a believing master with
reference to his unbelieving slaves? The enlightened
christian master, knowing that " God is no respecter of
persons," that the souls of his slaves are as precious
in the sight of the Lord as his own; that the same
provision was made for them in the redemption which
is by Jesus Christ-would naturally be led to inquire,
will the just and merciful God require less of the believing master than of the believing servant? Less,
than to pursue such a course toward his unbelieving
slaves, that that which will win them to Christ, that
bhey may enjoy "salvation with eternal glory."  This
inference flowing so legitimately from the premises,
should bow the spirit of a slaveholder before God. It
should come to him like thunder tones. It should rest
upon his heart like a fiery law issuing from Mount Calvary-from him who died for slaves as well as for mas



BIBLE   VINDICATEDi.           [07
ters, and make them ask, " Lord, what wilt thou have
me to do" in this case? I confess that I have bought
these men as though they were beasts; they know I
have the power to sell them as beasts. I have robbed
them of all the rights and honors of humanity.  I
have degraded them in this, that I have chattelized
them. What shall I do?   Respect them  as men,
treat them as men, " that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed " by them on your account.
Make them feel and know that they are men; that
they have souls to be saved, or to be lost. By your
godly deportment, win them to the gospel of Christ.
Can I do this, and maintain my present position toward them?   What a question?    Who is sufficient
for the answer?  God forbid that I should ever incur
such a responsibility. But had I really incurred this
responsibility in the days of my ignorance, I would
seek by all lawful, by all possible means to be released
from it. The man that fears God will not jeopardize
his own salvation nor yet the salvation of others.
We can readily conceive how a christian slave could
exert a saving influence upon an unbelieving master;
but how a christian master could exert a saving influence upon an unbelieving slave, and treat him as a
slave, is a problem I presume not to solve. But, it
may be said, there are many masters whose slaves are
members with them in the same church. To this we
answer, there are masters who are better than the system, as there are infidels who are vastly better men
than any system of infidelity could make them. There
are masters whose bearing toward their slaves is rather
that of parents toward minor children, than that of
slaveholders. That such masters would exert a saving




108         BIBLE   VINDICATED.
influence over their slaves is quite presumable.  It is
the legal prerogative for the master to sell his slaves,
when his interest or necessity should demand, to whom
he pleases, to be taken to any slave territory the purchaser may prefer.  But there are a few of the many
masters who will not sell a slave under any circumstances, and there are a few more who will only sell insubordinate slaves, to get rid of a pest, and punish crime.
Property-crime! How strange!    There are parents
whose influence upon their children is damning. Their
children know them to be hypocrites, and yet they are
members with them in the same church. The influence
of such parents is negative, but another influence may
be positive, and decide the sons and daughters for
Christ. So in this case.
But we are sure that the slaveholder who acts the
part of the slaveholder, can exercise no saving power
over his slaves, be his professions what they may.
The slave will say, and should say, if my master is a
christian, I don't want to be a christian. If he has
religion, I don't want religion-and all the people
should say, Amen and amen.
ESSAY X.
THE last thing to notice upon this subject, is Paul
to Philemon. " I beseech thee for my son Onesimus,
whom I have begotten in my bonds; which in time
past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to
thee and to me; whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive aim, that is mine own bowels; whom I




13IBLE VINDICATED.             109
would have retained with me, that in thy stead he
might have ministered to me in the bonds of the
gospel. But without thy mind would I do nothing,
that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity,
but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for
a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever.
Not now as a servant but above a servant-a brother
beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto
thee both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count
me, therefore, as a partner, receive him as myself. If
he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that to
mine account,' etc.
Our opponents assumne that Onesimus was Philemon's slave. This was probably, but not certainly so.
No sober man would feel safe to rest very important
issues upon such evidence. They assume again, that
Onesimus ran away from his master Philemon. Perhaps so; but Paul don't say so. He says he "departed."  He may have " departed" with the consent
of his master; as fathers sometimes consent to the departure of minor sons, because they are discontented
and unprofitable at home. There is, indeed, so much
of the hypothetical in their argument drawn from this
epistle, that unless they are permitted to assume much
and affirm more, they can not even make a show of
defense.
It is hardly reconcilable with a high moral conscientiousness, to seize upon a passage as indefinite as
this, and make it subserve a cause so grave, so weighty
as American slavery. As a Jew said, in answer to
Monsieur Voltaire-" the weightier the calumny, the
clearer should be the proof of it." The evidence
upon which a good man, a disinterested man, would




