YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

.CRIPTDRAL, Ecclesiastical, and Historical

YIEW OF slavery,

DAYS OP THE PATRIARCH ABRAHAM, TO THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY.

ADDRESSED TO THE

EIGHT EEY. ALONZO POTTEE, D.D.,
BISHOP OF THR PROT. EPISCOPAL CHDRCH, IN THE DIOCSSS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D.D., LLD.,
BISHOP OP THE DIOCBSB OP VERMONT,

¦W. 1. POOLET & CO., HARPER'S BUILDING, FEANKLIN SQUARE,

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by
JOHN HENRY HOPKINS,
In th'j Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Bnited States for the Southern Dis
trict of New-York.

Cbc<l-C ^3

JOHN A. GRAY & GREEN,
PRISTERS, STEREOTTPERS, AND BINDER,
16 St 18 Jacob St., N. Y.

OONTEI^J'TS

Inteoduction, narrating the facts which led to the publication of
the Pamphlet. The Letter of Request. The Answer, . . S-5
BiBLs TiEw OF Slavery in full. Definition of Slavery. A phy
sical but not a moral evil. Slaveholding believed by its adver
saries to be a siti. This is denied. The Bible must decide. The
prophecy of Noah. The case of Abraham. Hagar. The Ten
Commandments. Direct rules laid down by the Almighty for
temporary slavery of the Israelites during six years, and for
perpetual slavery of the heathen strangers. Corrective disci
pline authorized, but not to maim or kill. The Jubilee did not
extend to the slaves held in perpetuity, but only to the slaves
for a term of years, who were of the race of Israel, . . 6-H
The coming of Christ made no change in Jewish slavery. No new
principle was set forth. Love not inconsistent with slavery.
St. Paul lays down rules for slavery to the Ephesians, to the
Colossians, to Timothy, to Titus, and sends back the runaway,
Onesimus, to his master. Objections considered. Declaration
of Independence. All men not created equal, but the contrary.
The proposition no part of the Federal Constitution. The negro
is a brother, as descended from Noah, but not an equal, . . 11-3S
Slavery of Circcmstances. No man absolutely, but only rela
tively free. Objections resumed. Cruelty. Immorality. Lia
bility to separation of husband and wife and children. Poly
gamy. Doctrine of the Church continued as laid down by the
apostles. Benefits of Southern slavery to the negro race.
Author friendly to gradual abolition whenever the Southern
States are willing. Reference to his former writings on the
subject. Conclusion of the "Bible View" with prayer for
peaceful accommodation,  33-41
Thk Protest of tlip Bishop and Clergy of Pennsylvania, . . 42-43

U CONTENTS.
• PAGE
Answer to the Protest and end of Introduction, . . . 44-50
Chapter I. — Position of the Author. Friendly to peaceable and
gradual abolition, with the consent of the Southern States, but
opposed to the doctrine of ultra-abolitionism. Statement of the
latter. Contrary to the Bible the Church, the Constitution,
and the true interest of the colored race. The Protest, a libel.
This book, a brotherly admonition. The circumstances which
led to the republication of the pamphlet. The right of every
citizen to set forth his views. The same right asserted for the
clergy as individual citizens, though political questions must not
be brought into the Church nor her conventions. The Protest
the result of political expediency,  61-60
Chapter II. — Duty of bishops to contend for religious truth,
though not the road to popularity. The doctrine of the author
held by all, during the first forty years of our national history.
Held by almost all, for twenty years more. Held by his own
Church up to 1 860. JPolitical expediency consiiered. Its intro
duction into the Church deprecated aa full of danger, . . 61-65
Chapter III. — Arguments of the anonymous Pamphleteers. Pro
phecy of Noah. Degraded condition of the native Africans
stated from Malte Brun. Bishop Newton in opposition to the
ultra-abolitionist,  66-V3
Chapter IT. — Hagar and Ishmael. Cruden on Jewish slavery.
Vindication of the Bible View of Slavery, .... 74-77
Chapter V. — Objections of the anonymous pamphleteers con
tinued. The Ten Commandments. Articles of the Church on
the Moral law., Man-stealing. The slave escaped from his mas
ter. Comparative view of the Mosaic, the Eoman, and the
Southern laws in reference to slavery. The slave a chattel in
one respect, but a person in every other, by the whole three
systems,  >jij_^^
Chapter VI. — The code on slavery set forth at large, from the
Institutes of Justinian. Remarks. It was more severe, on the
whole, than the Southern systera. Yet it subsisted along with
civil liberty, for many ages,  85-92
Chapter VH. — ^Views of the ancient philosophers on slavery, '
represented by Aristotle,  93-98
Chapter VIII. — Statements of the ancient writers on slavery.
Philo Judeeus, TertuUian, Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Aasustine,
St. Basil,  99-104

CONTENTS.

Ill

Chapter IX. — The old fathers continued. St. Chrysostom, Gre
gory the Great. Form of deed by which he gave a slave to the
Bishop of Porto. Prosper of Aquitaine. Isidore of Seville, . 105-1 09
Chapter X — The Canons of the Apostles. The Clementine Con
stitutions. The Councils of Gangra, of Agde, of Orleans, of
Epone, of Ma9on, of Toledo, of Narbonne, of Berghamstead, of
Aix-la-Chapelle, the Capitulary of the Emperor Louis, the
Council of 'Worms, the Council of London. Mistake of the
Bishop of Oxford rectified,  110-115
Chapter XI. — Examples of slaveholding in the primitive Church,
from the eccclesiastical historian, Fleury. St. Gregory. St.
Perpetuus. Alcuin. Council of Soissons. Pope Benedict, . 115-117
Chapter XII. — Statements of Bingham. The Apostolic Canons.
The Imperial lawa Theodosian Code,  118-119
Chapter XHI. — The Divines and Commentators since the Re
formation. Melancthon. Calvin. Pool's Synopsis, . . 120-122
Chapter XIV. — Commentators. Pool's Synopsis, . . . 123-126
Chapter XV. — The Commentary of Patrick, Lowth, and 'Whitby,
sustaining the .fiiiZe View of Slavery, ..... 127-135
Chapter XVI. — The Commentary of Rev. Matthew Henry in per
fect agreement with apostolic doctrine on slavery, . . . 136-141
Chapter XVII. — ^The Commentary of Rev. Thomas Scott. Be
longs to the nineteenth century. Shows, occasionally, the influ
ence of ultra-abolition novelty, but sound on the whole. His
mistake about the law of love being inconsistent with slavery
considered,  142-162
Chapter XVIII. — The commentary of Rev. Adam Clarke. His
occasional outbursts against slavery. Yet his doctrines as a
commentator correct and faithful, ...... 163-159
Chapter XIX. — The Comprehensive Commentary. Dr. Jenks.
In the main a repetition of Henry and Scott  160-163
Chapter XX.^Dr. Gill's Exposition set forth at large on slavery.
Judicious and learned Commentator, ..... 164-171
Chapter XXI. — Dr. Doddridge's Paraphrase. Hammond's Para
phrase. Locke on the Epistles. D'Oyly and Mant's Commen
tary. Melchizedek. Argument proving that the main por
tion of Canaan's posterity have always been, and still are among
the native Africans, fulfilling the prophecy of Noah. Ultimately,

IV CONTENTS. PAGE
at the time appointed by divine Providence, they will be freed
from slavery. But the prophecy must have its course till then, 172-187
CkAPTER XXII — Commentary of D'Oyly and Mant continued.
The color of the human races. Buffon. Shaw. The Jubilee.
Bishop Davenant on slavery, set forth at large, . . . 188-194
Chapter XXIII. — Dr. Jortin's statement about the law of nature,
examined. Dominion and subjection. No government possible
without them. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law in
earthly things, to the American citizen. The oath of allegiance.
Christianity enforces its authority. No conflict between the
law of God and the law of the Constitution with respect to
slavery, as both unite in its sanction, ..... 195-204
Chapter XXIV. — The commentator, Macknight, on slavery, . 206-210
Chapter XXV. — The Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Greek Testament by Rev. Henry Alford. The New Testament
in the original Greek, with notes, by the Rev. Chr. Words
worth, D.D., ...  211-215
Chapter XXVI — Perversion of the prophets exposed, . . 216-220
Chapter XXVII. — Doctrine of the Church of Rome, from the
works of Bishop England. Apostolic Letters of the Popes.
Theologians. Oriental Churches and Church of Russia, . . 221-225
Chapter XXVIII. — Bishop England on marriage of slaves, . 226-228
Chapter XXIX. — Polygamy not authorized by any divine law.
Prohibited by St. Paul to the clergy. The Apostolic Canons.
Council of Nice expressly extending the prohibition to the
laity. St. Augustine. St. Basil. General Argument. The
whole Church unanimous against Polygamy, .... 229-233
Chapter XXX. — Man-stealing. . The Southern States had nothing
to do with it. Absurdity of the accusation demonstrated. The
title of the Southern masters shown to be as good as the title
of the North to their lands taken from the Indians, . . . 234-239
Chapter XXXI. — The Golden Rule. Limitations to its applica
tion universally admitted. Illustrations. The Southern mas
ters have acted upon it largely in the emancipation of their
slaves,  240-243
Chapter XXXII. — Slavery of freemen. Not the subject iu con
troversy. Modes of abolition, ...... 244-248
Chapter XXXIII — St. Domingo, from the work of the historian,
Alison, . . ¦  249-263

CONTENTS. V
PAGE
Chapter XXXTV. — The Slave-trade. Views of Mr. Wilberforce
examined, and shown to be in agreement with those of the
Author,  263-257
Chapter XXXV. — Results of the British Act of Emancipation,
from the work of the historian Ahson. His opinion on the
advantages of slavery,  258-261
Chapter XXX'VI. — The historian Hume. Blackstone. Villen-
age in England. Died out by degrees,  262-264
Chapter XXXVU. — The historian Gibbon on Roman slavery.
Observations,  265-268
Chapter XXXVIII. — The historian Robertson. Slavery in Eng
land. The Church favorable to it. Died out by degrees. Ob
servations,  269-272
Chapter XXXTX — ^The historian Motley. The Church favorable
to slavery. Seven thousand two hundred Turks reduced to
slavery among Christians after the battle of Lepanto, in the
sixteenth century. Slavery died out in Europe through the
results of commercial changes. Observations, . . . 273-275
Chapter XL. — Case of the negro Somerset. Argument of Har-
grave from the State Trials. Observations, .... 276-280
Chapter XLI. — Treaty of Utrecht. Queen Anne a Partner with
the English- African Company in slave-trade. The Church of
England in contrast with ultra-abolitionism, .... 281-283
Chapter XLII. — Mournful debasement of the English poor, from
the work of Joseph Kay, Esq.,  284-300
Chapter XLIII. — Treatment of the slaves. Corporal correction.
Sanctioned by the divine law for Israel. The system laid down
by the Almighty was preeminent in mercy and compassion, . S01-S07
Chapter XLIV. — Vindication of corporal punishment as more
safe, merciful, and effectual than imprisonment. Mrs. Kemble's
book. Contrast between her statements on the condition of
the slaves, and Mr. Kay's statements concerning the English
poor. Slavery to be abolished, not by violent assaults, but by
the operation of divine Providence,  308-S17
Chapter XLV. — Treatment of the slaves, continued. Testimony
of the Southern clergy. Bryan Tyson, Esq. Marriages. No
pauperism. Regrets of emancipated negroes, . . . 318-323
Chapter XL VI. — Statements of Rev. Dr. Cummins. Opinions of
Washington, Jefferson, etc. Mrs. Stowe. Abuses admitted

VI CONTENTS. PAGE
. and condemned. lUnstration, showing that these are no fair
grounds of argument against the institution. The question of
compensation for slave labor considered, .... 324-332
Chapter XLVII. — Theodore Parker. Mr. Emerson. Infidelity
associated with ultra-abolitionism. Mr. Parker's anticipation of
civil war. His principles upon the right of the slaves to kill
their masters, and the duty of the freemen to help them, , 333-343
Chapter XLVIII. — The Protest. The precepts of the Apostle.
Admonition, Summary. Conclusion,  344-363

CONTENTS OF THE APPENDIX.
Note 1. Meaning of the Fourth and Tenth Commandments proved from
the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and other versions.
Note 2. Observations on our English version.
Note 3. The original text of the Roman Civil Law on slavery
Notes 4-13. The same.
Note 14. Philo Judaeus. Latin version.
Note 15. The same.
Note 16. TertuUian.
Notes 17, 18, and 19. St. Jerome.
Notes 20 and 21. Ancient author, supposed formerly to be Ambrose of
Milan.
Notes 22-26. St. Augustine.
Notes 27-29. St. Basil Latin version.
Note 30. St. Chrysostom. Latin version.
Note 31. Prosper of Aquitaine.
Notes 32-34. Gregory the Great.
Note 35. Isidore of Seville.
Note 36. Apostolic Canons.
Note 37. The Clementine Constitutions. Latin version.
Note 38. Council of Gangra.
Note 39. Council of Agde.
Note 40. Council of Orleans, a.d. 511.
Note 41. Council of Epone.
Note 42. Another Council of Orleans, a.d. 541.
Note 43. Another Council of Orleans, a.d. 549.
Note 44. Council of Majon.

CONTENTS. Vll
Note 45. Council of Toledo.
Note 46. Council of Narbonne.
Note 47. Council of Berghamstead.
Note 48. Council of Aix-la-Chapelle.
Note 49. Capitulary of Emperor Louis.
Notes 50 and 51. Council of Worms.
Note 52. Council of London. Mistake of Bishop of Oxford.
Note 53. Letter of Archbishop Anselm.
Note 54. Fleury, the ecclesiastical historian. St. Gregory.
Note 66. lb. St. Perpetuus.
Note 66. lb. Alcuin.
Note 67. lb. Council of Soissons. '
Note 58. lb. Pope Benedict.
Note 59. Melancthon. "^
Notes 60, 61, and 62. Calvin.
Notes 63, 64, and 65. Pool's Synopsis.
Notes 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73. Pool's Synopsis.
Note 74. Apostolic Canons.
Note 75. Council of Nice.
Note 76. St. Augustin.
Notes 77 and 78. S. Basil.
Note 79. African barbarism.

EEE AT A,

Page 59. — (Sixteen lines from the top,) instead of "Archbishop of Exeter,"
read Bishop of Exeter.
Page 79. — (Nine lines from the bottom,) uistead of " rights " read rites.
Page 100. — (Ten lines from the bottom,) instead of "Colosiaus" read
Colossians. Page 117. — (Four lines from the bottom,) instead of "and " read nor.
Page 123. — (Fourteen lines from the top,) instead of " MoKnight " read-
Macknight. Page 170. — (Seventeen lines from the top,) instead of " way" read away.
Page 173. — (Sixteen lines from the bottom,) instead of "There" read
These. Page 224. — (Five lines from the top,) instead of " perpetuate '" read per
petrate. Page 229. — (Nme lines from the top,) instead of "antagonist" read an
tagonists. Page 230. — (Three lines from the bottom,) instead of " 74" read 77.
Page 230.— (Bottom line,) instead of " 75 " read 78.

INTRODUCTION FOR THE GENERAL READER.

Isr the month of December, 1 860, 1 'was requested formally,
by several gentlemen of New-Tork, to state in -writing my
opinion of the Biblical argument on the subject of negro
slavery in the Southern States, and also on the constitutional
position of the contending parties. I considered it my duty
to comply -with that request, and the pamphlet was publish
ed at their expense in the foUo^wing month»of January. No
compensation, pecuniary or otherwise, was offered or ex
pected for my labor. It was asked and given purely as a
service to what I deemed to be the truth, at a time when
the secession of the Southern States had invested that truth
with the highest importance to the peace and safety of our
country. Some gentlemen of Philadelphia, having read this pam
phlet, addressed a similar request to me on the fifteenth of
April, 1863, with reference to the topic of slavery, and I re
plied by consenting to the republication of the same Biblical
argument on that subject, including the popular objections
commonly urged against it. As in the former case, so it
was in this — that no pecuniary or other inducement of a
personal nature was contemplated. I did not know, and
cared not to inquire into the political standing of those gen
tlemen. The question, in my mind, was above all party con
siderations, because it involved the authority of the Sci-ip-
tures, the consistency of the Church, and the morality of the
American Constitution. I was sufficiently acquainted with
the subscribers of the letter to recognize them as Episcopa-

4 INTRODUCTION.
lians of high character, who had a right to know the senti
ments of every bishop in the Church, in answer to any re
spectful application. And I should have deemed myself not
only unworthy of my office, but unworthy of the name of
a Christian freeman, if I could have shrunk from avowing
my convictions of the truth, through the love of popular
praise or the fear of popular censure.
The letter of request, together with my reply, is here re
corded, in order that my readers may have the whole case
fully and fairly before them.

THE LETTEE OF EEQUEST.
Philadelphia, April 15, 1863.
Right Rbveebist) Sie : Your views on the Scriptural as
pect of Slavery, contained in a letter addressed by you to
some gentlemen in New-York, shortly before the breaking
out of the war, has come to our notice, and been perused
with much satisfaction and profit.
We believe that false teachings on this subject have had
a great deal to do 'with bringing on the unhappy strife be
tween two sections of our common country, and that a la
mentable degree of ignorance prevails in regard to it. It is
of the deepest importance to the public welfare that a sound
public opinion should exist on this topic. Believing that
the communication of your views as a Christian Bishop on
the Scriptural aspect of Slavery may contribute to this de
sirable result, we respectfully venture to beg that you will
favor us with them, and permit us to make them public.
We are with great respect your obedient servants,
G. M. WHAEToiir, Samuel Jackson', M.D.,
A. Beowning, Chas. J. Biddle,
John Stockton' Littell, P. McCall.
To the Rt. Rev. Johk Henet Hopkins, Burlington, Vt.

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 5
THE ANSWER
Buelington, Vt., May 2, 1863.
Mt Deae Sies : The pamphlet published in January, 1861,
to which you have so kindly referred, is at your service, in
its original form ; as I have not found, in the numerous an
swers which it has dra'wn forth, any reason for changing my
opinion. On the contrary, those answers have only strength
ened my conviction as to the sanction which the Scriptures
give to the principle of negro slavery, so long as it is ad
ministered in accordance with the precepts laid down by the
Apostles. Such was the universal doctrine of 'Christian
ministers. Christian lawyers, and Christian statesmen one
hundred years ago, wmh a few exceptions which onjy proved
the rule. • The Constitution of the United States, as I firmly
believe, made no concessions on the subject which were not
warranted by the Bible. And therefore, while I should re
joice in the adoption of any plan of gradual abolition which
could be accepted peacefully by general consent, I can not
see that we have any right to interfere with the domestic
institutions of the South, either by the law or by the Gos
pel. With this brief introduction, I proceed to the very
serious question which your friendly application has submit
ted for discussion.
Your faithful servant in Christ,
John H. Hopkins,
Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont.

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
The word "slave" occurs but twice in our English Bible,
but the term " servant," commonly employed by our trans
lators, has the meaning of slave in the Hebrew and the
Greek originals, as a general rule, where it stands alone.
We read, however, in mafiy places, of "hired servants,"

6 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
and of " bondmen and bondmaids." The first were not
slaves, but the others were ; the distinction being precisely
the same which exists in our own day. Slavery, therefore,
may be defined as servitude for life, descending to the off
spring. And this kind of bondage appears to have existed
as an established institution in all the ages of our world, by
the universal evidence of history, whether sacred or profane.
Thus understood, I shall not oppose the prevalent idea
that slavery is an evil in itself. A physical evil it may be,
Ibut this does not satisfy the judgment of its more zealous
adversaries, since they contend that it is a moral evil — a
positive sin to hold a human being in bondage, under any
circumstances whatever, unless as a jDunishment inflicted on
crimes, for the safety of the community. '
Here, therefore, lies the true aspect of the controversy,
and it is evident that it can only be settled by the Bible.
For every Christian is bound to assent to the rule of the
inspired Apostle, that " sin is the transgression of the law,"
namely, the law laid down in the Scriptures by the authority
of God — the supreme "Lawgiver, who is able to save and
to destroy." From his Word there can be no appeal. No
rebellion can be so atrocious in his sight as that which dares
to rise against his government. No blasphemy can be more
unpardonable than that which imputes sin or moral e'vil to
the decrees of the eternal Judge, who is alone perfect in
wisdom, in knowledge, and in love.
With entire correctness, therefore, your letter refers the
question to the only infallible criterion— the Word of God.
If it were a matter to be determined by my personal sym
pathies, tastes, or feelings, I should be as ready as any man
to condemn the institution of slavery ; for all my prejudices of
education, habit, and social position stand entirely opposed to
it. But as a Christian, I am solemnly warned not to be " wise
in my own conceit," and not to "lean to my own under
standing." As a Christian, I am compelled to submit niy

BIBLE "VIEW OF SLAVERY. 7
weak and erring intellect to the authority of the Almighty.
For then only can I be safe in my conclusions, when I know
that they are in accordance with the will of Efim, before
whose tribunal I must render a strict account in the last
great day.
I proceed, accordingly, to the evidence of the sacred
Scriptures, which, long ago, produced xiomplete conviction
in my own mind, and must, as I regard it, be equally con
clusive to every candid and sincere inquirer. When the
array of positive proof is exhibited, I shall consider the
objections, and examine theii" validity with all the fairness
in my power.
The first appearance of slavery in the Bible is the won
derful prediction of the patriarch Noah : " Cursed be Canaan,
a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed
be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall he his servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents
of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.'''' (Gen. 9 : 25.)
The heartless irreverence which Ham, the father of
Canaan, displayed toward his eminent parent, whose piety
had just saved him from the deluge, presented the imme
diate occasion for this remarkable prophecy ; but the actual
fulfilment was reserved for his posterity, after they had
lost the knowledge of God, and become ,utterly polluted by
the abominations of heathen idolatry. The Almighty, foresee
ing this total degradation of the race, ordained them to servi
tude or slavery under the descendants of Shem and Japheth,
doubtless because he judged it to be their fittest condition.
And all history proves how accurately the prediction has
been accomplished, even to the present day.
We come next to the proof that slavery was sanctioned
by the Deity in the case of Abraham, whose three hundred
and eighteen bond-servants, born in his own house, (Gen.
14 : 14,) are mentioned along with those who were bought
with his money, as proper subjects for circumcision. (Gen.

8 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
17:12.) His wife Sarah had also an Egyptian slave, named
Hagar, who fled from her severity. And " the angel of the
Lo^d " commanded the fugitive to return to her mistress and
'submit herself. (Gen. 16:9.) If the philanthropists of our
age, who profess to believe the Bible, had been willing to
take the counsel of that angel for their guide, it would have
preserved the peace and welfare of the Union.
The third proof that slavery was authorized by the Al-
.mighty occurs in the last of the Ten Commandments, deliv-
"ered from Mount Sinai, and universally acknowledged by
Jews and Christians as the moeal law : " Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neigh
bor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor Ms maid-servant, nor
his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
(Exod. 20: 17.) Here it is evident that the principle of
'property — " any thing that is thy neighbor's " — runs through
the whole. I am quite aware, indeed, of the prejudice which
many good people entertain against the idea of property in
a human being, and shall consider it, in due time, amongst
the objections. I am equally aware that the wives of our
day may take umbrage at the law which places them in the
same sentence with the slave, and even with the house and
the cattle. But the truth is none the less certain. The
husband has a real property in the wife, because she is
\)Ound, for life, to serve and to obey him. The wife has a
real property in her husband, because he is bound, for life,
to cherish and maintain her. The character of property is
doubtless modified by its design. But whatever, whether
person or thing, the law appropriates to an individual, be
comes of necessity his property.
The fourth proof, however, is yet more express, as it is de
rived from the direct rule established by the wisdom of God
for his chosen people, Israel, on the very point in question,
viz.: " K thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve,

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 9
and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. If
he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he
were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his
master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons
or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master'' s,
and he shall go out by himself." (Exod. 21 : 2-4.) Here we
see that the separation of husband and wife is positively di
rected by the diviue command, in order to secure the pro
perty of the master in his bond-maid and her offspring. But
the husband had an alternative, if he preferred slavery to
separation. For thus the law of God proceeds : " If the
servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my
children ; I will not go out free ; then his master shall bring
him unto the judges ; he shall also bring him to the door or
unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear
through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever." (Exod.
21 : 5, 6.) With this law before his eyes, what Christian
can believe that the Almighty attached immorality or sin to
the condition of slavery ?
The treatment of slaves, especially as it regarded the de
gree of correction which the master might administer, occurs
in the same chapter, as foUows : " If a man smite his servant
or his maid with a rod, and 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. ''^
(Exod. 21 : 20, 21.) And again : " If a man smite the eye of
his servant or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let
him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his
man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let
him go free for his tooth's sake." (Exod. 21 : 26, 27.)
Here we see that the master was authorized to use corporal
correction toward his slaves, within certain limits. When
immediate death ensued, he was to be punished as the judges
might determine. But for all that came short of this, the
loss of his property was held to be a sufficient penalty.
1*

10 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
The next evidence furnished by the divine law appears in
the peculiar and admirable appointment of the Jubilee.
" Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty
throughout iiU the land to all the inhabitants thereof: it
shall be a Jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man
unto his possession, and ye shall return every man to his
family.'''' (Lev. 25 : 10.) This enactment, however, did
notaffect the slaves, because it only extended to the Israel
ites who had " a possession and a family," according to the
original distribution of the land among the tribes. The dis
tinction is plainly set forth in the same chapiter, viz. :
" If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor,
and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve
as a bond servant, but as a hired servant and as a sojourner,
he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of
Jubilee, and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his
children with him, and shall return unto his O'wn family,
and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For
they are my servants which I brought forth out of the land
of Egypt, they shall not be sold as bondmen. Both thy
bondmen and 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 ; thet shall be totte bond
men foeevee ; but over your brethren, the children of
Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor. For
nnto me the children of Israel are servants ; they are mv
servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt : i
am the Lord your God." (Lev. 39 : 40-46, with v. 65.)
The distinction here made, between the temporary servi
tude of the Israelite and the perpetual bondage of the

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 11
heathen race, is too plain for controversy. And this ex
press and positive law furnishes thetrue meaning of another
passage which the ultra-abolitionist is very fond of repeat
ing : " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant
which is escaped from his master unto thee : he 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." (Deut. 23 : 15, 16.) This evidently
must be referred to the case of a slave who had escaped
from a. foreign heathen master, and can not, with any sound
reason, be applied to the slaves of the Israelites themselves.
For it is manifest that if it were so applied, it would nullify
the other enactments of the divine Lawgiver, and it would
have been an absurdity to tell the people that they should
" buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen and the
stranger, to be their possession and the inheritance of.,
their children forever," while, nevertheless, the slaves
should be at liberty to run away and become freemen
when they pleased, ft is the well-known maxim, in the
interpretation of all laws, that each sentence shall be so
construed as to give a consistent meaning to ^he whole.
And assuredly, if we are bound to follow this rule in the
legislation of earth, we can not be less bound to follow it
in the legislation of the Almighty. The meaning that I
have adopted is the only one which agrees with the estab
lished principle of Idgal construction, anfl it has invariably
been sanctioned by the doctors of the Jewish law, and
every respectable Christian commentator.
Such, then, is the institution of slavery, laid down by
the Lord God of Israel for his chosen people, and contin
ued for fifteen centuries, until the new dispensation of the
Gospel. What change did this produce? I grant, of
course, that we, as Christians, are bound by the precepts
and example of the Saviour and his apostles. Let us
now, therefore, proceed to the all-important inquiry, whether

12 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
we are authorized by these to presume that the Mosaic
system was done away.
First, then, we ask what the divine Redeemer said in
reference to slavery. And the answer is perfectly unde
niable : He did not allude to it at all. Not one word
of censure upon the subject is recorded by the Evangel
ists who gave His life and doctrines to the world. Yet
slaA'ery was in full existence at the time, throughout Judea ;
and the Roman empire, according to the historian Gibbon,
contained sixty millions of slaves, on the lowest probable
computation ! How prosi^erous and united would our glo
rious republic be at this hour, if the eloquent and pertina
cious declaimers against slavery had been willing to follow
their Saviour's example !
But did not our Lord substantially repeal the old law,
by the mere fact that he established a new dispensation ?
Certainly not, unless they were incompatible. And that
he did not consider them incompatible is clearly proved
by his own express declaration. " Think not," saith he,
" th.it I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matt. 5:17.) On
that point, therefore, this single passage is perfectly con
clusive. It is said by some, however, that the great principle of
the Gospel, love to God and love to man, necessarily involv
ed the condemnation of slavery. Yet how should it have
any such result, when we remember that this was no new
principle, but, on the contrary, was laid down by the Deity
to his own chosen people, and was quoted from the Old
Testament by the Saviour himself ? And why should slavery
be thought inconsistent with it ? In the relation of master
and slave, we are assured by our Southern brethren that
there is incomparably more mutual love than can ever be
found betweeh the employer and the hireling. And I can
readily believe it, for the very reason that it is a relation for

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 13
life ; and the parties, when rightly disposed, must therefore
foel a far stronger and deeper interest in each other.
The next evidence, which proves that the Mosaic law was
not held to be inconsistent with the Gospel, occurs in the
statement of the apostles to St. Paul, made some twenty
years, at least, after the establishment of the first Christian
churctr in Jerusalem. " Thou seest, brother," said they,"
" how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and
they are all zealous of the lawP (Acts 21 : 20.) How could
this ha-pe been possible, if the law was supposed to be abol
ished by the new dispensation ?
But the precepts and the conduct of St. Paul himself, the
great apostle of the Gentiles, are all-sufficient, because he
meets the very point, and settles the whole question. Thus
he saith to the Ephesians : "Servants," (in the original Greek,
bond servants or slaves,) "be obedient to them that are your'
masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in
singleness of your hearts, as unto Christ. Not with eye-ser
vice, 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 unto men, knowing that whatsoever
good thing any man, doeth, the sarae shall he receive of the
Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the
same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that _
your Master also is in heaven, neither is there any respect
of persons -with him." (Eph. 6 : 5-9.)
Again, to the Colossians, St. Paul repeats the same com
mandments. " Servants," (that is, bond servants or slaves,) ^
" obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not
with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart,
fearing God." (Col. 3 : 22.) " Masters, give unto your ser
vants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also
have a master in heaven." (Col. 4 : 1.)
Again, the same inspired teacher lays down the law in
very strong terms, to Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephesus ;

14 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
" Let as many servants as are under the yoke," (that is, the
yoke of bondage,) " count their own masters worthy of all
honoi-, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blas
phemed. 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 ariy man
teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the
words of our Lord Jesvs 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 the 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 noth
ing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith
content." (1 Tim. 6 : 1-8.)
Lastly, St. Paul, in his Epistle to Philemon, informs him
that he had sent back his fugitive slave, whom the Apostle
had converted to the Christian faith during his imprison
ment, asking the master to forgive and receive his penitent
disciple. , " I beseech thee for my son Onesimus," saith he,
" whom I have begotten in my bonds, which in time pa^t
was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to
me, whom I have sent again : thou therefore receive him that
is mine own bowels, whom I would have retained with me,
that in thy stead he might have ministered unto 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 neces
sity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for
a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever, not now as
a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially
to me, but how much more to thee, both in the fiesh and in
the Lord? If thou countest me therefore a partner, receive

BIBLE VIEW OP SLAVERY. 15
him as myself. If he hath wronged thee or oweth thee aught,
put that on mine account. I Paul have written it with mine
own hand, I will repay it ; albeit I do not say to thee how
thou owest unto me thine own soul besides." (Ep. to Phile
mon 5, 10, 19.)
The evidence of the New Testament is thus complete,
plainly proving that the institution of slavery was not abol
ished by the Gospel. Compare now the course of the ultra-
abolitionist, with that of Christ and his inspired apostle.
The divine Redeemer openly rebukes the sanctimonious
Pharisees, " who made void the law of God by their tradi
tions." He spares not the wealthy, infidel Sadducees. He
denounces the hypocritical Scribes, who " loved the upper
most rooms at feasts and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi."
He calls the royal Herod " that fox," entirely regardless of _
the king's displeasure. He censm-es severely the Jewish
practice of divorcing their wives for the slightest cause, and
vindicates the original sanctity of marriage. He tells the
deluded crowd of his enemies that they are " the children oi
the devil, and that the lusts of their fathers they would do."
He makes a scourge of small cords, and drives the buyers
and sellers out of the temple. And while he thus rebukes
the sins of all around him, and speaks with divine authority,
he proclaims himself the special friend and patron of the
poor — preaches to them his blessed doctrine, on the moun
tain, by the sea-side, or in the public streets, under the open
canopy of heaven — heals their diseases, partakes of their
humble fare, and, passing by the rich and the great, chooses
lm_apostles from the ranks of the publicans and the fisher-
/men of Galilee. Yet he lived in the midst of slavery, mainX
tained over the old heathen races, in accordance with the
Mosaic law, and uttered not one word against it ! What
proof can be stronger than this, that he did not regard it as ^
a sin or a moral evil ? And what contrast can be moi-e'
manifest than this example of Christ on the one hand, and

16 BIBLE VIEW OF SLA"VERY.
the loud and bitter denunciations of our anti-slavery preach
ers and politicians, calling themselves Christians, on the
other ? For they not only set themselves ag.iingt the Word
of God in this matter, condemning slavery as the "monster
sin," the " sum of all villainies," but — strange to say — they
do it in the very name of that Saviour whose whole line of
conduct was the very opposite of their own !
Look next at the contrast afforded by the inspired Apos
tle of the Gentiles. He preaches to the slave, and tells him
to be obedient to his master for Christ's sake, faithful and
submissive, as a main branch of religious duty. He preaches
to the master, and tells him to be just and equal to his slave,
knowing that his Master is in heaven. He finds a fugitive
slave, and converts him to the Gospel, and then sends him
back again to his old home with a letter of kind recom
mendation. Why does St. Paul act thus ? Why does he
not counsel the fugitive to claim his right to freedom, and
defend that right, if necessary, by the strong hand of vio
lence, even unto death ? Why does he not write to his dis
ciple, Philemon, and rebuke him for the awful sin of holding
a fellow-man in bondage, and charge it upon him, as a solemn
duty, to emancipate his slaves, at the peril of his soul ?
The answer is very plain. St. Paul was inspired, and knew
the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was only intent on
obeying it. And who are we, that in our modern wisdom
presume to set aside the Word of God, and scorn the ex
ample of the divine Redeemer, and spurn the preaching and
the conduct of the apostles, and invent "for ourselves a
" higher law " than those holy Scriptures which are given
to us as " a light to our feet and a lamp to our paths," in the
darkness of a sinful and a })olluted world ? Who are we
that virtually blot out the language of the sacred record
and dictate to the majesty of heaven what he shall reo-ard
as sin and reward as duty ? Who are we that are ready to
trample on the doctrine of the Bible, and tear to shreds the

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 17
Constitution of our country, and even plunge the land into
the untold horrors of civil war, and yet boldly pray to the
-God of Israel to bless our very acts of rebellion against his
own sovereign authority? Woe to our Union when the
blind become the leaders of the blind ! Woe to the man
who dares to " strive against his Maker !"
Yet I do not mean to charge the numerous and respectable
friends of this popular delusion with a willful or conscious
opposition to the truth. They are seduced, doubtless, in the
great majority of cases, by the feelings of a false philanthro
py, which palliates, if it can not excuse, their dangerous
error.. Living far away from the Southern States, with no
practical experience of the institution, and accustomed from
their childhood to attach an inordinate value ' to their per
sonal liberty, they are naturally disposed to compassionate
the negro race, and to believe that the slave must be su
premely wretched in his bondage. They are under no spe
cial inducement to " search the Scriptures" on this par
ticular subject, nor are they in general, I am sorry to say,
accustomed to study the Bible half as much as they read the
newspapers, the novel, and the magazine. There they find
many revolting pictures of slavery, and they do not pause to
ask the question whether they are just and faithful. Perhaps
a fugitive comes along, who has fled from his master, and
who, in justification of himself, will usually give a very dis
torted statement of the facts, even if he does not invent them
altogether. And these good and kind-hearted people believe
it all implicitly, without ever remembering the rule about
hearing both sides before we form our opinion. Of course,
they sympathize warmly with the poor oppressed African,
and are generously excited to hate the system of slavery with
all their heart. Then the eloquent preacher chooses it for the
favorite topic of his oratory. The theme is well adapted to
rouse the feelings, and it is usually by no means difficult to
interest and gratify the audience, when the supposed sins of

18 BIBLE VIEW- OF SLAVERY.
others, which they are under no temptation to commit, are
made the object of censure. In due time, when the public
mind is sufficiently heated, the politician lays hold of the
subject, and makes the anti-slavery movement the watch
word of party. And finally the Press follows in the wake
of the leaders, and the fire is industriously fanned until it
becomes a perfect blaze; while the admiring throng sur
round it with exultation, and fancy its lurid light to be
from heaven, until the flames begin to threaten theii- own
security. Such has been the perilous course of our Northern senti
ment on the subject of slavery. The great majority, in
every community, are the creatures of habit, of association,
and of 'impulse ; and every allowance should be made for
those errors which are committed in ignorance, under a gen
erous sympathy for what they suppose to be the rights of
man. I can not, however, make the same apology for those
who are professionally pledged to understand and inculcate
the doctrines of the Bible. On that class of our public in
structors, the present perilous crisis of the nation casts a
fearful responsibility. Solemly bound by their sacred office
to preach the "Word of God, and to follow Christ and his
apostles, as the heralds of " peace and good will to men,"
they seem to me strangely regardless, on this important sub
ject, of their highest obligations. But it is not for me to
judge them. To their own Master, let them stand or fall.
I have promised, however, to notice the various objections
which have been raised in the popular mind to the institution
of Southern slavery, and to these I shall now proceed.
First on this list stand the propositions of the far-famed
Declaration of Independence, " that all men are created
equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." These statements are here called
" self-evident truths." But with due respect to the cele-

BIBLE VlFW OF SLAVERY. 19
brated names which are appended to this document, I have
never been able to comprehend that they are "truths" at all.
In what respect are men " created equal," when every
thoughtful person must be sensible that they are brought
into the world with all imaginable difference in body, in
^mind, and in every characteristic of their social position ?
Notwithstanding mankind have all descended from one com
mon parent, yet we see them divided into distinct races, so
strongly marked, that infidel philosophers insist on the im
possibility of their having the same ancestry ._ W here is the
equality in body between the child born with the hereditary
taint of scrofula or consumption, and the infant filled with
health and vigor ? Where is the equality in ?n/«c? between
one who is endowed with talent and genius, and another
whose intellect borders on idiocy ? Where is the equality
in social position between the son of the Esquimaux or Hot
tentot, and the heir of the American statesman or British
peer ?
Neither am I able to admit that all men are endowed with
\}iie^ unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi
ness, because it is manifest that since " sin entered into the
world, and death by sin," they are all alienated, forfeited
and lost through the consequences of transgression. Life is
alienated not only by the sentence of the law, but by in
numerable forms of violence and accident. Liberty is alien
ated not only by imprisonment, but by the irresistible re
straints of social bondage to the will, the temper, the preju
dices, the customs, or the interests of others, so that there.
is hardly an individual to be found, even in the most favored
community, who has really the liberty of word and action so
confidently asserted as the unalienable right of all men. And
as regards the "pursuit of happiness," alas ! what multitudes
alienate their right to it, beyond recovery, not only in the
cells of the penitentiary, but in the reckless indulgence of
their appetites and passions, in the disgust arising from ill-

20 BIBLE VIEW OP SLAVERY.
chosen conjugal relations, in their associations with the pro-
fiigate and the vile, in the pain and suffering of sickness and
poverty as the results of vice, in the ruin of the gambler, the
delirium of the drunkard, the despair of the suicide, and in
every other form of moral contamination !
If it be said, however, that the equality and unalienable
rights of all men, so strongly asserted by this famous De
claration, are only to be taken in a political sense, I am will
ing to concede that this may be the proper interpretation of
its intended meaning, but I can not see how it removes the
difficulty. The statement is that "all men are created equal,"
and that " the Ceeatoe has endowed them with these un
alienable rights." Certainly if the authors of this celebrated
document designed to speak only of political rights and po
litical equality, they should not have thus referred them to
the act of creation ; because it is perfectly obvious that since
the beginning of human government, men have. been created
with all imaginable inequality, under slavery, under despot
ism, under aristocracy, under limited monarchy, under every
imaginable form of political strife and political oppression.
In no respect whatever, that I can discover, has the Al
mighty sent our race into the world with these imaginary
rights and this fanciful equality. In his sight the whole
world is sinful, rebellious, and lying under the just condem
nation of his violated laws. Our original rights, whatever
they might have been, are all forfeited and gone. And since
the fall, mankind have no rights to claim at the hands of the
¦Creator. Our whole dependence is on his mercy and com
passion. And he dispenses these according to his sovereign
will and pleasure, on no system of equality that any human
eye can discover, and yet, as every Christian must believe,
on the eternal principles of perfect benevolence, in union
with impartial justice, and boundless knowledge, and wis
dom that can not err.
Where, then, I ask, did the authors of the Declaration of

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 21 •
Independence find their warrant for such a statement ? It
was probably judicipus enough to call these propositions
" self-evident truths," because it seems manifest that no man
can prove them. To estimate aright the vast diversity
among the races of mankind, we may begin with our own,
the highly privileged Anglo-Saxon, which now stands at the
head, although our ancestors were heathen barbarians only
two thousand years ago. From this we may go down the
descending scale through the Turks, the Chinese, the Tar
tars, the Japanese, the Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Indian
tribes, the Laplanders, the Abyssinians, the Africans, and
how is it possible to imagine that God has made them all
equal! As truly might it be said that all the trees of the
forest are equal — that all the mountains, and seas, and rivers
are equal — that all the beasts of the field are equal — that all
the birds of the air are equal. The facts rather establish the
very contrary. The Deity seems to take pleasure in exhibit
ing a marvelous wealth of power through the rich variety of
all his works, so that no two individuals of any species can
be found in all respects alike. And hence we behold a grand
system of oedee and gead ation, from the thrones, dominions,
principalities, and powers in heavenly places, rank below
rank, to man. And then we see the same system throughout
our earth displayed in the variety of races, some higher,
some lower in the scale — in the variety of governments, from
pure despotism to pure democracy — in the variety of privi
lege and power among the subjects of each government,
some being born to commanding authority and influence,
whUe others are destined to submit and obey. Again, we
behold the system continued in the animal creation, from the
lordly lion do'wn to the timid mole, from the eagle to the
humming bird, from the monsters of the deep to the sea-star
in its shell. The same plan meets .us in the insect tribes.
Some swift and powerful, others slow and weak, some mar
shaled into a regular government — monarchy in the bee-hive,

22 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
aristocracy in the ant-hill, while others, like the flies, have
no government at all. And in perfect harmony with this
divine arrangement, the inanimate creation presents us with
the same vast variety. The canopy of heaven is studded
with orbs of light, all differing in magnitude, all differing in
. radiance, and all yielding to the sovereign splendor of the
sun. The earth is clothed with the most profuse diversity
of vegetation, from the lofty palm down to the humble moss.
The mineral kingdom shines with gold, silver, iron, copper,
and precious stones, in all conceivable forms and colors.
From the mammoth cave down to the minutest crystal —
from mountains of granite down to the sand upon the shore,—
all is varied, multiform, unequal : yet each element has its
specific use and beauty, and the grand aggregate unites in
the sublime hymn of praise to the wisdom, the goodness, and
the stupendous resources of that ineffable power which pro
duced the whole.
This brief and most inadequate sketch of the order of cre
ation may serve at least to show that the manifest inequality
in the condition of mankind is no exception to the rule, but
is sustained by all analogy. It is the will of God that it
should be so, and no human sagacity or effort can prevent
it. And the same principle exists in our political relations.
We may talk as we please of our equality in political rights
and privileges, but in point of fact, there is no such thing.
Amongst the other civihzed nations it is not even pretended.
None of the great galaxy orEuropean governments can have
a better title to it than England, yet who would be so ab
surd as to claim political equality in a land of monarchy, of
hereditary nobles, of time-honored aristocracy ? The best ap
proach to political equality is confessedly here, and here only.
Yet even here, amidst the glories of our universal suffrao-e
where is it to be found ? Political equality, if it means any
thing, must mean that every man enjoys the same right to
political office and honor ; because the polity of any govern-

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 23
ment consists in its system of administration, and hence it
results, of necessity, that those who can not possibly be ad
mitted to share in this administration, have no political
equality with those who can. We do, indeed, say that the
people are sovereign. But every one knows full well that
the comparative few who are qualified to take the lead, by
talent, by education, by natural tact, and by a conjunction
of favoring circumstances, are practically sovereigns over the
people. The man who carries a hod gives his vote for the
candidate. The candidate himself can do no more, so far as
it concerns the mere form of election. Are they therefore
politically equal ? Who formed the party to which the can
didate belongs ? Who ruled the convention by which his
name was put upon the list ? Who arranged the orators
for the occasion? Who subsidized the Press^? Had the
poor hodman any share in the operation, any influence, any
voice whatever ? No more than the hod which he carries.
Can any human power ever manufacture a candidate out of
him f The notion would be preposterous. Where, then, is
his political equality ? Even here, in our happy land of uni
versal suffrage, how does it appear that " all men are born
equal"? The proposition is a sheer absurdity. All men
are born unequal, in body, in mind, and social privileges.
Their intellectual faculties are unequal. Their education is
unequal. Their associations are unequal. Their opportuni
ties are unequal. And their freedom is as unreal as their
equality. The poor are compelled to serve the rich, and the
rich are compelled to serve the poor by paying for their
services. The political party is compelled to serve the lead
ers, and the leaders are compelled to scheme and toil in order
to serve the party. The multitude are dependent on the
few who are endowed with talents to govern. And the few
are dependent on the multitude for the power, without which
all government is impossible. From the top to the bottom
of the social fabric, the whole is thus seen to be inequality

24 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. ,
and mutual dependence. And hence, although they are free
from that special kind of slavery which the Southern States
maintain over the posterity of Ham, yet they are all, from
the highest to the lowest, in bondage quite as real, from
which they can not escape — the slavery of circumstances,
called, in the ordinary language of the world, necessity.
I have been, I fear, unreasonably tedious in thus endeavor
ing to show why I utterly discard these famous propositions
of the Declaration of Independence. It is because I am
aware of the strong hold which they have gained over
the ordinary mind of the nation. They are assumed by
thousands upon thousands, as if they were the very doctrines
of divine truth. And they are made the basis of the hostile
feeling against the slavery of the South, notwithstanding
their total want of rationality. Yet I do not wonder that
such maxims should be popular. They are admirably cal
culated to gratify the pride and ambition so natural to the
human heart, and are therefore powerful incentives in the
work of political revolution. It was for this purpose, I pre
sume, that they were introduced in that famous document,
which publicly cast off the allegiance of the colonies to the
British crown. And the same doctrines were proclaimed a
few years later, in a similar service, by the French Directory,
in the midst of a far more terrible revolution. Liberty, equal
ity, and fraternity — the eights of man — were then the
watchwoi'ids of the excited populace, while their insane
leaders published the decree of Atheism, and a notorious
courtesan was enthroned as the goddess of reason, and the
guillotine daily massacred the victims of democratic fury,
till the streets of Paris ran with blood.
I do not state this fact because I desire to place the revo
lutions in the Colonies and in Prance on the same founda
tion, with respect to the S2jirit or the mode in which they
were conducted. God forbid that I should forget the mark
ed features of contrast between them! On the one side

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 25
there was religious reverence, strong piety, and pure disin
terested patriotism. On the other, there was the madness
of Atheism, the brutality of ruffianism, and the "reign of
terror " to all that was good and true. In no one mark or
character, indeed, could I deem that there was any comparison
between them, save in this : that the same false assumption
of human equality and human rights was adopted in both.
Yet how widely different was their result on the question
of negro slavery! The American revolution produced no
effect whatever on that institution ; while the French revo
lution roused the slaves of their colony in St. Domingo to a
general insurrection, and a scene of barbarous and cruel
butchery succeeded, to which the history of the world con-
tains^no parallel.
This brings me to the last remarks which I have to pre
sent on this famous Declaration. And I respectfully ask
my readers to consider them maturely. .
First, then, it seems manifest, that when the signers of
this document assumed that " all men were born equal,"
they did not take the negro race into account at all. It is
unquestionable that the author, Mr. Jefferson, was a slave
holder at the time, and continued so to his life's end. It is
certain that the great majority of the other signers of the
Declaration were slaveholders likewise. No one can be
ignorant of the fact that slavery had been introduced into
all the colonies long before, and continued to exist long after,
in every State save one. Surely, then, it can not be pre
sumed that these able and sagacious men intended to stultify
themselves by declaring that the negro race had rights,
which nevertheless they were not ready io give them. And
yet it is e'ddent that we must either impute this crying
injustice to our revolutionary patriots, or suppose that the
case of the slaves was not contemplated.
Nor is this a solitary example, for we have a complete
parallel to it in the preamble to the Constitution, where the
2

26 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
important phrase, " We, the people of the United States,'
must be understood with tlie very same limitation. Who
were the people ? ' Undoubtedly the free citizens who voted
for the Constitution. Were the slaves counted as a part of
that people ? By no means. The negro race h.ad no voice,
no vote, no infiuence whatever in the matter. Thus, there
fore, it seems perfectly plain that both these instruments
must be understood according to the same rule of interpre
tation. The slaves were not included in the Declaration of
Independence, for the same reason precisely that they were
not included amongst the " people " who adopted the Con
stitution of the United States.
Now it is the established maxim of the law, that every
written document must be understood according to the true
intent of the parties when it was executed. The language
employed may be such that it admits of a different sense ;
but there can be, only one just interpretation, and that is
fixed unalterably by the apparent meaning of its authors at
the time. On this ground alone, therefore, I respectfully
contend that the Declaration of Independence has no claim
whatever to be considered in the controversy of our day. I
have stated, at some length, my reasons for rejecting its
famous propositions, as being totally fallacious and unten
able. But even if they were ever so " self-evident," or
capable of the most rigid demonstration, the rule of la-w
utterly forbids us to appeal to them in a sense which they
were not designed to bear.
In the second place, however, it should be remembered
that the Declaration of Independence, whether true or false,
whether it be interpreted legally or illegally, forms no part
of our present system. As a great historical document, it
stands, and must ever stand, prominent before the nations
of the world. But it was put forth more than seven years
anterior to the Constitution. Its language was not adopted
in that Constitution, and it has no place whatever in the

BIBLE VIEW OP SLAVERY. 27
obligatory law of the United States. When our orators,
our preachers, and our politicians, therefore, take its propo
sitions about human rights and human equality, and set
them up as the supreme law, overruling the Constitution
and the acts of Congress, which are the real law of the land,
I can not wonder enough at the absurdity of the proceeding.
And I doubt whether the annals of civilized mankind can
furnish a stronger instance of unmitigated perversity.
Thirdly, and lastly, I am utterly opposed to those popular
propositions, not only because I hold them to be altogether
fallacious and untrue, for the reasons already given, but
further, because their tendency is in direct contrariety to
the precepts of the Gospel, and the highest interests of the
individual man. For what is the imavoidable effect of this
doctrine of human equality ? Is it not to nourish the spirit
of pride, en'vy, and contention ? to set the servant against
the master, the poor against the rich, th& weak against the
strong, the ignorant against, the educated ? to loosen all
the bonds and relations of society, and reduce the whole
duty of subordination to the selfish cupidity of pecuniary
interest, without an atom of respect for age, for office, for
law, for government, for Pro'vidence, or for the Word of
God? I do not deny, indeed, that this doctrine of equality is a
doctrine of immense power to urge men forward in a con
stant struggle for advancement. Its natural operation is to
force the vast majority into a ceaseless contest with their
circumstances, each discontented with his lot, so long as he
sees any one else above him, and toiling with unceasing
effort to rise upon the social scale of wealth and importance,
as fast and as far as he can. There is no principle of stronger
impulse to stimulate^ ambition in every department. And
hence arises its manifold influence on the business, the enter
prise, the commerce, the manufactures, the agriculture, the
amusements, the fashions, and the political strifes of our

28 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
Northern people, making them all restless, all aspiring, and
all determined, if possible, to pass their rivals in the race of
selfish emulation.
But how does it 6perate on the order, the stability, and
the ultimate prosperity of the nation ? How does it work
on the steadfast administration of justice, the honor and
purity of our public officers, the quiet subordination of the
various classes in the community, the fidelity and submission
of domestics, the obedience of children, and the' relations of
family and home ? Above all, how does it harmonize with
the great doctrines of the Bible, that the Almighty Ruler
appoints to every man his lot on earth, and commands ^him
to be satisfied and thankful for his portion — that we must
submit ourselves to those who have the rule over us — that
we should obey the laws and honor the magistrates — that
the powers that be are ordained of God, and he that resist-
eth the power shall receive condemnation — that we may not
covet the property of others — ^that having food and raiment,
we should be therewith content — that we must avoid strife,
contention, and railing accusations, and follow peace, char
ity, and good will, remembering that the service of Christ
is the only perfect freedom, and that our true happiness de
pends not on the measure of our earthly wealth, on social
equality, on honor, or on our relative position in the com
munity, but on the fulfilment of our jjersonal duty according
to our lot, in reliance on his blessing ?
I have no more to add with respect to this most popular
dogma of human equality, and shall therefore dismiss it, as
fallacious in itself, and only mischievous in its tendency. As
it is the stronghold of the ultra-abolitionist, I have devoted
a large space to its examination, and trust that the conclu
sion is sufficiently plain. Happily it forms no part of our
Constitution or our laws. It never was intended to apply
to the question of negro slavery. And it never can be so
applied without a total perversion of its historical meaning.

BIBLE VIEW OP SLAVERY. ' 29
and an absolute contrariety to all the facts of humanity, and
the clear instruction of the Word of God.
The next objection to the Slavery of the Southern States
is its presumed cruelty, because the refractory slave is pun
ished with corporal correction. But our Northern law al
lows the same in the case of children and apprentices. Such
was the established system in the army and the navy until
' very lately. The whipping-post was a fixed institution in
England and Massachusetts, and its discipline was adminis
tered even to free citizens during the last century. Stripes,
not exceeding forty, were appointed to offenders in Israel
by divine authority. The Saviour himself used a scourge
of small cords when he drove the money-changers from the
temple. Are our modern philanthropists more merciful than
Christ, and wiser than the Almighty ?
But it is said that the poor slaves are treated with barbar
ity, and doubtless it may sometimes be true, just as sol
diers and sailors, and even wives and children, are shame
fully abused amongst ourselves, in many instances. It is
evident, however, that the system of slavery can not be spe
cially liable to reproach on this score, because every motive
of interest as well as moral duty must be opposed to it. The
owner of the horse and the ox rarely tteats his brutes with
severity. Why should he ? The animals are his property,
and he knows that they must be kindly and carefully used
if he would derive advantage from their labor. Much more
must the master of the slave be expected to treat him with
all fairness and affection, because here there are human feel
ings to be influenced, and if the servant be not contented
and attached, not only will he work unwillingly, but he may
be converted into an enemy and an avenger. When the
master is a Christian, the principles of the Gospel, as laid
down by St. Paul, will operate, of course, in favor of the
slave. But even when these are wanting, the motives of
interest and prudence remain. And hence I can not doubt

30 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
that the examples of barbarity must be exceedingly few, and
ought to.be regarded, not as the general rule, but as the
rare exceptions. On the whole, indeed, I see no reason to
deny the statement of our Southern friends, that their slaves
are the happiest laborers in the worid. Their wants are all
provided for by their master. Their families are sure of a
home and maintenance for life. In sickness they are kindly
nursed. In old age they are affectionately supported. They
are relieved from all anxiety for the future. Their religious ,
privileges are generously accorded to^them. Their work is
light. Their holidays are numerous. And hence the strong
affection which they usually manifest toward their master,
and the earnest longing which many, who were persuaded
to become fugitives, have been known to express, that they
might be able to return.
The third objection is, that slavery must be a sin because
it leads to immorality. But where is the evidence of this ?
I dispute not against the probability and even the certainty
that there are instances of licentiousness enough among
slaveholders, just as there are amongst those who vilify
them. It would be a difficult, if not an impossible task,
however, to prove that there is more immorality amongst
the slaves themselves, than exists amongst the lower class
of freemen. In Sabbath-breaking, profane cursing and
swearing, gambling, drunkenness, and quarreling — in bi;utal
abuse of wives and children, in rowdyism and obscenity, in
the vilest excesses of shameless prostitution — to say nothing
of organized bands of counterfeiters, thieves and burglars —
I doubt whether there are not raore offenses against Christ
ian morality committed in the single city of New- York than
can be found amongst the slave population of all the fifteen
States together. The fact would rather seem to be that the
wholesorae restraints of slavery, as a general rule, must be,
to a great extent, an effectual check upon the. worst kinds of
immorality. And therefore this charge, so often brought

BIBLE VIEW OP SLAVERY. 31
against it, stands entirely unsupported either by positive
proof OY by rational probability.
The fourth objection is advanced by a multitude of excel-
"lent people, who are shocked at the institution of slavery
because it involves the principle df property in man. Yet I
have never been able to understand what it is that so dis
gusts them. No slaveholder pretends that this property
extends any further than the right to the labor of the slave.
It is obvious to the slightest reflection that slavery can no"t
bind the intellect or the soul. These, which properly con
stitute the MAN, are free, in their own nature, from all human
restraint. But to have a property in human labor, under
. some form, is an essential element in all the work of civiliz
ed society. The toil of one is pledged for the service of
another in every rank of life ; and to the extent thus pledg
ed, both parties have a property in each other. The parent
especiaUy has an established property in the labor of his
chUd to the age of twenty-one, and has the further power
of- transferring this property to another by articles of ap
prenticeship. But this, it may be said, ends when the child
is of age. True ; because the law presumes him to be then
fitted for freedom. Suppose, however, that he belonged to '
an inferior race which the law did not presume to be fitted
for freedom at any age, what good reason could be assigned
against the continuance of the property ? Such, under the
rule of the Scriptures and the Constitution of the United
States, is the case of the negro. God, in his wisdom and
providence, caused the patriarch Noah to predict that he
should be the servant of servants to the posterity of Japheth.
And the same almighty Ruler, who alone possesses the
power, has wonderfully adapted the race to their condition.
For every candid obseryer agrees that the negro is hajjpier
and better as a slave than as a free man, and no individual
belonging to the Anglo-Saxon stock would .icknowledge that
the intellect of the negro is equal to his own.

32 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
There have been philosophers and physiologists who con
tended that the African race were not strictly entitled to be
called men at all, but were a sort of intermediate link be
tween the baboon and the human being. And this notion
is StiU maintained by some at the present day. For myself,
however, I can only say that I repudiate the doctrine with
my whole heart. The Scriptures show me that the negro,
like all other races, descends from Noah, and I hold him to
be a MAN AND A beothee. But though he be my brother,
it does not follow that he is my equal. Equality can not be
found on earth between the brothers even in one little fam
ily. In the same house, one brother usually obtains a mas
tery over the rest, and sometimes rules them Avith a perfect
despotism. In England, the elder brother inherits the es
tate, and the younger brothers take a lower rank by the
slavery of circumstances. The eldest son of the royal family
is in due time the king, and his brothers forthwith become
his subjects. Why should not the same principle obtain in
the races of mankind, if the Almighty has so willed it ? The
Anglo-Saxon race is king ; wliy should not the African race
be subject, and subject in that way for which it is best
adapted, and in which it raay be more safe, more useful, and
more happy than in any other which has yet been opened
to it, in the annals of the world ?
I know that there may be exceptions, now and then, to
this intellectual inferiority of the negro race, though I be-
live it would be very difficult to find one, unless the inter
mixture of superior blood has operated to change the ment.al
constitution of the individual. For all such cases the master
may provide by voluntary emancipation, and it is notorious
that this emancipation has been cheerfully given in thousands
upon thousands of instances, in the majority of which the
gift of liberty has failed to benefit the negro, and has, on the
contrary, sunk him far lower in his social position. But no
reflecting man can believe that the great mass of the sla-yes,

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 33
amoimting to nearly four millions, are qualified for free
dom. And therefore it is incomparably better for them to
remain under the government of their masters, who are likely
to firovide for them so much more beneficially than they could
provide for themselves.
The difference then, between the power of the Northern
parent and the Southern slaveholder, is reduced to this,
namely, that the master has a property in the labor of his
slave for life, instead of having it only to the age of twenty-
one, because the law regards the negro as being always a
child in understanding, requiring a superior mind to govern
and direct him. But, on the other hand, the slave has just as
really a property for life in his master'' s support and protec
tion, and this property is secured to him by the sarae law, in
sickness and in health, in the helplessness of old age, as well
as in the days of youthful vigor, including, besides, a comfort
able maintenance for his wife and faraily. Can any rational
judgment devise a fairer equivalent ?
The fifth objection which often meets the Northern ear,
proceeds frora the overweening value attached, in our age and
country, to the name of liberfy, since it is common to call it
the dearest right of man, and to esteem its loss as the great
est possible calamity. Hence we frequently find persons
who imagine that the whole argument is triumphantly set
tled by the question : '¦'¦How would you like to be a slave f"
In answer to this very puerile interrogatory, I should say
that whether any condition in life is to be regarded as a loss
or an advantage, depends entirely on circumstances. Sui^-
pose, for example, that the Mayor of New- York should ask
one of its merchant-princes : " How would you like to be a
policeman ?" I doubt whether the question 'might not be
taken for an insult, and . some words of indignation Avould
probably be uttered in reply. But, suppose that the same
question were addressed to an Irish laborer, with what feel
ings would he receive it ? Assuredly with those of gratitude

34 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
and pleasure. The reason of the difference is obvious, because
the eraployment which would be a degradation to the one,
offers promotion and dignity to the other. In like manner,
slavery, to an individual of the Anglo-Saxon race, which oc
cupies so high a rank in human estimation, would be a de
basement not to be thought of with patience for a moment.
And yet, to the Guinea negro, sunk in heathen barbarism, it
would be a happy change to place him in the hands of a
Southern master. Even now, though the slaves have no idea
of the pagan abominations from which their forefathers were
taken, it is said that they usually value their privileges as
being far superior to the condition of the free negroes around
them, and prefer the certainty of protection and support for
life, to the hazards of the liberty on which the abolitionist
advises them to venture. How much more would they prize
their present lot, if they understood that, were it not for this
very institution of slavery, they would be existing in the
darkest idolatry and licentiousness among the savages of
Africa, under the despotic King of Dahomey, destitute of
every security for earthly comfort, and deprived of all reli
gious hopg for the world to corae !
If men would reflect maturely on the subject, they would
soon be convinced that liberty is a blessing to those, and
only those, who are able to iise it wisely. There are thou
sands in our land, free according to law, but so enslaved to
vice and the misery consequent on vice, that it would be a
mercy to place thera, supposing it were possible, under the
rule of some other will, stronger and better than their own.
As it is, they are in bondage to Satan, notwithstanding their
imaginary freedom ; and they do his bidding, not merely in
the work of the body, but in the far worse slavery of the
soul. Strictly speaking, however, the freest man on earth
has no absolute liberty, for this belongs alone to God, and is
not given to any creature. And hence it is the glory of the
Christian to be the bond servant of the divine Redeemer

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 85
who " bought us to himself with his own precious blood."
The service of Cheist, as saith the Apostle, is " the only
2?erfect freedomP All who refuse that service, are slaves
of necessity to other' masters ; slaves to Mammon ; slaves to
ambition ; slaves to lust ; slaves to intemperance ; slaves to
a thousand forms of anxious care and jierplexity ; slaves at
best to pride and worldly decorum, and slaves to circum
stances over which they have no control. And- they are
compelled to labor without ceasing under sorae or all of
these despotic rulers, at the secret will of that spiritual task
master, whose bondage does not end at death, but continues
to eternity.
The sixth objection arises from the fact that slavery sepa
rates the husband from the wife and the parents from the
children. Undoubtedly it sometimes .does so from necessity.
Before we adopt this fact, however, as an argument against
slavery, it is only fair to inquire whether the same separa
tion do not take place, perhaps quite as frequently, amongst
those who call themselves free. The laboring man who has
a large family is always obliged to separate from his child
ren, because it is impossible to support them in his humble
home. They are sent to service, therefore, one to this mas
ter and another to that, or bound' as apprentices, as the case
may be, and thus the doraestic relations are superseded by
strangers, for the most part beyond recovery. So among
the lower orders, the husbands are separated from their
wives by the same necessity. How many, even of the
better classes, have left their homes to seek their fortune
in the gold regions ! How many in Europe have aban
doned their famiUes for Australia, or the United States, or
the Canadas ! How many desert thera from j)ure wicked
ness — a crime which can hardly happen under the South
ern system I But above all, how constantly does this sepa
ration take place amongst our soldiers and sailors, so that
neither war nor fbreign- commerce could be carried on at

86 BIBLE VIEW OP SLAVERY.
all without it ! All these are borne by freemen, under the
slavery of circumstances. Is it wise to" declaim against this
necessity in one form, when we are forced to submit to it in
BO many other kinds of the same infliction ?
There is only one other argument which occurs ' to me,
requiring notice, and that is based upon the erroneous no-
cion that the laws of God under the Mosaic dispensation al
lowed polygamy as well as slavery ; and, therefore, it is
inferred that the legislation of the Old Testaraent is of no
authority upon the subject, but as the Gospel did away the
first, so also it should do away the other.
The facts here are misunderstood, and the inference is
without any real foundation. Let us look at the matter as
it is explained by the Saviour himself. " The Pharisees
came to him, tempting, hira, and saying unto him : Is it law
ful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? And
he answered and said unto them : Have ye not read that he
which made thera at the beginning made them male and fe
male ; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be
one fiesh ? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one
flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no
man put asunder. They say unto him : Why did Moses then
command to give a writing of divorcement, and put her
away ? He saith unto them : Moses, because of the hard
ness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives,
but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you.
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornica
tion, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and
whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery."
(Matt. 19 : 3-9.)
Now here our Lord plainly lays down the original law of
marriage, referring expressly to Adam and Eve, one man
and one woman, declared to be one flesh, and adding the
command. What God hath joined together, let no t,%an put

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 37
asunder. But it is evident that polygamy must, of neces
sity, interfere with this divine union. The tioain can no
longer be onejlesh, when another wife is brought between
them, because the new wife must deprive the former one of
her exclusive rights and privileges, and the husband de
stroys the very unity which God designed in joining them
together. The doctrine of our Saviour, therefore, restores
the law of marriage to its original sanctity ; and the apostles,
accordingly, always speak of the wife in the singular num
ber, in no instance appearing to contemplate the possibility
of the Christian having more wives than one, while, in the
case of a bishop, St. Paul specifies it as an essential condition
that he shaU be " the husband of one wife." (1 Tim. 3 : 2.)
But how had the chosen people been allowed for so many
centuries to practice polygamy, and divorce their wives for
the slightest cause ? Our Lord explains it by saying that
Moses suffered them to put away their wives " because of
the hardness of their hearts." The special questions ad
dressed to him by the Pharisees did not, indeed, refer to
polygamy, but only to the liberty of divorce, for at that
time it should seem that the firactice of polygamy had well-
nigh ceasfcd in Judea, and it is certainly not countenanced
by the Jewish laws at this day. The principle, however, is
precisely the same in the two cases. Dissatisfaction with
the present wife and desire for another were the cause of
action in both ; and when the husband did not wish to be
burdened by the mm-murs or the support of his old com
panion, he would naturally prefer to send her away, in order
to make room for her successor. We see, then, how readily
this facility of divorce became the mode in which the Jews
of that day sought for the gratification of their capricious
attachments, instead of the more expensive and troublesome
system of polygamy. And hence our Lord applied the
remedy, where it was specially required, by forbidding
divorces unless for the weightiest cause, such as adultery.

38 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
Yet this was no change in the divine arrangement, which
had been tlie same from the beginning. He expressly de
clares, on the contrary, that the latitude assumed by the
Israelites was an indulgence granted by Moses, on account
of " the hardness of their hearts." And this is a very dif
ferent thing from an authoritative decree of the Almighty,
It is surely therefore manifest, from this language of mir
Saviour, that God had never given any direct sanction to
polygamy. Doubtless, as we must infer from many parts
of the Old Testament, it had become common among the
Israelites, who, supposing themselves justified by the case
of Jacob, had probably adopted it in so many instances that
Moses did not think it safe or prudent to put it down, lest
worse evils might follow, unless he was constrained to do so
by the positive comraand of the Almighty. All that can be
truly stated, therefore, is, that no such positive command
was given, and the Deity left the human law-giver to use
his own discretion in the matter.
Such is the aspect of this question, according to the state
ment of our Lord, which must be conclusive to every Christ
ian. And hence we raay perceive, at once, that the case is
in no respect parallel to that of slavery. For here the Al
mighty caused his favored servant Noah to predict that the
posterity of Ham should be the servants of servants, under
the descendants of Shem and Jajjheth. He recognized the
bondman and the bondmaid in the Ten Comraandraents. He
laid down the positive law to Israel, that they should buy
the children of the heathen that were round about thera,
and of the strangers who dwelt in their land, to serve thera
and their farailies forever. The Saviour, when he appeared,
raade no allusion to the subject, but plainly declared that
he had not come to destroy the law. The first church of
believers in Jerusalem were all " zealous " for the law. And
St. Paul preached obedience to the slaves among the Gentile
churches, and sent a converted slave back to his Christian
master.

BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. 39
Where, then, is the resemblance between these cases ?
In the matter of divorce and polygamy, the Deity is silent,
leading them to the discretion of Moses, until the Messiah
should corae. But in regard to'the slavery of Ham's pos
terity, he issues his commands distinctly. And the Saviour
disclaims the intention to repeal the laws of his heavenly
Father, while he asserts the original design of marriage,
and his inspired Apostle gives express sanction to slavery,
and speaks of the one husband and the one wife, in direct
accordance with the word of his divine Master. Here,
therefore, it is plain that the cases are altogether unlike,
and present a contrast, rather than a comparison.
We know that the doctrine of the primitive church was
in harmony with this, for polygamy was never permitted,
nor divorces for trifling causes ; while slavery was allowed,
as being perfectly lawful, so long as the slave was treated
witti justice and kindness. The ancient canons sometimes
advert to the mode in which slaves might be corrected.
Bishops and clergy held slaves. In later times, bondmen
and bondmaids were,in the service of convents and monas
teries. And no scruple was entertained upon the subject
until the close of the last century, when the new light burst
forth which now dazzles the eyes of so many worthy people,
and blinds them not only to the plain statements of Scrip
tures, but to the interests of national unity and peace.
Thus, then, I have examined the various topics embraced
in your inquiry, and the conclusion which I have been cora-
pelled to adopt must be sufficiently manifest. The slavery
of the negro race, as maintained in the Southern States, ap
pears to me fully authorized, both in the Old and the New
Testament, which, as the written Word of God, afford the
only infallible standard of moral rights and obligations.
That very slavery, in ray humble judgment, has raised the
negro incomparably higher in the scale of humanity, and
seems, in fact, to be the only instrumentality through which

40 BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY.
the heathen posterity of Ham have been raised at aU. Out
of that slavery has arisen the interesting colony of Liberia,
planted by slaveholders, to be a place of refuge for their
emancipated bondmen, and destined, as I hope, to be a rich
benefit, in its future growth and influence, to Africa and to
the world. I do not forget, and I trust that I do not under
value, the missionary work of England and our own land,
in that benighted continent. But I believe that the number
of negroes Christianized and oivUized at the South, through
the system of slavery, exceeds the product of those mission
ary labors, in a proportion of thousands to one. And thus
the wisdom and goodness of God are vindicated in the sanc
tion which his Word has given, and the sentence originally
pronounced on Canaan as a curse has been converted into a
blessing. I have now gone over the whole ground covered by your
kind application, and would only here repeat that, on the
question of slavery, which lies at the root of all our present
difficulties, I have obeyed the rule of conscience and of duty,
in opposition to my habits, my prejudices, and my sympa
thies, all of which would tend strongly to the other side. I
need hardly say that I am no politician. More than forty
years have elapsed since I ceased even to attend the polls.
But as a Christian, I am bound to accept the doctrine of the
apostles for my guide. And as a citizen, I am bound to
sustain the Constitution of the United States, and defend
those principles of law, and order, and friendly comity,
which every State should faithfully regard in its relations to
the rest. Nor is this the first time that I have expressed
my opinions. In a lecture at Buffalo, published in 1850, and
again in a volume entitled The American Citizen, printed
by Pudney and RusseU, in 1857, I set forth the same views
on the subject of slavery ; adding, however, a plan for its
gradual abolition, whenever the South should consent, and
the whole strength of the Government could aid in its ac-

BIBLE VIEW OP SLAVERY. 41
compUshment. Sooner or later, I believe that some mea
sure of that character must be adopted. But it belongs to
the Slave States themselves to take the lead in such a move
ment. And meanwhile their legal rights and their natural
feelings must be respected, if we would hope for unity and
peace. In conclusion, I would only say, that I am perfectly aware
how distasteful my sentiments must be, on this very serious
question, to the great majority of my respected fellow-citi
zens, in the region where divine Providence has cast my
lot. It would assuredly be far more agreeable if I could
conscientiously conform to the opinions of my friends, to
whose ability, sincerity, and zeal, I am ready to give all
just commendation. But it would be mere moral cowardice
in me to supjiress what I believe to be the truth, for the
sake of popularity. It can not be long before I shall stand
at the tribunal of that Almighty and unerring Judge, who
has given us the inspired Scriptures to be our supreme
directory in every moral and religious duty. My gray hairs
admonish me that I may soon be caUed to give an account
of my stewardship. And I have no fear of the sentence
which He wUl pronounce upon an honest though hurable
effort to sustain the authority of His Woed, in just alliance
with the Constitution, the peace, and the public welfare of
ray country.
With the fervent prayer that the Spirit of wisdom, unity,
and fraternal kindness may guide our National Congress,
the Legislatures of the several States, and the sovereign will
of our whole people, to a happy accommodation of every
existing difficulty,
I remain, with great regard.
Your faithful servant in Christ,
John H. Hopkins,
Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont.

42 THE PROTEST.
I had anticipated the probability that the republication
of the foregoing pamphlet would bring down upon me a
liberal share of abuse and contumely from the abolition
Press, and I was prepared to submit to it with quiet resigna
tion. But I was not prepared for the extraordinary sentence
of " indignant reprobation" which the Bishop of Pennsyl
vania, and a majority of his clergy, thought fit to fulminate
against my course, in the following form, viz. :
PROTEST
OF THE BISHOP AND CLBEGT OF THE DIOCESE OF PEITN'-
STLVANIA, ETC.
" The subscribers deeply regret that the fact of the exten
sive circulation through this Diocese of a letter by John
Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont, in de
fense of Southern Slavery, compels them to make this pubhc
protest. It is not their province to mix in any political can
vas. But as ministers of Christ, in the Protestant Episcopal
"Church, it becoraes thera to deny any complicity or sympathy
with such a defense."
"This atterapt not only to apologize for slavery in the ab
stract, but to advocate it as it exists inthe cotton States, and
in States which sell men and women in the open market as
their staple product, is, in their judgment, unworthy of any
servant of Jesus Christ. As an effort to sustain, on Bible
principles, the States in rebellion against the government, iu
the wicked atterapt to establish by force of arms a tyranny
under the name of a Republic, whose ' corner-stone ' shall
be the perpetual bondage of the African, it chaUenges their
indignant reprobation."
Philadelphia, September, 1863.
"Alonzo Potter, John A. Vaughan, W. H. D. Hatton,
John Rodney, Charles D. Cooper, Thomas W. Martin,
E. A. Washburne, Wilbur F. Paddock, Alfred Elwin,
Peter Van Pelt, Thomas Crumpton, James W. Robins,

THE PROTEST.

43

H. W. Ducachet,
John S. Stone,
George Leeds,
Richard D. Hall,
Joseph D. NewUn,
B. Wistar Morris,
Daniel S. Miller,
Kingston Goddard,
Phillips Brooks,
Addison B. Atkins,
Herman Hooker,
Benjamin Watson,
Edward L. Lycett,
Lewis W. Gibson,
R. W. OUver,
Henry Brown,
W. R. Stockton,
Edward A. Foggo,
J. Isador Mombert,
Joel Rudderow,
Archibald Beatty,
C. A. L. Richards,
George A. Strong,
Gnstavus M. Murray,
George W. Shinn,
Samuel Hall,
George G. Field,
Reese C. Evans,
Robgut G. Chase,
Samuel Hazlehurst,
Edwin N. Lightner,
David C. Page,
John Cromhsh,
William Preston,
George Slattery,
Francis J. Clerc,
Robert J. Parvin,
Thomas S. Yocom,
Benjamin Dorr,
Jehu C. Clay,
WilUam Suddards,

George D. Miles,
B. B. Killikelly,
Alexander McLeod,
Leighton Coleman,
Richard Smith,
Thomas H. Cullen,
J. McAlpin Harding,
William Ely,
Marison Byllesby,
J. Livingston Reese,
Augustus A. Marple,
B. T. Noakes,
D. Otis Kellogg,
Daniel Washburn,
Samuel E. Smith,
Treadwell Walden,
Herman L. Duhring,
Charles M.~ Dupuy,
John H. Babcock,
Anson B. Hard,
George A. Latimer,
R. Heber Newton,
John G. Furey,
Charles A. Maison,
R. H. Brown,
Richard Newton,
. G. Emlen Hare,
W. W. Spear,
H. J. Morton,
Jacob M. Douglass,
R. A. Garden,
B. C. Matlack,
L. Ward Smith,
Samuel E. Appleton,
William J. Alston,
John Adams Jerome,
Joseph A. Stone,
Albra Wadleigh,
W. S. Perkins,
Francis E. Arnold,
George H. Jenks,

George Bringhurst,
Charles W. Duane,
George B. AUinson,
Joseph N. Mulford,
James DeW. Perry,
Thomas G. Clemson,
Francis D. Hoskins,
William P. Lewis,
J. L. Heysinger,
John Long,
Ormes B. Keith,
William N. Diehl,
Charles W. Quick,
H. T. Wells,
D. C. Millett,
J. W. Leadenliam,
Frederick W. Beasley,
John P. Lundy,
George A. Crooke,
Richardson Graham,
E. S. Watson,
Samuel Edwards,
George A. Durborow,
Joseph R Moore,
Thomas B. Barker,
S. Tweedale,
Marcus A. Tolman,
John H. Drumm,
J^ Newton Spear,
Louis C. Newman,
Edward C. Jones,
E. W. Hening,
Saniuel Durburow,
C. C. Parker,
Henry Purdon,
Benjamin H. Abbott,
-John H. Marsden,
Samuel B. Dalrymple,
William V. Feltwell,
John Leithead,
George C- Drake,

44

ANSWER TO THE PROTEST.

D. R. Goodwin,
M. A. DeW. Howe,
Henry S. Spackman,
James May,
John A. Childs,
Thomas C. Yarnall,
Edward Lounsbery,
Henry M. Stuart,
J. Gordon Maxwell,
Robert B. Peet,

William S. Heaton, Peter Russell,
John Reynolds, George Kirke,
William Hilton, Henry B. Bartow,
Washington B. Ei-ben, John K. Murphy,
John. Ireland, J. F. Ohl,
Benjamin J. Douglass, John Tetlow,
D. C. James, J. C Laverty,
E. N. Potter, Charles Higbee,
Roberts Paul, S. T. Lord.
WiUiam Wright,
The answer to this strange assault was the following :
To the Right Rev. Alonzo Potter, of the Diocese of Pennsyl
vania :
I have seen, with great amazement, a protest against my
letter on the " Bible View of Slavery," signed by you and a
long list of your clergy, in which you condemn it as " un
worthy of any servant of Jesus Christ," as "an effort to sus
tain, on Bible principles, the States in rebellion against the
government in the wicked attempt to establish, by force of ,
arms, a tyranny in the narae of a Republic, whose corner
stone shall be the perpetual bondage of the African," and as
such you say that it challenges your '¦'¦indignant reproba-
tion." Now, my Right Reverend brother, I am sorry to be obliged
to charge you, not only with a gross insult against your senior,
but with the more serious offense of a false accusation. 'My
letter was first published in January, 1861, more than three
months before the war began, at a time Avhen no one could
anticipate the form of Government which the Southern States
should adopt, or the course which Congress might take in
reference to their secession. And when I consented to its
publication, I did not suppose that it would be used in the
service of any political party, although I had no right to
complain, if it were so used, because the letter, once pub
lished, became public property. But in its present form
there is nothing whatever in it which bears on the question

ANSWER TO THE PROTEST. 45
of " rebellion," or of "the perpetual bondage of the African,"
or of " tyranny under the name of a Republic," of which
slavery should be the " corner-stone." On the contrary, I
referred, on the last page, to ray lecture published in Buffalo
in 1850, and to my book called Tlie American Citizen,
published in New York in 1857, where " I set forth the same
views on the subject of slavery, adding, however, a plan for
its gradual abolition, whenever the South should consent,
and the whole strength of the Government could aid in its
accomplishment." " Sooner or later," I added, " I believe
that some measure of that character must be adopted. But
it belongs to the Slave States themselves to take the lead in
such a movement. And meanwhUe their legal rights and
their natural feeUngs must be respected, if we would hope
for unity and peace."
With these facts before your eyes, I am totally at a loss
to imagine how even the extravagance of party zeal could
frame against me so bitter a denunciation. The whole object
of my letter was to prove, from the Bible, that in the relcb-
tion of master and slave there was necessarily no sin what
ever. The sin, if there were any, lay in the treatment of the
slave, and not in the relation itself. Of course, it was liable
to abuse, as all human relations must be. But while it was
certain that thousands of our Christian brethren who held
slaves were treating them with kindness and justice, accord
ing to the Apostle's rule, and earnestly laboring to improve
the comforts and ameliorate the hardships of the institution,
I held it to be a cruel and absurd charge to accuse them as
sinners against the Divine law, when they were only doing
what the Word of God allowed, under the Constitution and
established code of their country.
I do not know whether your band of indignant reproba-
tionists ever saw my book published in 1857, but you read
it, because I sent you a copy, and have your letter of ac
knowledgment, in which, while you dissented frora some of

46 ANSWER TO THE PROTEST.
my conclusions, you did it with' the courtesy of a Christian
gentleraan. In that letter there is nothing said about my
opinions being " unworthy of any rainister of Jesus Christ,"
and nothing of " indignant reprobation." But tempora mu-
tantur, et nos mutaMur in illis.
Yes ; the times are indeed sadly changed, and you have
changed accordingly. For many years you have met in
brotherly council with these same Southern slaveholders.
You invited them to the hospitalities of your house, and paid
them special deference. The new light of Eastern Aboli
tionism had not yet risen within our Church, and if you then
thought as you now think, you took excellent care that no
man amongst your Southern friends should know it. More
over, your favorite Theological Seminary, only three years
ago, was the Virginia school at Alexandria, raised to great
prosperity by Bishop Meade— a slaveholder; and I am very
sure that nothing at variance with my view of slavery was
ever taught in that institution. Yes ; we may well say of
you, as of many others, quantum mutatus ab illo ! How
changed is the Bishop of Pennsylvania in three years from
his former course of conservatism, peace, and Scriptural con
sistency !
But the Word of God has not changed ; the doctrine of
the Apostles has not changed ; the Constitution of our coun
try has not changed ; the great standards of religious truth
and r6al civic loyalty remain just as they were ; and I re
main along with them, notwithstanding this bitter and un
just assault from you and your clergy. I do not intend to
imitate your late style of vituperation, for I trust that I
have learned, even when I am reviled, not to revUe again.
I respect the good opinion of your clergy, and ara not
aware that I have done any thing to forfeit it. I respect
your office, your talents, your personal character, and the
wisdom and success with which, for many years, y'Our Epis
copate has been conducted. But I do not respect 'vour

ANSWER TO THE PROTEST. 47
departure from the old and well-settled rule of the Church,
and from the Apostolic law of Christian fairness and court
esy. I do not believe in the modern discovery of those
Eastern philanthropists who-deny the divinity of our Re
deemer, and attach no importance to the Bible except as it
may suit themselves. I do not believe that the venerated
founders of our American Church were ignorant of the
Scriptures, and blind to the principles of Gospel morality.
I do not believe that Washington and his compatriots, who
framed our Constitution with such express provisions for the
rights of slaveholders, were tyrants and despots — sinners
against the law of God and the feelings of humanity. But
I do believe in the teaching of the inspired Apostles, and in
the Holy Catholic (or universal) Church, which you and
your clergy also profess to believe. I know that the doctrine
of that Church was clear and unanimous on the lawfulness
of slavery for eighteen centuries together ; and on that point
I regard your " protest" and " indignant reprobation" as the
idle wind that passes by.
I wish you, therefore, to be advertised that I shall publish,
within a few months, if a gracious Providence should spare
my life and faculties, a full demonstration of the truth
" wherein I stand." And I shall prove in that book, by the
most unquestionable authorities, that slaves and slaveholders
were in the Church from the beginning ; that slavery was
held to be consistent with Christian principle by the fathers
and councils, and by all Protestant divines and commenta
tors, up to the very close of the last century, and that this
fact was universal araong all churches and sects throughout
the Christian world. I shall contend that our Church,
which maintains the primitive rule of catholic consent and
abjures all novelties, is bound, by her constitution, to hold
fast that only safe and enduring rule, or abandon her apos
tolic claims, and descend to the level of thoge who are
" driven about by every wind of doctrine." And I shall

48 ANSWER TO THE PROTEST.
print your " indignant reprobation," with its long list of
names, in the Introduction, so that if I can not give you fame,
I may, at least, do my part to give you notoriety.
That the nineteenth century is a period of vast improve
ment and wonderful discovery in the arts and sciences, I
grant as willingly as any raan. But in religious truth or
reverence for the Bible, the age in which we live is pro
lific in daring and impious innovation. We have seen pro
fessedly Christian communities divided and subdivided on
every side. We have seen the rise and spread of Universal-
isra, MiUerisra, Pantheism, Mormonism, and Spiritualism.
We have seen our venerable mother Church of England
sorely agitated by the contagious fever of change, on the
one hand toward superstition, and on the other toward in
fidel rationalism. And we have heard the increasing clamor
against the Bible, sometimes from the devotees of geological
speculation, sometimes from the bold deniers of miracles and
prophecy, and, not least upon the list, frora the loud-tongued
apostles of anti-slavery. We have raarked the orators which
cry : " Down with the Bible if it maintains the lawfulness of
slavery." We have marveled at the senatorial eloquence
which proclaimed that " It was high time to have an anti-
slavery God and an anti-slavery Bible." We have heard
the Constitution of our country denounced as "A covenant
with death and heU." We have heard the boasted deter
mination that the Union shall never be restored, untU its pro
vision for the protection of slavery is utterly abolished. And
what is the result of aU this phUanthropy ? The fearful judg
ment of God has descended to chastise these multipUed acts
of rebeUion against His divine Government, and wTiat the
final catastrophe shaU be is only known to Him who seeth the
end from the beginning.
After forty years spent in the ministry, more than thirty of
which have been passed in the office of a bishop, I can look
back with humble thanlrfulness to the Giver of aU o-ood for

ANSWER TO THE PROTEST. 49
this, at least, that all my best labors have been directed to
the preservation of the Church from the inroads of doctrinal
innovation. At my ordination I promised " so to minister
the DOCTEINE and sacraments and discipline of Christ, as the
Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the
same," and certain it is that " this Church " had not recei'^ed
the modern doctrine of ultra-abolitionism at that time, as I
trust she never will receive it, because it is contrary to the
sacred Scriptures. I also proraised " with all faithful dili
gence to banish and drive away from th^ Church all erron
eous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word," and I
made those promises in the true sense which the venerable
Bishop White, my ordainer, attached to them. I believed
then as he believed, that our Southern brethren committed
no sin in ha'ving slaves, and that they were men of as much
piety as any ministers in our comraunion. I believed as he
believed, that the plain precepts and practice of the Apostles
sanctioned the institution, although, as a matter of expediency
the time might corae when the South would prefer, as the
North had done, to employ free labor. These promises I
have kept faithfully to the present day : and if, when I am
drawing near to the end of my career, I ara to be condemned
and vilified by you and your clergy, because I still raaintain
thera to the utmost of my slender ability, be assured, my
Right Reverend Brother, that I shall regret the fact much
more on your account than on my own.
In conclusion, I have only to say that I feel no resentment
for the grossly insulting style of your manifesto. Tlie sta
bility and unity of the Church of God are the only interests
which I desire to secure, and I am too old in experience to
be much moved by the occasional excesses of human in
firmity. John H. Hopkins,
Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont.
BUELINGTON, Vt., Oct. 5, 1863.

50 CONCLUDING REMARKS.
My readers are now in possession of all the facts which
led to the publication of the present volume. What I pro
mised in my reply to ray clerical assailants, I have fulfilled,
as I trust will be manifest from the numerous testimonies
which I have adduced upon the subject. Knowing, as I do,
that I stand upon the ground which the Church of God has
occupied from the beginning, I have no fears for the result
of the conflict. It may be, indeed, that the subtlety of
Satan, clothed like an angel of light, raay succeed in dividing
the Church to which I belong, as he has already divided so
many Christian comraunities. It raay be that the authority
of the Bible, the writings of the fathers, the decrees of coun
cils, the concurrent judgraent of Protestant divines, and the
Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, may all
be unable to resist the combined assaults of mistaken philan
thropy, in union with infidelity, fanaticism, and poUtical ex
pediency. It may be that we are in " the last days when
perilous times shall come," and that the predicted reign of
the great Antichrist is impending. But however this may be,
I desire that my lot raay be found with the old martyrs and
confessors of the primitive Church, and with their true suc
cessors. I believe that even though the enemy may come
in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard
against hira. And I trust that the divine Redeemer, who
has promised to be with the Church to the end of the world,
will guard -His heritage from the irruption of " all erroneous
and strange doctrines," and preserve His faithful people in
unity and peace.

POSITION OF THE AUTHOR. 51

CHAPTER I.
To THE Right Rev. Alonzo Potter, D.D.)
Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania :
Right Reveeend Brother : Before I enter on the main subject of
this volume, I must take the liberty of premising a brief statement
of my own position in relation to the controversy. I am no lover of
slavery, and no advocate for its perpetuity any longer than circum
stances may seem to require. It would be strange if I were. Born
in Ireland, educated from my ninth year, partly in Trenton and Bor
den town, but chiefly in Philadelphia, resident in Pittsburgh during
my practice of the law, and the flrst eight years of my ministry ; re
moved from thence to Boston, and then, after my election to the epis
copal office, becoming a citizen of Vermont, where I have lived for
more than thirty years — all my habits, syifipathies, and associations
are opposed to slavery, and in favor of abolition. But I hold that
abolition can only be lawfully accomplished on the grounds of a just
and wise expediency, with a sacred regard to the Holy Scriptures,
which are the standard of the Christian faith, in accordance with the
real welfare of the colored race, in harmony with the wishes as well
as the best interests of the Southern States, and with a full recogni
tion of the rights intended to be secured to them by the Federal
Constitution. My views on this subject, as I have stated in the introduction, were
first published in a lecture delivered at Buffalo and Lockport in 1850,
and afterwards in a volume entitled. The American Citizen, printed
in 1857, a copy of which was sent to you and to the other Bishops
of our Church, according to my general custom. In both of these I
devoted a large space to a plan of gradual and thorough abolition,
in connection with the planting of the emancipated negroes on the
slave coast of Africa, under the fostering care of commissioners, so
that a belt of colored republics should eventually be established in
connection with Liberia, to regenerate that heathen and benighted

52 POSITION OF THE AUTHOR.
continent ; while the Southern masters should be paid the full value,
and be enabled to replace their former slaves with free laborers. But
this I proposed to have effected with the cordial assent of the South
ern States and the cooperation of the Federal Governraent, devoting
to it the whole avails of the public lands, and, if necessary, aiding it
by direct taxation. And meanwhile I maintained the rights of the
South to the peaceable enjoyment of their domestic institution, on
the authority of the Scriptures and the Constitution of our country ;
while I earnestly urged the high expediency of the course which I
recommended, to themselves, to the Union, to Africa, and ultimately
to the whole civilized world.
The lecture published in 1850 was sent to the lamented Henry
Clay, then on his sick-bed, and I have his answer in a long letter,
written by another hand at his dictation, but signed by himselfj in
which he expressed his approbation in strong terms, and wished that
the pamphlet could be read by every intelligent man throughout the
country. The plan presented by the President of the United States
in his Message to the Congress of 1862, was substantially the same,
and my suggestions were further developed by the lectures delivered
in many places by Mr. Elihu Burritt. I do not know that either the
President or Mr. Burritt derived their views from me, but I believe
that I was the first writer who published them, although I have since
seen it stated that Mr. King, of New- York, and General Harrison
had proposed a similar scheme. lAj own conclusions, however, were
derived from a combination of the act of the British Parliament,
when they emancipated the slaves in Jamaica, with the principles of
the American Colonization Society. The main difficulty was to show
that the measure was practiccible as well as expedient. And certain
it is, that if our leading statesmen had been willing, it might have
been successfully inaugurated and ultimately accomplished at less
than half the sum which our mournful war has already cost the
nation. I mention these facts here more fully than in my late letter, not
for the purpose of teUing you what you knew before, but in order to
inform my friends that I have not changed my former opinions— that
I am, and always shall be, in favor of a gradual, just, and kindly
abolition of slavery, whenever it may please Divine Providence to
incline the minds of Southern statesmen to adopt it. But then as
now, I stood forth as an honest and conscientious advocate for their

POSITION OP THE AUTHOR. 53
rights. Then, as now, I contended that the fair admission of those
rights was essential to the peace and welfare of the Union. Then,
as now, I opposed the extravagance of ultra-abolitionism, because I
believed it to be hostile to the divine authority of the Bible, hostile
to the Church of God, hostile to the best interests of the .slaves
themselves, and hostile to the safety and prosperity of our country.
Having thus stated the kind of abolitionism which I have always
advocated in my humble sphere, I proceed to set forth the ultra-abo
lition doctrine which I am bound to condemn, in order that the line
may be distinctly drawn between them. This doctrine rests upon
the wild and unscriptural assumption that it is a sin in the sight of
heaven to hold a human being in bondage under any circumstances —
that the relation of master and slave is utterly abhorrent to the
principles of Christianity — that the Constitution of the United States,
which gives protection to the slaveholder and grants a right of suf
frage based on the slave population of the South, is " a covenant
with death and an agreement with hell" — that there is a "higher
law" of humanity which justifies the citizen in rebelling against the
" supreme law of the land" with respect to fugitives — that slavehold
ing' is equivalent to man-stealing, -R'hich the Jewish code pronounced
to be worthy of death — that the Union can not and ought not to be
restored until slavery is entirely abolished — that it is, finally, the
" sum of all villainies," or, to use the language of Dr. Adam Clarke,
the Methodist commentator, that " although in heathen countries
slavery was in some sort excusable, yet among Christians it is an
ENORMITY AND A CRIME, foT which perdition has scarcely an adequate
state of punishment."*
Now the whole of this modem and monstrous doctrine I utterly
repudiate, as at war with the laws of God and man. You know as
well as I do, that it is a pure novelty, unheard of while you were the
Rector of St. Paul's Church, Boston. You know that, when it was
flrst broached, it met with the general disapprobation of all intelligent
men, as a weak delusion. Unhappily it is no longer a -weak delusion.
On the contrary, it has become a strong one — too strong in the minds
of many, for the old system of Christian faith and practice — too
strong for the conservative maxims of the Church — too strong foi;^
constitutional law, for the oath of office, and for the political bond
* Com. on Ephesians, ch. 6, v. 5.