110          BIB3TLE VYINI)ICATED.
base the defense of a system so serious in its bearings upon the social conditions of human society-a
system invading all the natural rights of so many, with
all the certain and solemn bearings of the eternal
future-would require the testimony to be as clear, as
transparent, as conclusive, as the testimony that Jesus
of Nazareth arose from the dead. We could not suspect a man's motive, who was advocating upon inconclusive evidence that which was beneficent, just, and
equal, while it would be quite otherwise with the man
who would in any way aid or abet that which had a
direct tendency to promote inequality among men,
and increase the sum total of human wretchedness and
wo.
But, grant the slaveholders' assumption that Onesimus was a fugitive slave when Paul found him in
Rome. This admitted for the sake of the argument,
and we concede nothing to the credit of slavery.
Slaves escaped from their masters in the first century,
as they do in the nineteeth century. If the running
away of Onesimus had been a rare case, it would not
reflect upon the system; but when running away from
masters is a thing so common, as it always was, and
now is, the fact would naturally prompt the inquiry,
why is it so? How few ever become fugitives from
other relations. Fugitive husbands, fugitive wives,
fugitive sons, fugitive daughters-cases of this kind
have not been frequent enough to originate the terms.
But, fugitive slave is language as common and familiar
as household words. The fugitives from all other relations would not support an "underground hack,"
while the fugitives from slavery furnish ample business for many "underground railroads."  This fact




BIBlLE  VINDICATED.            11l
tells its own story. It declares in the most unmistakable language that there is something in the relation
most afflictive; therefore, the general discontentment
of slaves, and the exceedingly hazardous experiment of
running away from their oppressors. The legal guaranties to masters to recapture their fugitives, and all
the aids they may press into their service, are but so
many confirmations of the same fact. Why no legal
arrangements for husbands to recapture their fugitive
wives, and parents to bring back by the strong arm of
statute law their runaway children. Why no Fugitive Wife bill? Fugitive Children bill, and marshals to
execute them?
Onesimus being discontented and unhappy, sought
to better his circumstances by running away from his
master. He preferred to be a fugitive in a hostile
world, rather than to be a slave at home. In this condition Paul found him, converted him, and sent him
back to Philemon: "Whom I have sent again, thou
therefore receive him, that is my own bowels,"-(" own
heart," German translation,)-" sent again."  All
that Paul could have meant by "sent again," was, that
he made the proposition to Onesimus to return, and
Onesimus consented to do so.  His return was voluntary. If Paul had coerced him back, the case would
present a different aspect.  Onesimus was now in fact,
if not in form, free, and that freedom he might have
maintained by continuing in Rome. That he had
something to say, and suggest, in regard to his future
condition, in case he should return, is even more than
probable. In whatever condition, he was to return to
Philemon in that state, Philemon was to receive him.
Now, what does the epistle, of which Onesimus was the




112          BIBLE: VINDICATED,
bearer, say on this point? " For perhaps he departed
for a season, that thou mightest receive him for ever;
not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother
beloved. "  If Phileron refused to" receive" him as
a brother beloved," Onesimus was under no obligation to remain with him. Every hint and suggestion
is in perfect harmony with this view of the case.
Onesimus is " my son," and your " brother."'  Receive him, that is mine own bowels."  " If thou count
me therefore a partner, receive him as myself;" " Receive him for ever." Philemon could not have received
Onesimus as a servant, unless he would have received
Paul as a servant. And in no sense could he have received him "for ever," as a servant, but he could have
received him for ever as a " brother beloved." "Whom
I would have retained with ine that in thy stead he
might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the
gospel."  For Paul to have retained Onesimus, would
have been doing no injustice to Philemon, or Paul
would not have thought of doing so. Had Paul done
this, he would have set Onesimus fiee from his master; as Onesimus could not have ministered to Paul at
Rome, and to Philemon at Colosse. In that case, the
" benefit, " which from the connection could be nothing
else than freedom, would have been from " necessity "
on the part of Philemon. But the apostle desired the
" benefit" to be bestowed upon Onesimus, to be Philemon's free and voluntary act. "But, without thy mind
I would do nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it
were of necessity, but willingly." This was a delicate
touch, but a plain hint. "That thy benefit,"-this
was something to be conferred upon Onesimus. What
could this " benefit " have been, if it was not freedom?




BIBLE VINDICATED.              113
It could not have been to receive him as a brother, for
that was strictly enjoined upon Philemon. It could
not have been kind treatment, for, so good a man as
Philemon would need no hint to that effect. It must
have been something more than was due to a slave as
such-more than the system of slavery required at
the hand of masters; something befitting new and
honorable relations-a "benefit" worthy of Paul's
"son," and worthy of Philemon, " brother beloved"
in the Lord. What this could have been short of
manumission, we could not conjecture. This would
have been in harmony with the spirit of the letter, and
the kind of reception Paul bespoke for his son Onesimus. Then the apostle closed this part of the epistle
with this comprehensive sentence. " Having confidence
in thy obedience, I wrote unto thee knowing that thou
wilt also do more than I say."  " Having confidence in
thy obedience."  He commanded Philemon, upon the
most endearing considerations, to receive Onesimus,
" Not now as a servant,"-this is a negative command.
If Philemon received Onesimus as a servant, he disobeyed the command; but if he received him as
" above a servant, a brother beloved," he did what was
enjoined upon him. To receive a man as a "brother
beloved," is to receive him in the highest and most
honorable sense imaginable. More can not be asked in
behalf of any brother, unless it were a slave brother.
To ask more in this case, would be manumission. This,
Paul did not say, or command Philemon, but called his
attention to it by a modest suggestion — That thy
benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly."  Now Philemon, I have confidence in you
that you will do all for Onesimus, your brother, I have
8