54 POSITION OF THE AUTHOR.
of Union. Biit I hold it to be no less a delusion. As such I have
opposed it again and again. And because I have done this, in the
service of truth and peace — because I have presumed to stand fast
> upon the rock of faith in the Word of God, as it was interpreted by
the whole Church from the beginning up to our own day, and thus
reasserted what iiU men acknowledged at the time when you were
ordained, you, and a majority of your clergy, have publicly stigma
tized my work as " unworthy of any servant of Christ," and con
demned it by your sentence of "indignant reprobation."
To myself, this extraordinary fulmination is a very small matter.
To the cause of truth, it may prove to be a great one. Manifest, in
deed, it is, that it destroys all the old fellowship between you and me.
It is an act of such plain disorder, nay, such gross and wanton insult,
that I hold myself bound, by the precept of the Apostle, to withdraw
from your " company," though I am also bound not to " count you
as an enemy, but to admonish you as a brother."* I address "this
volume to j^ou, therefore, as a brotherly admonition. I do it in this
public form, because your libellous act of censure was public, print
ed for public use, and scattered over the land in large placards to
attract universal observation. I do it at considerable length, because
I shall be obliged to maintain my course by the quotation of many
authorities, which neither you nor any other man can justly impeach,
and I do it in humble confldence that if it fails to bring you back to
the truth which you once professed as I did, it may nevertheless be
of service to the Church, and keep candid and intelligent minds frora
the infection of this mischievous and growing error.
I trust, however, that in thus vindicating my own course, I shall
say nothing which can intimate that I "count you as an enemy."
You have done me a grievous wrong. You and your clergy have
laid yourselves open to a prosecution for a libel. It was certainly
competent for you to publish the fact that you did not approve my
little tract on the Bible View of Slavery, and were not to be held
accountable for it. But you had no right to accuse me of an " effort
to sustain, on Bible principles, the States in rebellion against the
Government in the wicked attempt to establish, by force of arms, a
tyranny in the name of a republic, whose ' corner stone ' shaU be the
perpetual bondage of the African." Not one word had I written to
* 2 Thes, ch. 3, v. 14-5.

POSITION OF THE AUTHOR. 55
justify this false and baseless imputation. On the contrary, I had
published more than you and all your clergy put together, against
the idea of the ''perpetual bondage of the African," and in favor of a
gradual abolition of slavery, as soon as it could be done, in peace
and good will, with due regard to the best interests of the parties.
And as to rebellion, I have always been opposed to every thing
which deserves the name, in the family, in the Church, in the State,
or in any other relation of society. The apostles commanded obedi
ence, not only to the slave, but to the child, to the wife, and to every
subject of earthly government. " Submit yourseIv6S~fo~every ordi
nance of man, for the Lord's sake," * saith the Apostle Peter. "Let
every soul be subject to the higher powers," t saith St Paul. And
on this very ground I abjured the doctrine of the ultra-abolitionist,
who tramples "the supreme law of the land " under his feet, in pur
suance of a " higher law " which merely exists in his own imagina
tion, and therefore not only sins ag.ainst the Wnrd of God, but rebels,
both in word and act, against the Constitution of his country. '
In publicly branding my name with this utterly groundless charge,
in condemning my course as "unworthy of any servant of Jesus
Christ," and in affixing to it the sentence of your " indignant repro
bation," you have, I repeat, done me a grievous wrong, and have
j'ourself "rebelled" against the precepts of justice, fairness, and
Christian courtesy. Nevertheless, I do not " count j'ou as an ene-
m}'," though you have done the work of one. I believe that you
acted mainly under the strong influence of political expediency . For
it so happened that my pamphlet, though never written or intended
by me for such a purpose, was largely circulated by the Democratic
party on the eve of your late election in Pennsylvania, and you
thought it necessary to put it down. You did' not pause to inquire
how far I was accountable. Yet the fact is, that I have never med
dled, directly or indirectly, with party politics, never gave a party
vote in my life, never made a speech at a party political meeting,
never wrote a line for party purposes, and never attended the polls
at all since I entered the ministry, forty years ago. But if gentle
men of any party saw fit to attach importance to that pamphlet, and
to circulate it, they were at full liberty to do so, because it was pub
lic property, not subject to copyright, and I could nut Lave objected,
*1 Pet. 2 : 13. t Rom. 18 : 1, 2.

56 POSITION OF THE AUTHOR. ^
with any consistency. There was nothing in it bearing upon party
pohtics, unless it be supposed that your Union party in Pennsyl
vania are ultra-abolitionists, which they do not profess to be. My
only object in writing it was to show the error of those mistaken
philanthropists, by exhibiting the Bible view of slavery, in vindica
tion of that Federal Constitution which is binding alike on clergy
men and politicians, and to which, therefore, I 'owed my allegiance
in common with every other citizen. And hence it was not only un
just, but utterly preposterous, to make me accountable for the man
agement of a party movement, and that, not in my own State of
Vermont, but in Pennsylvania, four hundred miles away.
But you paid no regard to these considerations. The pamphlet
was there. It was circulated. It was read. Some of your wise men
thought it was politically expedient to kill it, if possible. The best
way to kill it was to brand and calumniate the author. And the most
effectual mode of doing that was to induce the Bishop and clergy of
Philadelphia to fake the lead in the patriotic work of personal de
famation. •
I acquit you, in my own mind, of originating this remarkable spe
cimen of party tactics. I doubt not that the suggestion came from
the sagacious brain of some experienced politician, that it was em
braced by a. few of your astute clergy, and that you were persuaded,
by the arguments of political exxicdiency, to place your name and
official influence at the head of the extraordinary manifesto. What
signified the injury to the Bishop of iVermont ? A man of little im
portance, set over a small diocese, on the border of Canada ! Penn
sylvania contains nine times as many people as Vermont. Therefore,
her bishop was nine times the greater bishop. The influence which
he might secure to the Church, by contributing to a grand political suc
cess, was -worth the sacrifice of nine small bishops at an}"- time. True,
it would bfe necessary to indorse a calumny, but in the game of poh
tics, all calumny is lawful, and slander itself becomes a duty, when
clergymen can persuade themselves to think that they are governed
by devotion to the best interests of the Church and of their country.
It was only an adoption of the Jesuitical maxim, that " the end sanc
tifies the means."
But I must go a little farther, before I have done with your act of
denunciation. For while I utterly deny that I either wrote my
pamphlet for the service of any political party, or gave my consent

POSITION OF THE AUTHOR. 57
to the publication of the Bible View of Slavery under an expecta
tion, at the time, that it would be used by any such party, yet I do
not mean to admit that it is wrong in a bishop or clergyman to pub
lish a. political tract, if he sees occasion. We have, indeed, no justi
fication fbr bringing politics into the sanctuary of God, or the con
ventions of the Church, because there our duty is to. preach the Gos
pel, and attend to the work of that spiritual kingdom of Christ, which
is "not of this world." But we do not cease to be citizens when we
become clergymen. We have still as much right to think, to speak,
and to publish our opinions upon all other subjects, as any educated
class in the community. No one presumes to doubt that a bishop
has a right to vote, as your venerated predecessor. Bishop White,
always did, at every party election. And it is absurd to say that a
man shall have a right to vote, and yet not have a right to proclaim his
reasons for -noting, which reasons never can be proclaimed without
more or less of political discussion.
In England, as you know, bishops sit in the House of Lords ; and
although they usually decline acting in matters of war, yet they take
a part in all other political questions. They do this, too, as bishops,
clothed in their episcopal robes ; and if an American were to de
nounce their conduct as " unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ,"
he would be thought strangely deficient in wisdom and discretion.
Nevertheless, while they act as politicians in the proper place, they
would utterly condemn, as I do, the introduction of politics in the
Church or the Convocation.
In our country, the Church and the State are entirely disconnected,
and we have no official rank in the legislatures of the land. But we
belong none the less to the Sovereign People, and no act which
would be morally right in the layman can be morally wrong in the
bishop. Hence I contend that so long as a bishop does nothing but
what it is lawful for every one else to do, his conduct can not be con
demned as " unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ," and deserv
ing of " indignant reprobatipn."
I say, therefore, distinctly, that I have not lost, by reason of my
office as bishop, my right as a citizen, not merely to permit a polit
ical party to circulate one of my pamphlets, but to join that party, to
write for that party, and to vote as a member of that party if I please,
because every other Christian man has those rights, and my rights,
as a citizen, are precisely the same. Dignity, delicacy, and propriety.

58 POSITION OP THE AUTHOR.
may stand in the way of certain modes and customs, with regard to
the exercise of those rights, and a judicious clergyman wiU always
pay respect to those considerations, lest his character as a minister
might be injured by too free a use of bis pohtical liberty as a citizen.
" All things are lawful for me," saith the Apostle, " but all things are
not expedient." But a deriation from the rules of expediency would
not justify any one in denouncing such departure as "unworthy of
any sertant of Jesus Christ," and challenging " indignant reproba
tion." Such language can only be justly applied to offenses of a
deep dye, against the moral law ; and hence you stand chargeable
not only with injustice, but with absurdity, in affixing it, as you
have done, to my pamphlet against ultra-abolitionism.
If you meant what you say, in condemning my conduct as "un
worthy of any servant of Jesus Christ," consistency would require
you to regard me as utterly unworthy to be a bishop, and therefore
it would become your solemn duty to proceed, accordipg to the can
ons, to have me regularly presented for trial, and deposed as soon
as possible. But this, I presume, you will hardly undertake. The
gross libel which you have published, with your long array of cleri
cal indorsements, was for political effect, and you have probably no
desire to carry it any farther. Ton are mistaken, nevertheless, it
you suppose that you can stand excused for this insulting aggression
by the calm and sober judgment of any Christian community. And
the time will come, if I do not greatly err, when you and your clergy
¦wUl feel ashamed of your false and riolent accusation, and wish that
the record could be blotted out forever. \
There is one petty cavil, however, which is urged by some of your
apologists, namely, that I signed my name to the Bible View of .Slav
ery, with my title as Bishop of Vermont attached, and therefore it is
said that in consenting to its circulation in your diocese, I was at once
invading your jurisdiction, and undertaking to represent the opinions
of the Church at large, without authority.
To this I reply that the course which I pursued was no invasion of
your diocese, because it was not an act of episcopal authority. It is
true, indeed, that the letter of request was addressed to me as a bishop,
and that I replied to it as a bishop. But the same inquiry mio-ht
have been made of any one else, and the same answer mio-ht have
been given by a presbyter or a layman, for it only involved the ex
pression of individual opinion. Nothing is better understood than

POSITION OF THE AUTHOR. 59
the rule that an official title does not imply an official act, unless the
act be of an official character. Thus I have before me the Treatise
on the fiecords of Creation, written by the Rev. John Bird Sumner,
and published some time before he was elevq,ted to the episcopate.
Yet in the title-page to the flfth edition the author is stated to be
" John Bird Sumner, D.D., Lord Bishop of Chester." So I find that
a work on topics which were purely secular, viz. "On Secondary
Punishments, on Transportation to New South-Wales, and on Col
onization, was published by "Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of
Dublin." Did any man ever suppose that this addition of the title
gave any official character to the books themselves ? Nay, so far is
this practice carried in England, that the title is never dropped even
in -private correspondence. You know as well as I do that John Can-
tuar. signifies John, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Richard, Dublin.
signifies Richard, Archbishop of Dublin, and Henry, Exon. signifies
Henry, Archbishop of Exeter, etc., precisely equivalent to my signa
ture of J. H. Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont. And yet the English and
colonial bishops use this official title in all their notes and letters,
without exception. But does this stamp them with the assumption
of any official authority ? The notion is a pure absurdity. In all
such cases the title is used merely to designate the individual. And
the attempt to make any thing more of it, in the present instance, is
only a proof that the cause must be weak indeed, which seeks- sup
port from such a trifling cavil.
Independently of this, however, there is a, strange degree of folly
in supposing that the writings of a bi.shop are to be confined to his
own diocese, while those of every other author are free to be circulated
wherever they can find readers. The laity of the Church in Penn
sylvania are, to a certain extent, under your jurisdiction, while I am
not. Would you tell them that they must aslc your leave, before they
seek for instruction from any other quarter ? And must I obtain
your imprimatur before I exercise the right of the humblest citizen,
to publish what I believe to be the truth, and send it forth for general
information ?
With respect to the other part of the accusation, viz. that by sign
ing my name as a bishop, I undertook to represent the Church at
large, I reply that no individual bishop can represent the Church at
large in any other sense than that which attaches to every presbyter,
deacon, and even layman, namely, that we are all bound to speak and

69 POSITION OP THE AUTHOR.
to write nothing but what agrees with, or at least what does no t stand
opposed to, the doctrine of the Church to which we belong. But be
yond this general obligation to be faithful to the Church, which rests
on all her officers and members, my pamphlet assumed jiothing. I
asserted in it that the Church at large had always held the same doc
trine on the lawfulness of slavery, considered in itself, and that the
sin, if there were any, consisted not in the relation of master and
slave, but in the treatment. And this assertion I now undertake to
prove by indisputable authority.
But resuming my hypothesis in accounting for your extraordinary
manifesto, I would merely add that I can not conceive any better way
of explaining my conclusion. I regard you, therefore, not as a per
sonal enemy so much as an able performer, brought upon the stage
to give due effect to the designs of the politicians. I can not justify,
but I shall do my utmost to palliate your error. I confess all the
superiority which you may claim over myself in talents, influence,
reputation, management, and tact. I am perfectly conscious, also, of
your superiority in position, and I am well aware that the world at
large pays more regard to that fact than to any other, in estimating
the comparative importance of human opinion. It has been always,
and I suppose it will always be, that the multitude bow down to offi
cial eminence, and would gladly render to Silenus on a pedestal, the
honor which they would refuse to Apollo in the dust. I take, there
fore, the most favorable view of the probable circumstances. Doubt
less you were beset with importunity. Doubtless the importance of
your influence in Church and State was urged adroitly, and you
yielded to the pressure. Your motive was not specially to act as my
enemy, but to follow what you deemed to be the rule of political ex
pediency. The wrong is done. And it is a grievous wrong, excuse
it as we may. May God forgive it, as I most freely do, notwithstand
ing the personal results which I presume to be irreparable.

DUTY OF CONTROVERSY. 61

CHAPTER II.
Right Reverend Brother : I do not know precisely where you
stand on the field of this very serious controversy ; for while you
have assaulted my position with unexampled severity, you have thus
far preferred, for yourself the policy of non-committal. That is a
kind of policy, however, which I have not worldly wisdom enough
to admire, in questions of religious truth and duty, I have alwaj's
regarded it as a solemn obligation to " contend for the faith once de
livered to the saints," and to do what I could, in my humble sphergj
to " drive away from the Church all erroneous and false doctrine,
aontrary to the Word of God." Whether "in honor or in dishonor,
through eril report or good report," I have held my duty to be the
same. For I know, and you know, that this was the rule laid down
to the Apostles by their Divine Lord and Master, and faithfully pur
sued by them, in despite of danger and suffering, till they finished
their glorious course by gaining the crown of martyrdom. If they
had adopted the time-serving policy of the present day, the Church
of Christ could never have been planted in the face of heathen and
Jewish opposition. This is the reason, and the only reason, why I
have always been ready to bear my part in every controversy which
involved religious principle. In worldly matters, where my own
• personal interest was alone concerned, I have willingly yielded my
rights sooner than contend in the service of Mammon. But in the
service of Christ and his Church I have considered myself a " sol
dier," enhsted for life in His warfare "against sin,- the world, and
the devil." And this, which the baptismal office makes the duty of
every Christian, becomes ten-fold the duty of a bishop, whose office
calls him to be one of the chief leaders in the host of God's elect, to
defend with honest boldness the sacred cause of religious truth against
every assault of opposing error.
I am quite aware that this was not the way to popularity. If I
could conscientiously have held my peace on all disputed questions.

62 DUTY OP CONTROVERSY.
I should have been deemed a far wiser man in the general opinion.
But I thank our divine Redeemer for making me willing to be called
a fool, when I abandoned my prosperous profession of the law for the
poor vocation of the ministry. I thank Him who has enabled me to
defend His truth without regard to odium and abuse. I thank Him
who taught me to follow, in my weakness, that eminent Apostle who
was also called a fool, and to adopt his noble declaration : " With me
it is a small thing to be judged of you, or of man's judgment— He that
judgeth me is the Lord." I thank Him who showed me that it was
not my duty to be popular, but that it was my duty to be faithful,
and to prove, on all occasions of religious controversy, that I did not
" love the praise of men more than the praise of God."
If I should be accused of " boasting" in this, which I doubt not
that I shall be, I must shelter myself under the example of the same
Apostle by saying that " you have compelled me" by your bitter and
groundless accusation. Your theory of Christian duty is of course
the same as mine. Your practice is very different, for notwithstand
ing your acknowledged literary talents, you have carefully ahstained
from taking the- smallest public share in any religious controversy to
this day ; although you have undertaken to sit in judgment on myself
because 1 presumed to repeat my former argument at a time which
did not suit your views of political expediency. But I have not
denounced your course of worldly wisdom. I have not murmured
at your success and popularity. I wish, on the contrary, to give you
all the praise to which, in many respects, you are so justly entitled.
Nevertheless, I would not adopt your prudent abstinence from con
troversy as a rule for myself, if the homage of the whole -world were
offered as the inducement. Rather would I endeavor, in the words
of the Apostle, to " take pleasure in reproaches for Christ's sake,"* .
so long as I provoke them only by an honest though humble effort
to discharge what I esteem to be my duty.
The life of our divine Redeemer, from the time when He commenc
ed His public ministry, was an open and constant controversy against
all existing error. The life of His apostles was a life of controversy,
like that of their Lord and Master. And therefore I claim the high
est authority for my poor efforts to obey the rule which commands
me to follow their example. It is not that I esteem my trifling labors
as worthy to be named in comparison with the stupendous task
* 2 Gov. 12 : 10.

REASONS FOR CONTROVERSY. 63
committed to the inspired messengers of Christ God forbid ! Yet
the obligation to imitate them is none the less imperative, and, how
ever humble the performance, the spirit which animates it should be
the same.
I should be altogether wanting, however, injustice to myself, if I
failed to state the fact, that I have only been induced to engage in
the present controversy by a sense of duty to religious truth, unity,
and peace, in the communion of the Church of which I am a mem
ber. That Church was extended South as well as North. Its union,
as well as the Union of the States, was deeply involved in the ques
tion of slavery. The views of ultra-abolitionists, if they prevailed,
must break that union asunder, and therefore I held myself bound
to raise my feeble voice against a doctrine which I regarded as not
only false in itself, but perilous to the Church and to the nation.
Alas ! the result which I dreaded has come to pass. The unity of
the Church is lost. The unity of the States is invaded. And slavery
Still stands as the cardinal point of separation. If ever the union of
the Church is restored — if ever the Union of the States is reestab
lished, it can only be, in my humble judgment, by a return to the
old and Scriptural doctrine, once held alike by the whole Christian
community, that slavery, in itself, involves no sin. That tbe Gospel
does not require its abolition, but commands the slave to be obedient
to the master, and commands the master to treat the slave with just
ice and kindness. That, nevertheless, it is expedient and desirable
that slavery should be done away, as soon as it can be peaceabl}"-,
by common consent. That until it pleases Providence to open the
way to this happy consummation, the rights of the South must be
respected according to the Constitution. That meanwhile it is our
religious as well as our civil duty to treat those rights with a fair and
just allowance, and avoid all language and all acts which can only
tend to excite ill-will, and provoke hostility and alienation.
These were the views of all our Christian teachers and all our
eminent statesmen, during the first forty years of our existence under
the Federal Constitution. They continued to be the views of almosf
all, for twenty years more. They were held by our own Church,
without any known exceptions, up to October, 1859, when our Gen
eral Convention met at Richmond under the Presidency of pishop
Meade, himself a slaveholder. As to my own position, I retain the
same riews still, with a stronger conviction than ever, because I re-

64 POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.
gard the deplorable events of the last three years to be an a-wfiil
confirmation of their truth. And if you have ceased to hold them,
since you have not yet favored us with your reasons for the change,
the best hypothesis by which 1 can account for it, in all Christian
charity, must be derived from your favorite maxims of political
expediency. And I do not mean to deny that this political expediency is a prin
ciple of vast practical importance, although, not being a politician, I
can not pretend to understand its mysteries." But I know enough
about it to be perfectly aware that it is Uke charity in one respect,
because it " covers a multitude of sins." In the tactics of the State,
the newspapers on all sides bear witness that political expediency
employs bribery, oppression, partiality, fraud, force, falsehood, and
calumny. Individual freedom lies down in willing slavery at the
feet of party dictation. Conscience shuts her eyes, and goes to sleep.
The idol of power is invoked to divide the spoils, and the mantle of
official honor is expected to hide the body of foulness and corruption.
And when this political expediency is admitted into the Church,
though its garment is changed and its aspect is modified, to suit its
new associations, yet its acting spirit is the same selflsh love of do
minion, working by the same unscrupulous management of party,
and descending to employ the same instruments of false accusation,
unfair influence, bitter writing, and abusive tongue. But in one im
portant respect there is a difference. The politicians in the State
work in the name of the people, and are always aware that they
must be governed by the public will. The politicians in the Church
work in the name of Christ, while his precepts of truth and right
eousness and brotherly love are ignored and forgotten.
And therefore it is that I have always been opposed to party spirit
in the Church, because it is one of the most dangerous foes to Christ
ian peace and unity. Therefore it is, that in the Church I would
have no place granted to political expediency. I deny not that in
the affairs of worldly government, there must be parties. I deny
not that the object of those parties is often right and true. I deny
not that the leaders of party may be honest, patriotic men, who are
only bent on maintaining the real and abiding principles of the pub
lic welfare. Neither do I deny that in the Church the leaders of
party may be sincere and upright in their intentions,, as I presume
yourself to be, however I may think that you are grievously misled

POLmCAL EXPEDIENCY. 65
in your recent action. But I dread the introduction of political ex
pediency into the Church, because I dread the effects of party spirit,
which must tend, in times like these, to produce the bitterest strife
and the most perilous contention. You have placed yourself at the
head of a novel movement, which, if it succeeds, will probably divide
the Church, as it has divided so matiy Christian denominations.
You have not been content with an answer to my pamphlet, in your
own name, which would have been perfectly allowable ; but you have
brought forward a small army of your clergy to unit* in the condem
nation of a brother bishop : and thus you have inaugurated a new
party on the one side, which is directly calculated to produce the
formation of a party on the other. The shape into which you have
chosen to put the subject, therefore, is but too likely to inflame our
whole communion. And if the mercy of God, and the good sense of
the majority do not control the storm, the disunion of the Church
may add another trophy to the victories of ultra-abolitionism, and
another testimony to the dangers -which lurk in the ecclesiastical
adoption of political expediency.

66 PROPHECY OF NOAH.

CHAPTER HI.
Right Reverend Brother : I have already said that I do not know
precisely where you stand, in this very serious controversy, but I
have been favored with a number of anonymous pamphlets, some of
which claim the authorship of ministers in the Protestant Episcopal
Church, in which my Bible View of Slavery is attacked with abun
dance of ze»l, not always accompanied either by Christian courtesy or
knowledge. It may be well, therefore, to occupy a little space in
the examination of some of their arguments, although it is not my
custom to pay any attention to anonymous opponents. Through my
whole course, I have made it a matter of principle to publish nothing
-without my name ; because I have always held anonymous attacks
on individuals to be a sort of stabbing in the dark, belonging, of
right, to the art of assassination. The individual assailed has a just
claim to know who it is that assails him. The public has a just
claim to be informed who it is that undertakes the office of censor.
And there is a lack of Christian manliness and honesty in this too
common kind of cowardly warfare, which wears a mask when it
strikes the blow, and dares to incur the responsibility of the act,
while it shrinks from the responsibility of detection.
Passing over, as quite unworthy of notice, the bitterness and sar
casm of those writers, I shall state their arguments fairly and can
didly, and give them what I deem a satisfactory reply.
The flrst point which I shall notice is the assault made against the
application of the prophecy of Noah to the posterity of Ham, on the
ground that it was limited to tbe offspring of Canaan, who were not
negroes, and who are now probably extinct. Moreover, it is said
that Canaan was not in Africa, and that the negroes are not descend
ed frora Canaan, but from Gush, on whom there is no curse recorded.
And we have a quotation given from Josephus, to prove the correct
ness of these positions.
In reply to this, I have only to observe that none of these writers

NEGROES IN AFRICA. 67
pretend to deny what I asserted, namely, that " the Almighty, fore
seeing the total degradation of the race, ordained them to servitude
under the descendants of Shem and Japheth."
Now the whole question in dispute is, whether the Bible author
izes slavery at all, under any circumstances. The ultra-abolitionist
denies it, insisting that slaveholding is a sin per se, and pronouncing
absolute condemnation upon the act of keeping a man in bondage.
I contend, on the contrary, that the Deity pronounced the curse of
slavery on the posterity of Ham, " foreseeing their total degrada
tion," and whether that curse included the whole of his posterity or
a portion of them only, does not make the slightest difference in the
main fact, which remains uncontroverted, namely, that God did au
thorize slavery for a race, whom he foresaw would be utterly do-
graded. The old maxim is a sound one : " Ubi eadem ratio, ibi eadem lex."
Where there is the same reason, there is the same law. It is not
and it can not be denied, that the reason why the Canaanites were to
be enslaved, was the foresight of their total degradation. Let us look,
therefore, at the condition of the African race in our own days, as it
is described by Malte Brun, one of the most reliable of our modern
geographers ; and then we shall be enabled to judge whether the
same reason which justified the slavery of the one, does not equally
justify the slavery of the other.
" The slave coast of Africa," saith this writer, " consists of several
petty states, which are all under the despotic sway of the King of
Dahomey. This barbarian monarch chooses to have women for his
body-guard, and his palace is surrounded by one thousand of these
Amazons, armed with javelins and muskets, fro^l whom he selects
his special mflitary aids and messengers. His ministers, when they
come into the royal presence, are obliged to leave their silk robes at
the gate of the palace, and approach the throne, walking on all fours,
and rolling their heads in the dust. The ferocity of this African des
pot almost surpasses conception. The road to his residence is strew-
«d with human skulls, and the walls are adorned and almost covered
with jaw-bones. On public occasions, the sable monarch walks in
solemn pomp, over the bloody heads of vanquished princes, or dis
graced ministers. At the festivals of the tribes, to which all the
people bring presents for the king, he drenches the tombs of his fore
fathers with human blood. Fifty dead bodies are thrown around the

68 NEGROES IN AFRICA.
royal sepulchre, and fifty heads displayjed on poles. The blood of
these victims is presented to the king, who dips his fingers into it,
and licks them. Human blood is mixed with clay, to build temples
in honor of deceased monarchs. The royal widows kill one another,
till it pleases the new sovereign to put an end to the slaughter. And
the crowd assembled at their most joyous festivals applaud such
scenes of horror, and delight in tearing the unhappy victims to
pieces." *
The people, as might be expected, are sunk into the most degraded
habits, in all the social relations of life, and especially in all their no
tions of religion. " They eat the carcass of the elephant," saith our
author, " even when full of vermin. The musky eggs and flesh of
the crocodile are welcome to their appetite. Monkeys are generally
used for food. Animals found dead and putrid give no disgust, and
at their greatest feasts, a roasted dog is counted a luxury. Their
dwellings are rude huts, consisting of a few trunks of trees, covered
with straw or palm leaves. Their furniture is usually conflned to a
few calabashesj The rich have some fire-arms, obtained from the
Europeans ; and the sovereigns, who adorn their residence with hu
man skulls and jaw-bones, have stone-ware and carpets of Enghsh
manufacture. But the mass look for nothing beyond the supply of
the simplest wants of nature. Twenty days in the year are enough,
in that luxuriant climate, for their labors in husbandry. Their cloth
ing is woven by the women from wild cotton. And their time is given
up, for the most part, to dancing at night to the sound of horns and
drums, and their days to gaming, of which they are passionately fond.
Polygamy is practiced to a greater degree than is found among any
other people. As to their religion, it is the lowest kind of idolatry.
They adore, and in time of difficulty consult, any object that strikes
their fancy — a tree, a rock, a fish-bone, an egg, a horn, a date-stone,
or a blade of grass. In Whidah, a serpent is regarded as the god of
war, of trade, of agriculture, and of fertility. It is kept in a kind of
temple, and attended by an order of priests. A company of young
women are consecrated to it, whose business it is lo please their deity
with wanton dances, and a life of systematic licentiousness. In Be
nin, a lizard is the object of public worship, and a leopard in Da-
horaey."t * Ma,Ite Brnn's System of tTniveraal Oeography. Vol. ii. p. 77. Boston ed. of 1804.
tib. p. 88-9.

CIVILIZED IN THE SOUTH. 69
Of course, neither liberty nor social comfort can exist, where laws
and manners so barbarous prevail. " Two thirds of the negro popu
lation," continues our author, "lead lives of liereditary bondage in
their own country, and those who are free, are liable to be reduced to
slavery at any moment, by the order of their despots. As an instance
of the awful tyranny under which they groan, it is related that, on
the death of Freempoong, king of the Akims, the people sacrificed
his slaves upon his tomb, to the number of several thousands, to
gether with his prime-minister, and three hundred and sixteen of his
_women. All these victims were buried alive, their bones having been
previously broken. And for several days the crowd performed dances,
accompanied with songs, round the spot, where these unfortunate
beings suffered lingering and horrible agonies."*
Here, then, we have the best testimony, with which every subse
quent writer agreeSjt as to the awful debasement, the groveling idola
try, the flagitious immorality, the total degradation of the posterity
of Ham, in the slave-region of Africa. And this testimony is given
by the first geographer of the age, who was, himself, a "friend to abo
lition. If my antagonists can show that the Canaanites were in a
worse condition than this, I should like to see\the evidence. In the
Providence of God, the negro slavery of the South has been the means
of saving millions of those poor creatures from the horrible state in
which they must otherwise have lived and died. It has raised them
on the scale of humanity, and brought them toward civilization un
der the light of religious truth, until a portion of them were enabled
to establish, through Southern direction, the Colony of Liberia, and
we have reason to hope that many of the rest may be qualified to
emulate them, in due time. If any man can seriously contemplate
the awful debasement of the native Africans, and candidly compare
it with the present condition of the Southern slaves, and then de--
nounee, as a sin, the means which divine Providence has chosen to
, save them from their former state of wretched barbarism, and delib
erately prefer that they should rather have remained in that dark sink
of heathen cruelty and abomination, in honor of philanthropy, I can
only say that I am at a loss whether I should be most astonished at
the waywardness of his heart, or the blindness of his understanding.
But my censors think that they have settled the .whole application
* Malte Brun's System of Universal GeograpJty. Vol. ii, p. 90.
t See the Appendix, for some later authorities.

70 BISHOP NEWTON.
of Noah's prophecy by confining it to the posterity of Canaan, and
exclaim against my supposed error in extending it to the posterity of
Ham, or the African generally. Let me therefore recaU to the memory
of my antagonists the language of Bishop Newton, whose well-known
work upon the Prophecies is on the list selected by the Church for
students in Theology, and must therefore, as 1 suppose, have been
once regarded, by some of themselves, as a safe guide of ministerial
opinion, " Ham, the father of Canaan, is mentioned," saith Bishop Newton,
"in the preceding part of the story, and how then came the person
of a sudden to be changed into Canaan f The Arabic version in
these three verses hath the father of Canaan, instead of Canaan.
Some copies of the Septuagint likewise have Ham instead of Canaan,
as if Canaan was a corruption of the text. Vatablus and others, by
Canaan, understand the father of Canaan, which was expressed
twice before. And if we regard the metre, this line, Cursed be Ca
naan, is much shorter than the rest, as if something was deficient.
May we not suppose, therefore, that the cop)-ist, by mistake, wrote
only Canaan instead of Ham the father of Canaan, and that the
whole passage was originally thus ? ' Cursed be Ham the father of
Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.'
" By this reading," continues Bishop Newton, " all the three sons of
Noah are included in the prophecy, whereas otherwise Ham, who was
the offender, is excluded, or is only punished in one of his children.
Ham is characterized as the father of Canaan particularly, for the
greater encouragement of the Israelites, who were going to invade the
land of Canaan ; and when it is said, ' Cursed be Ham, the father of
Canaan, -a, servant of servants shall he be to his brethren,' it is im
plied that his whole race was devoted to servitude, but particularly
¦ the Canaanites. Not that this was to take effect immediately, but
was to be fulfilled in process of time, when they should forfeit their
liberties by their wickedness. Ham at first subdued some of the
posterity of Shem, as Canaan sometimes conquered Japheth. The
Carthaginians, who were originally Canaanites, did particularly so in
Spain and Italy ; but in time they were to be subdued, and to become
servants to them and Japheth ; and the change of their fortune from
good to bad would render the curse still more visible. Egypt was
the land of Ham, as it is often called in Scripture, and for many years
it was a great and flourishing kingdom ; but it was subdued by the

BISHOP NEWTON, 71
Persians, who descended from Shem, and afterward by the Grecians,
who descended from Japheth, and from that time to this, it hath con
stantly been subject to some or other of the posterity of Shem or Ja
pheth. The whole continent of Africa was peopled principally by the
children of Ham, and for how many ages have the better parts of that
country lain under the dominion of the Romans, and then of the
Saracens, and now of the Turks ? In what wickedness, ignorance,
barbarity, slavery, and misery, lie most of the inhabitants ? In fine,"
concludes our author, "nothing can 'be more complete than the exe
cution of the sentence upon Ram as well as upon Canaan."*
These extracts from the work which, amongst Episcopalians, has
been-.held as the best authority, may suffice, I trust, as a satisfactory
answer to my adversaries. As to the notion that the race of Canaan
is probably extinct, they have only stumbled a second time against
Bishop Newton. " The Greeks and Romans," saith this author ex
pressly, " who were the descendants of Japheth, not only subdued
Syria and Palestine, but also pursued and conquered such of the Ca
naanites as were anywhere remaining, as, for instance, the Tyrians
and Carthaginians, the former of whom were ruined by Alexander
and the Grecians, and the latter by Scipio and the Romans. And ever
since, the miserable remainder of this people have been slaves to a
1 foreign yoke, first to the Saracens, wno descended from Shem, and
afterwards to the Turks, who descended from Japheth, and they groan
under their dominion at this day."\
But some of these modern theologians have discovered that Ham
was blessed along with the other sons of Noah, because it is said
(Gen. 9 : 1) that " God blessed Noah and his sons,'' while, in the
twenty-fifth verse, it is said that Noah cursed Canaan, not Ram;
"God!s blessing remaining untouched. So reads the record."
Truly this is a precious piece of Biblical criticism. God " blessed
Noah and his sons " when they issued from the ark ; but this was
several years before Canaan was born, for it is unquestionable that
only eight souls were saved from the deluge — Noah, his three sons,
and their wives. And Canaan was the fourth son of Ham, because
Cush, Mijsraim, and Phut had preceded him. If then, during those
years. Ham became disrespectful and irreverent toward his father,
• Dissertation on the PropTiealea, by Bishop Newton. Vol. 1. pp.82-4. Phil. ed. 1818.
t lb. p. 31.

72
and trained his children in a course which, of all others, is most hate
ful in the eyes of that God, who commands that honor must be given
to the father and the mother, on what principle is the Almighty to be
restrained from predicting a curse to his posterity, instead of the ori
ginal blessing ? Were not Adam and Eve blessed in their state of in
nocence, and yet did not a curse follow their disobedience ? Were
not the Israelites blessed repeatedly, and yet does not the prophet
Malachi say : "Ye are cursed with a curse, even this whole nation" ?
Does not every tyro in Christianity know that blessings and curses
are conditional, so that the commission of sin can change the blessing
to a curse, and the repentance and reformation of the sinner can
change the curse into a blessing ? If these anonymous clergymen did
not know all this — if they were capable of preaching to their people
that a blessing once given must remain " untouched," even when a
malediction is deserved by subsequent transgression, I should be
alarmed for their own state of mind, and sorry for their congregations.
But this is impossible. Such doctrine is only admissible on special
occasions and for a special purpose ; as, for example, in an assault
upon my humble work, under the new stimulus of political expe
diency. As to the quotation from Josephus, it does not agree with the state
ment of my antagonists, but rather with that of Bishop Newton.
"Noah is described," saith this historian, "as praying for prosperity
to his other sons, but for Ram, he did not curse him by reason of his
nearness of blood, but cursed his posterity, and when the rest of them
escaped that curse, God inflicted it on Canaan." Here Josephus
plainly asserts that although Noah did not curse Ham personally by
reason of his nearness of blood, yet he did curse his posterity. True,
he adds that "when the rest of them escaped that curse, God inflicted
it on Canaan," evidently alluding to the fact that although Egypt,
which was preeminently called the land of Ham, had become great,
and thus seemed to have escaped the curse for a considerable period,
yet it still continued to operate in the hne of Canaan. Josephus was
born A.D. 87, and if he had hved in our day, he would have seen
abundant proof that the rest of Ham's posterity had not escaped at
all, but had been sunk for centuries into the lowest state of social and
moral degradation.
For myself, however, the question has little interest, because I am
perfectly satisfied that the posterity of Canaan still exists in Africa, to

THE CANAAISriTES. 73
a vast extent ; and that the curse pronounced by Noah was not fulfilled,
nor intended to be fulfllled, by the conquest of the Israelites over the
seven nations which occupied the promised land. Those seven na
tions were not the whole of Canaan's progeny, for we read of his hav
ing eleven sons, whose families were "spread abroad." (Gen. 10 : 18.)
Nor have we any authority for supposing that the whole of even those
seven tribes abandoned Africa for the land of Canaan, nor for doubt
ing that large numbers returned from Canaan to Africa, in order to es
cape the conquering sword of Joshua. A part only of Canaan's pos
terity was doomed to be exterminated by the divine command, while
a far greater portion were to be slaves according to the prophecy.
This will be made evident, however, in a future chapter

74 HEBREW SLAVES.

CHAPTER IV.
Right Reverend Brother : Proceeding to the cases of Abraham,
Hagar, and Ishmael, my anonymous assailants do not pretend to deny
that Abraham had slaves, but require me to show that the Deity sanc
tions the Idnd of slavery in which negroes are held at the South, and
boldly assert that the case of Ishmael proves the children of a slave
to be free, and their mother, under the circumstances of Hagar, to be
entitled to an open acknowledgment as the wife of the master.
In my pamphlet I defined slavery to be " servitude for life, descend
ing to the offspring." This constitutes the relation between the mas
ter and the slave, and must be considered independently of the mode
of treatment, which may be good, bad, or indifferent, according to
circumstances. It is the constant error of the ultra-abolitionist to
confound these things together, like the Free-love disorganizers,
who rake up all the cases of tyrannical abuse in the relation of mar
ried life, and then modestly recommend mankind to abolish matri
mony on account of its liability to those abuses. But I have nothing
to do, in my argument, with the abuses of slavery. I condemn them
as heartily as any one. What I insist on is that the Almighty sanc
tions the relaPlon of master and slave. And I am equally ready to
insist that while, in the language of the Apostle, the slave is com
manded to "obey his master," the master is also commanded to
" render to the slave what is just and equal, remembering that he also
has a Master in heaven."
" The Hebrews," saith Crudeh in his' Concordance, a work in uni
versal use by all Protestant clergymen, " had two sorts of servants or
slaves. Some were strangers, either bought or taken in the wars,
and their masters hept thetn, exshanged them, sold them, or disposed
of them as their own goods. (Lev. 25, 44, 45, etc.) The others were
Hebrew slaves, who being poor, sold themselves or were sold to pay
their debts, or were delivered up for slaves by their parents, in^case
of necessity. This sort of Hebrew slaves continued in slavery but

HAGAR AND ISHMAEL. 75
six years, then they might return to liberty again, and their masters
could not retain them against their wills. If they would continue
voluntarily with their masters, they were brought before the judges ;
there they made a declaration that for this time they disclaimed the
privilege of the law, had their ears bored with an awl by applying to
the door-posts of their master, and after that they had no longer any
power of recovering their liberty except at the next year of Jubilee."
These were the only hinds of slavery known to the people of Israel,
and it can not be pretended that Hagar was a slave in any other sense
than that of a "stranger," because she was an Egyptian, one of the
race of Ham. But it may be well to quote the whole of the Scrip
tural narrative, for my reader's satisfaction: "And Sarai said unto
Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing : I
pray thee go in unto my maid, it may be that I may obtain children
hy her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai." (Gen. 16:2.)
Here it is perfectly manifest that the offspring was intended to
be accounted as Sarai's, and not Hagar's, the right of the mistress
over the slave continuing precisely as it was before. It appears,
however, that Hagar became proud and insolent under her new dig
nity. And then we read that " Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy
maid is in thy hand, do to her as itpleaseth thee. And when Sarai
dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. And the angel of the
Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness^and he
said, Hagar, SaraHs maid. Whence comest thou, and whither wilt
thou go ? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
And the angel of the Lord said unto her. Return to thy mistress,
and submit thyself under her hands." (Gen. 16 : 6-9.)
We read next that after Hagar had borne Ishmael, God changed
the name of Abram to Abraham, and the name of Sarai to Sarah,
promising that she should bear Isaac, with whose seed the covenant
of grace should be made to all generations. Isaac was born accord
ingly, and " Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac
-was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which
she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto
Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this
bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And
the thing 'was very grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his son.
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight,
because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman : in all that Sarah

76 HAGAR AND ISHMAEL.
hath said, hearken unto her voice ; for in Isaac shall thy seed be
called, And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation,
because he is thy seed. And Abraham rose up early in the morn
ing, and took bread and u. bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar,
and the child, and sent her away, and she departed." (Gen. ^1 :
8-14.) Here is the whole of the sacred narrative, and it is plain that Ha
gar, from first to last, continued to be a slave, until she was sent
away, or manumitted. The word " wife" is indeed applied to her
once, where it is said that Sarai gave her to her husband to be his
wife," (Gen. 16 : 3 ;) but everywhere else she is caUed a bondwoman,
and speciaUy is she so called by the angel, and by the Lord. It is
not true, therefore, as my learned antagonists assert, that she was
over " openly acknowledged" as the wife of Abraham. She was only
a concubine, and that merely by the will of her mistress. The Deity
everywhere limits the name of wife to Sarah. " Sarah, thy wife,"
and " Hagar thy bondwoman," are the phrases constantly employed.
Neither is it true thaf this example proves the right of the children
of slaves to be free ; because it is evident that Sarah did as she pleas
ed both with the mother and the son, expressly declaring, from the
flrst, that Ishmael should be accounted as her own, because she was
barren, yet finally casting him off, along with Hagar, when she saw
that the envious feelings of the boy were likely to endanger the
peace of the family.
The whole of this sacred narrative is a peculiar and exceptional
case, having no point which is fairly applicable to the question under
consideration save Hh^ principle of slavery, for which I quoted it.
The conduct of Sarah in giving her bondmaid to Abraham, in order
that the offspring might be counted for her own, was afterwards imi
tated by Rachel and Leah, the wives of Jacob. But that has no
connection with the subject before us. The only facts -which do bear
upon the controversy are these : that Hagar was insubordinate to
her mistress, that Sarah dealt hardly with her bondwoman, that
Hagar ran away, and that the angel reproved her, and commanded
that she should "return to her mistress and submit herself to her
hands." We see, therefore, that even under circumstances where
Hagar seemed entitled to more than ordinary indulgence, the rigkts
of the mistress and the submission of the slave are recognized and
affirmed by " the angel of the Lord." Sarah is not rebuked for her

HAGAR AND ISHMAEL. 77
hard dealing with the bondmaid, which was probably no more than
her disobedient demeanor had deserved ; but Hagar is sent bach
again, with a wholesome exhortation to keep her proper place, and
do her duty.
Some of my sagacious adversaries inform their readers that " Re-
bekah called Abraham's servant, ' my lord.' She watered his camels.
And Bethuel received that ' lord' and the men that were with hira,
""into his house, and treated them as honored visitors at his own table."
Here, again, we have that constant absurditj' which confounds the
occasional treatment of a slave with the relation itself. Suppose
the slaves of Abraham were received with generous hospitality by
the family, to whom they -were sent, loaded with rich presents, to
propose a marriage for their master. What then ? Did that change
their relation as slaves to Abraham ? Did it affect their bounden
duty of submission to Isaac and Rebekah, after they returned home ?
Or is it an example which my learned antagonists are themselves
ready to follow even with regard to the free negroes of their own
city? Will they call them "lords,'' water their hoi'ses, and admit
them as " honored visitors" at their table ? Such puerile stuff as
this m.ay be called ' argument' by these writers, but how any man
of common sense can so regard it, is a mystery quite too deep for
my humble comprehension.