114          BIBLE  VINDICATED.
commanded you, "thou wilt also do more than I
say."
We are the more confirmed in the correctness of this
view, when we consider that Paul would not have conceded less to Onesimus, as a question of right, than
freedom. " If thou mayest be made free, use it rather,"
would apply to Onesimus with as much force as to the
servants in the church in Corinth. Therefore, Paul
could, with great propriety, enjoin upon Philemon, as
he did enjoin upon other masters, duties which would
neutralize the relation between him  and Onesimus,
leaving him free to carry out his suggestion to liberate
him, or to hold him still a slave. Let Philemon himself decide the question, whether he could receive Onesimus as he would have received Paul in his own person
-receive him with the same affection and tenderness
Paul expressed for Onesimus his son, "begotten in the
bonds of the gospel;" "receive him not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved," and treat
him accordingly, and yet continue to hold him in the
degraded condition of a slave. Philemon would readily see his strait. If he did the latter, he could not do
the former as commanded; to do the former, he must
bestow the " benefit."
This epistle is of inexpressible value in the present
controversy. Here the relation of master and servant,
and that of brethren in Christ, with their claims and
conflicts, are made to appear in all their entangling influences. These relations are antipodes; they are perfect antagonisms. Can these warring relations exist
together in active, healthful exercise, so that each relation shall secure to the subjects of it, all that is contemplated in the relation? As much depends upon




BIB LE VINDICATED.             115
formal statement, we will state the question thus: could
Philemon, as master, reap the full benefit of slavery
from the person of Onesimus, his slave, and Onesimus,
as slave, enjoy the full benefit of christian brotherhood
from the person of Philemon, his master? If Philemon
could exercise all the prerogatives of master, as defined by Roman or American slave-codes, and deprive
Onesimus of education; inflict upon him corporal punishment according to the canons of the system, and
sell him to the highest bidder as interest or inclination
might dictate, without violating the law of brotherly
love as taught in the gospel, or damage to his brother
Onesimus, then may these relations exist together, operate together, and secure to the master and the slave
all the advantages-all the good proposed by slavery
on the one hand, and christianity on the other.
But, the reader will say, Philemon could not exercise
these prerogatives, and honor and maintain his profession as a christian. Then, as soon as Philemon became
a christian, he ceased to be a master in fact. This
would be true of other relations.
When a husband can no longer claim " reverence 
from his wife, as her matrimonial head, he ceases to be
a husband. When parents are proscribed in their natural and legal rights, when they may no longer claim
filial respect and obedience from their minor children,
the relation is dissolved in all its practical phases.
And, if the profession of christianity contravenes the
State rights of the master, he is no longer a master in
the practical import of that designation.' To suppose
that the religion of Jesus Christ did not interfere with
the State rights of Roman masters-that it does not
now conflict with the legal rights of American masters,




116          BIBLE VINDICATED.
is but a poor compliment to our wise and benevolent
Redeemer.
An effort to harmonize the relation of master and
slave with the relations of christianity, is the rudest assault ever committed upon the gospel of peace. An
attempt (for that is all that ever was or can be done)
to reconcile relations originating in war and piracy,
with relations originating in infinite mercy and benevolence, betrays great ignorance or desperate wickedness.
There is eternal enmity between these relations and
their respective rights and duties. Such is their hostility, that they can never live in peace in the same
house, be. members of the same family. They are like
the two forces in the physical world, one repelling and
the other attracting. The one separated Philemon and
Onesimus, both good men, for they proved themselves
to be such. It was not their fault, but the fault of the
system.
Onesimus would rather quit his slave home, and be
a homeless, houseless, wandering fugitive, than be the
slave of Philemon. And what Onesimus did, has been
done a thousand times-ten thousand times told. How
strong the repelling power!! But, the gospel, with its
attractive influences, brought Onesimus back to his
forsaken, deserted home. Ah, yes, Philemon is a christian now, and Onesimus has just become a christian.
Now, Paul said to Onesimus-my son, will you go back
to Philemon? Philemon, too, is my son; and, therefore, he is your brother. He owes me infinitely more
than you owe him. I will not exact upon him, and he
will not upon you. You left him a slave, now go back
a "brother beloved," and you will be received as such.
Onesimus-I will go back. Paul-Well, peace be with




BIBLE VIN ICATED.              117
you; here is an epistle to your brother Philemon, etc.
The relations leading to such different results, must be
opposites. What, under heaven, so repulsive to our
social feelings as slavery?  And what so inviting, so
attractive to man's social nature, as christianity, with
its endearing relations of brother, sister, etc.?
In all the divine teachings, the rights and duties of
these relations have the precedence.  The rights of
former relations conflicting with these, had to be given
up, and personal responsibility was placed upon a new
basis; "old things passed away, and behold all things
became new."   The new man, in his new relations to
Christ, is a new " creature;" in all his doings, he is
governed by new motives. His own spiritual and eternal interest, and that of others, must have the ascendency.  "Seek first the kingdom  of God and his
righteousness."  "Look not every man upon his own
things only, but also upon the things of others," is a
law of the kingdom of heaven, binding upon all its subjects. This law alone, in its practical tendency, would
abolish the relation of master and slave. The relation
of master is that of secular gain. It is the essence of
the most supreme selfishness. His attachments to his
slaves may be as strong as that of a covetous man to
his gold, and similar in kind. A money interest is the
only bond between the master and his slaves. Money
considerations are creating and dissolving the relation,
and that continually-daily. This is the lawful-legitimate-and necessary fruit of the system. Slaves are
as much the staple, in some slaveholding States, as
wheat is the staple production of Iowa. They have
slave markets, and we have wheat markets. Slaves are
their source of wealth, and wheat is ours. If there




118          BIBLE VIN )ICATE D.
were no market for surplus slaves, there would be no
motive to breed them; and if there were no market
for our surplus wheat, wheat raising would cease to be
business.
In Jesus Christ, selfishness must yield to christian
sympathy; unrighteousness must yield to righteousness.  There is no fellowship between these.  One or
the other must have the ascendancy. If slavery has the
ascendancy, christianity has not.  If christianity has,
slavery has not.  Slavery and christianity are not
homogeneous. They have no affinity for each other.
Slavery is older than christianity.  Slavery had taken
possession when Jesus Christ sent forth his Apostles to
preach to the nations.  If slavery had been an approved element of society, its right of occupancy would
not have been disputed by them. They would have
taken it as it was, and would have treated it with respect, as they did civil government, and other relations
of society. They would have acknowledged the rightfulness of the relation, and would have enforced the
current duties, as then established by the usages of society.  They would have given permanence to the institution with a view to its continuance in the church.
They would have made no concessions to slaves, or
have enforced no duties upon masters. They would
not only have taken it into the church as it was, but
would have let'it remain as they received it.  That
they would have pursued this course upon the aforesaid
supposition, all will admit. Did they? They did not.
The first thing directly upon this subject is a concession to servants. "Art thou called, being a servant,
care not for it, for if thou mayest be made free, use it
rather." This is an unequivocal admission to servants,




BIBLE   VINDICATED.            119
that they have a right to freedom. The abettors of
slavery have never conceded this to slaves as a matter
of right. Indeed, they can not, without committing
themselves to the implied duty. To withhold conceded
right is fraud-so understood by all men. To acknowledge the rights of others, is, in all candor and
straightforwardness, regarded as a pledge to sustain
them in their admitted rights. Therefore, slaveholders
pursue the safer policy, and deny to their slaves the
right of freedom. And the poor, pitiful apologists
have to do the same perhaps, not willingly, but for the
sake of self-defense. They see the dilemma.  For, if
they say, with Paul, slaves are entitled to freedom, to
be consistent, they must use all lawful means to make
them " free." If they do this they are not the slaveholder's friends. Then their commercial, political, and
religious communions with slaveholders, would all be
broken up. Alas! alas! who can make such a sacrifice?
The last upon this subject is Paul to Philemon, concerning his servant Onesimus.  This is a practical
comment upon the first;-the concession to servants" if thou mayest be made free," etc.  Onesimus had
given evidence that he desired freedom rather than slavery. His conversion could not extinguish this desire.
His willing return to Philemon was not to enter slavery again, but, to be reconciled to his brother Philemon. If Paul had advised Onesimus to return to
Philemon as a slave, it is not even presumable that he
would have returned at all. And if Paul had sent him
back for that object, he would have said so; but he
said just the contrary. "Whom I have sent again,"
verse 12. "Not now as servant," verse 16.   This