78 THE DECALOGUE.

CHAPTER V.
Right Reverend Brother : One of the most rirulent among my
adversaries, who calls himself a Presbyter of the Church, endeavor
ing to evade the argument which I derived from the Ten Command
ments, is compelled to admit that the fourth and the tenth of these
Commandments "do, undoubtedly, apply to voluntary service, and
also to that hind of servitude authorized by the Jewish law."
He then proceeds to say that if the Ten Commandments sanction
the slavery of negroes, they must also sanction the slavery of the
white race, both Jew and Gentile. Because "justice holds an even
balance, and God hath made of one blood all the nations of men."
That the condition of slavery was not confined to the negro, but
was extended to all the various races of mankind, is a fact to which
the history of the world bears ample testimony, as we shall see by
and by. The question in controversy, however, is whether the re
lation of master and slave involves sin ; and the admission of the
author that it was sanctioned by two of the Ten Commandments,
ought, of itself, to have been decisive to any behever in the Word of
God. Yet he pays no regard whatever to this divine authority, pre
ferring to place his faith in the assumed equality of men, proclaimed
by the Declaration of Independence. He does not, indeed, attempt
to meet the argument on the subject, but contents himself; hke the
other writers and orators of his school, with repeating the language
of the Declaration, as if that was conclusive and incontrovertible.
Bnt however such arguers may talk or write, they know and feel
that there are enormous distinctions in the conditions of the hu
man race, which they can not account for, save by referring them
to the will of the All-wise and Supreme Disposer. It is not in their
power to equalize them even in a single village. And if, in the order
of divine Providence, they have themselves been placed in any jaf
the higher ranks, either by education, property, or social position I
run no risk in saying that they are quite as tenacious of their privi-

THE DECALOGUE. 79
leges, and quite as averse to see them invaded by their inferiors, as
any of those who maintain the lawfulness of the Southern insti
tution. This writer, however, does not pretend to deny the Mosaic law
-which I adduced, proving that the Almighty expressly directed his
chosen people to buy slaves of the heathen nations round them, as
well as of the alien races that dwelt within the coasts of Israel.
But he objects, first, That this relates only to Jewish servants, and
not to heathen slavery.
Secondly. That^his law was given to the Jews, and not to us Gen
tiles. And, thirdly. That the relation of master and slave is equivalent to
man-stealing. Now this is merely a poor attempt to evade the real question,
namely, whether slavery, in the ordinary legal sense of servitude for
life descending to the offspring, involves a sin per se. The ultra-abo
litionist asserts that it does, and on that ground, insists on the imme
diate emancipation of all the Southern slaves, and abuses the Consti
tution as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. I in
sist, on the contrary, that the relation of master and slave, when au
thorized by the law of the lahd, involves no sin, but is justified by
ihe Word of God, as well as by the Constitution. I appeal to the
Old Testament for the proof, and I am told that this law was given
to the Jews, and not to the Gentiles, as if the Almighty authorized
the Jew to do what would be a sin in the Christian ! And this is
done by a writer who calls himself a clergyman of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, and who, therefore, has solemnly assented to the
thirty-nine articles, in the seventh of which we read that "The Old
Testament is not contrary to the New — that although the Law given
from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rights, do not bind
Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be
received in any commonwealth, yet notwithstanding, no Christian
man whatever is free from the obedience of the commandments which
are called moral." He had been compelled to admit that the fourth
and the tenth commandments of the Decalogue did " undoubtedly
apply to that kind of servitude authorized by the Jewish law." He
can not deny that the Ten Commandments are, preeminently, re
garded by all men as " the moral law." And yet, in the face of the

80 THE MOSAIC LAW.
Article, and of his own admission, he insists that this part of the law
does not concern Christians 1
But he contends that the Mosaic system did not refer to heathen
slavery. And here I would ask. What does he mean by heathen
slavery ? Is it that the masters were heathen, or that the slaves must
be taken from a heathen race ? If the term heathen refers to the
masters, there is an end at once to his whole objection ; because the
masters of our Southern slaves are not heathen, but as good Christ
ians, in general, as any of their defamers. If the word ^eosiAera refers
to the race which the Jews were allowed to hold in bondage, then the
Jewish system was heathen slavery, that is, the slavery of a heathen
race ; and such precisely was the fact with respect to the negro race,
imported from Africa.
His third objection is, that " the Jewish law forbids ' man-stealing^
which is part and parcel of the heathen code of slavery." " He that
stealoth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he
shall surely be put to death." And here I can not but admire the
beautiful consistency which, just after telling us that the law was
given to the Jews, and not to us Gentiles, goes back to that law most
gladly, when he thinks it in his favor. But he ought to have quoted
it as it stands in the very place to which he refers. Deut. 24 : 7.
" If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of
JsraeZ, and maketh merchandise of- him, or selleth him, . . then that
thief shall die." My assailant omits, in this verse, the whole limita
tion which gave the law its proper character. For the Almighty had
repeatedly commanded that the children of Israel should not be sold
as bondsmen. " Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt
have,'' saith the Deity, " 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 for an inheritance /or your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession. They shall be your bondmen forever, but over
your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one an
other with rigor. For xmto me the children of Israel are servants
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your
God." (Lev. 25 : 40-46, with v. 55.)
The law is here given, therefore, with the reason of it. If the

THE MOSAIC LAW. 81
Israelite were stolen, the man that stole him was a thief, because he
stole the property of the Lord, who counted all the Israelites as his
bondservants. But this only applied to the children of Israel. There
is another application of the principle, which the ultra-abolitionist
does not consider, as when a slave, lawfully belonging to a Jewish or
a Christian master, is stolen from that master. For it is impossible
to steal that which has no owner. The very crime of stealing con
sists in a, felonious tahing of the lawful property of another. And
it is not the subsequent use of that property, but the felonious tahing
which constitutes the theft, for a man may be quite as much a thief ^
by taking from the owner what he. can not use himself, as if he in
tended to make a profit of it. On this plain ground of law and justice,
it is worthy of very serious reflection whether the abolitionist, who
secretly entices the negro slave to abscond from his lawful owner,
and thus deprives the master of his legal property, is not, on prin
ciple, liable to this very charge of man-stealing ; and therefore sub
ject to the condemnation of the divine law.
The next point made by this writer is derived from the Mosaic
precept which commanded that "a slave, escaping ivom. & heathen .
master, and coming under the authority of the Jewish law, should
should not be delivered up, but should be free in Israel." And here
my antagonist thanks me for having said that " this evidently must
be referred to the case of a slave who had escaped from a foreign
heathen master, and can not, with any sound reason, be applied to
the slaves of the Israelites themselves."
It is certainly amusing to read the conclusion which my ingenious
critic draws from this statement, viz. : " That by the Jewish law no
person could be held in heathen slavery, and therefore if that law
was in force at the South, it would free every slave by an authority
higher than that of man."
I shall not undertake to decide whether the author of this sentence
thought that his readers had lost their understanding, or that the
effervescence of his zeal had deprived him of his own. But in all
the nonsense that I have read upon the subject, I have never seen a
more puerile absurdity. The law in question is admitted by himself,
and rightly admitted, to apply to a slave who had escaped into Judea
" from a. foreign heathen master," so that " it can not with any sound
reason, be applied' to the slaves of the Israelites themselves." If,
4'^

82 THREE SYSTEMS COMPARED.
then, it could not be applied to the slaves belonging to the Jews,
how, in the name of common-sense, can it be applied to the slaves
belonging to the Southerners ?
His last effort, however, is to get rid of the whole testimony of the
Mosaic law, by the bold declaration fhat " between the Hebrew bond
man and the Southern slave there is no point of resemblance, so that
we can not use the first to justify the second," and he quotes from
the respectable Jewish Rabbi, Dr. Raphall, as follows, viz. : " The
slave under the Jewish law, though a Gentile or a heathen, is a
person in whom the dignity of human nature is to be respected ; he
has rights. Whereas the heathen view of slavery which prevailed
at Rome, and which, I am sorry to say, is adopted at the South, re
duces the slave to a thing, (a chattel,) and a thing can have no
rights." Now here, while I readily admit that the heathen law of slavery
which prevailed at Rome, differed in some particulars from the Jew
ish system, yet I shall prove that the slave in the South is more
nearly like the Jewish slave than like the Roman. I shall also show
that, granting the Southern slave to be in some respects a chattel,
the Jewish slave was also a chattel in the same respects, precisely.
But I shall contend that in every other aspect of his condition, the
Southern slave is considered a person : for his life is protected, his
maintenance is secured, and he is the subject of lawful manumission,
from which has proceeded a result which neither Judea nor Rome
ever accomplished, in the new State of Liberia.
1. The Jewish law confined slavery to the races of the heathen.
And in this it resembled the Roman law, by comprehending all the
nations "round about" Judea, without reference to their barbarism,
or savage degradation. It was sufficient that^they were " strangers "
to the Jewish stock, and I have proved, by the express quotation
from Leviticus, (ch. 25 : 40, etc.,) that the rule extended to the fami
hes of strangers, resident among them, and "begotten in the land."
Such, precisely, is the Southern system, confining slavery to a
heathen race, but limiting it, as the Jewish law did not, to the pos
terity of Ham, the negroes who, in their native state, are confessedly .,
the most degraded and brutalized people known to history. In this
respect, therefore, the slave-system of the South has the advantage
over the law of Moses.
2. The Jewish institution was like the Roman law, in regardin"

THREE SYSTEMS COMPARED. 83
the slaves as chattel -property, because, in the wordp of Cruden, al
ready quoted, "they were either bought or tahen in the wars, and
their masters kept them, exchanged them, sold them, or disposed of
them as their own goods." That they were liable to bo beaten at the
master's pleasure, short of maiming or death, is perfectly proved in
Exod. 21 : 20-1, and the only cftfference between the Jewish and the
Roman law in this respect was, that prior to the reign of the Em
peror Antonine, the Roman master was allowed to kill his slave.
The Jewish master, on the contrary, was punished if the slave died
under his correction, but suffered no penalty unless the death oc
curred within " a day or two " after the blows had been given ; for if
the slave died on the third day, the loss of his labor and of the
" money " which he had cost, was held to be a sufficient infliction.
Such, substantially, is the chattel property of slavery in the South.
The slaves maybe kept, bought and sold, or punished at the master's
pleasure, provided death does not ensue. In one respect, however,
the Jewish law had an advantage by enacting, that if the master
struck out the eye or the tooth of his slave, he should let him go
free. But this is quite balanced by the superior guardianship of life
according' to the Southern law, which does not measure the responsi
bility of the master by the fact that the slave survived his punish
ment for "a day or two," but holds him liable for causing the death
of his slave, after any interval.
8. But although the slave was chattel property, alike by the Jew
ish, the Roman, and the Southern law, in which point there is no
real difference between them, yet I insist upon the unquestionable
fact, that in all of them " the dignity of human nature was respected,"
whatever may be said or thought by any man to the contrary. Be
cause, in all of them, the slave was acknowledged to be a man, to be
maintained and supported, with his family, to have access to religi
ous privileges, and ta be set free by manumission, if the master were
willing. These are privileges which belong to persons, not things.
And therefore the notion that because slaves are chattel property,
they are regarded as nothing else but chattels, is a manifest error.
The truth is, that they partake of both these characters. As chat
tels, they can be bought and sold. As persons, they must be main
tained and supported, in sickness and in old age, as well as in their
helpless infancy. By the Jewish and the Southern law their lives
are protected. By all the laws of Judea, Rome, and the South, they
t

84 THREE SYSTEMS COMPARED.
are entitled to a share in religious privileges, and they may be manu
mitted, or set free, if the master thought thera worthy.
4. With respect to the marriages of slaves, the law of the South is
silent. So was the ancient law of Rome. But so, likewise, is the
law of Moses. There is, however, one remarkable passage, aheady
quoted in the Bible View, which beaj^, on this subject, a very plain
testimony : " If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve,
and in the seventh year he shall go out free, for nothing. If he came
in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then
his wife shall go with him. If Ms master have given Um a wife,
and she have borne him sons or daughters, the loife and the children
shall be her master's, and h,e shall go out by himself." (Exod.
21 : 2-4.) This is a plain proof that, in the case of slaves, marriage was
not allowed to interfere with the master's right of property. The
husband had no remedy allowed, except to become himself a slave
for life, if he wished to remain with his wife and children.
There is no doubt that this feature in the Southern institution is
liable to much occasional hardship, and it is greatly to be desired
that it might be regulated, as I presume it will be, in time, by a bet
ter system. But meanwhile we have no right to censure it as inex
cusable, so long as the same difficulty presents itself in the Mosaic
system, Nor ought we to doubt that the Christian slaveholders and
clergy of the South do all that they can to bring the marriages of the
slaves under the rule of religious obligation ; and that the negro race
there are elevated in their marriage state immeasurably above the
polygamy and licentiousness which prevail in their parent land of
Africa. 5. The last topic which I shall notice here, respects the exclusion
of slaves from giving testimony before a court of justice, which has
been the subject of an immense amount of objurgation from the elo
quent adversaries of the Southern system. Of course it is allowed
that the same rule is found in the Roman law, and in the law of
every other land in which slavery existed, which comprehended, un
til lately, the whole civilized world. But as the Mosaic system lays
down no special rule upon the subject, I shall have recourse to the
historian Josephus, to whom one of my antagonists displayed so
much partiality, on a different subject, that he tried to make him
contradict the statements of Bishop Newton, though happily in vain.
Here, then, is the passage, taken from the same translation, vol. 1,

THE RESULT. 85
p. 264 : "Let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at
the least, and those such whose testimony is conflrmed by their good
lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account
of the levity and boldness of their sex. Nor let servants be admitted
to give testimony, on account of the ignobility of their soul ; since it
is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of the hope of
gain, or fear of punishment."
Thus we have, again, another instanqe of agreement with the Jew
ish law of slavery. And on the whole survey the reader can readily
perceive how much confldence may be placed in the reckless asser
tion of my adversaries, that " between the Hebrew bondman and the
Southern slave, there is no point of resemblance."

86 SLAVERY UNDER THE APOSTLES.

CHAPTER VI.
Right Reverend Brother : Having gone through the principal ob
jections of the anonymous pamphleteers, which relate to the Mosaic
law of slavery, the next question presented is the all-important one,
viz. What aspect did slavery bear in the judgment of the Church of
Christ ? I have promised you, in my reply to your protest and de
nunciation, that I should demonstrate the " truth wherein I stand,"
by proving from the most unquestionable authorities, that " slaves
and slaveholders were in the Church from the beginning — that slavery
was held to be consistent with Christian principle by fathers and
councils, and by all Protestant divines and commentators, up to the
very close of the last century, and that this fact was universal among
all churches and sects throughout the Christian world." This pro
mise I shall now proceed to fulfil, and then I shall notice the few
points -which may have been left untouched in the course of the ar
gument. The system of slavery, according to the Old Testament, disappeared
of course, when Israel ceased to be a nation ; which event took place
at the destruction of Jerusalem by the army of Titus, a.d. 76, al
though I presume that the Jews, dispersed throughout the world,
observe the law of Moses so far as circumstances render it practicable,
to this day. The Roman code, therefore, is that which we have now
to consider, because it was under this code that the Gentile churches
were all gathered by the Apostles : and the authoritative repository of
it is weU known to be the civil law, as laid down in the " Institutes"
of the Christian Emperor, Justinian. To this, then, as the foundation
of my argument, I shall first direct your attention, and afterwards to
the fathers, councils, historians, lawyers, divines, and commentators.
And I shall prove fi-om the whole, that Christianity never undertook
to abolish slavery, even when it extended over all races and all va
rieties of raen — that religion operated to ameliorate, but not to do it
away — that its extinction in Europe was not the result of any direct

THE ROMAN LAW. 87
assault, but a gradual dying out through the changes of society — that
the first positive attack upon it was not from the Church, nor from
Christians, but from the Atheists of the French Revolution ; and that
it was never supposed to be a sin to hold a slave, where the laws of
the country authorized it, until our own age assumed the novel work
of ultra-abolitionism.
You must be prepared,, therefore, for a large amount of testimony.
And if you can no longer do me that justice, my other readers, I trust,
will bear in mind that I undertake the task in defense of the Bible, in
defense of the Church through all former times, in defense of their
own forefathers, in defense of the heroes and sages of the Revolution,
in defense of the Constitution, and in defense of what I believe to be»
a most important truth for the future welfare of our country. There
is this difference, however, between my pubhcations in 1850 and 1857
and my present labor ; viz., that then I wro'te as a volunteer, foresee
ing the approaching danger ; but now I write under the new compul
sion of self-defense, against the gross and insulting denunciation of my
own brethren.
The evidence which I shall adduce is gathered from many sources,
and it will be found entire in the original extracts which are arranged
in the Appendix. The substance will be stated in my argument, but
all who desire to see the very words of my authorities can satisfy
themselves by turning to the notes, which are regularly numbered,
and occasionaUy accompanied by explanatory observations.
Commencing, according to the order prescribed, with the testimony
of that most celebrated code of civil law, which bears the name of the
Institutes of Justinian, we find the slave system largely set forth in
the very commencement, under the title of the rights of persons.
And I pray you to mark this title, because it proves that this much-
abused code regarded slaves as persons and not as things.
" The chief division in the rights of persons,'' saith this code, " is
this : that all men are either free or slaves. Liberty is the natural
faculty of him who does as he pleases, unless when forbidden by force
or by law. But slavery is the constitution of the law of nations, by
which the individual, contrary to nature, is subject to the mastery of
another. Slaves are called (in Latin) servi, from servare, (to save,)
because the generals were accustomed to sell their captives instead of
killing them, and so saved them. They are also called mancipia, be
cause they were manu capti, taken by hand from the enemy."
V

88 THE ROMAN LAW.
" Slaves are either born in that condition, or they are made so.
They are born slaves from our bond-maids. They are made slaves
either by the law of nations, {Jure gentium,) that is, by captivity, or
by the civil law, as when a freeman of twenty years allows himself
to be sold, in order to share in the price. In the condition of slaves
there is no difference ; in that of freemen there are many differences,
for they are either free by birth or freed from slavery." (8)
" Those are freedmen who are manumitted from lawful slavery.
Which thing (manumission) takes its origin /rom th^ law of nations.
For by the law op nature all were born free, and there could be no
manmnission when slavery was unknown. But after slavery became
established by the law of nations, the benefits of manumission fol
lowed. Hence, by the law of nations there are three kinds of men—
the freemen, the slaves, and the freedmen, or those who have been
manumitted from slavery. And manumission may be granted in
many ways, either by the sacred canons in the holy churches, or by
letter or by will," etc. (4)
" Slaves are in the power of their masters by the law of nations.
For in almost all nations the power of life and death was exercised by
the masters over their slaves, and whatsoever was acquired by the
slave belonged to the master. But at this time, no men under our
government are allowed to rage against their slaves -without restric
tion. For, by the edict of the Emperor Antonine, whoever, without
cause, should kill his own slave, is to be punished no less than if he
had killed the slave of a stranger. And the same Antonine also de
creed that if the slave were treated with intolerable cruelty by his
master, he should be sold for a just price to another, and the master
should receive the money." (5)
" By the law of nations, those things -which we take from an enemy
become ours. And therefore freemen are reduced to slavery, who,
nevertheless, if they escape from our power and return to their own
people, are restored to their flrst condition." (6)
" Slaves are not entitled to maintain an action in their own persons,
but their masters may maintain it, in case of any atrocious injury, as
if a stranger should beat a slave with great severity, his master may
have an action. But if any one reviles a slave or only strikes him
with his fist, the master can have no action." (7)
" We utterly prohibit slaves to be admitted among the clergy, even
if their masters consent and desire it, because they may flrst set

THE .ROMAN LAW. 89
them free, and thus open to them the honors of the ministry, if they
will." (8)
" If a slave, with the knowledge of his master, who does not oppose
it, be ordained by the bishop, he shall be held as one born free. But
if he be ordained without the knowledge of his master, it shall be
lawful for the master, within one year, to prove that he was his slave,
and to claim him again as such. And if a slave, whether with or
without the knowledge of his master, being made free by ordination,
shall leave his ecclesiastical ministry and return to a secular life, he
may be delivered again in slavery to his former master." (9)
" With respect to fugitive slaves entering monastic life, it was de
creed that if within three years it became manifest that any such
were a fugitive, he should be stripped of his monastic habit, and his
master might reclaim him ; but that if he were not detected until
three years had expired, even though he were afterwards discoyered,
he should be free against his master's will. But since we see that
many slaves have taken advantage of this la-wHo flee from their mas
ters, and abuse the honest monastic profession by making it a cloak
for their malice, we command that however long a slave who has thus
become a monk may lie hid, if at any time his master discover him,
he shall be deprived of the habit which he assumed with an evil pur
pose, and be subject again to his master's power." (10)
" Concerning those slaves who, without their master's knowledge,
have ascended to the honors of the Episcopal office, we decree that
they shall be degraded and returned to their servile condition." (11)
"As the giving of testimony is 'an act of great importance, it should
not be allowed to every one, but only to those who are free from igno
miny. But the laws formerly admitted slaves to testify in certain
cases. Now, however, the law of the new Constitution must be en
forced, that in all cases none hut free men shall be aUowed to give
testimony." (12)
"K any one is so demented as to exchange liberty for slavery by
selling himself, the contract shall not be binding, but on the contrary
shall be annulled, and both he who is the betrayer of his own liberty,
and he who was a party to the crime, shall be chastised by scourging,
and the intended slave shall remain a freeman.'' (13.)
These copious extracts from the civil law show distinctly the gene
ral aspect of slavery as it existed in quiet union with the primitive
Church, saving only the last four clauses, which were not introduced

90 THE EOMAN T:,AW.
until the ninth century, under the Emperor Leo. And I ask your
candid attention to a few remarks, which may aid in the proper ap
plication of this highest kind of testimony, to the points under con
sideration. First, then, we see the law of the Roman empire recognizing and
regulating slavery in the reign of the Christian Emperor Justinian,
more than two hundred years after the Gospel had become estab--
lished. For you know that the Emperor Constantino was converted
to the faith in a.d. 312, and the famous code which was compiled
by Triboniau and his colleagues by order of Justinian, and which
bears his name, was not published until the middle of the sixth cen
tury. Secondly, we see that slavery is here said to subsist by the law of
NATIONS — not by local law, confined to this or that territory, but by
the universal law which extended throughout the whole of the then
known world. ^
Thirdly, we see that its origin is ascribed to war. The captives
taken- in battle, were liable to death. Prom this death, slavery saved
them, and therefore the Romans called them servi, as persons saved,
or mancipia, as taken by hand from the enemy.
Fourthly, we see that the law of nature is distinguished from the
law of nations in this : that " by the law of nature all men were bom
free, and there could be no manumission when slavery was unknown,"
Here the civil law differs from the Declaration of Independence, for
this informs us that all men are created equal, whereas the civil
law only states that they were born free when slavery was unknown,
that is to say, during the period before wars arose amongst the pos
terity of Noah. Doubtless it was so, because war is the parent of
slavery. But after war was introduced, through the progress of ini
quity, it became the universal practice ; and slavery which followed
in its train as an act of comparative mercy to the captive, became
universal likewise, both existing by the same law — "the law of na
tions." Fifthly, we see that this universal system of slavery, throughout
the Roman empire, was not confined to the race of Ham, but included
all the nations with which the Romans had ever been in conflict.
And the necessary result was that a considerable portion of the slaves
were quite equal to their masters in race, in knowledge, in talent, and
in mental energy.

THE EOMAN LAW. 91
Sixthly, we see that, until the reign of the Emperor Antonine, the
master had the power of life and death over his slaves. But this em
peror did not ascend the throne until a.d. 161. So that at the time
when St. Paul taught slaves to be obedient to their masters, and sent
back the fugitive Onesimus, the system of Roman slavery included
this very power.
Seventhly, we see that the Church, notwithstanding it existed, from
the fourth century, in the highest dignity and honor, could not eman
cipate the slave, even when he had been ordained to tlie office of a
bishop, against the will of the master ; but he was hable to be re
claimed at any time as a fugitive, and reduced to slavery again.
Eighthly, we see that although slavery, in the first instance, was
the result of captivity in war, yet afterwards it continued to be
propagated to the posterity, and that this was the result even when
the father was a freeman, prorided the mother were a slave.
And lastly, we see that nothing could liberate the slave but the
will of his master. In case of excessive cruelty, indeed, the Emperor
Antonine, in the second century, decreed that the slave should be
sold to another, but stiU he remained a slave, and his first master
received the price of the transfer.
On the whole, therefore, it is manifest that the slavery of the old
Roman empire was more severe than Southern slavery in some
respects, and superior in none, save in this last particular, which was
not enacted until a hundred years after the martyrdom of St. Paul.
The greater hardships of the Roman Code consisted in these particu
lars : that all prisoners of war became slaves, no matter how elevated
they might be in race, in education, or in mental capacity, whereas
the Southern institution is confined to the negro race, which is con
fessedly inferior : that prior to the reign of the Emperor Antonine,
A.D. 161, the master had the power of life and death over his slave,
which never was allowed in the Southern system ; and that any free
man at the age of twenty, was authorized to sell himself into slavery,
until the Emperor Leo took that abuse away, in the ninth century.
And no one can deny that this system cf slavery, in its most ex
treme form, existed from the earliest ages. It was in full force, when
the spirit of liberty expelled Tarquin, and established the consular
goverjjment by election. It was in full force when the same spirit of
- hberty roused contest after contest, between the patricians and the
plebeians. It was in full force when the spirit of liberty sacrificed the

92 SLAVERY AND FREEDOM.
famous Julius Cesar, on the mere suspicion that he sought to be a
king. It was in full force in all the states of Greece, and in every
other country known to history. In a word, it was universal, sus
tained everywhere, notwithstanding the indisputable fact that the
world has never produced more energetic struggles for liberty, and
has never heard more eloquent declamations in its praise, than those
which have come down to us from the poets, the orators and the sages
of antiquity. But this ardent love of liberty had no effect on the
condition of the slaves. That remained as it had been from the re
motest periods of history. And we have just seen what it was, long
after the Roman empire had absorbed the Grecian states, when hea
thenism had sunk prostrate before the Cross of Christ, and the
Church was established in all the power of its pristine energy and
devotion.

ARISTOTLE. 93

CHAPTER VII.
Right Reverend Brother : Before I enter upon the opinions of
the Fathers, I deem it only just to the philosophy of ray subject, to
present a copious extract from the Politics of the famous Aristotle,
who was the chosen preceptor of Alexander the Great, and whose
influence had not only so large a field among the ancients, but con
tinued to operate, during many ages, upon the Church itself. I
quote from Bohn's London edition :
" By nature," saith Aristotle, " some beings command, and others
obey, for the sake of mutual safety ; for a being endowed with dis
cernment and forethought is by nature the superior and governor,
whereas he who is merely able to execute by bodily labor, is the in
ferior and a natural slave : and hence the interest of master and
slave is identical." *
Again : " He then ii by nature formed a slave, who is fitted to
become the chattel of another person, and on that account is so, and
who has just reason enough to perceive that there is such a faculty
as reason, without being endued with the use of it. Now it is the
intention of nature to make the bodies of slaves and freemen differ
ent from each other, that the one should be robust for their neces
sary purposes, but the others erect ; useless indeed for such servile
labors, but fit for civil life, which is divided between the duties of
war and peace ; though the contrary often takes place, namely, that
the one have the bodies, but the other have the souls, of free citizens.
For this at all events is evident, that if they excelled others as much
as the statues of the gods excel the human form, every one would
allow that the inferiors ought to be slaves to the others. And since
this is true with respect to the body, it is still more just to deterraine
in the same manner, when we consider the soul, though it is not so
easy to perceive the beauty of the soul as it is of the body. It is
clear then that some men are free by nature, and others are slaves,
'* The Politics and Economies of Aristotle. Book 1, ch. ii. p. 4.

94 ARISTOTLE.
and that in the case of the latter, the lot of slavery is both advanta
geous andjiist" *
Proceeding in the argument, our phUosopher next takes into con
sideration the opinions of Plato and others, who held the lawfulness
of enslaving prisoners taken in war, and therein differed from him.
"It is not difficult," saith Aristotle, "to perceive that those who
maintain the contrary opinion have some reason on their side, for
slavery and a slave have each two different senses, (significations ;)
for there is such a thing as a slave by custom ; and this custom is a
sort of compact by which whatsoever is taken in battle, is said to be
the property of the conqueror. But many persons call in question
this right, and say that it would be hard that whoever is compelled
by violence should become the slave and subject of another, who has
the power to compel him, and is his superior in strength ; and even
,of those who are wise, some think one way, and some another on
this subject But the source of this doubt and that which makes
this, conflict of opinions is the fact that ability, when accompanied
with proper means, in a certain way, is able to commit the greatest
violence, for victory is always owing to some superior advantage ; so
that it seems that violence does not prevail without ability, and so
the dispute is only concerning what is just For on this account
some persons think that justice consists in benevolence, while others
think it just that the superior should govern, since in the midst
of these contrary opinions, the opposite argument has nothing
weighty enough to persuade us that the superior on the score of
ability ought not to rule and govern. But nevertheless, some per
sons, (the Platonists,) clinging, as they think, to a certain plea of
right, (for custom is a kind of right,) insist that slavery in war is
just, but at the same time they contradict themselves. For it may
happen that the principle upon which- the wars were commenced is
unjust ; and no one will say that the man who is undeservedly en
slaved is therefore a slave, for if so, men of the noblest families might
happen to be slaves, and the descendants of slaves, if they chance to
be taken prisoners in war, and sold. And on this account they do
not choose to give the name of slaves to such persons, but only to
barbarians. But when they say this, they do nothing more than
inquire who is a slave by nature, as we said at the flrst, for we must
' Aristotle's Politics. Book 2, ch. v. p. IS.

ARISTOTLE. 95
acknowledge that some persons, wherever they may be, are of neces
sity slaves, but that others can in no case be slaves. Thus it is also,
with those of noble descent ; it is not only in their own country but
everywhere, that men esteem them as such, while barbarians are
respected at home only ; as if nobihty and freedom were of two sorts,
the one universal, the other not so. Those who express these senti
ments show that they distinguish the slave and the freeman, the
noble and the ignoble, from each other, by no other test save that of
their virtues and their vices ; for they think it reasonable, that as a
man begets a man, and a beast a beast, so froin a good man, a good
man should be descended ; and this is what nature desires to bring
about, but oftentimes can not accomplish it. It is evident then that
this doubt has no reason in it, and that some persons are slaves and
others freemen by the appointment of nature; and also that in some
instances there are two distinct classes, for the one of whom it is ex
pedient to be a slave, and for the other to be a master, and that it.^ is
right and just that some should be governed, and that others should
exercise that government for which they are fitted by nature. And
if so, then the rule of the master over the slave is just also. But to
govern ill is disadvantageous to both ; for the same thing is useful to
the part and to the whole, to tbe body and to the soul ; but the slave
is, as it were, a part of the master, as though he were an animated
part of his body, though separate. For which reason a mutual util
ity and friendship may subsist between the master and the slave. I
' mean when they are placed by nature in that relation to each other ;
for the contrary is the case with those who are reduced to slavery
by custom or by conquest." *
One passage more will close my extracts from Aristotle : " The art
of war," saith he, "is, in some sense, a part of the art of acquisi
tion ; for hunting is a part of it, which it is necessary for us to em
ploy against wild beasts, and against those of mankind who, being
intended by nature for slavery, are unwilling to submit to it, and
on this occasion, such a war is by nature just." t
To these copious selections from the prince of philosophers I add
the remarks of Dr. Gillies, who thus sums up this part of the system
of Aristotle in the introduction, page xxxviii. etc. :
" In the relation of master and servant, the good of the master
may be the primary object, but the benefit of the servant or slave is
» AristotWs Politics. Book 1, ch. vi. p. 1-1^6. t lb. ch. 8, p. 19-20.

96 , ARISTOTLE.
also a necessary result, since he only is naturally and justly a slave,
whose powers are competent to mere bodily labor, who is capable of
listening to reason, but incapable of exercising that sovereign faculty,
and whose weakness and short-sightedness are so great, that it is
safer for him to be guided or governed through hfe by the prudence
of another. But let it always be remembered that ' one class of men
ought to have the quaUfications requisite for masters, before another
can either fltly or usefully be employed as slaves.' Government,
then, not only civil but domestic, is a. most serious duty — a most
sacred trust : a trust the very nature of which is totally incompatible
with the supposed inalienable rights of all men to be self-governed.
Those rights and those only, are inalienable, which it is impossible
for one person to exercise for another, and to maintain those to be
natural and inalienable rights, which the persons supposed to be in
vested with them can never possibly exercise, consistently either with
their own safety, or with the good of the community, is to confound
ALL NOTIONS OF THINGS, and to INVERT THE WHOLE ORDER OF NATURE,
of which it is the primary and unalterable law that forecast should
direct improvidence, reason control passion, and wisdom command
folly" Here, then, we have a perfect demonstration of the principle on
which the advocates of negro slavery, in perpetuity, rest their argu
ment. We have seen that the civil law held men to be free by na
ture, meaning by nature the condition of humanity before war was
known, or during that golden age of the poets, when all was suppos
ed to be peace and affection. We know, from divine revelation, that
since the expulsion of Adam from paradise, no such age has ever
' existed. The murder of Abel by his brother Cain, and the shameful
irreverence of Ham towards his father Noah, prove distinctly that
sin was ever at work, from the period of the faU. War, indeed, in
its common acceptation, could not exist, until the multiplication of
mankind had gone on for a considerable period. But the spirit of
war, which is the spirit of selfish contention, is always active in the
human heart, until it has experienced that mighty change from
heaven which makes it " a new creature."
Referring the word, nature, therefore, to this supposed original
condition of humanity, the civil law rested slavery upon the law of
nations, or, in other words, upon the universal custom of the world.
In the philosophy of Aristotle, however, the word nature signifies,
not the imaginary condition of men before war was introduced, but

SOUTHERN ARGUMENT. 97
the constitution of the mind and temperament which is inherent fi-om
his birth in every individual, and stamps its character upon his fu
ture hfe, under every modification of circumstances. It needs no
argument to prove that the great philosopher is right, in this use of
the word, nature, because it is in the same sense that all men use it
in our own day.
When, in this strictly proper application of the term, Aristotle
saith that some men are slaves by nature, and others freemen by
nature, he merely declares a fact which all human experience demon
strates, namely, that the natural constitution of mind and tempera
ment qualifies the individual either to- govern, or to be governed.
And freedom is therefore the best condition for the one, and slavery
is the best condition for the other. Hence he deduces the rule that
the man who is, by nature, fitted-for freedom, can not, in justice, be
made a slave. And the man who is, by nature, fitted for slavery,
fcan not, injustice, be made a freeman. For justice requires that
every man should occupy that condition for which nature has de
signed him. To force him into any other, is to contradict and oppose
the order of nature, and can not be beneficial either to the individual
himself, or to the community.
Thus, then, the Southern slaveholder insists that the sound phi
losophy of Aristotle is altogether on his side, in the bondage of the
African. For, if ever there was a race of men, fitted, by nature, for
slavery, the African race must be admitted to be in that condition.
Hence the negro, when set free, rarely fails to grow worse, instead
of better. He is happier, safer, more contented, and more useful, as
a slave, than in any other position. That there are occasional ex
ceptions, the Southern arguer admits ; and for these, emancipation is
allowed, and the colony of Liberia was pl3,nted expressly for their
accommodation. But for the great mass of the negro race, he con
tends that slavery is their proper state, on the very ground laid down
by Aristotle ; and claims the experience of the world, as a demon
stration in his favor.
In the view of the Southern slaveholders, therefore, the general
emancipation of their negroes would not only be ruinous to the
masters, but cruel, to the last degree, towards the slaves themselves ;
because it would thrust into the dangers and difficulties of freemen,
millions of human beings who are entirely unfitted by nature for
freedom, and who need the protection and government of their mas
ters, even more than the masters need their labor. And therefore
5

98 SOUTHERN ARGUMENT.
they resist the policy of abolition, on the very ground of humanity
and affection towards their slaves, and regard it as an act of
Christian duty not to cast them off, into a condition of suffering,
peril and degradation, but to continue their government and guard
ianship as a trust committed to their hands by divine Providence,
which they can not give up without making themselves accessory to
the fearful consequences.
Of course, my Right Reverend brother, you and I would not be
likely to view the subject in the same light Men are usually the
creatures of circumstances, and rarely reason upon any subject ex
cept in accordance with the habits and prejudices which have formed
the greater, part of their own training. If we had been bom and
educated at the South, it is at least probable that we might have
taken the most extreme ground on the subject of negro slavery. And
even as it is, though all my notions and feelings lead me towards
abolitionism, yet I can not deny that there is great force and appar
ently great truth in the argument of these Southern gentlemen. At
all events I must admit that they become attached to their slaves,
and the slaves to them, in a manner which I am not in a position to
appreciate ; and that, in the words of Aristotle, " a mutual utility
and friendship may subsist between the master and the slave, when
they are placed, by nature, in that relation to each other.'' I must
also admit that the subject is one with which they are perfectly fa
miliar, in all its bearings, of necessity ; while, to me, it is a mere
matter of abstract speculation, and therefore, supposing th^ they
have as much inteUect and Christian principle as I have, they ought
to understand it much better than any one, who, like myself, is a
stranger to the system. Am I justified in assuming that I have a
vast deal more of intellect and Christian principle, than the Southern
clergy, who defend their domestic institution on these grounds, of
Scripture, of law, and of sound philosophy ? Can I say to them : -
" Stand by, for I am holier than you ? Stand by, for I am more in
tellectual than you ! Stand by, for I have more philanthropy than
you ! Stand by, for I have the master mind by nature, and your
minds ought to be, in justice, the slaves of mine, by reason of my
superiority 1"
You, my Right Reverend brother, may think and say thus, if you
can prove your right to such preeminence ; but I must be excused if
I dare not occupy a position which seems to me the very reverse of
rommon-senso, of sound argument, and of Christian moderation.

PHLLO AND TERTULLIAN. 99

CHAPTER vm.
RiGHf Reverend Brother : I come, now, to the statements of the
ancient authors on the subject of slavery, and shall commence with
Philo Judseus, a learned Jew of Alexandria, who lived in the first
century of the Christian era, when slavery existed according to tho
old Roman law.
" There is one kind of slavery," saith Philo, " of the mind, and an
other of the body. Men are the masters over the bodies, and the ap
petites and vices over the minds." (14)
" The divine law accommodates the rules of right, not to fortune
but to nature. Therefore masters ought not to abuse their power
over their domestic servants, but should beware of insolence, con
tempt, and gruelty. For these are not the signs of a serene mind,
but of tyrannical weakness ; exercising arbitrary licentiousness instead
of judgment" (15)
Near the latter end of the second century we have the works of the
famous TertuUian, a presbyter of Carthage, whose writings were held
in such esteem by the martyr Cyprian, that when he called for them
he was accustomed to say : " Give me the master." Amongst the nu
merous treatises of TertuUian there are some against the heretic Mar
cion. And here we meet with a passage which shows with what ab
horrence TertuUian regarded the attempt to draw away the slave from
the service of his master.
" For what," saith ,this celebrated father, " can be more unjust,
what more iniquitous, what more shameful than an attempt to benefit
the slave in such way that he shall be snatched from his master, that
he shall be delivered to another, that he shall be suborned against
the hfe of his master, whfle he is yet in his house, living on his gran
ary and trembling under his correction ? Such a rescuer would be
condemned in the world no less than a man-stealer.'' (16)
The fourth century beheld the "Church freed from persecution, and
her bishops and clergy held in high reverence and honor. Let us

100 JEROME.
next turn to the testimony of those eminent Christian fathers, whose
authority has been universally respected to this day.
Thus Jerome, one of the oracles of the ancient Church, gives his
comment on St Paul's first Epistle to Timothy, ch. 6, v. 1, "Let as
many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of
all honor," etc.
" Not only the good," saith Jerome, " but even the infidels, lest
the slaves might seem to have been made worse by their religion.
Neither let them despise their master as only equal to themselves.
If they formerly served unbelievers with a hateful fear, how much
more should they serve the faithful, of whose kindness they partici
pate." (17)
The same father remarks as follows on 1 Cor. 7 : 21 :
" The condition of a slave can not be opposed to the Christian reli
gion. Say not, therefore. How can I please" God, who am a slave?
For God does not regard the condition, but He seeks the wiU and the
mind. Therefore neither does liberty profit nor slavery hurt. Who
ever is the slave of man is free with God, and he who is free from
men is the slave of Christ. Therefore both are one." (18)
Again, commenting on Eph. 6 : 5-9, Jerome saith : • ,
" The Apostle here provides that the doctrine of God may not be
blasphemed in any thing ; if believing slaves become useless to their
masters. For he who is about to permit his other slaves to become
Christians, may begin to repent of his intention through those who have
already become so. But if he sees that these have been improved,
and from being unfaithful have become faithful servants, not only will
he wish that his other slaves may believe, but even he himself may
perhaps be a partaker of salvation.'' (19)
An ancient writer, formerly confounded with Ambrose, the Bishop
of Milan, gives this commentary on the Epistle to the Colosians.
" Through the iniquity of the world this occurred, that while one
invaded the territory of another, freemen were taken into captivity,
from whence they were called manu capti, and then mancipia. The
same condition of things continues now. Some are redeemed, others
remain slaves. But with God, he is esteemed a slave who sins. For
it was by reason of sin that Ham heard the sentence : ' Cursed be
Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.' " (20)
The same author furnishes this comment on 1 Tim. 6 : 1-2 :
" He " (the Apostle) " desires masters to return thanks to God for

august;ne. • 101
the services of their slaves, since when, through the doctrine of God,
they rendered such faithful services, it might be that the masters
would subject themselves to the same doctrine. If he commands pro
fane masters to be served with entire dihgence, how much more the
faithful ? For then the slave proves himself subject to the fear of
God, if he devotes himself to his faithful and earthly master with his
whole mind." (21)
The celebrated Augustine, as you know, was the Bishop of Hippo,
in Africa. He flourished in the fourth century, and as he is com
monly esteemed the prince of the fathers, I shall give you a hberal
specimen of his teaching upon the subject Repetition is unavoidable,
because I am bound to justify my position by many witnesses, in
order that the opposers of the truth shall have no possible escape
from the conclusion.
Addressing himself to thei holy Catholic Church, this eminent father
uses the following language :
" Thou " (the Catholic Church) " teachest slaves to adhere to their
masters, not so much from the necessity of their condition as from
the pleasure of their office. Thou, in consideration of that supreme
God who is their common Lord, makest the masters to be placable to
their slaves, and more inclined to consult than to coerce them." (22)
But Augustine had no intention to weaken or destroy the correc
tive discipline, which the refractory or rebellious slave might some
times require. Therefore he lays down this plain .statement.
" The slave fears to offend his master, lest he may order him to be
beaten, or to be put into the stocks, or to be shut up in prison, or
committed to the workhouse. Fearing these things, the slave does
not sin." (23)
Again, presenting his riews on the origin and principle of servitude,
Augustine adds his authority to what we have already seen, in these
words, riz. :
" That one man should be the slave of another is the result either
of adversity or of iniquity. Of iniquity, as it is written : Cursed be
Canaan, he shall be the slave of his brethren ; but of adversity, as it , j
happened to Joseph, when, being sold by his brethren, he became a
slave to a foreigner. Therefore, the wars made the first slaves, as is
indicated by their name in the Latin tongue. For the man who was
conquered by another, might be killed according to the law of war ;
and because he was saved (ser;»atus) he was caUed a slave, (servus,)

102 • AUGUSTINE.
and from thence they were also caUed mancipia, because manu capti,
taken by hand. It is also the natural order amongst men that the
women should serve their husbands, and sons their parents, because
in this there is justice, that the weaker should serve the stronger.
This, therefore, in servitudes and masterships, is clear justice, that
those who excel in reason, should excel in domination also." (24)
Another extract from Augustine clearly proves his opinion concern
ing the permanent character of bondage.
" It was ordered," saith he, " that the Hebrew slave should servo
six years, and then be dismissed free. But lest Christian slaves
should exact this from their masters, the Apostolic authority com
mands that slaves should be subject to their masters, that the name
of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And the precept is suffi
ciently apparent, in a symbol, from this : that God coraraands the
man who had refused his liberty to have his ear bored with an awl
to the door-post.'' (25)
One interesting extract more will close the testimony of this emi
nent teacher.
"The first and daily power of man over man," saith he, "is that
of the master over the slave. Almost every house has this sort of
power. There are masters, there are also slaves — those names are
different, but inen and men are equal names. And what saith the
Apostle, teaching slaves to be subject to their masters ? " Ye bond-'
servants, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh, because
there is a Master according to the Spirit." He is the true Master
and Eternal, but these are temporal, according to the time. WhUe
thou art walking in the way, while thou art living in this world,
Christ is not willing to make thee proud. This happens to thee that
thou mayest be made a Christian, and having a man for thy master,
thou art not made a -Christian that thou shouldst disdain to serve. Yet
since thou servest man, by the order of Christ, thou dost not serve
the man, but Him who has so ordered- thee. And therefore he (the
Apostle) saith : ' Obey your masters according to the flesh, with fear
and. trembling, in simplicity of heart, not as eye-servants, or as men
pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from
the mind, with good will.' Behold, therefore, he does not make free
men of servants, but he makes good servants of bad servants. How
much do the wealthy owe to Christ, who thus regulates their
home" I (26)

BASIL. . 103
. From this witness to the doctrine of the primitive Church, I pass
on to another, little less distinguished — Basil, surnamed the Great,-
who was the Bishop of Cesarea in the fourth century, and held in
high honor by all the-Oriental Christians, as one of their most illus
trious saints. Laying down rules for the monastic order, of which
he was an authoritative guide, Basil writes as foUows :
" Moreover let slaves detained under the yoke, if they fly to the
convent of the brethren, be first admonished and made better, and
then be returned to their masters ; in which the blessed Paul is to be
imitated, who, when he had brought forth Onesimus, through the
Gospel, sent him back to Philemon." (27)
In those rules of Basil we also find a collection of Scriptural texts,
under this expressive title, viz. :
" Rule lxxv.
" That it is fitting for slaves, with all good-will to the glory of God,
to be obedient to their masters according to the flesh, certainly in
those things wherein the law of God is not violated."
" Servants, obey your masters in the flesh with fear and trembling,
in simplicity of heart, as unto Christ, not as eye-servants, or as men-
pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from
the heart, with good-will doing service, as to the Lord and not to
men, knowing that whatever good thing any man doeth, he shall re
ceive from the Lord, whether he be a slave or free. Let as many
servants as are under the yoke hold their masters worthy of all
honor, lest the name of God and his doctrine be blasphemed. And
those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because
they are brethren, but serve them the more, because they are faithful
and beloved, partakers of the benefit. Let the slaves be subject to
their masters, pleasing them in all things, not contradicting, not de
frauding, but showing all good .fidelity, that they may adorn the
doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." (28)
Another passage will suffice from the testimony of this distin
guished witness. Speaking of the state of subjection or servitude in
which men were placed by divine Providence, Basil saim that " they
are cither oppressed by power, and brought under the yoke of slav
ery, as captives in war, or reduced to servitude by reason of poverty,
as the Egyptians under Pharaoh, or, according to a certain wise and
mysterious dispensation, those who are unworthy among sons, are

104 BASIL.
made servants to the wiser and the better, by the parental voice ;
-¦which, nevertheless, a just estimator of things would by no means
consider as a condemnation, but rather as a benefit. For to him
who, on account of the poverty of sense, has not in himself what
nature demands, it is more useful to be made the slave of another
man," (29)
Thus far, my Right Reverend brother, we see the most perfect
unity of doctrine on the subject of slavery, in the primitive Church,
in those purest ages which came next after the Apostles ; and when
the system which prevaUed was that of the Roman law, embracing
slaves of every nation, instead of being confined, as it is at the South,
to the most degraded of all races, the barbarous tribes of Africa.
And I must take the liberty of reminding you and my other clerical
brethren, that no Protestant Episcopalian can set such authorities
aside, without being false to the first principles of his own Church ;
whose great Reformers constantly referred to them, whose Homilies
argue every question of rehgious truth by the language of the fathers,
whose ordination serrices recognize these " ancient authors'' as the
witnesses to our form of government, and whose Articles cite two of
them, Jerome and Augustine, by name. But I have not yet done
with their testimony, and shall proceed with the list in the next
chapter.