120          BIBLE VINDICATED.
view reconciles an apparent contradiction in this epistie to Philemon. That Onesimus was the slave of
Philemon, is a legitimate inference; that he was not, is
just as legitimate upon the slaveholders' hypothesis;
namely, that Philemon was to receive Onesimus as he
left him. That he left him a slave, and he should receive him again as a slave. How can this be? Can a
slave as such be a debtor?  Slaves are not known as
contracting parties.  Paul says to Philemon, "If he,
(Onesimus,) hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught,
put that to mine account." Now, how could Onesimus
have been a slave, and at the same time a debtor to
Philemon, or any body else?  Paul does not say that
Onesimus had wronged Philemon, or that he owed him
any thing.  The language is hypothetical-" If he
oweth thee aught." The apostle was evidently anticipating a difficulty in the way of Onesimus being received, "not now as a servant, but above a servant," etc.
If Philemon would naturally say, I am to receive
Onesimus now, " not as a servant, but as above a servant," a freed man, a "brother beloved," then he owes
me for that time he has been absent. If freedom is
claimed for him now, I claim compensation for my
time;-quite a natural inference. Well, said Paul,
"If he oweth thee, I will repay it," witness " mine
own hand." "Albeit, I do not say to thee how thou
owest unto me thine own self besides." This was a
beautiful offsetting of indebtedness. This was jumping
the account.  Philemon could not have been so stupid
as not to see Paul's appreciation of Onesimus' indebtedness to him. This is Paul's verdict in the case.
Philemon, your claim upon the person of Onesimus,




BIBLE VINDICATED.              121
and my claim upon you, are equal. I do not say
that you owe me time-service, or money, but "thine
own self."  In the light of the gospel, a slaveholders'
claim upon the person of his slave, is no better than a
preacher's claim upon the person of his convert. If
Paul did not intend to make this impression upon
Philemon, there is neither sense nor meaning in this
part of his epistle to Philemon.
Paul claimed nothing from Philemon but brotherly
confidence and affection. And this he required from
Philemon toward Onesimus-that he should not now
receive him in his former relation of " a servant," but
in his new relation, that of a "brother beloved;" and
his love to him must be without " dissimulation." This
was giving to Onesimus what was "just and equal."
This was consenting to the " wholesome words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which was according to godliness."  "If any man teach otherwise," etc., " from such withdraw thyself."
If there had been none to advocate slavery in the
primitive church, it would have died without a struggle or a groan. For it is not even a presumable case,
that under the light of the gospel, and the affection of
its early converts, it could have maintained a footing.
But it was then as now. There were those who had a
large interest in the system.  Some were more under
the influence of worldly " gain " than the principles of
godliness. These would justify this old lucrative practice. Others who had only a collateral interest, or an
interest in those who had a direct interest, would put
forth the hand of help to " admit and sustain" slavery
in the church, as it existed in the State. For in no
other sense, and by no other appliances can it exist any




122          BIBLE VINDICATED.
where in God's wide universe.  To defend its rightful
continuance in the church, these teachers were compelled to come in direct conflict with the gospel of
Christ; and by false issues, and "wrestings" of the
"words of our Lord Jesus Christ," and the " doctrine
of godliness," sought to harmonize slavery with christianity. Hence the command to Timothy, and through
him to the churches, "from such withdraw thyself.'
As I said before, so say I now again, in this teaching we have the root of the entire evil, for the love of
slavery is the love of money.
Let christian principle, in its unchecked, unrestrained
power, work, and it will work slavery out of the church
now, as it did in the beginning. For we may safely say,
there never was a christian slaveholder that had not
serious qualms of conscience. And if his convictions
of what is "just," "equal," and "godlike," were not
blunted by a false and deceitful philosophy, he would
give his guilty conscience ease by the " manumission of
all his slaves, as some good men both among the dead
and the living have done."
Brethren, there is not in the whole chapter of church
discipline, a more clearly defined, and a more important
duty, than the prompt withdrawal from every brother
who is publicly advocating and teaching the doctrine
of human slavery.
And finally, mine answer to such as have asked the
question-" How shall we do this?" we say just as
you would " withdraw" yourselves from any brother
" who is walking disorderly."
And now we ask you, dear brethren, in the name of
our insulted christianity, and in behalf of suffering, defrauded, brutalized humanity, Will you do it?