CHRYSOSTOM. 105

CHAPTER IX.
Right Reverend Brother : After TertuUian, Jerome, Augustine,
and Basil, the order of chronology brings me to the great Chrysostom,
the Bishop of Constantinople, that orator of the " golden mouth,"
whose praise was so preeminent, and one of whose supplications is
still retained in our own Liturgy. And I shall present to your con-
. sideration a very long extract from one of his famous Homilies, of
which you will flnd the original in the notes, according to the Latin
version. That version I have preferred in the case of all the Greek
writers, because I take it for granted that even my scholastic readers
wiU generally peruse it with greater ease and satisfaction. Com
menting on the text in 1 Cor. 7 : 21, Chrysostom speaks as follows :
" Let every one of you remain in that vocation wherein you are
called. Art thou called, having an unbelieving wife ? Remain with
her, and do not put her away on account of the faith. Art thou
caUed, being a slave ? Care not for it ; continue serving. Art thou
called, being uncircumcised ? Remain uncircumcised. Hast thou
believed, being circumcised ? Remain circumcised. For even as
circumcision profiteth nothing, and uncircumcision hurteth nothing,
so neither does slavery or liberty. And in order that he (the Apostle)
might teach this yet more plainly, he saith : ' But if thou mayest be
made free, use it rather.' That is, serve rather. But why does he
command him that might be free, to remain a slave ? Because he
desires to show that slavery does not hurt, but even proflts. We
are not ignorant, indeed, that some interpret the words, ' use it
rather,^ as referring to liberty, saying : ' If thou mayest be freed, Be
free.' But this is very contrary to the meaning of Paul. For his
design being to console the slave by showing that his condition was
no injury, he would not have ordered him to become free. For some,
perhaps, might say, If I can not (be free) I suffer injury, and have
received damage. He does not therefore say this, but as I have said,
desiring to show that he who is made free gains no advantage, he
5*

106 CHRYSOSTOM.
saith: 'Although it maybe in thy power to be manumitted and
made free, remain rather in servitude.' And then he adds the reason :
' For he who is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freedman
of Christ In Uke manner also, he who is called, being free, is the
bondman of Christ.' For in those things which are according to
Christ, both are equal. But how is it that he who is a bondman is
free ? Because He has freed thee not only from sin, but even from
external slavery, though remaining a slave. And how is it that he
who is a slave is free, remaining a slave ? When he has been freed
from the passions and affiictions of the mind. When he has learned
to despise money, anger, and the other perturbations of the soul.
' You are bought with a price, be not the servants of men.' This is
said not only to slaves but also to freemen. For it is possible that
while he is a slave, he is not a slave, and while he is free, he may be
a slave notwithstanding. But how, when he is a slave, can it be
true that he is not a slave ? When he does every thing for the sake
of God, when he is neither a deceiver, nor a hypocrite, nor an eye-
servant : this is to be the slave of men, and yet free. And how,
again, does any freeman become a slave ? When he performs any
action which works evil to men, or works in the service of gluttony,
or covetousness, or ambition. For he who is of this sort, is a worse
slave than all others, although he be a freeman. But consider these
things. Joseph was a slave, but not the servant of men, for even in
his slavery he was freer than they all. He certainly did not yield to
the mistress who owned him, in those acts which she desired. Again,
she was free, yet she was a greater slave than all, because she be
sought her slave, and implored and provoked him, but did not per
suade the freeman to do what she desired. Here therefore (on Joseph's
part) was not slavery, but the highest liberty. What hindrance,
then, was slavery to his virtue ? Let both slaves and freemen hear.
This truly is what the Apostle tacitly signifies by saying : ' Be not
the servants of men.' But if it be otherwise — if he orders them to
leave their masters, and contend that they should be made free, how
could he say, 'Let every man remain in the condition in which he
was called ;' and again, ' Whoever are under the yoke of slavery, let
them esteem their masters worthy of all honor.' To the Ephesians
and the Colossians also he writes, ordering and cCmmandino- the
same things. From all which it is evident, that he does not take
away this slavery, but that which is from vice, in which respect,
slaves themselves are free," (30)

PROSPER AND GREGORY. 107
This long and most interesting specimen of true Christian doctrine,
from the illustrious Chrysostom, is, of itself, enough to satisfy a
candid mind on the subject before us ; proving distinctly that the
primitive Church had no idea of regarding slavery as involving sin,
in the relation of the master and the slave, but on the contrary es
teeming the condition of servitude as better than freedom for the
slave, while the bondage to sin, whether in the master or the servant,
was the worst kind of slavery ; and the only kind which God requires
all men to cast aside, whether they be bond or free.
From Chrysostom, I proceed to his disciple, Prosper of Aquitaine,
who flourished in the fifth century, and a short sentence will suffice
to show that he held the same sentiments as his eminent teacher.
" It was transgression and not nature," saith Prosper, "that pro
duced the name and condition of slavery, and the first cause of this
subjection was sin ; as it is written, every one that committeth sin is
the slave of sin. Hence the condition of hira who is a bond-servant
to man, is better than that of him who is a slave to his own cu
pidity." (81)
There is no name in the sixth century which shines with greater
lustre thah-that of Gregory the Great, the Bishop of Rome, and from
his writings I shall take my next testimony.
" It is well known," saith Gregory, " that there are two kinds of
good servitude, one of fear, the other of affection ; one, the service of
bondmaids and bondmen, who dread their master ; the other, of child
ren who love and please their parent. The bondmaid fears, lest she
should be punished ; the wife fears, lest she should offend her hus
band." (32)
Again, in his book concerning the " Pastoral Care," we have this
rule laid down to the clergy :
" Slaves should be admonished in one way, and the masters in
another. The slaves, to wit, that they should always, in themselves,
regard the humility of their condition ; but the masters, that the
memory of their nature, in which they are created equally with their
slaves, must not be forgotten. Slaves should be admonished, lest
they should despise their masters, lest they offend God by proudly
contradicting his ordinance ; the masters are also to be admonished,
that they do not grow proud of his gift, against God, (the Giver,) by
refusing to acknowledge that those who are by condition their sub
jects, are their equals by nature. These are to be admonished that

108 GREGORY THE GREAT.
they may know themselves to be the slaves of their masters : those
are to be admonished, that they may confess themselves to be tho
fellow-servants of their slaves. For to these it is said; Servants,
obey your masters according to the flesh. And again : Let those who
are under the yoke of bondage, esteem their masters to be worthy of
all honor. But to those it is said : And you, masters, do the same
things unto them, forbearing threats, knowing that their Master and
yours is in heaven," (33)
There is another evidence of the doctrine maintained by Gregory
the Great, which is not only conclusive in itself, but is also interest
ing as a specimen of the ancient forms observed in such matters.
And this is the deed of gift conveying one of his own slaves to the
Bishop of Porto, which was a small suburban diocese, in the vicinity
of Rome. It is as follows :
" Gregory, to Felix, the Bishop of Porto.
" Moved by favor of your charity, lest we should seem unfruitful
to you, and chiefly because we know you to have few servants, there-i
fore we give and grant unto you, our brother, by direct right, John,
a servant of the church law, by nation a Sabine, of the Flavian pro
perty, aged about eighteen years, whom you have had in your pos
session, by our will, for a long while, so that you may have and hold
him, and preserve and maintain your right to him, and defend him
as your property, and do, by the free right of this donation as his
master, whatsoever you will concerning him. Against which charter
of our munificence, you may know that neither we nor our successors
are ever to come. And this donation, -vvritten by our notary, we
have read and subscribed, granting also, your profession not being
expected, our license of recording it, whenever you wiU, with the
legitimate stipulation and security. Done at Rome." (34)
To these clear and decisive testimonies of the famous Gregory the
Great, I shall add one witness more, a saint likewise in the Roman
Catholic calendar, Isidore, who was Bishop of SeviUe, in a.d. 601,
and died a.d. 636. This will bring us to the seventh century. A
single extract from his valuable -writings wiU suffice to prove his unity
of doctrine with all that were before him :
" On account of the sin of the first man," saith Isidore, " the
punishment of slavery was brought upon the human race, by the
Deity, so that to those for whom he sees liberty to be incongruous,

ISIDORE OF SEVILLE. 109
he may mercifully appoint servitude. And although original sin i»
remitted to all the faithful by the grace of baptism, nevertheless God
has equitably put this difference of life in men, making some to be
slaves, and others masters ; that the licentiousness of evil-doing on
the part of servants, might be restrained by the power of their lords.
For if all men were without fear, who could prohibit any one from
evil ? Hence also, princes and kings are chosen over the nations,
that they may coerce the people to abstain from evU by terror, and
obUge them to live rightly according to the laws. Belter is slavery
in subjection than liberty in pride. For many are found freely serv
ing God under wicked masters, who, although they are inferior to
them in body, are far above them in mind." (85)
Here, my Right Reverend brother, I shall close the testimony of
the fathers, only reminding you that all these writers lived before the
unity of the Church was broken by the separation of the East from
the West, that they were the lights and ornaments of their day, that
they are held to the present hour, throughout the whole Christian
world, in the highest veneration, and that our own reformers had
constant recourse to them in every controversy, as the most author
itative guides to the sense of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible was
the unquestionable rule of faith. The Church was the interpreter. And
as it is the undoubted maxim of the courts, in every construction of
written law, to take the earliest decisions as the most binding, so it
has been among all sound theologians, that the oldest voices of the
Church are heard with the greatest reverence.
But although I have closed the testimony of the individual fathers,
I have not done with the testimony of the primitive Church, present
ed in a still more solemn form by the Councils of her bishops. To
these, therefore, I invite your attention, in the following chapter.

110 CANONS AND CONSTITUTIONS.

CHAPTER X.
Right Reverend Brother : The first place in- the list of the Coun
cils of the Church is due to the very ancient code called " The Can
ons of the Apostle^." In the eighty -first of these we read as follows :
" We do not allow slaves to be advanced to the order of the clergy
without the will of their masters, to the injury of those who possess
them ; for such things produce the overthrow of houses. But when
a slave is seen to be worthy, who may be chosen for that degree, as
also our Onesimus was, and the masters .shall have consented, and
given liberty, and dismissed them from their houses, it may be
done." (36.)
The Clementine Constitutions may be /eckoned next, being an old
compilation, supposed formerly to have been arranged by Clement,
who was the companion of the apostles, and became, by their author
ity. Bishop of Rome. By many critics, however, amongst the Roman
Catholics theraselves, the work is assigned to the third or fourth
century. But be this as it may, these Constitutions, contained in
eight books, are full of very admirable matter, expressed with great
force and beauty, and held, especiaUy by the eastern Churches, in
the highest veneration.
From the fourth book, chapter second, I quote the following passage :
" Concerning slaves, what more can we say than that the servant
should have benevolence towards his master, with the fear of God,
though he should be impious, though he should be immoral, even
though he should not accord with him in religion ? So likewise let
the master love his slave, and though he is above him, let him not
withstanding acknowledge equality inasmuch as he is a man. And
let him who has a Christian master, the authority being secured,
love him not only as his master, but as a companion in the faith and
as a father ; not serving with eye-service, but as loving his master,
knowing that the reward of his service will be rendered to him by
God. In like manner let him who has a Christian slave, his subjec-

COUNCILS. Ill
tion beirig secure, love him as a son, and as a brother, for the sake of
the communion of faith." (37.)
From these, I pass on to a number of Councils, extending from
A.D. 341, to the seventh century :
Council of Gangra, a.d. 841.
" If any one, under pretext of religion, shall teach a slave to despise
his own master, that he should depart from his service, and no longer
submit to him with benevolence and honor, let him be accursed,"
(anathema,) (38.) Council op Agde, a.d. 506. _
" If the bishop shaU have granted liberty to any slaves belonging
to the Church, who have been well-deserving in his judgment, let
the liberty thus granted be preserved to them by his successors,
with whatever property their manumittor bestowed." (89.)
Council of Orleans, a.d 511.
" The slave who has taken refuge in the Church for any transgres
sion, if he has received the sacrament after the admission of his fault,
shall be compelled to return immediately to the service of his mas
ter." (40.) Council of Epone, a.d. 517.
"If any one shall kill his own slave -srithout judicial authority, he
shall expiate the effusion of blood by excommunication during two
years." (41.) Council of Orleans, a.d. 541.
"It shall not be allowed to the slaves of the Church or of the
priests, to take spoils or captives, for it is unjust that while their
masters are sustaining .the benefit of redemption, the discipline of the
Church should be stained by the excesses of the slaves." (42.)
Council of Orleans, a.d. 549.
"No bishop shall presume to ordain any slave who has not re
ceived liberty from his own master, nor even one who is already
free, without the consent of him to whom he is either a slave, or who
is known to have enfranchised him." (43.)
Council of Maqon, a.d. 581.
"Therefore, in this present Council, God being the author, we
decree that no Christian from henceforth shall serve a Jew, but that

112 COUNCILS.
any Christian may have hcense to redeem him, either for freedom or
for slavery, twelve shillings being given for a good slave. For it is
an impiety that those, whom Christ our Lord has redeemed with
the shedding of His blood, should remain bound with the chains of
his persecutors. And if any Jew be unwilling to consent to our
decree, it shall be lawful for the slave to dweU with Christians, wher
ever he chooses, so long as his Jewish master delays to come for his
money.'' (44.) Council of Toledo, a.d. 589.
" Since we are informed that in many cities the slaves of the
churches, and of the bishops, or of all the clergy, are wearied out
with various vexatious burdens by the judges or the public function
aries, this whole Council asks of the piety of our lord (the king) that
he wfll prohibit such presumptuous doings from henceforth : so that
the slaves of the aforesaid officers shall labor for their use, or for tho
Church." (45.) Coukoil of Narbonne, a.d. 589.
" Every man, whether free, or bound, Goth, Roman,-Syrian, Greek,
or Jew, shall abstain from work on the Lord's day, neither shall he
yoke the oxen, except necessity corapels in harvest. And if any
presume to act contrary, if he be a free man, he shall pay six shil
lings, as a fine to the treasurer of the city, and if he be a slave he
shall receive one hundred stripes." (4fr.)
Council of Berghamstead, a.d. 697.
" If any one shall manumit his slave at the altar, let him be free,
and capable to enjoy heirship and weregild, and it shall be lawful for
him to go wherever he will, without restraint." (47.)
Council of Ais-la-Ohapelle, a.d. 816.
" On account of the sin of the flrst man, the punishment of servi
tude was divinely appointed to the human race : so that to those
whom He (the Almighty) saw to be unfit for freedom, he mercifully.
ordained slavery. And although original sin is remitted to all tho
faithftil by the grace of baptism, nevertheless God, in equity, dis>
tributed life to men, constituting some slaves, and others masters, in
order that the license of evil-doing by the slaves might be restrained
by the power of their lords. There is no accepting of persons with
God. For our only Lord sets forth His ordinance equally to tho

COUNCILS. 113
masters and to the slaves. Better is a subject servitude than a proud
liberty. For many are found freely serving God under flagitious
masters, who, although they are subject to them in body, are far
above them in mind." (48.)
The next extract is from the capitulary of the Emperor Louis,
which, though not in the usual form of a Council, is of equal author
ity as bearing testimony to the doctrine and practice of the Church.
"Concerning the ordination of slaves who are everywhere pro
moted to the ecclesiastical degrees with indiscretion, it is agreed by
all that regard should be had to the sacred canons ; and it is there
fore decreed that henceforth none of the bishops shall presume to
advance them to Holy Orders, unless they have first received their
freedom from their own masters. And if any slave is a fugitive from
his master, or lies hid, or brings forward witnesses influenced by a
gift or corrupted, or receives the ecclesiastical degrees by any fraud
or knavery, it is decreed that he shall be deposed, and his master
shall again receive him.'' (49.)
Council of Worms, a.d. 868.
" If any one shall kill his slave, whatever he may have committed
worthy of death, without the knowledge of the judges, he shall
cleanse away the guilt of blood by a penance of two years, or by ex
communication." (50)
The same Council enacted another canon, with which I shaU close
this portion of the evidence :
"If any slave, during the absence, or without the knowledge of his
master, the bishop being aware that he was a slave, shall be ordained
a deacon or a presbyter, let him remain in the office of the clergy, but
the bishop shall pay to the master a double price. But if the bishop
did hot know that he was a slave, those persons who gave their testi
mony concerning him, or demanded that he should be ordained, shall
be held liable to pay the same recompense." (51)
This may be the best place, however, for the consideration of an
other Council, held at London, a.d. 1111, in which theseUing of Eng
lishmen appears to have been forbidden, in the following words :
" Let no one by any means presume, henceforward, to engage in
that nefarious traffic, by which, hitherto, men have been accustomed
to be sold, like brute beasts, in England." (52)
The distinguished Bishop of Oxford, son of the celebrated Mr.

114 COUNCIL OF LONDON.
WUberforce, wrote, when a presbyter, an able and interesting History
of the American Church, in which, toward the end, his sympathies
with abolitionism are stated very strongly, as might be naturally
expected. And he quotes the supposed canon above mentioned, say
ing, that " this must be the ChurcKs rule, on the banks of the Mis
sissippi, as it was on those of, the Thames." From his book, some
of our American Churchmen have taken this Council of London as
an authority of great importance ; and as I was not a little surprised
to find an English council of that age contradicting so strongly the
whole course of ecclesiastical legislation on this subject, throughout
the rest of Christendom, I took the pains to look into the real state
of the matter, and discovered that the statement was founded upon a
mistake. It is true that such a council was holden, under Anselm, the Arch
bishop of Canterbury, and the canon, as quoted, appears as if it were
a part of its doings. But on the following page, we have a letter from
the Archbishop himself, which deprives it of all its supposed author
ity. This letter I shall proceed to set before you :
" Anselm, Archbishop, to William, his beloved Archdeacon, health
and benediction :"
" I am not wiUing to send to you, or to any one, at present, the
resolutions of the chapters of the Council as set forth ; because, al
though they were brought before the Council, they could not be fully
and perfectly stated, by reason of their being proposed suddenly,
without the premeditation and competent examination which were
meet. Hence, it appears that some things are to be added, and per
haps some things must be changed, which I am not willing to do,
unless by the common consent of our episcopal colleagues. I intend
therefore to suggest and show those matters to those bishops, when
we next come together, before the acts set forth are sent to the
churches of England. The titles, nevertheless, of the matters, con
cerning which we there conferred, we send to you ; that according to
what you may be able to remember, you may consider us to have de
creed concerning these." Then the Archbishop sets down a list of
subjects, in which nothing whatever js said about the selling of slaves,
so that this topic is entirely omitted from the real deliberations of the
Council. (53)
This positive statement from Anselm, who was the official head or
president, must be conclusive to prove that there was no definitive

' SUMMARY OF COUNCILS. ¦ 115
action on the subject, but only what we should call a proposition, re
corded by the secretary, without any discussion, or any vote, and
therefore not in any sense the act of the Council. The matter does
not appear again, in any form. And hence this supposed decree of
the Council of London really amounts to nothing.
And yet, even if this imaginary canon had been actually passed, it
would only prove that " the nefarious business of selling men like
brute beasts," was to be done away ; and therefore it might have been
intended to abolish the public slave-market, without affecting the in
stitution of Villenage, which we know, from history, continued to ex
ist in England for several centuries after this time. This, you will
perceive at once, on consulting the original Latin, because the words
slave, slavery, or any term equivalent to them, is not to be found
there. We shall see, in the progress of my work, that there was no
change on this subject in the thirteenth century ; for, if there had been, .
it is inipossible that the lawyers and the historians, whom I shall
quote by and by, should have failed to notice it.
Setting aside, then, this supposed action of the Council of London,
we have the testimony of the other parts of the Church throughout
the world, clear and unanimous, in support of the doctrine of the
fathers. Beginning with the Apostolic Canons, and the Clementine
Constitutions, which governed the East, we have the Council of Gan
gra, in Asia Minor, the Councils of Agde, Narbonne, and Orleans, in
Prance ; the Council of Epone or Epanum, and Magon, in Burgundy ;
the Council of Toledo, in Spain ; the Council of Berghamstead, near Can
terbury, in England ; the Councils of Aix-la-Chapelle and Worms in
Germany — all distinctly proving the institution as it was acknowledged
by the Church for the first nine hundred years of the Christian era, pro
viding for the return of fugitive slaves to their masters, repeating the
duty of the slave to be faithful to his lord, and the duty of the mas
ter to be kind to the servant, while not one suggestion can be found
imputing sin to the relation between the master and the slave, nor
regarding it as a matter that ought to be abolished, nor treating it as
inconsistent, in the slightest degree, with the purest principles of
Christian- piety. Nor is this the whole. For these councUs further
prove that slaves belonged to the churches, the monasteries, the
bishops, and the clergy, during all these ages. So that thus far, no
fact of ecclesiastical history admits of a fuller and more decisive de
monstration. Yet I shaU give you stiU more evidence, so that you
shall say, satis, superque.

116 FLEURY.

CHAPTER XI.
Right Reverend Brother : Some extracts from Fleury's Ecclesias
tical History will now be set before you, in further confirmation of
the fact that the Church attached no sin to the relation of master and
slave. In the treatment, there might be sin enough, as there may
be in any other relation. But the institution was not to be blamed
for that ; and hence, while it was the duty of the Church to amelior
ate, she made no movement to abolish it. Such, from the beginning
under the Apostles, was the universally accepted Christian doctrine.
To the examples already given I shall add the foUowing, riz. :
" We have stiU," saith Fleury, " the testament of St Gregory, of
Nazianzum, dated the last day of December, a.d. 881. He there takes
the title of Bishop of Constantinople. He continues to a virgin, named
Russina, the pension which he had allowed for her support, with a
house at her discretion, and he gives her two girls as slaves, such as
she shall choose, to live with her all her lifetime ; he also gives her
power to emancipate them, which if she fails to do, they shaU belong
to the Church of Nazianzum." (54)
St. Perpetuus was another of these primitive Christian slaveholders.
He "lived," saith Fleury, "until a.d. 491, and we have his testament
made about May first, a.d. 475, in which he liberates several slaves,
remits all the debts due to him, and bequeaths to his church several
lots of land and his books." (55)
Alcuin, as you know, was an English prelate of the eighth century,
educated by the Venerable Bede. Being sent on an embassy from
Offa to Charlemagne, he hecame the instructor of that famous mon
arch in rhetoric, logic, and divinity. He also was an extensive slave
holder. For " Alcuin,'' saith our historian, " had the control of the
revenue of his abbeys, and as the lands belonging to them were in
habited by serfs, Elipand of Toledo reproaches him with having of
those bondmen no less than twenty thousand." (56)
" In the Council of Soissons," saith the same author, " holden a.d.

FLEURY. , 117
863, the bishops invoked the king to use his authority — that he would
forbid the seigneurs to hinder the bishops from having the peasants,
who were serfs under those seigneurs, scourged with rods, when they
deserved it for their crimes." (57)
One quotation more from Fleury wUl suffice for his testimony. Ho
gives uS the decree of Pope Benedict VIII. a.d. 1022, just eleven
years later than the supposed Canon of the Council of London, on
which the Bishop of Oxford laid so much stress. And in this decree
the Pontiff " declares,'' saith our historian, " that the children of the
clergy are serfs to the Church in which their fathers officiated, even
if their mothers were free, and he pronounces an anathema against
the judges who should decide the contrary. And no serf of the
Church, clerk or layman, should acquire any property under the
name of a freeman, without incurring the punishment of the whip or
the prison, until the Church should have withdrawn all the titles of
the property." (58)
The tender sensibilities so fashionable at the presen^ day, will pro
bably be shocked to find the bishops in the ninth, and the Pope in
the thirteenth century, authorizing the punishment of the whip and
the prison, but I hope that they will remember how the pious Puri
tans of New-England, when their system was in its glory, and their
preachers proclaimed that it was the most admirable manifestation of
Christianity which had ever been known, scourged the Baptists at the
public whipping-post, fined and imprisoned the Episcopalians, ban
ished the Roman Catholics and Quakers, and when these last dared
to return, actually hung them on the gallows ! those punishments
being inflicted, not for any crimes, but merely because the Episco
pahans, Baptists, and Quakers insisted on following their own reli
gion I Since those days, indeed, the posterity of these worthy Puri
tans have become exceedingly tolerant in matters of faith, so far as
faith concerns the doctrines of the Bible or the ancient creeds. But
they are far from being tolerant on their modern dogma about the sin
of slaveholding. If the Apostle Paul himself should come again, and
preach the language of his own epistles, and presume to send back a
fugitive slave to his Southern master, they would think no language
too bitter, and punishment too severe for his transgression.
But I must not anticipate nor wander too far from the order of my
witnesses. The next which I shaU summon is one belonging to our
mother Church, and worthy of all acceptation.

118 BINGHAM.

CHAPTER xn.
Right Reverend Brother : The,-work of the learned Bingham, en
titled, The Antiquities of the Christian Church, is weU known to you
and your clergy, and from this I shall next take a few corroborative
testimonies. "Another state of life," saith this author, "which debarred men
from the privilege of ordination, was that of slaves or vassals in the
Roman empire, who, being originally tied by birth or purchase to
their patron's or master's service, could not legally be ordained, be
cause the service of the Church was incompatible with their other
duties, and no man was to be defrauded of his right under pretense
of an ordination. In this case, therefore, the patron was always to
be consulted before the servant was ordained. Thus, in one of those
called the Apostohcal Canons, we find a decree that no servants should
be admitted among the clergy without the consent of their masters, to
the grievance of the owners and subversion of their families. But
if a servant be found worthy of an ecclesiastical promotion, as Onesi
mus was, and his master gave his consent and granted him his free
dom and let him go forth from his house, he may be ordained. The
Council of Toledo has a canon to the same purpose."*
" The imperial laws," saith the same author, " also made provision
in this case, that no persons under such obligations should be admit
ted to any office of the clergy, or, if they were admitted merely to
evade their obligations, their masters should have power to recall
them to their service, unless they were bishops or presbyters, or had
continued thirty years in some other office of the Church. By which
it appears that the ordination of such persons was prohibited only
on a civil account ; not because that state of life was sinful, or that
it was any undervaluing or disgrace to the function to have such per
sons ordained, but because the duties of the civil and ecclesiastical
state could not well consist together."t
• Bingharri's Origines Eaclesiastiete. Vol i. p. 487. London ed. of 181S.
+ lb. vol i. p. 488.

BINGHAM. 119
Again, saith our author: "By one of the laws of the Theodosian
Code, no slave is allowed to have sanctuary or entertainment in any
church above one day, when notice was to be given to his master,
from whom he fled for fear of punishment, that he might reclaim him
and carry him bach to his own possession, only giving promise of in
demnity and pardon for his faults, if they were not very great and
heinous." *
And again : " A slave," saith Bingham, " was not aUowed to enter
himself into a monastery, or take orders, without the consent of the
master, as has been showed in other places, because this was to de
prive his master of his legal right of service, which, by the original
state and condition of slaves, was his due : and the Church would
not be accessory to such frauds and injustice, but rather discouraged
tJiem, by prohibitions and suitable penalties laid upon them." t
This learned author died, as you know, in a.d. 1723, a hundred
years before the rise, in England, of the modern abolition fever. He
regarded the subject, therefore, in the old and familiar light of tho
Scriptures and the Church, and had no idea that, in the course of a
century and a half, the maintenance of those views would be con
demned as " unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ," by a bishop
and a long train of clergy, and branded with their sentence of " in
dignant reprobation." *Ib. vol. ii. p. 576. -Ub. vol. vL p. 197-8,

120 MELANCTHON.

CHAPTER xm.
Right Reverend Brother : It is now time to adduce the next
class of witnesses, namely, the divines and commentators since the
Reformation in the sixteenth century, who will all demonstrate the
same truth on which I stand, and thus, as I trust, condemn your act
of condemnation.
Beginning with Melancthon, the famous colleague of Luther, and
one of the wisest and best men of his age, I shall present to you his
comment on the sixth chapter of St. Paul's flrst epistle to Timothy,
" Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own mas
ters worthy of all honor," etc.
" In the beginning of the sixth chapter," saith Melancthon, " he
gives a command to slaves, where the young should remember that
the common rule is conflrmed which is so often repeated, that the
Gospel does not abolish the established order and polity, but preaches
of other things, namely, of eternal good, eternal justice, and eternal
life, which God produces in the hearts of men, whom, nevertheless.
He wills, in this mortal life, to be subject to that order which, ac
cording to the will of God, is suitable to corporal life. He wills us
to be sustained with meat and drink, He wills lawful marriage and
progeny, He wills the ordinary consociation of the human race, the
distinction of dominions, the defense of imperial gover.nment, con
tracts, laws, judgments, punishments. So here we see that slavery
is approved, such as was then laid dmcn in the laws. For it is pro
fitable both to consciences and to peace that we should understand
this doctrine concerning the approbation of political order.'' (59)
From this sound and conservative sentence of Melancthon, I pro
ceed to his no less celebrated contemporary, Calvin, whose opinions
were for a long while regarded as of the highest human authority,
not only by the reformed Christians on the continent of Europe, gen
erally, but specially by the Church of England herself. This is his
comment on the same passage, viz. :

CALVIN. 121
V
"As every man is disposed, with a false estimate, to arrogate su-
jieriority to himself, there is no one who bears with equanimity that
others should govern him. Those who can not avoid the necessity,
do indeed unwillingly obey their superiors: but inwardly they fret
and feel indignant, as if they thought some injury was done to them.
All such disputations, however, the Apostle cuts off with one word,
when he exacts a willing suhjection from all who are under the yoke.
For he shows that they loere not to inquire whether they were worthy
of such fortune, or of a better one ; because it was enough that they
were bound in that condition." (60) ^
In his commentary on the latter part of the verse, " that the name
of God be not blasphemed," this eminent reformer and divine pro
ceeds as follows :
" We are always more ingenious than is fit, in defense of our own
accommodation. Thus, when the slaves had unbelieving masters,
the objection was at hand, that it was shameful for those who served
the devil to have dominion over the children of God. But Paul, on
the contrary, returns the argument that even unbelieving masters
must be obeyed, lest the name of God and His Gospel should be
blasphemed, as if the Gospel made those to be contumacious and
stubborn who ought to be subject to others." (61)
And in his introduction to the Epistle of Paul to ^hilemon, he
gives this passage :
" How great was the elevation of Paul's spirit, although it may be
better perceived in his more -weighty writings, is also witnessed in
this epistle, in which, treating an argument otherwise humble and
abject, he raises it sublimely to God. Sending back again to his
mastir a slave who was a fugitive and a thief, he asks that he may
be forgiven." (62)
I invite your attention next to the'commentary on this same epis
tle to Philemon, which we have in Pool's Synopsis Griticorum. I
need not inform you tliat this belongs to the Presbyterian school, as
it is extracted from the continental writers who had no episcopacy.
In the introduction to the commentarj^, we read the following -.
" This epistle is written by Paul in a new style, and alone deserves
to be called, truly and properly, a letter. Its utility is manifold. It
admonishes us, first, that no one is to be despised, however abject
his condition ; second, that we should not despair of the capacity of
slaves ; third, that slaves, believing in Christ, are not on that ae-
6

122 pool's synopsis.
count to be made free, or taken aicay from unwilling masters;
fourth, what is the office of a bishop, as well towards inferiors as
towards the more noble. The motive of writing this letter was that
the Apostle might reconcile the slave to his master. Which, as it
seemed difficult, the master having the most just cause to be of
fended — since the slave had fled, as it is believed, with stolen pro
perty — he (St. Paul) approaches him (Philemon) with all the art of
oratory. If there is any thing to be admired in the line of per
suasiveness, certainly it is this epistle." (63)
Prom the same work I take another and very precise comment on
the Epistle to the Ephesians, 6:5, " Servants, be obedient to your
masters," etc.
" The Apostle does not take away the custom then established of
using slaves, for it has its advantages, and it is lawful to use it
rightly. He teaches that Christian liberty is consistent with polit
ical slavery, and that political arrangements are neither taken away
nor changed by Christ." (64)
Another important corament occurs in Pool's Synopsis on 1 Cor.
7 : 21 : "Art thou called, being a servant? care not for it, but if
thou mayest be made free, use it rather." That is, saith the com
mentator, " Use servitude: rather serve, for the sake of greater good,
namely, for thine own exercise, and the salvation of thy master.
Syrus thus renders this text: 'But even if thou art able to become
free, (meaning, by thine own arts and fraud,) choose rathpr to remain
in slavery.'' To this sense the following consolatory reason is most
accordant: '¦For he who is called, being a slave, is the Lord! s free
man.' Nevertheless he does not will this, that they should prefer
slavery to freedom when freedom is spontaneously offered by the
master, but that they should prefer it to an Ulegitimate fi'eedom, by
flight or fraud." (65)

pool's synopsis. 123

CHAPTER XIV.
Right Reverend Brother : It would be less laborious to myself,
and probably more agreeable to you, if I should limit my quotations
to a few of the more important passages of the Commentators. But
I am pledged to make thorough work of my undertaking, as I have
to deal with a widely spread and popular error. And therefore I
shall here commence with all the texts cited in the Bible View of
Slavery, and prove, beyond the possibility of any honest doubt, that
I have given them the settled and established interpretation, by
which you were bound, as well as myself, when you were admitted
to the ministry.
The list of commentators embraces Pool's Synopsis, Patrick, Lowth
and Whitby, Gill, Henry, Scott, the Comprehensive Commentary,
D'Oyley and Mant, Clark, and on the New Testament, Davenant,
Hammond, Doddridge, McKnight, Wordsworth, and Alford. Reck%n-
ing Melancthon for the Lutherans, the others will represent the
Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, and the Congregational
ists, as well asthe Protestant Episcopalians. The Letters on Slavery
by the late learned Bishop England, will next be cited for the Church
of Rome. And no one pretends to doubt the opinions of the Church
of Russia and the Oriental Christians. Thus you wiU have the
whole of Christendom, up to the time of your ordination, and beyond
it, in support of Scriptural truth, which I trust will be quite enough
for my justification. The voice of the entire Catholic (or universal)
Church, on the one side, and the Bishop of Pennsylvania with his
hundred and sixty-four clergymen on the other, will then present a
contrast which should convert the most zealous ultra-abolitionist,
unless he be determined to scorn alike the plain sense of the Bible,
and the unanimous consent of all its chief expounders, for eighteen
hundred years together.
Beginning with the prophecy of Noah, let us look at the comment
ary in Pool's Synopsis, Gen. 9 ; 25 : "Cursed be Canaan,'' etc

124 fool's synopsis.
" Some read here "^la!* the father of Canaan. So is the Arabic
version, as it is twice expressed a little before. Others accept Ca
naan, That this people was cursed is shown by the event. Hence
it is inferred with probability that he was the companion of his fath
er's iniquity. But Ham^was not exempt from the curse, because his
son was named, as Shem was blessed in the next verse, although God
is named, and Jacob is said to have blessed Joseph, Gen. 48 : 15,
when he blessed his children, v. 16. For the parent is punished in
his children, being conscious of the sin, and perhaps both its author
and e.x-hibitor, as the Hebrew doctors and Theodorct explain the
subject. Sorae writers reraark that Noah cursed the posterity of
Ham, but that Moses, omitting the other sons of Ham, specified Ca
naan individually, because he wished only to record those things
M'hich might strengthen the Israelites and make them raore ready to
take possession of the proraised land of Canaan." (66)
Here we have the result of Pool's authorities, which substantially
agrees with the opinion of Bishop Newton, already set forth in the
third chapter.
The phrase "servant of servants'' in the malediction of Noah, is
rendered " slave of slaves" by Pool, that is, the lowest and most vile
of slaves. (67)
On the text in Gen. 17 : 12, where Abraham is commanded to cir
cumcise those who were born in the house, and also those who were
bought with money of any stranger, the same work gives us the fol
lowing opinions, viz. :
" The uncircumcised man could live in the land of the Hebrews,
under good laws, but not in the house of an Israelite, lest his ex
ample might corrupt the people. And the question arises whether
the servants bought with money coult be compelled to submit to
circumcision. Many, from this text, affirm that they could. For,
first, the slave is the property of the master. Second. The language
is that of command, which would be destroyed if you understand it
as depending on the will of the slave. Third. If it were otherwise,
there would be no distinction between the hireling and the slave, for
the hireling was permitted (not commanded) to be circumcised.
(Exod. 12 : 44.) Others, however, deny these conclusions. They think
that no adult slave was obliged to be circumcised, nor his children,
unless he willingly consented. For otherwise he would be placed under

pool's synopsis. 125
a necessity of sinning, and ordered to be a hypocrite. Nor would such
a circumcision have been a sacrament of the divine covenant, which
can only be embraced by the wUling. Moreover, true religion ought
to persuade rather than compel. Maimonides thus explains it, -when,
treating of circumcision, ch. 1, sect 6, he saith, '¦ If ainy one bought
an adult slave from the Cushites who refused to be circumcised, he
ought to be sold^to the Cushites again," (68)
I have quoted this passage mainly in order to prove that the Is
raelites, according to Maimonides, the highest Jewish authority, did
not confine their purchases of slaves to the posterity of Canaan, but
included the other progeny of Ham, viz., the Cushites, even as
Abraham held Hagar, the Egyptian, descended from Mizraim, an
other son of Ham, as a slave to his wife, Sarah. These facts give
additional force to the opinion of Bishop Newton, showing how the
Jews themselves understood the prophecy of Noah.
In the commentary of Pool on the Ten Commandments, which
contain, by preeminence, the moral law, bound by our own Seventh
Article upon all Christians, there are two passages, one on the fourth
and the other on the tenth, which are worth your notice.
Exodus 20 : 10, where the Almighty commands the Sabbath-day
to be kept holy, our author translates " thy man-servant," by the
proper term, " thy slave," and adds this comment, " Nor shalt thou
enjoin any labors to them,'' (the slaves,) " nor suffer them to work.
This is to be understood of those who were not Jews, for the Jews
were prohibited from work by the words preceding." (69)
The same chapter, v. 17, contains the Tenth Commandment, which
forbids coveting the " man-servant and the maid-servant." And
here our commentator gives this interpretation, viz. : "By these
words of the law the dominion and property of those things -n-hich
it is not permitted to covet are thoroughly established, as also slav-
.ery and the power of the master." (70)
If it pleased "the All- Wise and Supreme Lawgiver to sanction the
institution of slavery in two of the commands issued from Mount
Sinai, and engraved on the tables of stone by the hand of God, that
fact alone should be conclusive, to every man who professes to be
heve the Bible, that there was no sin necessarily involved in it.
I turn next to the commentary of Pool, on that famous verse, Deut.
23 : 15, which the ultra-abolitionist is never weary of quoting, " Thou
shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from

126 pool's synopsis.
his master unto thee," etc. " He speaks," saith Pool, " of a foreign
master. Thus the land of Israel becomes an asylum. Understand
it as referring to those slaves who fled to the Israelites from heathen
masters, on account of their tyranny, for the sake of embracing Ju
daism." (71) This, which is the only rational interpretation, would
evidently give no warrant for refusing obedience to the Constitution
and the law of Congress, in the case of fugitive slaves, unless two
facts could first be clearly established, first, that they had escaped
from a, foreign land, and secondly, that their masters were heathen.
The text in Exodus, 21 : 16, which forbids man-stealing, is inter
preted to apply to Israelites only. " Re that stealeth a man," "name
ly," saith Pool, " an Israelite, as appears from Deut. 24 : 7, whom
any Jew, by force or by fraud, should bring into slavery, and sell to
the Gentiles." (72) You will find, before I conclude my labor, that
this law of Moses, so constantly perverted by the school of ultra-
abolitionism, has no reference whatever to the case of the Jewish
slaves, but was designed to protect the liberty of the chosen people,
lest any should imitate the sons of Jacob -who sold their brother
Joseph to the Midianites.
I shall only add one quotation more from Pool, where the book of
Ezra states the numbers of the Israehtes, who returned from their
captivity under-the decree of Cyrus, at forty-two thousand three
hundred and sixty, " besides their servants and their maids, of -whom
there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven." Ezra,
2: 64-5. On this passage, our commentator saith: "Behold 4he
poor fortune of the captives, when st) many thousands had no more
slaves than these." (73)
But I doubt not that you have had enough of Pool's Synopsis,
though it gives the cream of the best European commentators up to
the middle of the seventeenth century, and has been the main guide
of all who have succeeded him. I shall therefore pass on to another
work of the highest reputation, especially among Episcopalians, which
wiU furnish further evidence to confirm the truth.

BISHOP PATRICK. 127

CHAPTER XV.
Right Reverend Brother : I need not inform you that the Com
mentary of Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby stands in the front rank of
authority, in our mother Church of England, and in our own. Si
mon Patrick, Bishop of Chichester, and afterwards of Ely, was dis
tinguished for learning, piety, and talent. Robert Lowth, successively
Bishop of St. David's, Oxford, and London, was little less eminent.
And Dr. Whitby, for erudition and judgment, had few equals in his
day. Let us next, therefore, attend to their testimony on the texts
to which I have referred. "^
On the prophecy of Noah, Gen. 9 : 22-7, this Commentary states
it as the opinion of the Hebrew doctors, " that Canaan flrst saw Noah
in this indecent posture, and made sport of it to his father, who
was so far from reproving him, as he ought to have done, that he also
did the same." " In the street, publicly before the people, he pro
claimed his father's shame and mocked at it For Ham is gener
aUy thought to have been an impious man, and some take him to have
been the flrst inventor^of idols after the flood."
Verse 25 : Cursed be Canaan, etc. "If what I have said," contin
ues Bishop Patrick, " be allowed, it makes it easy to give an account
why Canaan is cursed rather than Ham, because he was flrst guilty.
Ham, indeed, was punished in him ; but he had other sons, on whom
the punishment did not fall, but only on this. For which I can find
• no other reason so probable as that before named. Which, if it be
not aUowed, we must have recourse to a harsh interpretation ; and
by Canaan, understand Canaan! s father , as some do."
And Canaan shall be his servant. "As the blessing promised to
-Abraham was not fulfilled in his own person, but in his posterity
many ages after his death ; so this curse upon Cham did not take
place tUl the same time ; the execution of God's curse upon the one
being his conferring a blessing on the other."
" It is observed by Campanella that ' none are descended from Cham

128 BISHOP PATRICE.
but slaves, and tyrants, who are indeed slaves.' But Mr. Mede's ob
servation is more pertinent ' There hath never yet been a son of
Cham that hath shaken a sceptre over the head of Japheth. Shem
hath subdued Japheth, and Japheth subdued Shem, but Cham never
subdued either."
Here we have a different opinion, in some respects, from that which
is preferred by Bishop Newton and others. But the commentator
gives the worst character to Ham ; and refers to the other interpreta
tion as adopted by some, whUe he proposes his own with great
modesty, and does not mention the Arabic version. Taking the
whole, indeed, together, there is no serious conflict between these
comraentators. We come next to Abraham's history, Gen. 12:5: where Bishop
Patrick interprets "all the souls they had gotten," to mean, "All the
slaves born in their house or bought with their money." And he re
fers to this in his comment upon Gen. 14 : 14, where we read that
Abraham '^ armed his trained servants," in these words: "Abram
drew forth a select number of his servants, whom he had instructed
to handle arms in case of any assault by robbers or injurious neigh
bors. We read before (12 : 5) of the servants (slaves) they brought
with them from Haran ; and now they were rriore increased, so that
he might well make a little army out of them." It is plain, there
fore, that these three hundred and eighteen servants were home-born
slaves, according to this commentator.
In his remarks on Gen. 17 : 13, he is still more express, as follows:
Verse 13. Re that is born in thy house, or bought with money,
must needs be circumcised. "Not whether they would or no, for men
were not to be compelled to religion, which had been a profanation of
this covenant. But Abraham was to persuade them to it ; and if
they consented not, to keep them no longer in his house, but to sell
them to some other people. So Maimonides expounds it, in his book ¦
of Circumcision, chap. 1, which is true both of servants born in
the house, and bought with money ; but as for the chUdren of these
slaves, they were to be circumcised whether their parents would or
no; because they were the possession of their masters, not of their
parents. For which cause, when the parents ivere set free, their child
ren were left behind, as their master's goods. E.xod. 21 : 4."
Turning next to Bishop Patrick's Comment on the Tenth Com
mandment, Exodus 20 : 17, Thou shalt not covet, we find these words.

BISHOP PATRICK. 129
"nor his man servant nor his maid servant, etc., which are his prin
cipal goods.''
Oh Exodus 21 : 4 : .^his master have given him a wife, this learned
commentator saith as follows : " Unto such a servant as this, who
was sold by the Court of Judgment, his master might give a Gentile
maid to wife (and no other Hebrew but such as he might marry a
Gentfle) that he might beget chUdren of her, who were to be the mas
ter's servants or slaves forever,"
" The wife and children shall be his master's. For the wife was a
slave as well as himself when he married her. And she was given to
wife, merely that he might beget slaves of her, who therefore continued
with the master, as well as their mother, when the man had his liberty,
for they were not so much his, as his master's goods ; who had such
a power over them, that he might circumcise them, as he did his own
children, without their consent."
Here we see that the separation of the family was not considered
so awful a thing under the Je-wish system of slavery. Nor, indeed,
can one help wondering at the indignant reproaches of many philan
thropic persons, on account of the same difficulty in the Southern in
stitution. For we all know that our free famiUes separate of their
own accord every day, on the slightest inducements of advantage ;
and the bonds of parental and filial attachment are so weak, that any
personal inclination or interest suffices to break them. So general is
this fact that I doubt whether there is half as much of this very sepa
ration amongst the slaves by the act of their masters, as there is
amongst fi'eemen, by the force of discontent, the love of change,
cupidity, and ambition.
But let us not digress too much from our commentary, where the
case of the slave, killed by his master, next invites attention.
Exod. 21 : 20 : If a man smite his servant, " A slave," saith
Bishop Patrick, " who was not an IsraeUte, but a Gentile."
He shall surely be punished. " With death, say the Hebrew doctors,
(in Selden, lib. iv.,) if the servant died while he was beating him ; for
that is, meant by dying under his hand. But it seems more likely to
me that he was to be punished for his cruelty, as the judge who ex
amined this fact thought meet. For his smiting with a rod, not with
a sword, was a sign that he intended only to correct him, not to kill
him. And besides, no man could be thought to be wiUing to lose his
own goods, as such servants were.
4*

130 BISHOP PATRICK.
Verse 21 : Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two. " A
day and a night, as the Hebrew doctors interpret it."
He shall not be punished. " Because it might be presumed he did
not die of these strokes."
Re is his money. " His death was a loss to his master, who there
fore might well be judged not to have any intention to kUl him, and
was sufficiently punished by losing the benefit of his service."
We come now to the Jubilee, which the ultra-abolitionist always
quotes as a proof that every fiftieth year set free not only those He
brews who were held in temporary bondage, but also the slaves,
without any exception. No error could be more grossly inexcusable
than this. But let us look at the judgment of Bishop Patrick upon
the question.
Leviticus 25 : 10. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro
claim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants there
of. " That is," saith our commentator, to all the children of Israel
who were servants ; or so poor that they had sold their estates."
And ye shall return every man to his possession. " Unto his field
or his house, which his poverty had forced him to sell, but now was
restored to him without any price, because they were not sold abso
lutely but only to this year. By which means the estates of the
Israelites were so fixed, that no family could ruin itself or grow too
rich. For this law provided against such changes, revoking once in
fifty years all alienations, and setting every one in the same condition
wherein he was at the first."
V. 39. And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor,
and be sold unto thee. " Some were sold by the court of judgment
when they had committed theft, and were not able to make satisfac
tion. Others were sold_by their parents, (Exod. 21 : 7, 8.) But
others sold themselves, being reduced to great poverty, notwithstand
ing the alms that had been bestowed upon them. And of such the
Hebrew doctors understand these words."
Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant. " As a
slave, which they bought of other nations or took in their wars ; over
whom they had an absolute dominion, (as they had over their goods
and cattle,) and might bequeath them and their children to their sons
and posterity forever (v. 45-6) or sell them and their children at
their pleasure."
Verse 40. But as a hired servant and as a sojourner. " They were

BISHOP PATRICK. 131
to treat him gently, as they did those who let out their service for
wages, for a certain time, and then were at their own disposal again."
And shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee. " Beyond which
time it was not lawful to keep him in service ; for in the very begin
ning of this year, all such servants were dismissed."
Verse 41. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his
children with him. " His master to whom he was sold might keep
him till the JubUee, whereas he that was sold by the court of judg
ment might go free, if he pleased, in the seventh year of release."
(Exod. 21 : 2.)
Verse 42. For they are my servants which I brought forth out of
the land of Egypt. " A good reason why they should not be treated
like slaves, because they were all redeemed by God out of the slavery
of Egypt into a state of perfect liberty."
Verse 44. Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt
have, shall be of the heathen. " If they would have any slaves, they
were to be such of other nations as were sold to them or were taken
by them in their wars. Whence the very name of mancipia came,
as the Roman lawyers tell us, quasi manu capti, and the name of
servus also, which signifies one who was saved when he might have
been kiUed."
Verse 45. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
among you, of them shall ye buy. " Whether they were perfect pro
selytes by circumcision or only proselytes of the gate, their childrto
were not exempted from being made slaves, if they sold them to the
Hebrews." And of the families that are with you, which they begat in your
land. " If any of their family or kindred, as the Seventy translate
it, had begat children in Judea, and would sell them, the Jews might
make a purchase of them."
They shall be your possession. "Become your proper goods and
continue with you, as your lands do, unless they have their liberty
granted to them. And the first sort of proselytes obtained it three
ways ; either by purchasing it themselves or by their friends ; or by
being dismissed by their master, by a writing under his hand ; or in
the case mentioned in Exod. 21 : 26, when the loss of an eye or a
tooth by the master's severity serve only for examples of other maims,
which procured such a servant his liberty. But the second sort of
proselytes did not obtain their liberty, if we may believe the Hebrew

132 BISHOP PATRICK.
doctors, by this last means, but only by the tWo flrst. And the year
of Jubilee gave no servants of either sort their liberty.
Verse 46. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your child
ren after you. " To whom they might bequeath the very bodies of
^ them and their children."
To inherit them for a possession. " That they might have the
same power and dominion over them that they had over their lands,
goods, or cattle."
They shall be your bondmen forever. "Not have the benefit of the
year of Jubilee, but be your slaves as long as they live ; unless .
they, by any of the means before mentioned, obtain their liberty.'' .
I have thus shown, clearly and distinctly, that according to this
learned commentator, who was particularly conversant with the writ
ings of the Jews, the slaves of the heathen races, notwithstanding
they were proselytes, were not set free in the year of Jubilee, that
privflege being entirely confined to the posterity of Jacob, the chosen
people. And next I shall set before you the judgment of Bishop Pat
rick upon that other text, which is equally misrepresented by the
teachers of ultra-abolitionism.
Deut 23 : 15. .Jliou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant
which is escaped from his master unto thee. " The Hebrew doctors
understand this of a servant of another nation who was become a
Jew ; whom his masteij, if he went to dwell out of Judea, might not
carry along with hira against his will ; and if he fled from him when
he had carried him, he might not be delivered to him, but suffered to
dweU in the land of Israel. Which they understand also of a servant
that fled from his master out of any of the countries of the Gen
tiles into the land of Israel, which was to be a safe refuge to him."
(See Selden, lib. vi.)
The latter part of the above is the explanation given in the Bible
View of Slavery, where it is shown that the distorted interpretation
of the ultra-abolitionist is a sheer absurdity.
And now I come to the other favorite text about man-stealing.
Deut. 24 : 7. If any man be found stealing any of his brethren the
children of Israel, and maheth merchandise of him or selleth him,
then that thief shall die.
The comment of Bishop Patrick refers to a simUar law in andent
Athens, by which if any one stole a man, "death should be his pun
ishment, as Xenophon reports it And he was accounted a man-

BISHOP PATRICK. 133
stealer, who, not only by force or by fraud, carried away a freeman
and sold him for a slave, or suppressed him ; but lie who inveigled
away another man's sei'vant, and persuaded him to run away, or con
cealed such a fugitive. (As Sam. Petitus observes, out of Pollux and
others, lib. vii. Leges Atticas, tit. 5. p. 533.) Which makes me
think," continues our commentator, " not only he that stole one of
his brethren of the children of Israel, but he that stole a proselyte
of any sort, or the servant of a stranger, was liable to the punishment
mentioned in this law of Moses."
I commend this passage, my Right Reverend Brother, to your spe
cial attention, because it has a double application against the doctrine
of the ultra-abolitionist. By that doctrine we are told that, accord
ing to the Mosaic law, the deadly sin of man-stealing was committed
by those who first brought the savage negro from the slave-coast of
Africa, and continues to attach to the slave-owner of the present day,
whose title is no better than the originah And by the same doctrine
we are assured, that it is laudable and virtuous to induce a slave to
run away from his master, and to conceal the fugitive, if necessary
to insure4iis escape. But Bishop Patrick repudiates both these as
sumptions, showing, with respect to the first, that the law of Moses
forbade the stealing of an Israelite, and said nothing of the heathen
barbarian ; and, with respect to the second, that he who inveigled a
proselyte, being a bond-servant, and "persuaded him to run away
from his master, or concealed such a fugitive," was so far from the
perfoi'mance of a meritorious action, that he was " liable to the pun
ishment" mentioned in this very law. If Bishop Patrick had foreseen
the reckless style in which our ultra-abolitionists pervert this text at
the present day, he could hardly have written a more apposite con
demnation. Let us now pass on to the texts in the New Testament, and ex
amine what the same commentary pronounces concerning them.
And here we have it arranged in the manner of a paraphrase.
Eph. 6:5: " Servants be obedient to them that are your masters,
(though they be only so,) according to the flesh, (the spirit being im
mediately subject to God alone,) with fear (of displeasing them) and
trembling (lest you should justly incur their anger, serving them) in
singleness of your heart, as (knowing that in thus serving them you
do service) unto Christ, (who requires this of you, whose Gospel you
will credit by your sincere obedience to your masters for his sake,

134 WHITBY.
Tit 2 : 2, and whose doctrine you wiU blaspheme by your disobedi
ence, under pretense of any Christian liberty, from the observance of
your duty to them. 1 Tim. 6:1, 2. 9. " And, ye masters, do the
same things to them, (show the like good-wUl to and concern for
them,) forbearing threatening, (remitting oft the evfls which you
threaten to them,) knowing that your Master also is in heaven."
Colok. 2 : 22 : " Servants, obey in all (lawful) things (those who are)
your masters according to the flesh." Verse 25. But he (of you)
that doeth wrong (to his master) shall receive (of the Lord, punish
ment) for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of
persons with him."
Ch. 3:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just
and equal, knowing that you also have a, Master in heaven, (who,
with what measure ye mete to others, will mete to you again, Matt
7 : 2, and deal with you, his servants, as you deal with yours.) "
In the annotation on verse 25 of the second chapter, the comment
ator saith as follows, viz. :
Verse 25, Respect of persons. " Christ, in judging men at the last
day, will have no respect to the quality or external condition of any
man's person; but whether he be bond or free, he shall receive re
compense yor the good that he hath done, in obedience to him, wheth
er he be master or servant, he shall be punished for the wrong that
he did in those relations. It being certain, from the second chapter,
that the Judaizers were got into the Church of Colosse, and that
many of them denied that the Jews ought to be servants to any, and
the Essenes judging all servitude unlawful, this might be the reason
why here, and Titus 2, the Apostle is so large in charging this duty
on servants."
In the preface to the Epistle of St Paul to Philemon, the comment
ator proceeds as follows :
" First, no Christian, though of the meanest sort, is to be contemn
ed. Christianity makes the vilest servant both profitable and worthy
to be highly loved and honored by persons in the highest dignity,
Onesimus being by the Apostle styled his son, and his bowels."
" Secondly. Christianity doth not impair the power of masters
over their servants, or give any authority to them who convert them
to use them as their servants, without leave granted from their mas
ters."

WHITBY. 135
"Thirdly. Servants ought to make satisfaction for any wrong or
injury they have done to their masters."
" Fourthly. There is an affection due from the master to a profit
able servant"
These extracts are abundantly sufficient to prove the substantial
accordance of Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby, with all that has gone
before.

136 HENRY.

CHAPTER XVI.
Right Reverend Brother : The commentary of the Rev. Dr.
Matthew Henry, which is a favorite with very many, may next be
cited, and I shall make several extracts from it, bearing on our sub
ject On Levit 25 : 39, etc., this author writes as follows : " We have
here the laws concerning servitude. First. That a native Israelite
should never be made a bondman for perpetuity. If he was sold for
debt, or for a crime, by the house of judgment, he was to serve but
six years, and to go out the seventh. That was appointed, Exod.
21 : 2. But if he sold himself, through extreme poverty, having
nothing at all left him to preserve his life, and if it was to one of his
own nation that he sold himself, in such case it is here provided,
first, that he should not serve as a bond-servant, nor be sold with the
sale of a bondman, that is, it must not be looked upon that his mas
ter that bought him had as absolute a property in him as in a captive
taken in war, that might be used, sold, and bequeathed, at pleasure,
as much as a man's cattle ; no, he shall serve thee as a hired servant.
Second. That he,should not be ruled with rigor, and his work and
usage must be such as were fitting for a son of Abraham. Third. That
at the year of jubilee he should go out free, he and his children, and
should return to his own family and possession."
"But the Jews might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations
that were round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned
among them, and might claim a dominion over them, and entail
them upon their families as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee
should give no discharge to them."
I turn next to the comraent on Deut 23 : 15, where the precept
occurs : " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which
is escaped from his master unto thee." And here we find Matthew
Henry adopting the same interpretation which we have already seen
in the other commentaries — the only one which could be adopted
with anj' sense or reason, viz. :

HENRY. 137
"First. The land of Israel," saith he, "is here made a sanctuary,
or city of refuge, for servants that were wronged by their masters,
and fled thither for shelter, /rom the neighboring countries, v. 15-16.
We can not suppose .that they were hereby obliged to give shelter to
all the unprincipled men that ran from service ; Israel needed not (as
Rome at first did) to be thus peopled. But, first, they must not de
liver up the trembling servant to his enraged master, till upon trial
it appeared that the servant had wronged his master, and was justly
liable to punishment. Note, it is an honorable thing to shelter and
protect the weak, provided they be not wicked. God allows his
people to patronize the oppressed. The angel bid Hagar return to
her mistress, and St Paul sent Onesimus back to his master, Phile
mon, because they had neither of them any cause to go away, nor
were either of them exposed to any danger in returning. But the
servant here is supposed to escape, that is, to run for his. life to the
people of Israel, of whom he had heard that they were a merciful
people, to save himself from the fury of a tyrant, and in that case,
to deliver him up, is to throw a lamb into the mouth of a lion!'
"Second. If it appeared that the servant was abused, they must
not only protect him, but, supposing him willing to embrace their
religion, they must give him all the encouragement that might be, to
settle among them. Thus would he soon find a comfortable differ
ence between the land of Israel and other lands, and would choose it
to be his rest forever.''
Here we see, 1st, That this commentator properly limits the pre
cept to the case of fugitive slaves "from the neighboring countries,"
namely, foreigners, and therefore it could have no application to the
slaves who abscond from the Southern States, because those States
were bound with the rest under the same Constitution, which spe
cially provided for them. ,
2. We see that, even in the case of foreign fugitives, Henry would
have the Israelites hear the master, and judge whether the slave had
any cause to justify his running away. And if, on a hearing, it ap
peared that he had wronged his master, and was justjy liable to pun
ishment, he should be delivered up again.
8. We see that the commentator refers to Hagar, whom the angel
sent back to her mistress, and to Onesimus, whom St Paul sent back
to his master PhUemon, because " neither of them had any cause to
run away, nor ere either of them exposed to any danger in return-

138 HENRY.
ing." And the kind of danger to which Henry refers is perfectly
manifest when he tells us, that the servant is " supposed to run for
his life," to save himself from " the fury of a tyrant," in which
case, "to deliver him up is to throw a lamb into the mouth of a
lion." 4. We see, lastly, that the Israelites, on hearing the facts, as well
on the part of the master as on the part of the fugitive, would be
likely to decide according to the established laws of servitude, be
cause they likewise were slaveholders, and would therefore be suffi
ciently careful to pronounce no judgment unfavorable to the rights
of the master, or likely to encourage the rebellion of slaves against
themselves. Thus reasonably interpreted, it needs no argument to show that
tl;iis precept; so constantly cited by the ultra-abolitionists as an ex
cuse for violating the fugitive slave law, has not the slightest applir
cation to the subject. And the- popular perversion of it to such a
purpose is only a specimen of the "wresting of Scripture," which is
unhappily so common at this day.
The text in Deut. 24 : 7, which forbids man-stealing, is com.
mented on very briefly by Dr. Henry, but he does not difl'er from
the rest These are his words, viz. :
" This was a very heinous offense, for, flrst, it was robbing the
public of one of its members ; second, it was taking away a man's
liberty, the liberty of a free-born Israelite, which was next in value
to his hfe ; third, it was driving a man out from the inheritance of
the land (Israel) to the privileges of which he was entitled, and bid
ding him go serve other gods, as David complains against Saul. 1 Sam.
26:19." This is the whole ; but brief as it is, we see that Henry considers
the law as only applicable to the case of stealing and selling an Israel
ite to a heathen people.
The remarks of Cruden, in his Concordance, under the word
"steal," are very fair, viz. : "Though there was no penalty annexed
to the law forbidding theft," saith he, " except restitution, yet to
steal away a freeman, or an Hebrew, and to reduce him to the
state of servitude, was punished with death. Exod. 21 : 16. The
Jews do not think that the stealing of a man of any other nation de
serves death, but only the theft of a free Hebrew. If it be a stranger
that is stole, they were only condemned to restitution. They found

HENRY. 139
this distinction upon a law in Deut. 24 : 7, which limits this law
concerning man-stealing : If a man be found stealing any of his
brethren of the children of Israel ; which exception the Septuagint
andOnkelos have inserted in the text of Exod. 21 : 16."
On the passages which I have cited from the New Testament, the
commentary of Dr. Henry confirms what we have seen in the others.
Thus, on 1 Cor. 7:21, " Art thou called, being a servant ? care not
for it, but if thou mayestbe made free, use it rather," he saith": " It
was common in that age of the world, for many to be in a state of
slavery, bought and sold for money, and so the property of those
who purchased them. ' Now,' says the Apostle, ' art thou called,
being a servant f care not for it! Be not over-solicitous about it It
is not inconsistent with thy duty, profession, or hopes, as a Christ
ian. Tet, if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. (21) There
are many conveniences in a state of freedom, above that of servitude ;
therefore, liberty is the more eligible state. But men's outward con
dition does not let nor further their acceptance with God. For he
that is called, being a servant, is the Lord!s freeman, as he that is
called, being free., is the Lords servant. Though he be not dis
charged from his master's service, he is freed from the dominion and
vassalage of sin. He who is a slave may yet be a Christian freeman ;
he who is a freeman may yet be Christ's servant. He is bought
with a price, and should not therefore be the servant of raan. Not that
he must quit the service of his master, or not take all proper mea
sures to please him, (this were to contradict the whole scope of the
Apostle's discourse,) but he must not be so the servant of men, but
that Christ's will must be obeyed and regarded, more than his mas
ter's. He has paid a much dearer purchase for him, and has a much
fuller property in him.''
V. 24. Let every man wherein he is called, abide therein with
God. " This," continues our commentator, " is to be understood of
the state wherein a man is converted to Christianity. No man should
make his faith or r-eligion an argument to break through any nat
ural or civil obligations. He should quietly and comfortably abide
in the condition in which he is, and this he may well do, when he
may abide therein with God. Note, the special presence and favor
of God are not limited to any outward condition or performance.
He may enjoy it who is circumcised. And so may he who is uncir
cumcised. He who is bound may have it, as well as he who is free.

140 HENRY.
In this respect, there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor un
circumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. (Col. 3 : 2.)"
Again, in the comraent on Eph. 6:5: Servants, be obedient, etc.,
we read as follows, viz. : " The duty of servants is summed up in
one word, which is obedience. These servants were generally slaves :
civil servitude is not inconsistent with Christian liberty."
Y. 9. And ye masters, do the same thing unto them. " Observe,''
saith our comraentator, " masters are under as strict obhgations to
discharge their duty to their servants,, as servants are to be obedient
and dutiful to them."
The same doctrine occurs, in yet stronger terms, in the comment
on 1 Tim. 6:1: Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count
their own masters worthy of all honor, etc. Thus the author writes,
viz. :
" If Christianity finds servants under the yoke, it continues them
under it, for the Gospel does not cancel the obligations any lie under,
either by the law of nature or by mutual consent." — "Suppose the
master were a Christian and a believer, and the servant a believer
too, would not that excuse him, because, in Clirist there is neither
bond nor free? No, by no means, /or Jesus Christ did not come to
dissolve the bond of civil relation, but to strengthen it."
We now come to the epistle of St Paul to Philemon. " The occa
sion of it," saith our commentator, "was this: Philemon, one of
note, and probably a minister in the church of Colosse, a city of
Phrygia, had a servant named Onesimus, who, having purloined his
goods, ran away from him, and in his rambles came to Rome, Where
Paul was then a prisoner for the Gospel ; and providentially coming
under his preaching there, was, by the blessing of God, converted by
him : after which, he ministered awhile to the Apostle in bonds, and
might have been further useful to him ; but understanding him to be
another man's servant, he would not, without his consent, detain
him, but sends him back with this letter commendatory. With what
earnestness does he concern himself for this poor slave I Being now,
through his preaching, reconciled to God, he labors for reconciliation
between him and his master."
V. 16. Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother be
loved, etc. "That is," saith our commentator, "not merely or so
much, but above a servant in a spiritual respect, to be owned as a
brother in Christ, and to be loved as such, upon account of the holy

HENRY. 141
change wrought in him, and who will therefore be useful to thee on
better principles and in a better manner than before."
I shall add but one extract more, from this esteemed commentary,
and that is on 1 Pet 2 : 18 : Servants, be subject to your masters
with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the fro-
ward. Thus saith our author, viz. .
" The case of servants wanted an apostolical determination as well
as that of subjects, for they imagined that their Christian liberty set
them free from their unbelieving and cruel masters. To this the
Apostle answers : Servants, be subject. By servants, he means those
who were strictly such, whether hired, or bought with money, or
taken in the wars, or born in the house, or those who served by con
tract for a limited time, as apprentices ; these he orders to be subject,
to do their business faithfully and honestly, to conduct themselves,
as inferiors ought, with reverence and affection, and to submit pa
tiently to hardships and inconveniences. This subjection they owe
to their masters, who have a right to their service ; and that not only
to the good and gentle, such as use. them well, but even to the
crooked and perverse, who are scarcely to be pleased at all."
Here, then, we have a number of clear and distinct statements on
the subject of slavery, as well under the Mosaic law as under the
apostles, from the favorite commentary of our Presbyterian brethren,
which not only occupied the first rank during the eighteenth century,
but was republished in a.d. 1829, by the eminent Dr. Archibald
Alexander, with the warmest commendations, as worthy of all re
gard and confidence. The Rev. Edward Bickersteth gave it his high
praise. The judicious Charles Buck, author of the Theological Dic
tionary, said: "In my opinion, Henry takes the lead for common
utUity." And the pious William Romaine declared that there was
" no comment on the Bible, either ancient or modern, in aU respects
equal to Mr. Henry's." Distinguished as it is by our Presbyterian
brethren, and by the evangelical party in our own Church, I trust
that you wiU be ready to adopt its doctrine as a safe guide, notwith
standing the temptation to favor the very contrary assumptions of
ultra abolitionism.

142 SCOTT.

CHAPTER XVII.
Right Reverend Brother : I proceed, in the order laid down, to
the commentary of Rev. Thomas Scott, republished in Philadelphia
in 1862, from the London edition of 1822. It belongs therefore,
properly, to the present century, and has been, I presume, tho most
extensively patronized in our own country. The same ground must
be again gone over, notwithstanding the repetition, because I have
promised to make thorough work of my labor. And we shall see
that as Scott wrote his commentary, after the great abolition move
ment in England, commenced by Wilberforce and others, he shows
the influence of the times very strongly, in many places, and was
evidently disposed to sympathize with the popular sentiment, as far
as possible, without too glaring a contradiction to the sacred text.
Thus, on Gen. 9 : 24-7, containing the prophecy of Noah, this
commentator saith that the posterity of Canaan " were no doubt
principally though not exclusively intended." And he quotes from
Bishop Newton : " The whole continent of Africa was peopled prin
cipally by the descendants of Ham, and for how many ages have the
better parts of this country lain under the dominion of the Romans,
and then of the Saracens, and now of the Turks. In what wicked
ness, ignorance, barbarity, slavery, misery, live most of the inhab
itants ! And of the poor negroes, how many hundreds every year
are sold and bought, like beasts in the market, and conveyed from
one quarter of the world to do the work of beasts in another."
"This, however," saith Scott, "in no measure vindicates the covet
ous and barbarous oppression of those -who thus enrich themselves
with the products of their sweat and blood. God has not commanded
us to enslave negroes, as he did Israel to extirpate the Canaanites,
and therefore, without doubt, he will severely punish this cruel in
justice." He then proceeds to say that " true religion has hitherto
flourished very little among Ham's descendants. They remain to
this day almost entire strangers to Christianity, and their condition
in every age has remarkably coincided with this prediction!'

SCOTT. 143
Here we have the key-note of Rev. Thomas Scott's commentary
on the subject And yet, notwithstanding his evident bias towards
abolitionism, he is obliged to acknowledge, flrst, that the prophecy
of Noah did not exclusively refer tb Canaan's descendants. If not,
then it must have included the other descendants of Ham. And sec-
ondl}', he admits that the condition of RarrCs descendants in every age,
coincided remarkably with the prophecy. Thus we have a reluctant
admission of the same substantial truth stated by the previous com
mentators. As to his statement about the negroes, and the judgment of God
upon their oppressors, there is no question about the truth that the
Almighty will punish all oppression and injustice, whether towards
slaves or hirelings, whether it be exhibited under the law of bondage,
or by the power of Mammon, grinding the face, of the poor. But it
must be remembered that in all remarks like these, he is not per
forming the work of a commentator on the Bible, whose duty it is to
explain the Word of God, and not to set his personal notions or
feehngs in opposition to it I shall have occasion to pass the same
censure on this author on other occasions, as I proceed. Meanwhile
his admissions, on this very account, are the more valuable, because
they are extorted from him, in spite of his prejudices, by the force
of truth.
The change of sentiment which had now taken place is plainly
manifested in his note on Exodus 21. Thus he saith, that "Slavery
was almost universal in the world, and though, like war, it always
proceeded of evil, and was generaUy evil in itself, yet the wisdom of
God deemed it better to regulate them to prohibit it. We should
not, however, judge of the practice itself by these judicial regulations,
-but by the law of love. Slavery, like war, may in some cases in the
present state of things be lawful ; for the crime which forfeits Hfe no
doubt forfeits liberty ; and it is not inconsistent even with the moral
law for a criminal to be sold and treated as a slave, during a terra of
time proportioned to his offense. In most other cases, if not in all,
it must be inconsistent with the law of love!'
And again, in his comment on verse 16 of the same Chapter, we
have another example. Re that stealeth a man and selleth him, or
if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. " The
Jewish writers assert," saith he, " that it was not a capital crime to
steal one of another nation, but only when the person stolen was a

144 SCOTT.
Hebrew. Yet this is by no means consistent with the text, which
certainly implies that he who stole any one of the human species, in
order to make a slave of him, should be punished with death."
Now in the flrst of these extracts the commentator entirely disre
gards the fact that the law of love was laid down to the Jew as well
as to the Christian, and yet in the Ten Commandments, which are
the moral law by eminence, we find the bondman and the bondmaid
distinctly specified as property not to be coveted. In the second ex
tract he ignores the text in Deut 24 : 7, where the same law respect
ing man-stealing is stated more fully, with the very limitation on
which the Jewish doctors insist, viz. :
" If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children
of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him or selleth him, then that
man shall die!' And when we come to his commentary on this text
we read as follows, viz. :
" Christianity has annihilated that distinction of nations, which,
for typical and political reasons, was during a time established, and
^in this respect every moM is now our brother, whatever be his nation,
complexion, or creed. How, then, can the merchandise of men and
women be carried on without transgressing this commandment, or
abetting those who do ?"
Plere this author asserts a downright absurdity. Christianity has
not annihilated the distinction of nations, nor was it intended, as all the
previous commentaries plainly declare, to change the laws of earthly
governments, or do away with the social relations established among
mankind. The brotherhood which the Gospel sets forth is not carnal
but spiritual. The kingdom of Christ is not of this world. True, in
deed, God hath made of one blood all the nations upon earth, and there
fore, by reason of our common parentage, all men may be called breth
ren in a certain sense. But Christian brotherhood is created by our
adoption into the family of Christ, through faith and baptism, by which
we are entitied to call God our Father in heaven. And nothing can
be more false than the assertion that Christianity has made the hea
then savage any more our brother than he was the brother of the
Jew under the Mosaic dispensation.
Dr. Scott gives a notable comment also upon Lev. 25 : 44, etc.
"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 strano-ers

SCOTT. 145
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families
that are with you, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit
them for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen forever ; but over
your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over an
other with rigor."
Now here is his commentary : " The Israelites were permitted to
keep slaves of other nations ; perhaps in order to typify that none
but the true Israel of God participate of that liberty with which Christ
hath made his people free. But it was also allowed in order that the
Gentiles might become acquainted with true religion : and when the
Israelites copied the example of their pious progenitors, there can be
no reasonable doubt that it was overruled to the eternal salvation of
many souls. It does not, however, appear from the subsequent his
tory that the people availed themselves of this allowance to any great
extent, for we read but little of slaves from among the GentUes pos
sessed by them.''
It seems passing strange to me that .this good man could see so
clearly the reason of the Almighty in directing the slavery of the hea
then nations round about Judea, viz., in order that the Gentiles might
become acquainted with true religion, so that it was overruled to the
eternal salvation of many souls, and yet could not see that the slav
ery of the negro race admits of the very same justification. For cer
tain it is that they were by that means redeemed from the slavery of
Guinea, where two thirds of the whole people are in that condition,
and redeemed besides from the awful barbarism and idolatry described
by Malte Brun. And it is equally certain that millions of their pos
terity have found the way to eternal salvation, under the Southern
institution, who must otherwise have lived and died in utter darkness
and misery.
But Dr. Scott was not in the mood to discern this application of
his argument. Neither does he inform his readers that the Jubilee,
of which he had been writing at great length, did not operate on the
condition of the slaves, though that fact was stated plainly by the
previous commentators. He fancies, however, that the Israelites did
not avail themselves of the divine allowance to any great extent,, al
though he knew that Abraham had three hundred and eighteen serv
ants born in his own house, which were but a portion of the whole.
He knew, moreover, that when the Jews returned from the captivity
7

146 SCOTT.
in Babylon, the free population amounted to forty-two thousand three
hundred and sixty, and the slaves to seven, thousand three hundred
and thirty-seven, (Ezra 2 : 61^5,) that is, about one slave to every
si-t persons, women and children included. And he also knew that
-when David ordered Joab to nuraber Israel, it was found that the
men who were fit for war amounted to one million three hundred
thousand, which, computing that these could not have been more
than one fourth of the whole population, reckoning both sexes and
all ages, would bring the sum total to five million two hundred thou
sand souls. Now, if we allow only the moderate proportion of one
sixth, which was the actual number of the slaves when the Jews re
turned from Babylon, we shall have eight hundred and sixty-six thou
sand six hundred and sixty-six slaves as the aggregate in the reign
of David. And as the tribe of Levi was not numbered, we can not
seriously err if we compute the number of slaves to nearly a million.
But our commentator saith that we read but little concerning them.
Do we read any more, or even as much, of the hired servants ? How
plainly do we see here the strong bias of his mind, which could not
allow him to deal fairly by the positive text of the sacred Scriptures
when slavery was in question !
But we shall find this comraentator more faithful in the Epistolary
portions of the New Testament. Thus, Eph. 6 ; 5 : " Servants, be
obedient to your masters,'' etc. " The Apostle," saith our commen
tator, " next exhorts servants who had embraced Christianity to be
obedient to their masters, according to the flesh, that is, to whom
they were subjected in temporal raatters. In general, the servants
at that time were slaves, the property of their masters, and were often
treated with great severity, though seldom with that systematic
cruelty which commonly attends slavery in these Jays." (Where did
Dr. Scott find his authority for this statement ? The testimony of
history is altogether against him.) " But the apostles were minis
ters of religion," continues he, " not politicians ; they had not that
influence among rulers and legislators which would have been neces
sary for the abolition of slavery. Indeed, in that state of society as to
other things, this would not have been expedient : God did not please
miraculously to interpose in the case, and they were not required to
exasperate their persecutors by expressly contending against the law
fulness of slavery. Yet both the law of love and the Gospel of grace
tend to its abolition as far as they are known and regarded ; and the

SCOTT. 147
universal prevalence of Christianity must annihUate slavery, with
many other evils, which, in the present state of things, can not wholly
be avoided. In the wisdom of God the apostles were left to take such
matters as they found them, and to teach servants and masters their
respective duties, in the performance of which the evil would be
mitigated, tiU in due time it should be extirpated by Christian legis
lators." On 1 Tim. 6:1: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count
their own masters worthy of all honor, etc. " The Apostle next,"
saith our commentator, " directed, that Christians, who were under
the yoke of slavery, should quietly attend to the duties of their
lowly situation, counting their own masters entitled to all the re
spect, fidelity, and obedience, which that superior relation demanded ;
and not supposing that their religious knowledge, privileges, or lib
erty, gave them a right to despise their heathen masters, to speak or
act disrespectfully to them, to disobey their lawful commands, or to
expose their faults to their neighbors. And such of them as enjoyed
the nrivilege of believing masters, ought by no means to despise
them, or withhold from them due respect and obedience, because
they were brethren in Christ, and so upon a level in respect of re
ligious privileges ; but rather do them service, with double diligence
and cheerfulness, because of their faith in Christ, and their interest
in his love, as partakers of the inestimable benefit of his salvation.
This shows that Christian masters were not required to set their
slaves at liberty, though they were instructed to behave towards
them in such a manner as would greatly lessen and nearly annihilate
the evils of slavery. It would have excited much confusion, awak
ened the jealousy of the civil powers, and greatly retarded the prog
ress of Christianity, had the liberation of slaves by their converts
been expressly required by the Apostles : [though the principles of
both the law and the Gospel, when carried to their consequences,
will infallibly abolish slavery] These things Timothy was directed
to teach and enforce as matters of the greatest importance, and if
any persons taught otherwise, and consented not to such salutary
words, which were indeed the words of Christ ' speaking by him,'
and an essential part of the doctrine according to godliness, he must
be considered as a self-conceited ignorant man, who, being puffed up
with an opinion of his own abUities, was ambitious of distinction and

148 SCOTT.
applause, though entirely unacquainted with the real nature and
tendency of the Gospel."
"It is not absolutely certain,'' continues Dr. Scott, "to what set
of men the Apostie referred ; but as many of the Jews deemed it
unlawful to submit to heathen governors, it is probable some of the
Judaizing teachers inculcated that the worshipers of God ought not
to obey heathen masters, and so paid their court to servants, by
persuading them that they ought to assert their liberty. But there
might be others also who disregarded and despised those practical
instructions, while their attention was taken up with curious and
nice speculations and distinctions. Such persons, however, were to
be considered as doting or talking wUdly, like sick and delirious per
sons, about hard questions and disputes of words, names, forms, or
notions, which had no connection with the power of godliness. In
deed, these questions and disputes tended to excite envy and compe
tition between one and another, angry contests for victory and
preeminence, mutual reviling and calumnies, injurious suspicions and
jealousies, and absurd, obstinate, and violent controversies, betwixt
men of corrupt and carnal minds, who were destitute of the real
knowledge of the truth and its sanctifying efficacy, and who only
sought their own secular advantage ; supposing religion to be valu
able, in proportion as it tended to enrich them, as if gain and god
liness had been but two names for the same thing. Thus they
wanted to persuade the Christian servants that the recovery of their
liberty was to be considered as a Christian privilege of great value,
which they ought to claim, whatever the consequence might be.
Prom such men, Timothy was exhorted to withdraw himself, and
neither have acquaintance with them, nor spend his time in disputing
with them."
Now so far as these extracts are commentaries, they are just and
true, agreeing with the previous authors whose language I have
quoted. The fault is that Dr. Scott interlards them with what is not
a commentary on Scripture, but his own notions about the reasons
¦which influenced the divine mind to have nothing said which could
excite commotion, provoke the civil government, or hinder the prog
ress of the Gospel. But while I object to the error of confounding
the notions of Dr. Scott with the real authority of an inspired Apostle,
I am willing to accept them so far as this, viz. : that they apply with
aU their force to the attacks of ultra-abolitionism upon the Constitu-

SCOTT. 149
tion and the laws of the Union at the present day. It is sufficient
for my purpose, however, to have the testimony of this commentator
to the fact, that Christian masters were not required to emancipate
their slaves by the Gospel, as St. Paul expounded it. Of course,
the Apostle could not have supposed that slaveholding was a sin,
and I contend that until it pleases God to send us a new revelation,
by inspired men, able, like the Apostles, to prove their divine com
mission by miracles, the Church is solemnly boimd to set forth the
same doctrine that St. Paul commanded Timothy to teach ; and if
she dares to authorize the contrary doctrine, she becomes, so far, an
apostate, and a rebel against the Word of the Almighty.
In the preface to the Epistle to Philemon, Dr. Scott pursues the
same track with the other commentators, and in his note on verses
12-16, he saith as follows :
" Onesimus was PhUemon's legal property, and St. Paul had.re-
quired and prevailed with Onesimus to return to him, having made
sufficient trial of his sincerity ; and he requested Philemon to receive
him with the same kindness as he would the aged Apostle's own son
according to the flesh, being equally dear to him as his spiritual child.
He would gladly have kept him at Rome, to minister to him in his
confinement ; but he would not do any thing of this kind without
his master's consent, lest he should seem to extort the benefit, and
Philemon should appear to act from ' necessity,' rather than ' from a
willing mind' He had, indeed, hopes of deriving benefit from Ones-
imus's faithful serrice, at some future period, by PhUemon's free
consent, yet he was not sure that this was the Lord's purpose re
specting him, for perhaps he permitted him to leave his master for a
season in so improper a manner, in order that, being converted, he
might be received on his return with such affection, and might abide
with PhUemon with such faithfulness and dfligence, that they should
choose to live together the rest of their lives, as fellow-heirs of eter
nal felicity. In this case he knew that Philemon would no longer
consider Onesimus merely as a slave, but view him as ' above a slave,
even as a brother beloved.' This he was become to Paul in an espe
cial manner, who had before been entirely a stranger to him : how
much more, then, might it be supposed that he would be endeared
to Philemon, when he became well acquainted with his excellency,
seeing he would be near to him, both in the flesh, as one of hia

150 LAW OF LOVE.
domestics, and in the Lord, being one with him in Christ, as a be
liever !"
Now, my Right Reverend Brother, whfle I can not close my eyes
to the manifest bias in favor of abolition which is so apparent in many
parts of Scott's Commentary, I have shown that he does not differ,
substantially, from any of the rest He tells us indeed, frequenUy,
that the law of love will eventually annihUate slavery. But this law
of love was proclaimed by Moses, and our Lord recognizes the fact,
(Luke 10 : 26-7) when He said to one of his tempters : " What is writ
ten in the law ? how readest thou ?" And he answering said : " Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor
as thyself" The Gospel added nothing to this law of love, because
any enlargement of it was impossible. But He alone fulfilled it to
perfection, and gave us a glorious example, and a new motive for our
obedience, according to the declaration of the Apostle, (1 John
3:16:) " Hereby we perceive the love of God, because he laid down
his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."
If, then, the law of love was set forth by the Almighty from the be
ginning, and the sanction of slavery was also given, both under the
law and under the Gospel, how shall it be believed that there is any
thing in the relation of master and slave which is inconsistent with
love? For what is this relation ? That one man shall belong to another,
and serve hira as his master. Is this hostile to love ? Suppose the
slave to be free, and he would be a hireling to his employer. Does
that relation secure love ? Is it not manifest that my love for any
thing becomes increased by making it belong to me, since now it is a
part of myself, and my attachment to it is insured by that very rea
son? Why do I love my chUdren better than all others ? Simply be
cause they belong to me. Why do I love my wife better than all
other women ? Because she belongs to me. Why do I love my house
better than any other habitation ? Because it belongs to me. So far
is ownership from preventing love, that it secures and increases love
beyond any other principle of human action. And if so, why should
not the same law operate in the relation of servitude ? For while
the servant is only my hireling, and may depart from me at any mo
ment, I am not disposed to look upon him with any stronger affec-

LAW OP LOVE. 151
tion than I have for others. But let him be my own, and I can not
help regarding him with a new sense of attachment. My sympathy,
my responsibility, my solicitude, are all engaged as they could not be
without the bond that now unites us, and 1 have a love for him, of
necessity, which I could not have had before.
And therefore it is that the highest love in the universe, the love of
Christ, is manifested in the language of servitude. " Let this mind
be in you,'' saith the Apostle, (Phil. 2 : 5-8) "which was also in
Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took
upon him the form of a servant," (jioQ(^v Sdvlov, literally the fo7'm
of a slave,) " and -was made in the likeness of men, and being found
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto
death, even the death of the Cross."
That principle runs throughout" His whole course. As God, He
was the Lord of life and glory, receiving the worship and homage of
aU that approached Him. But as man. He was the servant of all, at
tending to every call for His labors, Himself so poor that He had not
where to lay His head, and not shrinking from reproaches, blows, and
soourgings, the treatment too often given to slaves. He washed His
disciples' feet, the office performed by slaves. He died upon the Cross,
the punishment of the slave according to the Roman law. And after
He had thus fulfllled His wondrous work, " in the form of a slave,"
and risen to His throne of glory. He presents the same principle to
us. "Ye are not your own," saith St. Paul, (1 Cor. 6 : 19-20,) "for
ye are bought -with a price." And "ye know," saith St Peter, (1 Pet.
1 : 18,) " that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver
and gold ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot." And hence the law of love is inseparable
from the law of servitude, and the service of Christ is our only " per
fect freedom."
The relations of this mortal life are all regarded in the Bible as
typical of our relations to God, and to the divine Redeemer. Thus
the matrimonial relation is a type of the union between Christ and
the Church, and hence, as the Church is obedient to Christ, so, saith
the Apostle, let the wife be to her husband. Thus the filial relation
is a type of our relation, as the children of God, to our Father in
heaven. Thus, too, the relation of bondr-servants, or slaves, is the

152 LAW OF LOVE.
type of our relation to our glorious Lord and Master. And the prin
ciple of love runs throughout the whole.
It is no answer to this, that slaves are liable to be treated with
cruelty or barbarity. So are men, in all the relations of society.
Such treatment is a sin, because it is in direct contrariety to the com
mands of God, who lays down the plainest rules upon the duties of
husbands, fathers, and masters, as well as those which belong to
wives, and children, and servants or slaves. The relation itself is
not to be censured, because the treatment may be wrong. And there
fore the Bible says nothing about abolishing slavery, but only regu
lates it according to the will of God. Therefore, too, we have seen
that the Church never made any effort to abolish it. Therefore we
shall find, in examining the subject, that the causes which led to its
extinction in Europe were secular, and not religious, arising from
changes gradually taking place amongst each particular people. But
this must be reserved for another place, and I shaU now proceed to
our next commentary.

CLARKE. 153

CHAPTER xvm.
Right Reverend Brother : The name of Adam Clarke is of high
reputation amongst our Methodist brethren, and his influence has
doubtless been very great in producing the controversy about the
slave question which ended in the separation, North and South, of
that very numerous and powerful denomination. Of course, as his
commentary appeared after the English Parliament had emancipated
the slaves in Jamaica, he belongs to the modern school of abolitionists.
Yet we shall find that, notwithstanding his sweeping denunciation,
he does not, as a commentator, give any authority for the ultra doc
trine to which I stand opposed.
Thus, on Gen. 9 : 22-4, And Ram, the father of Canaan, etc., he
¦writes as follows : " Ham, and very probably, his son Canaan, had
treated their father on this occasion with contempt or reprehensible
lerity. Had Noah not been innocent, as my exposition supposes
him, God would not have endowed him -with the spirit of prophecy."
This, by the way, is stated too strongly, for God endowed Balaam
with the spirit of prophecy, notwithstanding he was a -wicked man,
and Caiaphas prophesied, though he was the enemy of our Saviour.
The power of prophecy is not a personal privilege to the man, but a
gift to the Church, for whose sake it is delivered.
" The conduct of Shem and Japheth," continues Dr. Clarke, " was
such as became pious and affectionate children, who appear to have
been in the habit of treating their father with decency, reverence,
and obedient respect On the one, the spirit of prophecy (not the
incensed father) pronounces a curse : on the others, the same spirit
(not parental tenderness) pronounces a blessing. These things
would have been just as they afterward occurred, had Noah never
spoken. God had wise and powerful reasons to induce him to sen
tence the one to perpetual servitude, and to aUot to the others prosper
ity and dominion. Besides, the curse pronounced on Canaan neither
feU immediately upon himself nor on his worthless father, but upon
>7*

154 THE CANAANITES.
the Canaanites, and from the history we have of this people, in Lev.
18 : 20, and Deut. 9 : 4, 12 : 31, we may ask, could the curse of God
faU more deservedly on any people than on these ? Their profligacy
was great, but it was not the eff'ect of the curse, but being foreseen
by the Lord, the curse was the effect of their conduct. But even
this curse does not exclude them from the possibflity of obtaining
salvation : it extends not to the soul and to eternity, but merely to
their bodies and to time. How many, even of these, repented, we
can not tell."
I would only remark here : First. That Dr. Clarke clearly regards
perpetual servitude as the decree of God upon the Canaanites ; and,
secondly, that he confines the operation of this decree to their bodies,
with perfect propriety. It may be well, however, now to consider
whether the execution of this decree does not of necessity require
the continuance of the race of Canaan. For the land of Canaan was
to be given to Israel, and the inhabitants thereof included seven
nations, all of whom were commanded to be cut off ; not enslaved,
but exterminated. If there were no Canaanites anywhere else but
in Canaan, how could the decree of extermination and the decree of
perpetual servitude be made to agree together ?
Now we know that the Canaanites were not exterminated com
pletely, even in Canaan ; and we find them still existing in our Sav
iour's days, because " a woman of Canaan" came from the coasts
of Tyre and Sidon, to ask relief for her daughter at the hand of our
Lord, (Matt. 15 : 22.) Moreover, we read, that " Canaan begat Sidon
and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and
the Zemarite, and the Hamathite ; and afterward were the families
of the Canaanites spread abroad," (Gen. 10 : 15-18.) Dr. Clarke, in
his note on this passage, saith, that the Jebusite, Amorite, etc, " are
weU known as being the ancient inhabitants of Canaan, expelled by
the chUdren of Israel" And this, to a considerable extent, must
have been the case. A large number were slain in the wars of Is
rael Another probably large number continued to dweU in the
land, and could not be driven out, because the Israelites were faith
less and disobedient But it is obvious that when they found it im
possible to resist the victorious sword of Joshua, a considerable
proportion of the wealthier classes, who were able to emigrate would
fly from the conqueror, and seek a refuge in other lands.

THE CANAANITES. 155
Here, then, we have to inquire, where did they go ? We have
eleven names of the heads of tribes set forth as the posterity of Ca
naan in Genesis 10: 15-18, of whom only SOTerewere involved in the
invasion of the Israelites. What became of the other four ? We
have, besides, the emigrating portion of those seven nations to place
somewhere. We have also to allow room for the families of the
Canaanites which, long before the investment of Canaan, are said to
have been "spread abroad."- We can trace some of the Canaanites
to Tyre and Sidon, Phcenicia and Carthage, but there can not be any
reasonable doubt that the other nations of the race occupied a far
more extensive range. And as we know nothing about the locality
in which these famUies of the Canaanites were " spread abroad,"
nor where a portion of the seven nations " expelled " from Canaan
betook themselves, what is to prevent our supposing that they settled
in various parts of Ethiopia and Guinea, and that the descendants of
Canaan .are there to this day ?
The argument for this conclusion seems to my mind unanswerable.
For, in the flrst place, Africa is acknowledged by all to be the land
of Ram, peopled by his posterity. 2d. The progeny of Canaan,
which would seem, from the names recorded in Gen. 10, to have
been far more numerous than that of his other sons, would naturally
be found on the same continent with their brethren of the same
race, with whom, in language, in idolatry, and in general licentious
ness, they must have been most nearly associated. 3d. We can find
no traces elsewhere of the posterity of four of these sons of Canaan,
which were not concerned in the wars of Israel. And, 4th, the ac
count given by Malte Brun, and all other writers, concerning the
present state of Guinea, agrees with the Scriptural statement of the
immorality and corruption of the Canaanites. It is true, indeed,
that the portion of those which had settled in the promised land
appear to have been farther advanced in the arts than the people of
Dahomey. But this only proves that idolatry and wickedness tend
to barbarism. We know that our continent was peopled once by a
race superior to the Indians. We know that vast portions of Asia
and Africa were more civilized two thousand years ago than they are
at this day. The result, on the whole, would therefore seem most
probable, that the African race at the South are a portion of the
posterity of Ham, through the line of Canaan. And hence, the
most limited interpretation of Noah's prophecy would agree with the
historical facts of their degradation and their slavery.

156 CLARKE.
Dr. Clarke, in his note on Gen. 9 : 25, Cursed be Canaan, recog
nizes the same fact which is stated by Bishop Newton and others,
viz., that "theArabic version has Ram, the father of Canaan;" but
" this," saith he, " is acknowledged by none of the other versions,
and seems to be merely a gloss." It has not been so regarded, as
we have seen, by others, but I care nothmg about the choice between
the versions, as either will suffice to vindicate the consistency of the
Deity, when properly apphed, and save us from the common mistake
of supposing that the Lord decreed the servitude of the very same
people at one time, whom he ordered to be exterminated at another.
As soon as we understand that the portion of the Canaanites who
were to be exterminated by Israel was only apart of the whole, this
difficulty vanishes. The subject, however, will be more fully con
sidered in a, subsequent chapter.
Our commentator gives a clearer statement on the case of Hagar,
Gen. 16:2, than some others. " It must not be forgotten," saith he,
" that female slaves constituted a part of the private patrimony or
possession of a wife ; and that she had a right, according to the
usage of those tiraes, to dispose of them as she pleased. The
slave being the absolute property of the mistress, not only her person,
but the fruits of her labor, with all her children, were her owner's
property also. The children, therefore, that were born of the slave
were considered as the children of the mistress. It was on this
ground that Sarai gave her maid to Abram."
The text in Exodus, ch. 21, t. 16, Re that stealeth a man, etc.,
affords an example of Dr. Clarke's bias towards modern ultra-aboli
tionism. " By this law," saith he, " every man-stealer, and every
receiver of the stolen person, should lose his life ; no matter whether
the latter stole the man himself, or gave money to a slave-captain, or
negro-decder, to steal it for him."
In this he manifests a great degree of disingenuousness, because he
passes by, in total silence, the language in Deuteronomy 24 : 7,
where the same law is laid down in more precise terms, limiting the
offense to the stealing of an Israelite, to make merchandise of him.
The maxim of all courts of justice is, that laws in pari materia — i.e.,
on the same subject — must be construed together, but Dr. Clarke
disregards this, and gives a false construction to the briefer text,
while he ignores the longer and more complete one. Moreover, he
contradicts the exposition of the Jewish doctors, who have the best
right to be heard, in the interpretation of their own law.

CLARKE. 157
On Lev. 25, where the express direction is given by the Almighty
that the Israelites should buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen,
who should serve them and their children forever, Dr. Clarke is en
tirely silent. He also passes over, without remark, the fact that the
Jubilee only freed the Jewish servant, and had no application to the
slaves. In both of these I should consider him unfaithful to his duty
as a commentator, unless he supposed that the texts were so plain as
to make comment quite unnecessary.
But he gives a correct note on the text, Deut. 23 : X5, Thou shalt
not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his mas
ter unto thee — a text which the ultra-abolitionist is so fond of using
as a warrant for refusing to obey the Constitution and the Fugitive
Slave law. On this, however. Dr. Clarke is very clear : " That is,"
saith he, "a servant who left an idolatrous master, that he might join
himself to God and to his people. In any other case it would hame
been injustice to have harbored the runaway!' A most true and
righteous exposition !
And in his comments on the leading texts of the New Testament,
Dr. Clarke is usually fair, with one very marked exception. Thus,
on 1 Cor. 7 : 21, "Art thou called being a servant f Care not for it,"
etc., he gives the following note, viz. : "Art thou converted to Christ,
whfle thou art a slave? the property of another person and bought
with his money? Care not for it : this will not injure thy Christian
condition ; but if thou canst obtain thy liberty, use it rather : prefer
this state for the sake of freedom, and the temporal advantages con
nected with it."
V. 22. For he that is called, etc. "The man who, being a slave,.
is converted to the Christian faith, is the Lord's freeman ; his condi
tion as a slave does not vitiate any of the privileges to which he is
entitled as a Christian ; on the other hand, all freemen who receive
the grace of Christ, must consider themselves the slaves of the Lord,
i. e., his real property, to be employed and disposed of according to
his godly wisdom, who, notwithstanding their state of subjection, will
find the service of their Master to be perfect freedom."
V. 23. Ye are bought with a price. " As truly as your bodies have
become the property of your master, in consequence of his paying
down a price for you, so surely you are now the Lord's property, in
consequence of your being purchased by the blood of Christ"
" Some render this verse interrogatively : Are ye bought with a price

158 CLARKE.
from your Slavery ? Do not again become slaves of men. Never sell
yourselves; prefer and retain your liberty, now that ye have acquir
ed it"
" In these verses the Apostle shows that the Christian religion does
not abolish our civil connections — in reference to them, where it finds
us, there it leaves us. In whatever relation we stood before our em
bracing Christianity, there we stand stUl : our secular condition being
no further changed, than as it may be affected by the amelioration of
our moral character."
This is sound doctrine, in agreement with Scripture and with rea
son. But in his corament on the next text which I have quoted, his
ultra-abolitionism blazes forth in a sentence which stands at the head
of all others for its virulence ; plainly proving how the spirit of fan
aticism may carry away the best men into the most extravagant in
consistency. Thus it reads:
Eph. 6:5: Servants be obedient. "Though So-oXa^ frequently sig
nifies a slave or bondman, yet it often implies a servant in general, or
any one bound to another, either for a limited term or for life. Even
a slave, if a Christian, was bound to serve him fait'nfuUy, by whose
money he was bought, however illegal the traffic may be considered.
In heathen countries slavery was in some sort excusable. Among Christ
ians, it is an enormity and a crime for which perdition itself has
scarcely an adequate state of punishment!"
And yet, in his comment on the following verses, the same Dr.
Clarke writes these words, viz. :
V. 7: With good will. "Met' evvoiag, with cheerfulness; do
not take up your service as a cross, or bear it as a burden ; but take
it as coming in the order of God's Providence, and a thing that is
pleasing to him!"
I shall only observe, here, that the proper duty of a commentator
on the Bible is to give the meaning of the text So far as Dr. Clarke
does this, we find him generally correct in the New Testament. But
the declaration about slavery being an enormity and a crime among
Christians has no relation whatever to the text of the Apostle. It is
simply the feeling of Dr. Adam Clarke, under the stimulus of the
new-born spirit of Enghsh abolitionism. And therefore, although he
has placed it in his Commentary, it is entirely destitute of the char
acter which every real commentary should possess. Instead of ex
plaining the Scripture, it actually opposes it, making God to sanction

CLAEKE. 159
for his chosen Israel, and afterwards for His Church of Christ, under
the government of his inspired Apostles, a crime and an enormity
for which perdition itself has scarcely an adequate punishment ! To
my mind, such language is nothing better than blasphemy, and I
should consider it an enormity and a crime to indorse it. It is found,
indeed, in a commentary, just as a toad has sometimes been found in
a rock. Yet no one could be so foolish as to suppose that between
the toad and the rock there was any natural affinity. But as the
subject will recur again, I need not enlarge upon it now, and shall
proceed to the remaining extracts from this author.
1 Tim. 6:1: Let as many servants as are under the yohe, etc.
"The word <5owAof here," saith Dr. Clarke, "means slaves converted
to the Christian faith, and the ^vyov or yoke, is the state of slavery.
Even these, in such circumstances, and under such domination, are
commanded to treat their masters with all honor and respect, that the
name of God, by which they were called, and the doctrine of God,
Christianity, which they had professed, might not be blasphemed,
might not be eril spoken of, in consequence of their improper con
duct Civil rights are never abolished by any communications
from God's Spirit. The civil state in which man was before his con
version is not altered by that conversion, nor does the grace of God
absolve him from any claims which either the state or his neighbor
may have upon him. All these outward things continue unaltered."
Here is sound doctrine again, entirely free from abolitionism.
Lastly, in his note on the Epistle to Philemon, (v. 12 : Whom I
have sent again,) Dr. Clarke gives this correct comment : " The Christ
ian religion," saith he, "never cancels any civil relations: a slave, on
being converted, and becoming a free man of Christ, has no right to
claim, on that ground, emancipation from the service of his master.
Justice, therefore, required St Paul to send back Onesimus to his
master, and conscience obliged Onesimus to agree in the propriety of
the measure."
I have now given a full exhibition of the course pursued by this
eminent Methodist commentator. In the main, he is sound and cor
rect. I shall leave it to you or any other advocate to reconcile his
occasional inconsistency, which I acknowledge to be a task quite be
yond my power. There is still, however, one of those works belong
ing to the nineteenth century, which I have placed upon my list, and
to that I shall next invite your attention.