A P P E N D I X.
THE object of the foregoing argument was primarily to defend the
Bible-more especially the Old Testament-against the oft-repeated
charge of infidel abolitionists, that the Book, so called by way of
eminence, was the patron of American Slavery. And, as the Bible
was the basis of the Church, therefore the Church was the active
and efficient bulwark of the system. The careful reader is now prepared to bring in his verdict. If the Bible has been fairly vindicated
by the author-as the title of this little volume would modestly assume, then the decision is-the Bible is not guilty, and this charge of
infidels is false. The testimony may conduct the mind to this conclusion, and yet the charge against the Church may be true in whole,
or in part. The Church does assume that the Bible is her basis.
But what is assumed, is not always true-only what is proved is
true, always true. The Church may in the main, rest upon the Bible,
but, that all she has taught and practiced, is upon the authority of
the Bible is not true. Even the Protestant Church in Protestant
America, in days of yore, burned witches, persecuted Quakers and
Baptists upon assumed bible authority. The most monstrous things
have been said and done under the ftlse pretense of Bible sanction.
That the Church should in the year of grace, one thousand eight
hundred and fifty-eight, justify slaveholding, would be nothing peculiar in her history. What was true of God's ancient people, may
be true of his people now: " All the day long have I stretched out
my hand to a disobedient and gainsaying people."
More, infinitely more, is involved in the present controversy, than
the rights of masters and the wrongs of slaves. The credit of the
Bible, the moral standing of the Church, and the honor of Jesus
Christ are all directly embraced in this issue: 1st. The credit of
the Bible. If, as many ministers and Church members assume, the
teachings of the Scriptures justify slaveholding, then, all opposed to
this practice, believing this assumption to be true, must view the
Bible with the same abhorrence they do slavery. If there can be
such a thing as involuntary infidelity, this must be that thing. No
man, surely, could be regarded as being perverse or wicked for condemning the system of human slavery. Nay, opposition to every
form of oppression, indicates a good, rather than a wicked heart.
It indicates a susceptible conscience-a healthful state of the moral
sentiments-therefore, opposition to slavery is a virtue. In this aspect of the subject, a man of a benevolent heart must do violence to
the better sentiments of his soul, or he must be an infidel. We are
acquainted with some who have become infidels, but not willingly.
It was not without a conflict, that they lost confidence in the Bible.
But few of the many are capable of critical investigation. Some
are wanting in natural discrimination; others have not leisure for
laborious investigation. The masses are governed by the few. Whatever may fall into their way, true orfalse, upon a controverted question, will place them upon one side or the other, as the case may be.
123




124                   APPENDIX.
Suppose such an one should read the volume; entitled " The Philosophy of Slavery as connected with Human Happiness," by James
Shannon. The reasoning seems plausible. He is not capable of
detecting the sophistry of an artful reasoner. To him, the argument
appears sound, and every way conclusive. In despite of his faith,
his hope, and his love, he can not escape the conclusion-that the
Bible is on the side of slavery. He strives for a time to reconcile
this conclusion with his moral sense-his convictions of right. This
he can not do, and after long and painful conflict, his baffled, wearied
spirit yields to what his own consciousness declares to be rightand "the weak brother perish for whom Christ died."  With others
who would rather hear what would invalidate the claims of the
Bible and justify their wicked lives, the alternatives are easy and
soon determined. Hence, it is true that slavery in the Church will
insure infidelity in the world.
2d.  The Moral Standing of the Church. Men of anti-slavery sentiments are greatly embarrassed with the pro-slavery tendency of
the Church. When the minister shall class slavery among the sins
of the times, some of his church members will cry nigger preachernigger preaching-political preaching-agitation, etc., and the balance
of the Church have not moral stamina to defend the preacher against
these assaults. The Churches of the North are in fellowship with
the slaveholding Churches of the South. They recognize slaveholders as good and worthy christians. They cooperate with them in
Bible and Missionary Societies. And, in fine, slaveholding is not
even the smallest perceptible spot in christian character. Then he
looks into the Churches South. Here, he beholds slave-breedingslave-selling-buying-whipping-hunting, etc. Further, he sees
that slave marriages are a farce-paternal and filial relations wholly
disregarded-education withheld-and every thing managed just as
it is out of the Church. The effect of this heart-sickening spectacle
upon the mind, must be to shock all the moral sensibilities. The
conviction must be, that if ever the Church was the the " pillar and
support of the truth," she is not that now. If such Church members
are in a fair way for salvation, I need not be much concerned about
my condition. That the Church with all her pro-slavery proclivities,
can favorably influence.such minds, is not presumable. Here, then,
is a large class of the best read and the most intelligent, placed beyond her reach, and will remain out of her pale, until she will
remove this " rock of offense," this "stone of stumbling;" and in
the ratio of the progress of anti-slavery sentiments, will this class
of opponents increase. What a wasting of the Lord's treasures!
what a squandering of Church influence  Who will be responsible
when the king shall return to reckon with his servants?  The
Church is required to " walk in wisdom toward them that are without"-to " give no offense to Jew nor Gentile."  That mystical
body formed by Jesus Christ, of which himself is the head and the
heart, presiding over-animating by his good indwelling spirit, should
be unblamable and without offense-should be the admiration of all
good men-all who can " approve the things that are excellent,"
"lovely," and of "good report."  The Church in her youthful vir



APPENDIX.                         125
gin days was thoroughly anti-slavery. Her doctrinal standard was
the " wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ," " and the doctrine
which is according to Godliness." Those who would not consent to
this, but taught a contrary doctrine, were withdrawn from. This is
true, in the judgment of one, who has thought more-spoken morewritten more, and discriminated more clearly between the Church in
her pure primitive state, and her corrupt modern condition, than any
living man. To quote his own language:-" If any thing is wanting
to finish a picture of the most glaring inconsistencies, add to this those
christians, who are daily extolling the blessings of civil and religious
liberty, and, at the same time, by a system of the most cruel oppression,
separating the wife from the embrace of her husband, and the mother
from her tender offspring; violating every principle, and rending every
tie that endears life and reconciles man to his lot; and that, forsooth, because I might gives right,' and a man is held guilty because his skin is a
shade darker than the standard color of the times. Adverting to these
signs of the times, and many others to which these reflections necessarily
lead, will you not say, that this prophesy is note fulfilled."-2 Tim. iv.
3, 4. " There will be a time when they will not endure wholesome
teaching, but having itching ears, they will, according to their own
lusts, heap up to themselves teachers. And from the truth, indeed,
they will turn away their ears and be turned aside unto fables."
" Now from these turn away."  Christian reader, remember this command, and fron such turn away. See " Christian Baptist," eighth
edition, page 8.
This is indeed, a most revolting picture. The writer had the
original before him. Being a citizen of the " Old Dominion" he
could look at Church slavery from the right angle of vision. But,
in this, as in some other cases, the first view of a revolting scene
produces a shock-in the second it is less violent, and by familiarity
the first emotions wear away; then for a time we pity, then embrace.
Who is this that violates every principle and rends every tie?
They are Christians.  Yes, Christians-says the writer.    Yes,
"Christians who are daily extolling the blessings of civil and religious liberty." Surely, he was not serious when he called those
described in the prophecy cited-Christians. If the reader will turn
back and read the extract again, he will see that the writer did not
regard them as Christians of the olden stamp, but he viewed them
in the light of prophecy. On the prophetic chart they stand as
apostates,-Christians existing in " perilous times "-times perilous
to the souls of believers,-Christians "having a form of godliness,
but denying the power thereof,-Christians whose " lustful, itching
ears," would not "endure sound teaching," etc.
If the writer of the above extract was correct in the application
of Paul's prediction to Timothy, the present slaveholding portion of
the Church meets the prophecy. This terrible state of the Church
is seen by many of her members. And, because the Church will
not "turn away" from the thousands who are practising this most
"cruel oppression"-" separating husband and wife," they turn
away from the Church. And, many sensible persons will not enter,
so long as this generally admitted wickedness is continued in




126                    APPENDIX.
Church fellowship. We justify neither the former nor the latter.
But, from this standpoint we can not fail to see and feel the importance of the words of Christ: " Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which
is in heaven."
3d. The honor of Christ.-As the Book reflects honor or dishonor
upon its author, so does the system of morality and religion reflect
honor or disgrace upon its originator. If the fanaticism of the Crusaders, the corruptions of the Confessional, and the horrors of the
Inquisition, were in harmony with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who, but the most stupid Papist could view him with admiration? If his religion leads to such results, it should be and would
be abjured by all good men. And, for the same reason all good men
must repudiate Christianity, if as some affirm, it sanctions American
slavery. If this be true, the Gospel does not, can not commend
itself to " every man's conscience in the sight of God." To do this,
the Gospel must command what is right, both as it respects God and
man. Then will it reflect honor upon its author. But, the Gospel
of Jesus Christ does even more than this; it enjoins all that is pure
and benignant. This will be admitted by all men of enlightened
reason. But, if Chritianity does permit the opposite, then is it a
mixed system, and its author a being of a mixed character. It is,
we believe, admitted by all, that the religion of Jesus Christ is favorable to civilization. This has been its practical tendency from the
beginning. Is it also favorable to barbarism? If so, where is the
proof? It will also be admitted that the religion of the New Testament promotes both civil and religious liberty. Does it also promote
civil and religious bondage? If it promotes both, what a mighty
antagonism it must be in itself! If so, why are not these warring
elements in the system properly classified and arranged? If it embodies such self-contradictory and self-destructive principles, infidels
and slaveholding Christians would have brought them to light. If
such be the heterogeneous character of the Book, then, both freedom
and slavery are legitimate in Christian practice. Then let the ministers of Jesus Christ so set the instrument as to play the tune that
may best suit the times and the occasion.
With this hypothetical premise before us, let us look first, at the
Christianity of the New Testament; for, that may, or may not be
the same as the professed, ostensible Christianity of the Church. If
it is, what a mass of contradictions; what conflicting, warring elements are contained in this system! Are there to be found in
human society, two things more antagonistical than liberty and
slavery? Are not these enemies? Can these foes ever be reconciled? Will they ever be brought within an embracing distance?
That their anger will never be placated, we need only to look at
home. We need not go to distant periods and distant lands. Look
into our own States hnd Churches. What a separating of friends I
What a breaking up of friendships! As is the cause, so is the effect,
and this effect will continue until the cause is removed, or America
shall be suddenly and unexpectedly converted into one vast Dormitory. But, so long as society is awake and active, will the strife wax