160 COMPREHENSrVE COMMENTAEY.

CHAPTER XIX,
Right Reverend Brother : Tho Comprehensive Commentary which
professes to contain nearly aU that is valuable in Henry, Scott, and
Doddridge, may be considered as the book of the Orthodox Congre
gationalists, and will not require much space to be given to it, because
I have already quoted largely from Henry and Scott, and shall by and
by quote from Doddridge, all of whom wUl speak for themselves. A
respectful attention, however, is due to this work, and I shall make
some extracts from it accordingly.
Lev. 25 : 39-55. The Israelites " might purchase bondmen,"
saith this commentary, " of the heathen nations round about them,
(except of the seven nations to be destroyed,) and might claim a do
minion over them, and entail them on their families, as an inheritance,
for the year of Jubilee should give no discharge to them. Thus ne
groes only are used as slaves, how much to the credit of Christianity
I shall not say.''
Exod. 21 : 16. " Here is a law," saith the commentator, " against
man-stealing. Re that steals a man, woman, or child, with a design
to sell them to the Gentiles, (for no Israelite would buy them,) was
adjudged to death by this statute." This writer is in better agree
ment with the other law on the same subject, in Deut. 24 : 7, than
either Scott or Clarke, and his note on this last is not unfair, as it
quotes the words of Henry, who belonged to the eighteenth century.
On Deut. 23 : 15 : Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the serv
ant which is escaped from his master unto thee, the interpretation is
taken from Henry and Scott, and both of these are substantially in
accordance with my own in the Bible View of Slavery, but entirely
inconsistent with the misapprehension of the ultra-abolitionist, who
sets it against.the other laws of God, as well as against the Constitu
tion of his country.
But in 1 Cor. 7 : 21, Art thou called being a servant, care not for
it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather this commentary

COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTARY. 161
not only gives the notes of Henry and Scott, but also an original one
from Dr. Jenks, which is worth transcribing.
" The sense," saith he, " is not clear. Chrysostom and all the old
comtrs. (commentators) understand, ' You need care so little, that
even if you can gain your freedom, prefer your servitude as a greater
trial of Christian patience !' (So a religion of despotism counsels,
contrary to the precept, ' Do not evil that good may come,' and to the
prayer, ' Lead us not into temptation.' By what right can any man
imbrute God's image, which Christ atoned for, to a mindless, will-less,
soulless, rightless chattel ! Yet) so Gamer, Schmidt, Sparok, Estius,
De Dieu, and the Sjt. And this sense, they think, is confirraed by
the following consolatory words, ' For he,' etc. It is also ably de
fended hj De Dieu and Wolf But there is a certain harshness about
it to which necessity alone would reconcile me. What is detrimental
to human happiness can not be promotive of virtue. The true intent
seems that of Beza, Grot, Ham., and most recent comtrs. 'Do not
feel a too great trouble on that account, as if it could materially affect
your acceptance with God, and as if that were a condition unworthy
of a Christian.' ' Grace knows no distinctions of freedom or servitude,
therefore bear it patiently.' Grotius adds : ' And above all, let it not
drive you to seek your freedom by unjustifiable means.' And he
remarks that a misunderstanding of the nature of Christian liberty
had made many Christian slaves not only murmur at their situation,
but seek to throw off all bondage. 0 just yet merciful God 1 en
lighten the slave and his master in these United States, at once and
always to do Thy -will 1"
' Now this is a fair specimen of the rhetoric which has become so
common, of late years, on the subject of slavery, taking it for granted
that the slave must be made a brute, without mind, soul, will, or right,
a mere chattel; although these gentlemen must know that among the
ancients the slaves were often highly educated to be instructors of
youth, that Esop was a slave, and Terence was a slave, and Epictetus
was a slave, whfle amongst the slave population of the South, enough
of their negroes have been taught and emancipated to plant the new
State of Liberia, and of those who still remain with their masters,
nearly five hundred thousand are reported as members of Christian
societies, in good standing. These facts being perfectly notorious,
one can hardly read such a display of our commentator's anti-slavery
prejudice without desiring that he might study the Ninth Command-

162 COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTARY.
ment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," with
a wholesome regard to personal application.
On the text quoted from Eph. 6 : 5-9, Servants, be obedient to your
masters, etc., the notes of Henry and Scott are repeated in this com
mentary, as I have already given thera, and so are they likewise in
the corresponding passage, Col. 3 : 22 : Servants, obey in all things
your masters according to the flesh, eta.
And in that strong and most iraportant precept delivered by St.
Paul to the first bishop of Ephesus, 1 Tira. 6 : 1-5, Let as many serv
ants as are under the yohe count their own masters worthy of all
honor, etc., Henry and Scott are again employed in the Comprehen
sive Commentary. And the same authors meet us again, in the pre
face and notes to the EpisUe to Philemon. Thus, in the preface we
read as follows : " Philemon, one of note, and probably a minister in
the Church of Colosse, had a servant named Onesimus, who, having
purloined his goods, ran away from him and came to Rome, where
Paul was then a prisoner for the Gospel, and providentially coming
under his preaching there, was, by the blessing of God, converted by
hira ; after which he ministered awhile to the Apostle in bonds, and
might have been further useful to him ; but he, understanding him to
be another man's servant, would not, without his consent, detain him,
but sends him bach with this letter commendatory, wherein he earn
estly sues for his pardon and kind reception."
V. 16. Not now as a servant, " that is,'' saith this commentary,
" not merely or so much, but above a servant, in a spiritual respect,
a brother beloved, one to be owned as a brother in Christ," etc.
" But why such concern and earnestness for a servant, a slave, and
such a one as had misbehaved ? Answer. Onesimus being now peni
tent, it was doubtless to encourage him, and to support him in return
ing to his master."
V. 18. Put that on my account. " Paul here engages for satisfac
tion. Whence observe, flrst. The communion of saints does not de
stroy distinction of property. Onesimus, now converted and become
a brother beloved, is yet Philemon's servant still, and indebted to him
for wrongs he had done, and not to be discharged but by free and
voluntary remission," etc.
Here, my Right Reverend Brother, I shall close for the present
my extracts from the commentators of the nineteenth century, having
proved that notwithstanding their occasional exhibitions of anti-slav-

SUMMARY. 1 63
ery prejudice, yet their explanations of the Bible are usually the same
with the rest, the exceptions being very few, and those, as I shall
show by and by, being of no importance to the general argument.
Dr. Clarke rages most wildly indeed in one place against the institu
tion of slavery, and Dr. Scott is very zealous for the abolition of the
slave-trade, in which we all agree. But none of them can be found
denying the main facts, or imputing it as a sin in any Christian man
to own a slave, provided it be in accordance with the law of the land,
and the slave be treated with kindness and with justice, in obedience
to the precepts of the Gospel. None of them denounces the right of
property in the master, nor the duty of obedience and fidelity on the
part of the slave. None of them maintains the doctrine of the ultra-
abolitionist, that the slave ought to run away, and that if his master
should reclaim him, he may be justified in forcible resistance even
unto death, in the pursuit of his liberty.
I shaU now, however, revert to the commentators of the eighteenth
century, by whom I maintained that the original doctrine of the
Church was still preserved in its primitive integrity ; and after I shall
have gone through this list, the way wUl be clear for the remaining
portions of my undertaking.

164 GILL.

CHAPTER XX.
Right Reverend Brother : The Exposition of the Old and New
Testaments, by Dr. GUI, is one of the most learned and highly es
teemed works of modern times, in the judgment of very many, and
holds the flrst rank in the Baptist denomination. I shall next take
up this, and quote its authority on the texts in question.
On the prophecy of Noah, Gen. 9 : 22, our commentator saith :
" It may seem strange that Canaan should be cursed, and not Ram,
who seems to be the only transgressor by what is said in the context ;
hence one copy of the Septuagint, as Ainsworth observes, reads 5aTO,
and the Arabic writers, Vae father of Canaan, and so, as A!ben Ezra
relates, Saadiah Qaon supplies it, and the same supplement is made
by others. But as both were guilty, and Canaan particularly was
first in the transgression, it seems most wise and just that he should
be expressly named, since hereby Ram ia not excluded from a share
in the punishment of the crirae he had a concern in, being punished
in his son — Canaan only, and not any of the other sons of Ram,
were guilty : he, and not Ham by name, is cursed, lest it should be
thought that the curse would fall on Ram and all his posterity, wher-
as the curse descends on him, and very justly proceeds in the line
of Canaan — the father of the accursed race of the Canaanites, whom
God abhorred, and for their wickedness, was about to drive out of
their land, and give it to his people for an inheritance," etc.
According to this learned author, therefore, the curse descended on
Ham, and proceeds in the line of Canaan. And in his notes upon
the line of Canaan, whose children are named in the fifteenth verse,
he saith that as the famUies of the Canaanites increased, "they
spread themselves farther every way," although his elaborate attempt
to trace their course, like all similar efforts, amounts to nothing, be
cause there is no history to guide us, beyond the outline given by
Scripture, and all that can be done must be limited to probable con
jecture.

GILL. 165
With respect to Abraham's servants, Gen. 14 : 14, Dr. Gill saith
that they were " born in his own house, of his servants, and so were
his property, and at his disposal and command ; their number was
three hundred and eighteen — a large number for servants, which
showed how great a man Abraham was, what possessions he must
have to employ so many," etc.
On Gen. 16 : 3, he saith, that Hagar was "the secondary wife or
concubine " of Abraham. That this did not change her condition as
a slave is plain, because, when she ran away, " she acknowledged Sarai
to be her mistress,'' and the angel of the Lord commands her accord
ingly, "Return to thy mistress and submit thyself to'her hands ; go
back to her, acknowledge thy fault, do her work, bear her corrections
and chastisements, and suffer thyself to be afflicted by her, as the
word may be rendered ; take all patiently from her, which will be
much more to thy profit and advantage than to pursue the course
thou art in."
In his notes on Gen. 17 : 12, where circumcision is commanded for
those who were bom in the house, or bought with money of any
stranger, not being of Abraham's seed. Dr. Gill quotes from Maimon
ides the following rules : " A servant born in the power of an
Israelite, and another that is taken from heathens, the master is
bound to circumcise them, but he that is born in the house is circum
cised the eighth day, and he that is bought with money is circum
cised on the day that he is received ; even if he received him on the
day he is born, he is circumcised on that day. If he receives a grown
servant of heathens, and the servant is not willing to be circumcised,
he bears with him a whole year ; but more than that he is forbidden
to keep him, seeing he is uncircumcised, but he must send him again
to the heathens!'
On Exod. 20, our commentator saith, in his notes on the Fourth
Commandment, thy man-servant and thy maid-servant, " this is to
be understood, according to the Jews, not of hired servants, con
cerning whose rest from labor a man was not bound, but of such as
were born in the house arid bought with their money, and of such
men-servants as were circumcised, and in all things professed to be
proselytes to the Je-wish religion."
And in his comment on the Tenth Commandment, thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's house, nor his man-servant nor his maid-servant,
etc., he saith, this " serves to exphiin the Eighth Commandment,

166 GILL.
showing that we are not only forbid to take away what is another
man's property, any of the goods here mentioned, or any other, but
we are not secretly to desire them,'' etc.
On Exod. 21 : 4, jy his master have given him a wife. Dr. GiU ex
plains it as meaning: " One of his slaves, a Canaanitish woman, on
purpose to beget slaves on her, since all bom in his house were his
own!' The twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus, verse 44, Both thy bondmen
and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, etc., is thus explained by
our commentator: "Such it seems were allowed them — but they
were not to be of the nation of Israel, but of other nations — they
shall be of the heathens that are round about thee, of them shall ye
buy bondmen and bondmaids ; that is, of the Ammonites, Moabites,
Edomites, and Syrians, as Aben Ezra saith, that were their neigh
bors, OF ant but the seven nations which they were ordered ut
terly to destroy ; whereupon Jarchi observes. It is said, that are
round about thee, not in the midst of the border of your land, for
them they were not to save alive." (Deut 20 : 16.)
V. 45. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
among you, etc. "The uncircumcised sojourners," saith Dr. Gill,
"as they are called in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, prose
lytes of the gate, such of the nations round about, who came and
sojourned among them, being subject to the precepts given to the
sons of Noah respecting idolatry, etc., but were not circumcised, and
did not embrace the Jewish religion ; of them shall ye buy for bond
men and bondmaids, and of their families that are with you, which
they begat in your land, but, as the Targum of Jonathan adds, are
not of the Canaanites."
Here our learned commentator shows clearly the judgment of the
highest Jewish authorities, proving that the decree of slavery did not
apply to the seven nations who were ordered to be destroyed, when
the land of Canaan was given to the Israelites for a possession, but to
the other idolatrous nations : and therefore we see, first, that the
Jews were authorized to buy slaves of any heathen people ; and sec
ondly, that the prophecy of Noah was not to be limited to that por
tion of the race of Canaan which inhabited the promised land, but
should be extended to all the rest of his posterity. For when we
read that the sons of Canaan included eleven distinct names, and that
their famUies -were spread abroad many centuries before the time of

GILL. 167
Moses, it is absurd to suppose that they were not to be found in
many other parts of Africa, the land of Ram, besides that portion of
them which had settled in Palestine.
V. 46. And ye shall take them as an inlieritance for your children
after you, etc. " "Which," continues Dr. Gill, " they might leave
them at their death to inherit, as they did their estates and lands ;
for such servants are, with the Jews, said to be like imraovable goods,
as fields, vineyards, etc., to inherit them for a possession, as their pro
perty, as any thing else that was bequeathed to them, as negroes now
are in our plantations abroad; they shall be your bondmen forever,
and not be released at the year of Jubilee, nor before nor after ;
unless they obtained their liberty either by purchase or by a writing
under their master's hand," etc.
On the favorite text of the ultra-abolitionist, " Thou shalt not de
liver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master
unto thee, Deut. 23 . 15, Dr. Gill gives this commentary : " That is,"
saith he, " one that has been used ill by a cruel and tyrannical master,
and was in danger of his life with him, and therefore obliged to make
his escape from him on that account ; such an one when he fell into
the hands of an Israelite, was not to be taken and bound and sent back
to his master again, but was to be retained till his master's anger
subsided, or however, until inquiry could be made into the cause of
the difference between him and his master, and matters made up be
tween them to mutual satisfaction ; for it can not be thought that this
law was made to encourage every idle, disobedient, and fugitive serv
ant, which would be very sinful and unjust. The Jewish writers
generally understand it of the servants of idolaters, fleeing for the
sake of religion. Onkelos renders it ' a servant of heathen people.'
The Targum of Jonathan is : ' Thou shalt not deliver a stranger into
the hands of those that worship idols, but he shall be delivered by
you that he may be under the shadow of my Shehinah, because he
hath fled from the worship of his idol.' Aben Ezra interprets it of
a servant, not an Israelite, who, in tirae of war, flees from his master,
not an Israelite also, unto the camp of Israel, and that for the glory
of the divine name. Such an one, though a servant, might not be de
livered to his master."
And on the text in Deut. 24 : 7, i/' a man be found stealing any
of his brethren of the children of Israel, our commentator saith :
" Whether grown up or little, male or female, an IsraeUte or a prose-

168 GILL.
lyte, or a freed servant, all, as Maimonides says, are included in this
general word, brethren ; though Aben Ezra observes that it is added
of the children of Israel, for explanation, since an Edomite is caUed
a brother. Now a man must he found committing this fact ; that is,
it must plainly appear ; there must be full proof of it by witnesses, as
Jarchi explains this word," etc.
It is perfectiy manifest, according to this and the other commenta
tors, that the attempt of the ultra-abolitionist to press these texts into
his service is in utter contradiction of all the doctors among the Jews ;
as well as all the Christian writers anterior to Scott and Clarke,
who belong to the innovating school of the nineteenth century. And
now I shall proceed to those texts in the New Testament, which are
the chief guides to the Church of Christ.
Beginning as before with 1 Cor. 7 : 21, Art thou called being a
servant, etc.. Dr. Gill gives the following comment, viz., " That is,"
saith he, " art thou called by grace whilst in the condition of a serv
ant, care not for it — be not anxiously solicitous to be otherwise ;
bear the yoke patiently, go through thy servitude cheerfully, and
serve thy master faithfully, but if thou mayest be made free use it
rather. The Syriac version renders the last clause, choose for thyself
rather to serve; perfectly agreeable to the sense given of the words
by several great critics and excellent interpreters, who take the Apos
tle's meaning to be, that should a Christian servant have an oppor
tunity of making his escape from his master, or could he by any art,
trick, and fraudulent method obtain his liberty, it would be much
more advisable to continue a servant than to become free by any such
means. Yea, some carry the sense so far, that even if the servants
could be made free in a lawful way, yet servitude was most eligible,
both for their own and their masters' good ; for their own, to keep
them humble, and exercise their patience ; for their masters' not only
temporal but spiritual good, since by their good behavior they might
be a means of recommending the Gospel to them, and of gaining them
to Christ But one should rather think the more obvious sense is,
that when a Christian servant has hii freedom offered him by his
master, or he can come at it in a lawful and honorable way, this being
preferable to servitude, he ought rather to make use of it, since he
would be in a better situation and more at leisure to serve Christ and
the interest of religion."
The comment of Dr. Gill on Eph. 6 : 5, Servants, be obedient to

GILL. 169
them that are your masters, etc., is very clear, and in perfect accord
ance with all the others, viz. : " The Apostle," saith he, "enlarges on
the duty of servants, as well as frequently inculcates it in his epistles
because, generally speaking, they were more rude and ignorant, and
less pains were taken with them to instruct them ; they were apt to
be impatient and weary of the yoke, and scandal was likely to arise
from servants in the first ages of Christianity through some libertines,
and the licentiousness of the false teachers who insinuated that servi
tude was inconsistent with Christian freedom ; the persons exhorted
are servants, bond-servants, and hired servants, who are to be subject
to and obey their masters, of each sex, whether believers or unbe-
hevers, good or bad-humored, gentle or froward — in things pertain
ing to the flesh, in things temporal, which concern the body and this
temporal life, not in things spiritual and religious, that belong to con
science. And obedience is to be yielded to them with fear and
trembling, with great humility and respect, with submission to their
reproofs and corrections, and with fear of punishment, but more espe
cially with the fear of God, in singleness of heart, without hypocrisy
and dissimulation, and with all integrity and faithfulness as unto
Christ, it being agreeable to His will, and what makes for His glory,
and serves to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things."
On 1 Tim. 6 : 1, Let as many servants as are under the yohe, etc.,
the same commentator writes as follows : "Under the yoke of govern
ment, as the Arabic version renders it, that is, under the yoke of men,
in a state of servitude, under the government of masters and in their
serrice, being either apprentices to them or bought with their money,
or hired by them, let them count their own masters worthy of all
honor, and give it them, which includes subjection to them, obedience
to all their lawful commands," etc.
Verse 8. If any man tea,ch otherwise, etc., or "another doctrine,
as the Syriac version renders it, a doctrine different from what the
Apostle had now taught concerning the duty of servants to their mas
ters, as did the false teachers who despised government or domin
ion," etc.
Verse 4. He is proud, knowing nothing, etc. " Or swelled up,"
continues Dr. GUI, " with a vain conceit of himself and his own no
tions, and treats with a haughty air the faithful ministers of the Word,
hnowing nothing as he ought to know, not any thing substantial, but
Noting about questions and strifes of words, or his mind is distem-
8

170 GILL.
pered, his head is light and wild, his ftincy is roving, and he talks of
things he knows not what, the ill effects of which are as follow,
whereof cometh envy and strife, contention, quarreling, the peace and
comfort of particular persons, and even of tohole communities are
broken and destroyed thereby ; yea, these also produce railings at
one another, and especially at the faithful ministers of the Gospel : for
when the false teachers can not overcome them by Scripture and ar
gument, they fall to railing and reviling of them," etc. " Wherefore
the Apostle gives the foUowing advice to Timothy, and through him
to all ministers and churches. From such withdraw thyself ; do not
come near them, have nothing to do with them, have no communion
with them, either in a civil or religious way ; avoid all conversation
with them," etc.
As to the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon, Dr. GUI agrees with all
the other commentators. " The design of the epistle," saith he, " was
this : Philemon's servant, Onesimus, haring either embezzled his
master's goods or robbed him, ran way from him and fled to Rome,
where the Apostle -was a prisoner, in chains, in his own hired house,
under the custody of a soldier, and where he received all that came,
and preached the Gospel to them. Among those that went to hear
him this fugitive servant was one, and was converted under his min
istry. Now the design of this epistle is to reconcile Philemon to his
servant, and to entreat him to receive him again, not only as a serv
ant, but as a brother in Christ ; and the most proper and prudent me
thods and arguments ai-e used to engage him in it The epistle,
though it is a familiar one and short, is very instructive ; it shows
great humility in the Apostle, and that he did not think it below him
to be concerned in doing such an office as to reconcile a master to his
servant, and which is worthy of imitation ; as also it teaches the right
that masters have over their servants, -which is not lost by their be
coming Christians," etc.
I shall only add one extract more from this learned commentator,
viz., on 1 Pet. 2 : 18, Servants, be subject to your masters, etc.
"This,'' saith Dr. Gill, "was another notion of the Jews, that be
cause they were the seed of Abraham, they ought not to be the serv
ants of any ; and particularly such as were believers in Christ, thought
they ought not to serve unbelieving masters, nor indeed believino-
ones, because they were equally brethren in Christ with them. Hence
the Apostle Peter here, as the Apostle Paul frequently elsewhere in-

GILL, 171
culcates this duty of servants to their masters : the manner in which
they are to be subject to them is with all fear, with reverence to
their persons, strict regard to their commands, faithfulness in any
trust reposed in them, diligence in the discharge of their duty, and
all this not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, the
Ul-natured, morose, and rigorous," etc.
I have been thus copious in my extracts from the exposition of Dr.
Gill, not only in consideration of his acknowledged learning, but be
cause the various societies of the Baptist denomination, of which he
was the most eminent oracle for a very long period, form the largest
Christian body on our continent, and deserve a proportionate measure
of respectful attention. But now I shall hasten onward to my re
maining authorities, which can be satisfactorily dispatched with
greater brevity.

172 DODDRIDGE.

CHAPTER XXI.
Right Reverend Brother : Before I return to the Episcopahan
commentators, there is one name deservedly high in the estimation of
our Presbyterian brethren, and of many amongst ourselves, whom I
may not pass by — that of the Rev. Dr. Doddridge. From his well-
known and greatly esteemed Paraphrase, therefore, I quote the fol
lowing passage on Eph. 6 : 5.
" There is yet another relation between masters and servants, con
cerning which I shall proceed to advise you. I would exhort you
who are servants, whether of the meanest rank, such as bondmen and
slaves, or in the station only of hired servants, that ye be subject and
obedient to those who are your masters and proprietors, though they
be only so according to the flesh."
And to this -I shall add his Introduction to the Epistle of St. Paul
to Philemon, which agrees with the preceding commentators precisely :
" Philemon," saith Dr. Doddridge, " was an inhabitant of Colosse.
He seems, from several hints given in the Epistle, to have been a per
son of distinction, particularly from the mention made of the Church
in his house, (v. 2,) and his liberal contributions to the relief of the
saints, (v. 5, 7,) and the general strain of the letter shows that the
Apostle held him in very high esteem, and looked upon him as one
of the great supports of religion in that society."
" The occasion of the letter was this : Onesimus, PhUemon's slave,
had robbed his master, and fled to Rome, where, happily for him, he
met with the Apostle, and by his instructions and admonitions was
converted to Christianity, and reclaimed to a sense of his duty."
" St. Paul seems to have kept him for some considerable time under
his eye, that he might be satisfied of the reality of the change, and
when he had made a sufficient trial of him, and found that his beha
vior was entirely agreeable to his profession, he would not detain him
any longer for his own private convenience, but sent him back to his
master. And as Philemon might well be supposed to be strongly

HAMMOND. 173
prejudiced against one who had left his service in so infamous a man
ner, he sends him this letter, in which he employs all his influence to
remove his suspicions, and reconcUe him to the thoughts of taking
Onesimus into his famUy again.''
The next commentary, and one of much reputation amongst Epis
copalians, is that which is known as Hammond's Paraphrase and
Annotations on the New Testament. And here we have the same
doctrine repeated in plain terms. Thus the paraphrase on 1 Tim.
6 : 1 is as follows, viz. :
" Those Christians that are bondmen to heathens must perform all
serrice and obedience to them which belong to them by the law of
servants among the heathens; that the profession of Christianity and
the doctrine of the Gospel be not looked upon by the heathens as that
which makes men worse hvers than they were, neglecting their moral
duties for being Christians."
" And those Christians that have Christian masters must not with
draw any of that obedience which is due to them upon the plea that
they are Christians, and so their equals or brethren ; but think them
selves the more obliged to serve them, because the faith and love that
constitutes men Christians consist in helping to do good, and conse
quently the performing due service to them is a very Christian thing,
and that which Christianity doth not less but more oblige them to.
There are things of such a nature, so much required by the Christian
religion, and the contrary at this time, so taught by the Gnostic he
retics, that it is necessary for thee to give these admonitions to all."
The celebrated Locke, as you know, -wrote a commentary on the
Epistles of St. Paul, which obtained considerable reputation in our
mother Church of England. And there is a note appended to his
remarks concerning the text in 1. Cor. 7 : 28, worthy of your atten
tion. It is in these words, viz. :
1 Cor. 7 : 28. Te are bought with a price. "Slaves were bought
and sold in the market, as cattle are, and so, by the price paid, there
was a property acquired in them. This, therefore, is a reason for
what he advised that they should not be slaves to men, b(j'cause
Christ had paid a price for them, and they belonged to Him. The
slavery he speaks of is civil slavery, which he makes use of to con-
rince the Coruithians that the civil ties of marriage were not dissolved
by a man's becoming a Christian, since slavery itself was not, and in

174 d'oyly and mant.
general, in the next verse, he teUs them, that nothing in any man's
civil estate or rights is altered by his becoming a Christian."
I shall next proceed to quote some portions of the well-known work
of Rev. George D'Oyly, B.D., and Rev. Richard Mant, D.D., domestic
chaplains to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was pubHshed
under the direction of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
in England, and republished, with some additional notes, by the emi
nent Bishop Hobart, as being weU adapted for our American Church, in
A.D. 1818. It belongs, therefore, to the present century, though
several years anterior to the emancipation of the slaves in Jamaica
by the British Parliament.
I commence with a statement of the learned Dr. Hales, which is
placed in the notes on Gen. 10 : 1 : " The following curious and
valuable commentary," saith he, " which records the primitive settle
ments of the three families, is furnished by Abulfaragi, in his history
of the Dynasties. ' In the one hundred and fortieth year of Phaleg
the earth was divided, by a second division, among the sons of Noah.
To the sons of Shem was aUotted the middle of the earth, namely,
Palestine, Syria, Assyria, Samarra, (a town of Babylonian or Chal
dean Irac,) Babel, Persia, and Hegiaz, (or Arabian Petrsea.) To
the sons of Ham, Teman, (or Idumsea, Jer. 49 : 7,) Africa, Nigritia,
Egypt, Nubia, ^Ethiopia, Scindia, and India, on both sides of the In
dus. To the sons of Japheth also, Garbia, (the North,) Spain,
France, the countries of the Greeks, Sclavonians, Bulgarians, Turks,
and Armenians.''
Now here the allotment gives a large range to Ham, but Palestina
is expressly included as belonging to Shem, and therefore the portion
of the Canaanites who obtained possession of it were not the original
owners of the soil.
This fact would only add another reason for bestowing the land on
the Israelites, who were of the posterity of Shem, and had the right
to claim it, as belonging to them by express allotment.
This original distribution of the earth is regarded by learned and
thoughtful men as of very high importance. For thus our commen
tary proceeds : " It was made," saith ^Joseph Mede, " in an orderly
manner, and not by a confused, irregular dispersion, wherein every
one went and seated himself where he thought good." And Bryant
saith that " This distribution was by the immediate appointment
of God. We have full evidence of this in that sublime and pathe-

d'oyly and mant. 175
tic hymn of Moses, Deut 32 : 7, 8, 9. From this we may see that
the whole was by God's appointment, and that there was a reserve
for the people who were to come after. St. Paul likewise speaks of
it expressly as a divine ordinance. Acts 17 : 26. This is taken notice
of by many of the fathers. Eusebius in particular mentions ' the
distribution of the earth,' and adds that it happened in the two thou
sand six hundred and seventy-second year of the Creation, and in
the nine hundred and thirtieth year of the patriarch's life. Thus it
was that Noah, by divine appointment, divided the world between
his three sons. It is remarkable that " the Grecians," saith Bryant,
" had some traditions of this partition of the earth, which they sup
posed to have been by lot, and between Jupiter, Neptune, and
Pluto.'' It is further worthy of note, as " Sir WUliam Jones has demon
strated, that three great branches of language are sufficient to account
for all the varieties now extant" (Calmet's Dictionary, Supple
ment!) That Melchizedek was a " Canaanitish prince " was the opinion of
Dr. Hales, because he was the king of Salem, " the most ancient
quarter of Jerusalem,'' and the name of Canaan is supposed, though
erroneously, to have been given to that land in the time of Abraham,
Gen. 12 : 5. But even if this supposition were correct, I could not
conceive that Melchizedek belonged to the race of that Canaan, whose
posterity had been doomed to a curse by the patriarch Noah. Noth
ing was more common at that time, and nothing is more common in
our own day, than to find the same name given to men and to places.
This coincidence, of itself, would therefore be entirely insufficient to
prove that Melchizedek was a Canaanite -with respect to his genealogy.
We read, indeed, in the next verse, that " the Canaanite was then
in the land But by thisj" as the commentator saith, " is meant, not
all the posterity of Canaan, or all the Canaanitish tribes, but only
one particular tribe of them!' This tribe may have been living
there, and Sodom and Gomorrah may have been built by them, and
become petty principalities long before, without interfering with the
king of Salem, Melchizedek.
I consider it altogether more reasonable, therefore, to regard this
priest and king as of the race of Shem, in whom the prophecy of
Noah had placed the high prerogative of belonging specially to the
Lord God, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem." For to this "king

\
176 MELCHIZEDEK.
of righteousness and prince of peace" the chief rank of religious
privilege had been vouchsafed, in being the eminent type of the
Lord Jesus Christ, a priest of the Most High God, and set before all
others in this respect, that the divine Redeemer was to be "a priest
forever, after the order of Melchizedek."
The trifling extent of kingdoms, even five centuries later than the
time of Abraham, may be easily inferred from the fact that Joshua
smote thirty-one kings, although he did not conquer the whole land
of Canaan. Hence it is obvious, as saith Bishop Patrick, that " by
the term ' Kings ' we are merely to understand petty princes or lords
perhaps of some single cities, with a few dependent villages, whose
inhabitants were their tenants." (Joshua 12 : 24.) One of these
kings was the king of Ai, the population of which is stated to have
been twelve thousand ; but this was much smaller than many of the
others. With respect to Melchizedek, however. Pool, in the Synopsis Criti.
corum, saith that the oldest and best of the Hebrew doctors sup
posed him to be the patriarch Shem himself. " Noah constituit Sem
dominum terrce Canaan, speciali titulo, Rua ergo venit Sem, et
urbem Salem mdificavit, et hia regnavit" i. e., Noah appointed Shem
to be lord of the land of Canaan, by special title. Here, therefore!
Shem came, and built the city of Salem, and reigned there. The
name Melchizedek, signifying the " king of righteousness," was given
to him, according to St. Augustin and others, as a title of honor, and
was not his proper narae ; just as we see that names of the same sort
were given to many other persons in the Old Testament. And the
text might have been translated with perfect propriety, " The king
of righteousness, who loas the king of Salem, brought forth bread
and wine," etc. (Gen. 14 : 18.) So, in the 110th Psalm, " Tlie Lord
swa7-e and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever, after the
order of Melchizedek," might have been rendered, " after the order
of the king of righteousness." St. Paul, referring to this name in his
epistte to the Hebrews, is careful to give its signification, as also that
of Salem, which is " Peace,'' so that on the whole there is a strono-
probability that the Jewish doctors were right in their hypothesis
and we may confidently say that no good reason can be brought
against it.
The argument, therefore, which I have already, in part, indicated
will stand thus :

CANAANITES IN AFRICA. 177
First, we have the prophecy of Noah, in which the name of Canaan,
signifying Humiliation, is given to the son of Ham ; and his pos
terity are doomed to servitude in its lowest form, slavery. (Gen.
9 : 25.)
Next, we have the sons and descendants of Canaan set forth,
Sidon, Heth, the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgasite, the Hivite, the
Arkite, the Sinite, the Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite,
eleven different names in all, and considerably exceeding the number
set down to the brethren of Canaan. For the sons of Cush were
Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Ramah, and Sabtiohah, only five. Mizraim
begat Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim,
and Caphtorim, only seven, while the children of Phut are not named
at all. Thus we have eleven names set down to Canaan, and twelve
to Cush and Mizraim both together, plainly leading to the conclusion
that the posterity of Ham, in the line of Canaan, was almost one
half of the population to which Africa was to be assigned. (Gen. 10.)
In the third place, we have an intimation of the wide diffusion of
Canaan's descendants, in the statement of the sacred historian, that
" afterwards were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad "
(Gen. 10 : 18) — a statement which is not made concerning any other
part of Ham's posterity.
Fourthly, we have the fact, that in the days of Peleg the earth was
divided. (Gen. 10 : 25.) And we have seen the tradition of the
Jews, as stated by Abulfaragi, together with the extracts from
' Mede and Bryant, referring to Eusebius and many of the fathers,
that this division was by divine appointment, under the authority
of Noah, and in the nine hundred and thirtieth year of the patri
arch's hfe. In this division, Africa fell to the lot of Ham's posterity,
Asia to that of Shem, and Europe to that of Japheth, while Palestine
is specially mentioned as belonging to Shem. But there is a
statement in Gen. 10 : 19, which appears to be, at first sight, incon
sistent with this arrangement. For there we read that " the border
of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto
Gaza, as thou goest unto Sodom and Gomorrah," which certainly
looks like a location of the Canaanites in Palestine. This difficulty,
however, arises only from the introduction of the definite article,
which is not authorized by the original Hebrew. Instead of " the
border of the Canaanites," it should be a border of the Canaanites,
meaning that Palestine was one of the places into which their fami-

178 CANAANITES IN AFEICA.
Ues had "spread abroad." We have seen that eleven heads of tribes
proceeded from Canaan, and we know that only seven of them were
established in the promised land, five hundred years after Abraham
went there. And therefore it is reasonable to conclude that at this
time, namely, when Abraham became a resident, a small portion —
perhaps, as Bishop Patrick estimated it, part of one tribe of Canaan's
descendants — had emigrated from Africa, and made a settlement in
Sodom and Gomorrah, for " the Canaanite was then in the land,"
(Gen. 12 : 6,) while the far greater bulk of them still remained in the
land of Ram, namely, in Africa, their allotted heritage.
Fifthly, we read of Melchizedek, or " the King of righteousness,"
in Salem, the principal city in Palestine, whom we can not reasonably
suppose to be of the race of Canaan, but either Shem himself, or one
of his posterity. We also find that Abraham and Lot met with no
difficulty in settling where they pleased ; a plain proof that the land
was at that time unoccupied-to a great extent, and open to any emi
grants who chose to go there. This fact is a conclusive demonstra
tion that the tribe of Canaanites had then established only a partial
and very hmited possession, amounting to httle more than Sodom
and Gomorrah. Now there can be no objection made to this, except
what may be predicated upon the single fact that the whole region,
elsewhere called Palestine, is here styled Canaan, as if it were the
proper and original seat of the Canaanites. And such, doubtless
has been the general impression, although it appears to my mind to
be altogether a mistaken one.
For we read, before the full establishment of Abraham, that there
was a famine in the land, " and Abraham went down to sojourn in
Egypt." How long he remained there, we can not tell ; but after
his return, we find that an addition had been made to the strangers
from abroad, who came into Canaan. For whereas, before, we read
that the Canaanite was then in the land, we now read that " the
Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land." (Gen.
13.) From this it is easy to perceive the growth of the Canaanitish
tribes, by accessions of their brethren. The country was delightful.
It was favorable to agriculture. It was open to the settler. And it
combined, with these advantages, a commodious position on the
Mediterranean Sea, admirably adapted to commerce. That the race
of Canaan, in those early ages, had a spirit of active enterprise and a
fondness for trade and speculation, must be inferred fi-om the fact

CANAANITES IN AFRICA. 179
that the word Canaanite became, in due time, synonymous with
merchant, whereas the race of Shem was devoted to agricultural and
pastoral life, as we see in the cases of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and
his sons in the land of Goshen, and yet more especially in the ar
rangement which the Almighty made for Israel in Canaan, where a
farm was given to every family.
But in order to account for the name of Canaan being given to
Palestine, in connection with the commencement of Abraham's resi
dence, and while the patriarch Shem, or one of his immediate pro
geny, reigned as Melchizedek, or the king of righteousness, in Salem,
I shall state my view at large, which I think will be found in perfect
analogy with other historical facts, familiar to us all.
The most reasonable statement of the matter, in my opinion, is the
following, viz. : That Moses, who wrote this narrative for the special
instruction of the Israelites, some five hundred years after Abraham's
sojourn, set down the names of the places, not as they were known
then, but as they wei;e known in his own time ; because his narrative
could not have been understood by any other method. Thus in Gen.
10 : 19, the names of Sidon, Gerar, Gaza, Admah, etc., are not to be
supposed as belonging to the places indicated, at that early day.
Sodom and Gomorrah, indeed, must have been then planted by the
Canaanite and the Perizzite, because they were destroyed during the
Ufe of Abraham and Lot ; but the other places were probably not
known under those names, until some centuries later.
Thus, for example, suppose an historian of our times, writing
about the condition of the country two hundred years ago, should
say, that the English and the Dutch were then in the land, but Mas
sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New-Hampshire, Vermont,
New-York, and Pennsylvania were all a wilderness, trodden by the
Indians, and the wild animals. This language would be perfectly
correct and intelligible ; but no one would infer from it that the region
of country, now comprehended by those States, was then marked out
and known by their present appellations. And the historian would
be justified in his mode of expression, because, even if these portions
of the land had acquired any names at all in that early period, those
names must have been given to them by the Indians, and the re
cital of them to us, would convey no clear idea of the locality.
It seems manifest, therefore, that when Moses speaks of Abraham
coming, at the divine command, into the land of Canaan, we are

180 CANAANITES IN AFRICA.
authorized to suppose, not that it was then known by that name, but
that this was its name at the time when the sacred history was writ
ten; and therefore he used it, according to the rule of common-sense,
viz., in order to be perfectly understood by those to whom his his
tory was addressed.
How it came afterwards to be known by that name is easily com
prehended. The Canaanites began by a portion of one tribe ; then
their praises of the region brought others, and so, by degrees, the
whole was settied by emigrants from the seven nations, whose com
mercial activity and enterprise gained them the distinction of being
the 7nerchants, by excellence, of the surrounding regions. Their
great advancement, in numbers and in power, took place while the
Israelites were in Egypt, a period longer than these United States
have passed since the first settlement of the colonists from England.
And their commercial success had made the word Canaanite almost
synonymous with that of merchant, from which fact the secondary
meaning of the word Canaan was derived, according to Taylor, and
all our best Hebrew authorities.* So that, in common usage, the
land of Canaan was understood to be the land of the merchant, or
the land of commerce, as well as the land of the Canaanite. And
their prosperity and wealth became manifested, as in all similar
cases, by their splendid cities, -walled round and fortified ; and their
pride and licentiousness increased with their idolatry. The curse of
Noah had long been forgotten, or derided in their heathenism ; and
they boasted of their genealogy as the largest and most powerful
race descended from the patriarch, whose families had thus spread
abroad; until at length, "the iniquity of the Amorites" was full,
and the decree of God commanded the Israelites to take possession
of the land, and devote its fiagitious inhabitants to destruction.
The land of Canaan now became, therefore, the land of Israel, and
subsequently, Judea. The Canaanites, as a nation or nations, ap-
* In Taylor's Hebrew Concordance we hare the following statement, viz, ;
535 hath two significations,
1. HvmiiUare se, deprimere, to bow down, to bring low. Applied to the subduing
of a nation, to the humbling the proud, to a wicked person's being humbled for his sins,
etc. 2. Oanaan, negotiator. Canaan, the grandson of Noah, so called because he was
depressed by his grandfather into the low condition of a servant of servants. Gen. 9 : 25.
And because the Canaanites were much in the mercantile way of life, hence a mer
chant. Of this latter meaning Taylor cites nine e.xamples.

HISTORICAL ANALOGY; 181
pear no more, under their former names. But nevertheless we know
that the whole were not exterminated. A considerable portion re
mained whom the Israelites were not able to expel. Probably a
much larger portion escaped from the sword of Joshua, and these
may have been the founders of Tyre and Sidon, and Phoenicia and
Carthage, which all agree to have been planted by the race of the
Canaanites. The most natural course, however, for many of them,
would be to betake themselves to Africa, for that was the land of
Ham, and there they would have met with the most hospitable re
ception from their kindred and brethren. And therefore I think it
the more probable hypothesis, that the greatest numbers of the fu
gitives from the land of Canaan became the inhabitants of that region
which was designated for their abode by the division under Noah,
so many centuries before ; and with which they had doubtless kept
up a friendly intercourse of old attachment and consanguinity, as
descendants from their common progenitor.
We thus behold the same events in the early history of Palestine,
which took place long afterwards among other nations. For example,
England was originally inhabited by the Britons, and was known by
the name of Britannia. But the Angles and the Saxons came in
from the continent, first as friends, and then they resolved to estab-
hsh themselves as conquerors. They succeeded, and the island was
divided among seven independent powers, and they gave it the new
name of Anglia. But these invaders were only a part of the whole,
the main body of their race remaining on the continent.
So, in the case of our own country. It was in possession of the
Indians. The English planted first one, and then another feeble
colony. They multiphed, and finally gained full possession, calling
the land by new and English names. But the great body of the
English remained at home, and the numbers who emigrated made no
serious inroad on the increase of the population, in the mother-
country. So in the settlement of our Western States. They received settlers
from the old States, and grew rapidly ; but in' no instance were the
numbers withdrawn by emigration so great, as to prevent the growth
of the population which they had left behind them.
Reasoning, then, from all historical analogy, there can be no doubt
that the course of the Canaanites in Palestine was substantially the
same. The land belonged to Shem, by virtue of the division made

182 CANAANITES IN AFRICA.^
by Noah under the divine direction. Melchizedek, the king of right
eousness, was in possession at Salem, but the greater part of the re
gion was uninhabited, and there was abundant room for strangers.
The Canaanites found their way into it from Africa, which had been
allotted to Ham and his posterity. They came at first in small num
bers. The Perizzites, another tribe which descended from Canaan,
followed. They came as friends, and settied peaceably, and buUt
Sodora, and Gomorrah, and Zoar, before Abraham arrived at the
command of the Almighty. By degrees they increased, and when
we survey their condition, five centuries later, they had filled the
land, and no trace of the posterity of Shem appears amongst them.
Salem, which was once the territory of Melchizedek, had become the
seat of the Jebusites, who called it Jehus, and the name of their
common progenitor, Canaan, was given to the whole region. But
-we are not to believe that the entire body of any of the seven nations
had left Africa. As in the other cases to which I have referred, we
must suppose that only a portion, and that the much smaller portion
of each, abandoned that continent, which was their allotted home.
And therefore we may fairly conclude that the bulk of the eleven
nations comprising the posterity of Canaan remained in Africa, and
multiplied there, notwithstanding a part of seven of those nations
had emigrated to Palestine, and, as in all such instances, had " called
the land after their own name."
The result would therefore be that the great body of the posterity
of Canaan, at the time of Israel's invasion, were not in Palestine, but
in Africa. We have seen that his descendants included eleven dis
tinct names, while those of Cush were oxi\j five, and those of Mizraim
only seven. Four of the eleven appear not to have gone to Palestine,
as we only find seven nations enumerated there, whom the Israelites
were commissioned to destroy. And these four, along with the bulk
of the other seven who had remained in Africa, the land of Ham,
not only raade up almost one half of the population, but must have
mingled their blood with all the rest, by the promiscuous intercourse
of the sexes, which has prevailed in that benighted continent for so
many centuries. And hence the strong probability is that the whole
negro race, for several ages, has been literally descended from Canaan,
and would therefore come within the terms of Noah's prophecy, that
they should be the servants of their brethren. We have seen how
this prophecy is actually fulfiUed in the present state of Africa, fi-om

, OBJECTIONS. 183
the statement of Malte Brun, who saith that two thirds of the native
negroes are slaves, under the most cruel and inhuman yoke of their
savage and heathen masters.
It is supposed by some, however, that the Canaanites could not be
negroes, 1, because they were not black, and 2 : because they were
builders of great cities, and active promoters of commerce — very dif
ferent, in these respects, from the Africans of the present day.
To this, I think it easy to make a satisfactory reply. With respect
to color, we all suppose that Noah and his sons were white men. But
the posterity of Ham comprises a variety of shades, some of them
being as black as ebony. Now the general opinion of physiologists
is, that the color depends on the climate, the food, and the habits ; but
no one has ever discovered how many generations must pass before
these will change the white man into a negro. Nor would it be pos
sible to determine whether these causes are sufficient to account for
the present differences, not only in color, but in the form, the counte
nance, and the very anatomy of the frame, amongst the races of the
human family. For aught we know, it may require the special act
of God, to adapt each race to its peculiar location and circumstances.
And assuredly, when we see that the hand of Providence has estab
lished this adaptation in the insects, the birds, the animals, and the
very trees and flowers of each climate on our globe, we can not with
any reason deny that the same beneflcent power has been as consid
erate and kind to the human family.
But at what time, and in what measure, the change of color was
accomplished, it is impossible to ascertain. Three thousand eight
hundred years have elapsed since the time of Abraham, and more
than two thousand since the fall of Carthage. What color then
marked the Canaanites no man can tell. How far the more temper
ate chmate of Palestine, Tyre, Sidon, and Carthage, assisted by inter
marriages with a fairer race, may have made a diff'erence between that
portion of them which had emigrated from Africa, and the bulk of
the Canaanites who remained there, is a mere matter of conjecture.
But certain it is that we can not assign any reason why the posterity
of Canaan in Africa should be lighter in their hue, than the pos
terity of Cush. Certain it is, that Canaan was the son of Ham, and
that the negroes are Ham's posterity. And if, as I have shown, the
great body of the Canaanites must have lived and multiplied in Afri
ca, they could not have been exempted from the general result which

184 OBJECTIONS.
Proridence has produced in the form and the complexion of their
brethren, whether that result was brought about in the course of ten
or twenty centuries.
With respect to the second objection, viz., that the Canaanites were
builders of great cities and active promoters of commerce, so that,
as we have seen, the name of Canaanite became synonymous with the
business of a merchant, there is no difficulty whatever. For I have
never denied that the negro race is capable of attaining a high degree
of skill in any of the ordinary departments of human knowledge,
under proper circumstances. They differ, of course, as all men differ,
in their mental capacity and energy. We know that, as a general
rule, those persons who emigrate from their native country, in order
to plant new settlements abroad, are the most enterprising, bold, and
adventurous spirits in the community. The change of condition in
which they place themselves calls forth the exertion of all their fac
ulties, and whatever amount of intellect they possess becomes de
veloped in the most available form, by the constant stimulus of ne
cessity. Hence we may readUy account for the difference between
that portion of the Canaanites which left Africa for Palestine, and
the great body of those who remained in their native land ; where,
as Malte Brun informs us, twenty days in the year suffices for the
labor of their maintenance, and there is no room for any emulation
in the arts of civilized life, because they have no standard of com
parison. The contrast, indeed, may be easily imagined, when we re
gard the inhabitants of Liberia, advancing rapidly in commerce, in
architecture, and even in literature ; and then turn our eyes upon the
millions of negroes still living in the Southern States. It is the same
race, but under totally different circumstances. And therefore it is
that I have always been the advocate of a gradual abolition of slav
ery, connected with the transmission of the freedmen to African soil,
where the stimulus of their new location would develop their powers
to the best advantage. While, on the contrary, I have opposed their
immediate emancipation in the South, remaining there, under the
overshadowing superiority of the white race; not only because such a
state of society would be intolerable to their former masters, but also
because it would be fatal to the advancement and final elevation of
the negroes themselves.
Thus, then, I have shown, and, as it seems to me, satisfactorily,
how the prophecy of Noah has been truly fulfiUed, and is still in the

PROPHECY FULFILLED. 185
progress of fulfillment, upon the posterity of Canaan, the negro race,
according to the letter of Scripture. From that sentence there is no
escape, until the time shall come, which I doubt not is appointed in
the order of Providence. Like the sentence pronounced upon the
race of Israel, the prophecy of Noah will have its allotted course, and
no wisdom or power of man can defeat it But the period is ap
proaching when the designs of the Almighty will be accomplished.
The Jews wUl again occupy their own land, and Mount Zion will be
"a praise throughout the world," and "all nations shall flow unto
Jerusalem." The race of Canaan also shall be relieved from the
curse, " Ethiopia shall lift up her hands unto God," and " the knowl
edge of the Lord shall cover the earth, as the waters do the sea."
How long a period may elapse before this glorious consummation, is
only known to Him who seeth the end from the beginning. It may,
for aught that we can tell, be at the close of the present dispensation,
which so many suppose to be nigh at hand. It may be deferred for
several centuries. But it will come, for " the mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it."
And until it comes, it is our duty to submit with patient faith to
our aUotted condition. Not rebelliously warring against the will of
the Most High, nor vainly opposing ourselves to the arrangements of
His providence, nor accusing our brethren in Christ as sinners be
cause they keep in slavery the race which God saw flt to doom to
servitude ; but doing our best, in conjunction with the precepts of
the apostles, the rules and practice of the Church, and the Constitu
tion of our country, to ameliorate the condition of the slave by the
kind and gracious influence of the Gospel.
Believing as I do, that a thorough examination of the subject will
lead to the result to which I have arrived, namely, that the posterity
of Canaan are existing at this day in the African race, and compose
the greater part of it, I am nevertheless quite aware that many of my
readers, as well as yourself, may think the conclusion untenable from
the fact that we hear no more of the Canaanites after the conquest of
Palestine by ancient Israel. But this, on reflection, will be seen to
amount to nothing. Nations, as such, are Uable to many changes.
They rise, decline, and disappear from the page of history. And yet
the races of men remain and form other combinations, and are known
by new names, though the people are substantially the descendants
of the same ancestry.