APPENDIX.                        127
fiercer and fiercer, and the breach become wider and wider. And,
inasmuch as our Church religion claims to be the Christian religion,
and our by-law, or national religion assumes to be the same, Jesus
Christ, by fair sequence, is responsible for all these results, if he has
incorporated the element of slavery, with that system of morality
and piety he has vouchsafed to mankind. If, as is claimed by many
who profess to be followers of Christ, they have a divine right from
him to be slave masters, then is he so directly involved in the horrors of slavery, that no love for his person, or respect for his authority, as a teacher sent from God, can ever remove this odium from
his character.
There is one all-pervading principle in the Bible, but, more fully
developed in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, that
must for ever silence all merely inferential evidence in favor of
slavery, drawn from that source. If there were no direct negative
testimony, the principle of love to God and man, in the extent and
strength of obligation, as enforced in the Gospel, would be an allsufficient negation. If the Gospel claims love from all to all, as will
not be denied, then must slaveholding be prompted by love, both
upon the part of the master and his slave. This, no sane man will
affirm. Therefore, according to the law of Christian love, there can
be no such thing as a Christian slaveholder. Christian slaveholder
is indeed a contradiction in terms, as truly so as temperate drunkard,
or honest thief.
It may be safely questioned, whether the vaunted benevolence of
slaveholders is even in the precincts of Christian benevolence. Love
must have both a basis and an object. "The world will love its
own," said the great Teacher. It will love those of its clan orparty,
and then no longer than the love is reciprocal. Is this Christian
love? Let Jesus Christ answer. " Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you," etc., "that ye may
be the children of your Father which is in Heaven."  Publicans love
Publicans, and Publicans salute Publicans. This is the love of the
world. But, Christ said to his Disciples more than this, "Be ye
therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect."
This is the moral of the lesson on love. The premises are, you must
love men, "enemies" and all, as God loves them. Your Father in
Heaven loves all the just and the unjust; therefore, he is doing them
good, makes his "sun to shine upon them," and sends them "rain
also."  Many of the divine perfections are incommunicable; but his
love is transferable. Therefore, the command, "be perfect," is not
grievous. Every soul that has enjoyed the full regenerating power
of the Gospel, does love all men, friend and enemy, as God loves
them; and like Him, will do them good when he can. We might
here inquire what is the probable reason of this unlimited love of
God to man?   Is it simply because he is his creature?  God has
other creatures besides man. But, for no other being he has made,
has he manifested the same degree of love. Perhaps a single sentence will explain this mystery, "And God said, let us make man in
our image, after our likeness."... This would suggest that God
would regard his own image and likeness. That image may have




128                   APPENDIX.
been marred by sin, but the Creator loves it still, and will love it
until entirely obliterated. And not only so, he is jealous of his
image impressed upon man. He that will damage that likeness
shall not go unpunished. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man."
"But the tongue can no man tame," etc. "Therewith bless we God
even the Father; and therewith curse we men which are made after
the similitude of God."  The apostle adds immediately, "doth a
fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? The
man that will bless God, the Original, and curse man the similitude,
is a contradiction in himself. "And every one that loveth him that
begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him," for the begotten
bears the image of the begetter. He that loves the Creator, must
love the creature, made in the similitude of the Creator. He can no
more love the one and hate the other, than a fountain can at the
same place issue different kinds of water. The love of God and man
are therefore inseparable. God has placed the hand and the tongue
under an interdict. He has said to these deadly instruments, do
mine "image" no harm. In this short inductive argument we have
the true reason for God's wondrous love to man, universal man, and
also the reason for man's love to his fellow man. Can a slaveholder
love God? when he chattelizes the image of God in the person of
every slave. When he sells a slave he sells God's image. If his
conscience will permit him to place the similitude upon the auction
block and sell it for gold, it would allow him to sell the Original.
It is not the simple fact of buying or selling humanity that constitutes the offense. It is the object of the sale and purchase that constitutes the real indignity both to God and man. Men have bought
wives and servants, for a longer or a shorter period, without insult
to the Creator or the creature. The bought and sold continued to
be men, were treated and respected as men. But, when a man is
sold and bought to be a slave, all human rights and respect cease
from that moment and for ever, both as respects himself and his
offspring. The similitude of God is quickly converted into the likeness of a beast, to be whipped as beasts, to be held subject to sales
private or public, as chattels, goods or things. We must then be
permitted to say again, that it may be safely questioned, whether the
boasted love of slaveholders makes even an approach to Christian love.
And yet more, whether those, who will in any way aid or abet a system which makes such havoc of man, made in the similitude of God,
are not greatly wanting in genuine affection for both God and man.
Much that is called love among men is pure selfishness in the
sight of God. It is in " word and tongue " only, not in heart, not in
"deed and truth."  All men love some men, but few men love and
"honor all men," as Jesus Christ has given command and example.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," etc.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."  "Love worketh no ill
to his neighbor."  " Who is my neighbor? " Who was neighbor
to him that fell among thieves?"  "He that showed mercy on him."
"Go and do thou likewise."
DAVENPORT, Jan. 30, 1858.            JONAS HARTZEL.