186 CHANGES IN NATIONS.
Thus, amongst the multitude of nations mentioned in the Penta
teuch, nearly all have passed away, yet there is not one whose popu
lation can be said to be extinct. We can trace the Jews, because their
religion forbade them to commingle with any other people. We can
trace the Edomites, because their peculiarities are found among the
unconquered tribes of the Arabs to this day. We can trace the
Egyptians, because their kingdom, however debased, has continued
to exist. But the rest, though we can not trace them, and therefore
we talk as if they were annihilated, have in reality continued to exist
as individuals and families ; and still form, by constant propagation,
their proportion of the world's inhabitants. The same reraark may be
applied to all other cases. If we take, for example, the Commentaries
of Cassar, we find a large number of nations specified as the com
munities in ancient Gaul, hardly any of which were known by the
same names five centuries later. Yet no reasonable man can doubt
that these were the ancestors of the Germans and the French, the
Swiss and the Belgians, of our own period. The various races may
intermingle, their old nationalities may undergo many mutations ;
language, manners, and customs may change ; but all this does not im
ply the extinction of the people. So far, therefore, as we have evi
dence to guide us, we have full authority for saying that no race
which existed since the time of Noah has ceased to exist in their pos
terity ; although their former landmarks have been aU obliterated, and
their old appellations have long passed away.
This being true universally, there can be no question about its
being more especially true in the continuance of the race of Ham,
through the hne of Canaan, since it is the only race which it has
pleased God to mark by such strong characteristics. Their doom of
servitude in its lowest form, their location in Africa, in the climate
of which the races of Shem and Japheth can not long exist, their
wonderful adaptation to that climate, their stiU more wonderful
adaptation to the state of slavery, for which the mercy of Provi
dence seems to have qualified them beyond any other race of people
in the known world, and, lastly, their peculiar color, which distin-
gijishes them so manifestiy from the rest of the human family — aU
these must serve to identify them beyond the possibihty of mistake.
And as it is an established rule among theologians that nothing proves
the true sense of prophecy so conclusively as its fulfillment, I may
claim the apphcation of the maxim to these indisputable facts  that

CHANGES IN NATIONS. 187
up to this period of modern history no race but theirs has been sub
ject to slavery, and perfectly contented under it, for thousands of
years. No race but theirs has been so stationary and so degraded in
their own land. And no race but theirs has shown such a disposition
to look up to the posterity of Shem and Japheth with admiring love,
and cling to them with such constancy and affection.

188 VARIETY OF COLOR.

CHAPTER xxn.
Right Reverend Brother : Resuming my extracts from the com
mentary of D'Oyly and Mant, I shall commence this chapter with
some instructive remarks on the color of the human species. (Gen.
10 : 32.)
" Man, though white in Europe, black in Africa, yellow in Asia,
and red in America," saith the celebrated naturahst Buffon, "is still
the same animal, tinged only with the color of the climate. Where
the heat is excessive, as in Guinea and Senegal, the people are per
fectly black ; where less excessive, as in Abyssinia, the people are
less black ; where it is more temperate, as in Barbary and in Arabia,
they are brown ; and where mild, as in Europe and in Lesser Asia,
they are fair."
" Shaw, in his travels through Barbary, found a tribe in the mount
ains of Auress, south of Algiers, who appeared to be of a different
race from the Moors ; far from swarthy, their complexion is fair and
ruddy, and their hair a deep yellow, instead of being dark, as among
the neighboring Moors. He conjectures that they are a remnant of
the Vandals. And they probably retained their complexion from
their high mountainous situation ; as the natives of Armenia, in
Western Asia, and Cashmere, in Eastern, are fair, owing to the great
elevation of the soU in both places, and the temperature of the climate
occasioned thereby.''
" On the other hand, a colony of Jews settied at Cochin, on the
Malabar coast, from a very remote period, of which they have lost
the memory, though originally a fair people in Palestine, and from
their customs preserving themselves unmixed, are grown as black as
the other Malabarians, who are hardly a shade lighter than the negroes
of Guinea. And at Ceylon, the Portuguese, who settied there only
a few centuries ago, are degenerated and grown blacker than the orio--
inal natives. They are in number about five thousand, still speak
Portuguese, wear the European dress, and profess the Romish re
ligion."

189
" Still there are anomalies or exceptions to the general conclusions
of the influence of climate and customs, that must be ascribed to
other, and perhaps, undiscovered causes, which baffle the pride of
human sagacity to develop, and which, after all, must be resolved into
the will and pleasure of the Creator, and deposited among the ' un
searchable riches ' of His wisdom and providence in the variety, no
less than in the regularity of His works."
On Exod. 21, And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, etc., the
commentator saith: "As liberty is equally valuable with life, the
Jewish law, -with the strictest equity, ordained that if any raan were
conricted of attempting to reduce any fallow-citizen to slavery, he
should be punished with death."
Here I would remark that the learned Dr. Graves, from whom this
comment is taken, agrees with almost all the other commentators in
restricting the law of Moses to the case of stealing a fellow-citizen,
i. e. an Israelite. But he differs from the whole stream of human
history, and, as I think, from common-sense, in the reason which he
assigns for it, namely, that " liberty is equally valuable with life."
This proposition seems to me quite untenable. Slavery, as we have
seen, came in with war ; and it was universally held that it was a
favor to the captive taken in battle that he should have his life spared,
on condition of his becoming the slave of his conqueror. Hence the
very name of servus, from servatus, viz. one saved from death, be
came the title of the slave, according to the Roman law and the judg
ment of the fathers. And no reasonable mind could hesitate as to
the choice which the vast majority of men would make, if death or
slavery were proffered to them.
On Lev. 25 : 13, Ye shall return every man to his possessions, etc.,
we have the following comments, in D'Oyly and Mant, riz. :
"By appointing that, on the year of jubilee, the owner of estates
which had been sold should return to his possession, and that every
Israelitish sla/ce should be at perfect liberty to return to his family,
God -wisely prorided for the suppression of luxury, cruelty, and
ambition ; for the preservation of a perfect distinction of tribes, fam
ilies, and genealogies ; and chiefly for ascertaining the descent of the
future Messiah, whose more eminent deliverance, wrought for all
mankuid, was shadowed out by the privUeges bestowed upon ttie
Israelites, in the year of jubUee." And on v. 39, If thy brother
that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt

190 d'oyly and mant.
not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, we read this comment
from Bishop Patrick : " That is," saith he, " as a slave bought from
other nations, over whom the dominion of the Israelites was as
complete as over their cattle!'
On Deut 23 : 15, " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the
slave that is escaped unto thee, we have the following : " That is, the
servant not of a Hebrew, but of an alien and stranger." — Bishop
Kidder. And again : " A heathen soldier or servant who deserted
and came over to the Israelites, with intent of turning proselyte to
the true religion." — Pyle.
Thus far we find a reasonable degree of harmony between the
commentary of D'Oyly and Mant, indorsed by Bishop Hobart, and
the great body of Biblical critics which had gone before, so far as
the Old Testament is concerned. And when we turn to the same
commentary on the New Testament, we shaU have no reason to
complain of any substantial variation.
Beginning with our Saviour's strong declaration in His sermon on
the Mount, Matt 5 : 17, " Think -not that I am come to destroy the
law and the prophets,'' etc., we have the following comment from the
learned Dr. S. Clarke : " Do not think that I am come to destroy or
abrogate the law and the prophets : no, I am not come to dissolve
any one natural or moral obligation ; but, on the contrary, to fulfill
what was typified, to explain what was obscure, and to complete
what was imperfect"
And again, from Archbishop Tillotson : " I am not come to de
stroy but to fulfill, to carry on the same design which was intended
by the Jewish religion, and to perfect and accomplish it."
On 1 Cor. 7 : 22, He that is called in the Lord, being a servant,
etc., we have this corament, viz. : " Though he be a slave to man,
yet, as a Christian, he is Christ's freeman, in the most honorable
sense of true freedom ; and the Christian who is no man's slave is
yet a servant, and owes an absolute obedience to Christ, our common
Lord and Master." — Pyle.
The important text in 1 Tim. 6 : 1, Let as many servants as are
under the yoke, has these comments, viz. : " Under the yohe signifies,"
saith Dr. Whitby, " the yoke of bondage to the heathens." And
Burkitt is quoted in the foUowing words : " The Apostle here par
ticularly directs Timothy to instruct Christian servants in the per
formance of the duty of obedience to their masters, whether infidels

BISHOP DAVENANT. , 191
or Christians. Hence it appears that the Christian religion allows
of an inequality amongst men, and as it gives to superiors the
power of commanding, so it lays inferiors under an obligation to
obey." And on the Epistle to Philemon, Bishop Tomline is cited for the
following : " The Epistle to Philemon is a plain proof that Christian
ity was not intended to make any alteration in the civil conditions
of men. St. Paul considered Onesimus, although converted to the
Gospel, as still belonging to his former master, and by deprecating
the anger of Philemon, he acknowledged that Onesimus continued
liable to punishment for the misconduct of which he had been guilty,
previous to his conversion."
The name of Bishop Davenant stands high among the worthies of
our mother Church of England, and I shall occupy the remainder of
this chapter with some valuable passages from his exposition of St
Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, translated by the Rev. Josiah All-
port, who has added many valuable notes, and thus adorned a work
of great merit and usefulness. The following passages embrace aU
that belongs to our subject :
CoL 3 : 22 : Servants, obey in all things your masters according to
the flesh, etc. " The occasion of this precept," saith Bishop Daven
ant, " seems to spring from the circumstance, that servants converted
to Christianity thought themselves to be exempt from the yoke of
servitude. Which opinion, full of error, the devil without doubt
instilled into the minds of men, that thence he might render the
Christian religion odious among the heathen, as a disturber of order.
This error perhaps had some color. If masters embraced the Christ
ian religion together with their servants, it was unjust that they
should still hold them as slaves whom they were bound to account
as brethren. If masters still adhered to paganism, when their serv
ants were converted, it seemed much more unjust that he who had
been delivered and redeemed from the power of the devil should
nevertheless remain in bondage to a pagan man who himself remain
ed a slave to the devil. These things seemed to have an air of
probability ; but, not-withstanding, the Apostle gives a contrary
precept, in which every word hath its weight, to demonstrate the
equity and even the necessity of the precept"
" Servants. He addresses Christians, and yet he still calls them
servants, 6m)}.ot. This word does not denote such domestics as we

192 . BISHOP DAVENANT.
now employ, who are in reahty free and free-born, although they
serve others for hire ; but it denotes such as the ancients used, who
were either taken in war, or bought, and on that account were wholly
in the power of their masters."
" Concerning the foundation of this servitude, whether it be just
or violent, I shall not contend, yet it appears to have been allowed
and established by the law of nations. Hence Aristotle asserts
(Polit. 1, 3) that servants of this kind were nothing else than certain
animated instruments of their masters. And even amongst the sa
cred writers, these servants are reckoned among the goods and pos
sessions of their masters, (Job 1 : 3,) and the servant is caUed, in
Exod. 21 : 21, the money of his master. The Apostle, therefore,
shows, by this very name, that they were bound to obedience, and
on that account he adds his command. Servants, obey in all things.
" But that is to be restricted to things lawful and honest. Right
ly, therefore, has Jerome put in this exception. In all things,
namely, saith he, in ivhich the lord of the flesh doth not command
contrary to the Lord of the spirit."
" The Christian rehgion," continues Bishop Davenant, " does not
subvert political order ; nay, it doth not deprive heathen masters of
their legitimate authority over Christian servants. Therefore the
Anabaptists err, who think all authority to be opposed to evangelical
liberty, even of Christians over Christians."
" But the Christian religion frees from the yoke of human servitude
that which is the best and most excellent thing in man, namely, the
spirit and conscience. (See Gal. 5 : 1.) They therefore err who would
rule the minds and consciences of men by virtue of any superiority
and human lordship, for they are masters according to the flesh, not
according to the spirit."
"Christians may and ought to submit themselves according to the
flesh, (i.e., in things external, doubtful, and temporal,) even to the
unjust commands of those who are masters according to the flesh.
Thus Augustine, (in Expos. Epist. ad Rom. propos. 74 :) We must
not resist masters, although they unjustly take from us temporal
things. And St Peter, 1 Epist 11 : 18 : Be subject to your masters,
not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froivard!'
Verse 23 : And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord,
and not unto men. "That is," saith Bishop Davenant, "to the
Lord Christ, more than to men, because for the sake of Christ you
serve them."

BISHOP DAVENANT. 193
"But why,'' continues he, "in these lower and external observ
ances, are they said to obey the Lord more than men, whose com
mands they serve, and whom alone they profit ?"
" First, because they who obey are more the servants of Christ
than of earthly piasters. For earthly masters buy their servants
with silver and gold : Christ buys them with his precious blood ; they
redeem the body alone, ar:i that for another service : Christ redeems
both soul and body f;:' perpetual liberty. They must therefore
especially serve Christ"
" Secondly, because they obey earthly masters only at the appoint
ment of Christ ; therefore they rather obey Christ than them ; not
unlike as inferior servants who obey a steward, yet are said more to
obey their master, at whose will they yield to his steward ; he is
opposed if he shall order the contrary to his master."
" Thirdly, because Christ himself hath declared that he wishes
his servants to obey their masters, and this he strictly commands in
his word ; and he himself also, in his wise governance and by his
authority, hatJi ordained some to service and others to dominion.
Whilst faithful servants have respect to all these things, they are
rightly said to serve the Lord and not men!'
Ch. 4:1: Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and
equal. " That which is just," continues Bishop Davenant, " in this
place, includes whatever is due to servants from legal obligation, or
according to positive laws, and excludes whatever is contrary to the
same. Aristotle (Qilcon. 1 : 5) lays down three things as necessary
and due to servants, their work, their sustenance, their correction.
We shall add also a fourth, viz., their wages, which is due to our serv
ants, because they are not slaves, as they were formerly among the
ancients. It pertain.s, therefore, to the justice of masters to render
all these things to their servants according to due measure ; it is the
part of injustice, or at least of folly, if they deal otherwise with
them. For instance, in enjoining work upon a servant, he observes
justice who neither imposes immoderate labor, nor suffers hira to
grow stupid in ease and idleness. So in allowing them sustenance,
he who neither withholds necessary or convenient food, nor suffers
them to indulge gluttony or drunkenness. In applying correction,
he who does not inflicfc punishment upon them with a cruelty exceed
ing the extent of the fault, nor yet allows them to commit any crime
with impunity. In rewarding them, he who is neither so sparing

194 BISHOP DAVENANT.
that they can not thereby procure for themselves necessaries, nor so
lavish as to yield them matter for dissoluteness."
TJiat which is equal. " In the Greek it is equality or equability,
which word we must not take in that sense, as if it were incumbent
up^on masters to give to their servants the same honors, the same
obedience, which they exact from them, for well spoke Plato : To
give equal things to unequals is inequality."
" This word equal, therefore, does not designate the labors them
selves, or the duties of servants and masters, which are different and
plainly the reverse : but it refers to the mind and manner of acting,
which in each ought to be equal by a certain proportionate analogy.
For instance, servants are commanded to obey their masters in single
ness of heart and the fear of God : now masters give them that
which is equal when they rule them piously and religiously. Serv
ants are commanded to obey their masters from the heart and with
good will : masters repay them for their services when they rule
their servants with mildness and a sort of pa/rental affection. There
fore, that we may bring the difference of these words just and equal
in this place, under a brief view : that is called just which_the law
requires, or what is due to servants from legal obligation. That is
called equal which charity and Christian lenity requires, or what is
due to them from moral obligation."
The translator in a note saith : " The reader will bear in mind that
the word servants is used here for slaves, SovXoi, in conformity with
the authorized version of the Bible,'' p. 205. But in the Latin of
Bishop Davenant the word servus should be rendered slave or bond
man throughout, because this is its only proper signiflcation. Never
theless, as it stands, the meaning of the writer is perfectly clear, and
I have cited the commentary at great length because it is well worth
your attention ; for you are aware, of course, that the author -v\'as
one of King James's envoys to the famous Synod of Dort, and a spe
cial favorite with that iraportant branch of the clergy which are
called Evangelical by the non-conformists of England, and their suc
cessors in our own land.

DR. JORTIN. 195

CHAPTER xxm.
Right Reverend Brother : As I have every desire to deal frankly
and fully with the question in controversy, I shall devote this chap
ter to a quotation from Dr. Jortin, which I flnd in the commentary
of D'Oyly and Mant, republished by Bishop Hobart, because it
looks favorably, like certain passages from Scott and Clarke, on
the abolition side of the argument.
1 Peter 2 : 18. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear,
etc. " In the time when the Gospel was flrst preached," saith Dr.
Jortin, " servants for the most part were slaves, and, as many of
them were converted to Christianity with or without their masters,
it was to be feared lest they should take too much upon them, and
think too well of themselves, by entering into a religion which com
manded all men to treat one another as brethren. This might have
brought a discredit on the Gospel, and have been a hindrance to its
progress. Therefore St Peter and St Paul earnestly exhort servants
or slaves to obey their masters, and to be industrious and honest,
and dutifully to serve, not only the just and gentle, but the harsh
and fi-oward. The law of nature knows no such thing as slavery, for
by nature all men are free and equal; but by the civil laws, and by
the practice of nations, it was established and it still continues
amongst those who know not the Gospel ; and the more is the shame
and the pity, it is to be found in some places where Christianity is
professed. The religion of Christ, when it first made its progress in
the world, left the civil laws of nations in a great measure as it found
them, lest, by altering or repealing them, it should bring confusion
and disturbance into human society ; but as by its own genius and
tendency it leads men gently back to the precepts of nature and
equity, to kindness and to mercy, it put an end, by degrees, in most
civflized places, to that excessive distance and difference between
masters and slaves, which owed its origin to outrage and war, to vio
lence and calamity ; so that in Christian countries the service which

196 DR. JOETIN.
is performed is usually, as it ought to be, voluntary and by agree
ment But what the writers of the New Testament have said con
cerning slaves holds true concerning hired servants, and all those
¦who are employed in other denominations under a master ; that they
discharge their office modestiy, dUigently, and willingly, and act with
faithfulness and integrity in every thing that is committed to them."
Now here, along with much that is true, this learned and excellent
divine has set forth some very common but not the less mischievous
errors, and these I shall proceed to consider.
" The law of nature knows no such thing as slavery, for by nature
all men are free and equal." "So declared Dr. Jortin some time pre
vious to our celebrated Declaration of Independence, because he died
in 1770, six years anterior to our Revolutionary War. But in the
first plaee I would ask, what did he mean by th-e law of nature ?
Was it the law of our creation, in Paradise, before the fall, when
there was but one man and one woman in existence ? This would be
preposterous, and therefore can not be pretended for a moment. It
must then have been the law of nature after the fall, when sin had
corrupted it And where, in the history of that fallen nature, can
we find that all men axe free and equal f The earliest account of it
is in the third and fourth chapters of Genesis, where the Almighty
pronounced this sentence on Eve : " Thy desire shall be to thy hus
band, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen. 8 : 16.) The same principle
meets us again in the case of Cain and Abel, for, speaking of the rela
tion between the elder and the younger brother, the Lord said unto
Cain : " Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him!'
(Gen. 4 : 7.) Already, in this first generation of mankind, we see
dominion and subjection, but where are the freedom and equality ?
If, frora this beginning, we go on in the sacred history, what do we
find ? Littie else but contest, strife, and the struggle for dominion.
The earth becomes filled with violence and iniquity, and the deluge
sweeps away the flagitious race, leaving only the patriarch Noah and
his family. And in the prophecy of Noah we have, a proclamation
of the Divine purpose, which is totaUy unlike this favorite hypothesis .
of ultra-abolitionism. " Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants
shaU he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem,
and Canaan shaU be his servant God shaU enlarge Japheth and he
shaU dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant."
Superiority for Shem in religious privileges, dominion over Shem by

DOMINION AND SUBJECTION. 197
Japheth in temporal power, and subjection of Canaan to both, are here
indicated. Where, again, are the freedom and equality ?
The posterity of Noah multiplies, and the earth is divided among
them. But immediately we find the exhibition of dominion .and
power. Nimrod, the mighty hunter, appears as the founder of the
Assyrian empire ; the patriarchal authority, which was absolute, rules
the tribes ; Abraham, the favorite of God, becomes a petty prince, hav
ing three hundred and eighteen servants born in his own house ; and
bondmen and bondmaids are reckoned amongst the property of his
chUdren and grand-children. That slavery was- generally prevalent
appears further from the fact, that the sons of Jacob resolved to get
rid of their own brother Joseph, by seUing him to the Midianites.
These Midianites sold him again to Potiphar. And when, after the
death of Jacob, the brethren of Joseph feared that he would use his
power to be revenged of their cruel conduct, " they went and fell
down before his face ; and they said, Behold, we be thy sei'vants."
(Gen. 50 : 18.) Where are ^e freedom and equality, even among the
sons of Israel ?
We read next that the descendants of Jacob multiplied in Egypt,
where they were oppressed to the lowest point of human suffering,
for their children "were cast-out that they might not live,'' and the
Almighty, in mercy, sent Moses and Aaron to deliver them, and
make them a prosperous and independent nation in the promised
land. And lo ! for the first and only time in the history of the world,
the Lord condescended to provide a complete code of laws for his
chosen people, comprehending both their religious and their civil duties.
But here, again, though it was confessedly the most perfect system
which mankind had ever known, yet the whole was arranged accord
ing to the strictest subordination. A chief ruler appointed by divine
direction, an hereditary priesthood, a prince over every tribe, rulers
over thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens, slavery for six
years as the result of debt or poverty, even to the free-born Israelite,
and slavery for life, descending to the offspring, for the races of the
surrounding heathen.
Where, then, are we to look for this law of nature, of which Dr.
Jortin spake, as many others now speak, under the delusive idea
that there is good proof of its existence ? We have seen, indeed,
that the civil law had recognized something very like it, but this was
evidently in reference to the supposed golden age, which poets and

198 DOMINION AND SUBJECTION.
philosophers among the ancients accepted as a fact, although it was
nothing more than a fanciful amplification of the condition of man,
either in Paradise, or in the age of the patriarch Noah, whom they
converted into Saturn. We know, likewise, that the notion may be
found in various writers, and that the infidel Rousseau set forth the
superiority of the state of nature in eloquent terms, before the
French Revolution. And we also know that the people proclaimed
their platform of liberty, equality, and fraternity, in pursuance of his
hypothesis ; and acted upon it, in the midst of the most bloody and
cruel carnage, until the sword of the first Napoleon forced them to
submit to the hand of power. As to our own assertion of it in the
Declaration of Independence, I have already treated the matter suffi
ciently, in the Bible View of Slavery, and do not mean to repeat that
argument here. But it must be obvious to all candid and thoughtful
minds, that this favorite theory has no foundation in the facts ; and,
judging by the existing constitution of all created things, could never
have been consistent with the purposes of the Almighty.
The nearest approach on earth to what men call freedom and equal
ity, consists in subjection to good laws. Hence, we have the best
political condition made dependent on subjection. What compels
this subjection ? The Government. What is the Government ? It
is the systematic organization of force. No law is of any efficacy
among men, unless there be a power able to execute it. But the im
portance of government is seen in this, that the force which it exer
cises is regulated by the fixed principles of justice, and intended to
operate on every class in the community, so as to protect their rights
and privileges. And hence arises the duty of supporting it, as an
obligation of indispensable necessity; because the law offeree which,
without government, would arm every man against his neighbor, and
make society a constant scene of anarchy and violence, becomes, un
der the rule of a just government, the preserver of peace, and the
guardian of order and security.
But there can be no government, without a certain amount of sub
jection, and this subjection demands the surrender, to the same ex
tent, of individual freedom and equality. Hence it is manifest, that
these are incompatible with government, because it is impossible that
any should be able to govern, unless the rest are bound to obey.
We may say, indeed, that it is the law which governs ; but this is
only a phrase which serves to mislead our personal pride of indepen-

DOMINION AND SUBJECTION. 199
dence by an agreeable delusion. For the law is the decree of the
legislature, and the legislature is composed of men, commissioned to
establish their judgment, as a rule of obligation to the whole com
munity. And when it is estabhshed, it can not fulfill the work of
government, unless it be administered; and the administrators are
also men, set over the rest, in order to enforce the law on every indi
vidual. The administrators of the law are therefore, practically, the
rulers — the actual governors — whom the community are bound to
obey. And hence it is plainly impossible that human society should
exist, without dominion and subjection.
Here, then, and not in this imaginary freedom and equality, is the
real law of nature, because mankind have never existed, and never
Can exist, without government, and all government involves dominion
and subjection, more or less complete. The principle is fixed by the
Almighty Creator, and whatever be the form under which it is ex
hibited, the substance is the same. It begins in the family. The
husband and the wife. The parent and the children. The master
and the servant The teacher and the pupU. The magistrate and
the citizen. The captain and the sailor. The general and the army.
The king or the viceroy, and the people. Every class and all de
partments demand a power to govern and an obligation to obey, and
freedom and equality can be found faowhere.
When we come to consider the operation of this essential prin
ciple of dominion and subjection in the case of human government,
we find that it commences with our birth, and involves servitude
for life, .descending to the offspring, which is the very definition of
slavery. But slavery is an odious word, in modern ears ; and there
fore I use the more acceptable terra of subjection. In its practical
. character, the government exercises dominion over the labor, the
liberty, and the life of every individual under its control. The labor
is involved in the right of taxation, and in this form we are compelled
to work for the government, whether we like it or not, every day, or
pay an equivalent in property. The liberty is taken away in prisons
and penitentiaries. The life is involved not only by ihe punishment
of crime, but also by our liabUity to be drafted into the army, will
ing or unwiUing, or even to be forced, by a conscription, to stand
before the cannon's mouth, at the command of our rulers. And this
subjection belongs to the duty of our allegiance. It continues to

200 I DOMINION AND SUBJECTION.
the end of our mortal existence, and attaches to our children, in per
petuity. But all this, you may say, is for the advantage of the people. Cer
tainly il is ; for I have already said that society could not exist with
out it The result, however, is, that n^ot freedom and equality, but
dominion and subjection, are essential to the best interests of man
kind. And therefore this is the real law of nature — the law adapted
to our nature, and to which our nature is adapted, for we can no
where find society constituted on any other principle, since the world
began. And this is the reason why the Sacred Scriptures are so imperative
on the duty of subjection. "Let every soul," saith St Paul, "be
subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the
powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they that resist shaU
receive to themselves damnation." (Rom. 13 : 1, 2.)
And, again, in his epistle to Titus, the Bishop of Crete, the sarae
Apostle coraraands as follows, viz. : " Put them in mind to be subject
to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to
every good work." (Tit 3 : 1.)
And again, we have this most comprehensive precept from the
Apostle Peter: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, iov
the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as sup>reme, or unto gov
ernors, as unto thera that are sent by him, for the punishment of
evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well." (1 Pet. 2 : 13-14.)
Now it is very true that in this country we have no "king as su
preme," and yet we are none the less bound by the Apostle's injunc
tion ; because we have a Constitution, the sixth article of which es
tablishes the standard of our subjection in these words, viz. :
" This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made,
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not
withstanding." The President, before he enters on the execution of his office, is
bound to take an oath or affirmation, to "preserve, protect, and de
fend" this Constitution. (Art 2, sec. 1.)
" The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one

THE CONSTITUTION. 201
Supreme Court— and shaU extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution." (Art. 3, sec. 1 and 2.)
" The senators and representatives, and the raembers of the several
State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or
affirmation to support this Constitution." (Art 6.)
And in this Constitution, slavery is recognized and regarded as
a standing institution, first, in Article 1, Section 2, where three
fifths of the slaves are taken as the basis for the elective fianchise ;
and secondly, in Article 4, Section 2, where fugitives, escaping from
one State to another, are directed to be " delivered up on claim of
the party to whom their service or labor is due." Such is the set
tled interpretation of the Supreme Court, and of Congress in their
legislation on the subject. And it admits of no dispute. Twelve
out of the thirteen States which adopted the Constitution were Slave
States at the time. And although Massachusetts had abolished
slavery, yet her delegation, along with that of the other Eastern
States, insisted on continuing the slave-trade for twenty years more,
against the -wishes of Virginia.
Here, therefore, in this Constitution of the United States, is the
supreme dominion on all those subjects for which it was designed.
And to this, accordingly, the command of the Apostle applies. To
this, every naturalized foreigner is obliged to swear allegiance. To
this, every native citizen is bound, by his birth, to be loyal. You
are bound by it I am bound by it Every citizen in the land is
bound by it, from the President down to the humblest laborer on the
soil. And therefore with us, the Constitution is the king, and the
President is the prime minister.
Is there any power in these United States which can absolve me from
this obligation ? Suppose the President were to desire it — which I
should be very sorry to impute to him — could he do so ? Clearly
not ; for how can he absolve the citizen from a duty which he was
obliged, by oath, to take upon himself, before he could enter upon
his eminent office ? If he is sworn to " preserve, protect, and defend "
the Constitution, by what imagiifeble right can he authorize me to
violate it ?
Can Congress absolve me from this obligation ? I answer. No ; for
the same reason. The power of Congress, Uke the power of the
President, is exercised only by virtue of the Constitution. The mem-
9*

202 THE CONSTITUTION.
bers of the Senate and the House of Representatives are aU bound
by the same oath. And it would be an absurdity, surpassing all
other absurdities, to suppose that a subordinate authority, created
by the Constitution, should have a right to nullify the provisions of
the very law on which it depends for its only power to legislate at all.
But we have been told that there is a " higher law," above the
Constitution. And this, to the Christian, is certainly true. The
Almighty " Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy " — the
glorious God, whose government rules the universe, whose throne is
the heavens, and the earth his footstool — the all-wise and absolute
Ruler, on whose decree the destiny of nations and of individuals is
alike dependent — He has given us his unerring commands to be our
guide, and in His Word we have the plainest directions on this very
question. For there, as I have just shown. His inspired apostles re
quire us to be "subject to the higher powers," and declare, moreover,
that " whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God,
and they who resist, shall receive to themselves damnation."
Yet this, as all men acknowledge, refers only to those matters in which
the laws of earth do not contradict the laws of heaven ; for no one
doubts that in case of a conflict between those laws, " -We must obey
God rather than man." Happily, however, the only point on which
the ultra-abolitionist desires to trample on the Constitution, namely,
slavery, is specifically provided for in the Bible ; and the same apos
tles who command us to be subject to the higher powers, command
the slave to be obedient and faithful to his master, and the master to
be kind to his slave, whUe one of them, St Paul, adopts a fugitive
slave-law for himself, and, of his own accord, sends Onesimus back
again to his legal owner.
Thus Christianity itself enforces the dominion of the Constitution,
and I am bound to be subject to it, " not only for wrath, but also for
conscience' sake,'' (Rom. 13 : 5,) and hence loyalty to that Constitu
tion becomes a dictate of my religion. How any man can consider
it a part of his rehgion to oppose it — how any officer of the Govern
ment can suppose it consistent with conscience to swear that he will
support the Constitution, and yet make it his business to break it
down — how any minister of the Gospel can lend his influence to sus
tain such a course, and even to brand an honest effort to justify the
Constitution, as " unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ,'' and an
act which " challenges indignant reprobation " — these are \hing3

THE CONSTITUTION. 203
which you may think yourself able to explain. But for' my own part,
I regard them as the most astounding facts in the modern history of
human delusion and perversity.
But now I return to Dr. Jortin, in order to take a brief survey of
his remaining statements about slavery. He saith that it " still
continues among those that know not the Gospel, and the more is
the shame and the pity, it is to be found in some places where Christ
ianity is professed."
Now as to the shame, why did he not extend it to the Apostles,
whom he admits to have sanctioned its continuance ? For he ac
knowledges that " St. Peter and St Paul earnestly exhort servants
or slaves to obey their inasters, and to be industrious and honest,
and dutifully to serve, not only the just and gentle, but the hard and
froward." And he tells us that " the religion of Christ, when it first
made its progress in the world, left the civil laws of nations in a
great measure as it found them, lest by altering or repealing them,
it should bring confusion and disturbance into human society." Is
it not manifest that the same reason ought to have influenced the
Christian ministers of our day to follow the Apostle's example ? Was
it possible for any man in his sober senses to believe that the
dogmas of our ultra-abolitionists could prevail without " bringing
confusion and disturbance into human society" ? Alas ! what a
commentary do we behold on their opposition to the course which
Dr. Jortin, and all others, confess to have been adopted by St Peter
and St Paul; when not rperely "confusion and disturbance," but
the sacrifice of half a million of valuable lives, and the ravages of
the most awful desolation, and a multitude of torn and bleeding
hearts, and the kindling of bitter hatred and deadly animosity be
tween those who were once friends and brethren, have marked the
results of their insane determination ! Why could they not have
been content with the guidance of the inspired Apostles, confirmed
by the voice of the whole primitive Church ? Why must they de
nounce, as " a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," the
Constitution of their country ? Why could they not be subject to
that " supreme law of the land," which they were bound to support
by every rule of religious and civil obligation, and ¦suffer our noble
Union to continue in harmony and peace ?
With regard to the " pity" of Dr. Jortin, I shall only say that he
ought to have known the condition of the negro slaves under the cruel

204 DR. JORTIN.
and heathen yoke of African slavery, as subjects to the king of Da
homey, before he pitied their state in the hands of their Christian
masters. If he had duly reflected upon this, he would perhaps have
discovered that, instead of being pitied for the change, it was rather
a subject for devout thankfulness to the mercy of God, who, in His
Providence, had saved so many of that barbarous and wretched race,
and given them a lot so much more elevated and hopeful.
His subsequent statement, that slavery was abolished through the
growing infiuence of the Gospel, is one of the popular fallacies which
I shall consider by and by, and prove it to be entirely inconsistent
with the facts of history. And I shall close this long chapter by
expressing my surprise that the excellent Bishop Hobart, when he
republished the Commentary of D'Oyly and Mant, should have re
tained an extract, which, however it might agree with the constitu
tional safety of England, was plainly unsuited to the harmony and
welfare of these United States; besides being in utter discordance.
with the teaching of the Apostles, and the voice of the universal
Church, for eighteen centuries together.

MACKNIGHT. 205

CHAPTER XXIV.
Right Reverend Brother : As I consider freedom and equality
to be the popular idols of the age, especially in our own country, I
shall recur to them again, because the subject is by no means ex
hausted. But before I resume these topics, I must complete my
extracts from the modern Protestant commentators, the next on the
hst being the learned and candid Presbyterian, Macknight, whose
" New lYanslation, Paraphrase, and Notes on the Epistles " are held
in just and universal estimation.
On the text in 1 Cor. 7 : 20, 24, Let every man abide in the same
calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant ?
Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather, our
author gives the following paraphrase ;
" Since the Gospel makes no alteration in men's political state,
let every Christian remain in the same political state in which he
was called. Agreeably to this rule, wast thou called, being a bond
man ? Be not thou solicitous to be made free, fancying that a
bondman is less the object of God's favor than a freeman. Yet, if
thou canst even be made free by any lawful method, rather obtain
thy freedom.''
And on v. 24, Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, there
in abide with God, he gives this interpretation : " Brethren, whether
in a state of bondage or of freedom each one was caUed, in that let
him remain, while he remains with God ; that is, while he remains a
Christian." And in the notes, he states that " this exhortation,
which is three times given in the compass of the discourse, was in
tended to correct the disorders among the Christian slaves at Corinth,
who, agreeably to the doctrine of the false teachers, claimed their
hberty, on pretense that as brethren in Christ, they were on an
equality with their Christian masters."
On Eph. 6 : 5, 9, Servants, be obedient ta them that are your mas
ters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, etc., Dr. Mac
knight presents this statement, viz. :

206 MACKNIGHT. \
" As the Gospel does not cancel the civil rights of mankind, I say
to bond-servants, Obey your masters, who have the property of your
body, with fear and trembling,' as liable to be punished by them for
disobedience ; obey, also, from the integrity of your own disposition,
as obeying Christ, (v. 6.) Do this, not merely when their eye is
upon you, or they are to examine your works as those do whose
sole care it is to please men ; but as bondmen of Christ, doing the
will of God in this matter from the Lord ; that is, diUgently, (v. 7.)
With cheerfulness do your duty to your earthly masters, as servants
to the Lord Christ : for in serving them faithfully, ye serve him ;
and therefore do not consider yourselves as servants to men only."
(Verse 8.) " And that ye may be supported under the hardships of
your lot, recollect what your religion teaches you, that whatever
good action any man does, though he should receive no reward from
men, he shall receive at the judgment a reward from Christ, whether
he be a slave or a freeman," (v. 9.) " And masters, behave in the
same benevolent conscientious manner towards your slaves : give
them all things necessary with good will, not aggravating the miseries
of their condition by the terror of punishment^ but moderating threat
ening ; knowing that the Lord even of you yourselves is in heaven on
the throne of God, and that in judging his servants, respect of persons
is not with him : He will reward or punish every one according to
his real character."
In his notes on the Epistle to the Colossians, ch. 8, v. 22, Servants,
obey in all things your masters, etc., this learned commentator makes
the following remarks on our English version :
" Though the word Sov?.og properly signifies a slave, our English
translators, in all the places where the duties of slaves are inculcated,
have justly translated it servant; because anciently the Greeks and
Romans had scarce any servants but slaves, and because the duties
of the hired servant, during the time of his service, are the same
with those of the slave. So that what the Apostle said to the slave,
was in effect said to the hired servant In this," continues Dr. Mac
knight, " and the parallel passage, Ephes. 6 : 5, the Apostle is very
particular in his precepts to slaves and lords, because, in all the coun
tries where slavery was established, many of the slaves were exceed
ingly addicted to fraud, lying, and stealing, and many of the masters
were tyrannical and cruel to their slaves. Perhaps also he was thus
particular in his precepts to slaves, because the Jews held perpetual

MACKNIGHT. 207
slavery to be unlawful, and because the Judaizing teachers propa
gated that doctrine in the Church. But from the Apostle's precepts
it may be inferred, that if slaves are justly acquired, they may be
lawfully retained; as the Gospel does not make void any of the
political rights of mankind."
I proceed, next, to the 1st Epistle of St Paul to Timothy, ch. 6, v.
1-4, Let as many servants as are under the yohe, etc., on which our
commentator gives the following paraphrase, viz. :
"Let whatever Christian slaves are under the yoke of unbe
lievers, pay their own masters all respect and obedience, that the
character of God whom we worship may not be calumniated, and
the doctrine of the Gospel may not be evil spoken of, as tending to
destroy the political rights of mankind."
(V. 2.) " And those Christian slaves who have believing masters,
let them not despise them, fancying that they are their equals, be
cause they are their brethren in Christ : for, though all Christians are
equal as to religious privileges, slaves are inferior to their masters in
station. Wherefore, let them serve their masters more diligently,
because they who enjoy the benefit of their service are believers and
beloved of God. These things tQ?,ch and exhort the brethren to prac
tice them.''
(V. 3.) "If anyone teach differently, by affirming that, under the
Gospel, slaves are not bound to serve their masters, but ought to be
made free, and does not consent to the wholesome commandments
which are our Lord Jesus Christ's, and to the doctrine of the Gospel,
which in all points is conformable to true morality," (v. 4,) " he is
puffed up with pride, and knoweth nothing, either of the Jewish or
the Christian revelation, although he pretends to have great know
ledge of both. From all such impious teachers withdraw thyself,
and do not dispute with them!'
And in the notes on the first and second verses. Dr. Macknight
saith that, " By ordering Timothy to teach slaves to continue with
and obey their masters, the Apostle hath showed that the Christian
religion neither alters merHs rank in life, nor abolishes any right to
which they are entitled, by the law of nature or by the law of the
country wherein they live!' " Instead of encouraging slaves to dis
obedience, the Gospel makes them more faithful and conscientious.
And by sweetening the temper of masters, and inspiring them with
benevolence, it renders the condition of slaves more tolerable than

208 MACKNIGHT.
formerly. For in proportion as masters imbibe the true spirit of the
Gospel, they will treat their slaves with humanity, and even give
them their freedom when their services merit such a favor."
This is the language of truth, of justice, and of right reason; and
it not only agrees with the teaching of the apostles, but it is also the
doctrine of the Church from the beginning, combining the reverence
due to established law and order, with "peace and good-will to
men." And now I come to this fair and judicious commentator's views of
the Epistle to Philemon, which it has become tbe fashion of late,
amongst a considerable portion of the professed ministers of Christ,
to wrest entirely fi'om its old and true meaning. These are his words,
viz. :
" Onesimus, a slave, on some disgust, having run away from his
master Philemon, came to Rome ; and falling into want, as is sup
posed, he applied to the Apostle, of whose imprisonment he had
heard, and with whose benevolent disposition he was well acquainted,
having, as it seems, formerly seen him in his master's house. Or,
the fame of the Apostle's preaching and miracles having drawn Onesi
mus to hear some of the many discourses, which he delivered in his
own hired house in Rome, these made such an impression on him that
he became a sincere convert to the Christian faith. For the Apostle
calls him, (v. 9,) his son whom he had begotten in his bonds.- After his
conversion, Onesimus abode with the Apostle, and served him with
the greatest assiduity and affection. But being sensible of his fault
in running away from his master, he wished to repair that injury
by returning to him. At the same time being afraid that on his re
turn, his master would inflict on him the punishment which, by the
law or custom of Phrygia, was due to a fugitive slave, and which, as
Grotius says, he could inflict without applying to any magistrate,
he, besought the Apostle to write to Philemon, requesting him to for
give and receive him again into his family."
" To account for the solicitude which the Apostle showed in this
affair, we must not, with some, suppose that Philemon was keen and
obstinate in his resentments. But rather that having a number of
slaves, on whom the pardoning of Onesimus too easily might have
had a bad effect, he might judge some punishment necessary as a
warning to the rest. At least the Apostle could not have considered
the pardoning of Onesimus as a matter which merited so much earnest

MACKNIGHT. 209
entreaty with a person of PhUemon's pietyfjienevolence, and grati
tude, unless he had suspected him to have entertained some such
apprehension." " What the Apostle wrote to Philemon on this occasion is highly
worthy of our notice, namely, that although he had great need of an
affectionate honest servant to minister to him in his bonds, such as
Onesimus was, and although, if Onesimus had remained with him
he would only have discharged the duty which , Philemon himself
owed to his spiritual father ; yet the Apostle would by no means de
tain Onesimus without PhUemon's leave, because it belonged to him
to dispose of his own slave in the way he thought proper. Such was
the Apostle's regard to justice and to the rights of mankind."
This language is clear and conclusive. But I shall make one
extract more to sum up the whole.
" Chrysostom," saith Dr. Macknight, " hath showed several excel
lent uses, which may be made of this epistle, to which I add some
others, namely, that although no article of faith is professedly hand
led in this epistle, and no precepts for the regulation of our conduct
be directly delivered in it, yet the allusions to the doctrines and pre
cepts of the Gospel found in it may be improved in various respects
for regulating our conduct. For it is therein insinuated, 1. That all
Christians are on a level. Onesimus, the slave, on becoming a Christ
ian, is the Apostle's son and Philemon's brother. 2. That Christ
ianity makes no alteration in men's political state. Onesimus, the
slave, did not becomea freeman by embracing Christianity, but was
still obliged to be Philemon's slave forever, unless his master gave
him his freedom. 3. That slaves should not be tahen nor detained
from their masters without their master's consent. 4. That -we
should not contemn persons of low estate, nor disdain to help the
meanest when it is in our power to assist them, but should love and
do good to all men," etc.
The fifteenth and sixteenth verses are so frequently wrested from
their proper meaning by ultra-abolitionists, that it may be well to
quote them with our author's paraphrase.
(V. 15.) For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou
shouldest receive him forever.
(V. 16.) Not now as a servant, but above a servant, u, brother be
loved, specially to me, but how much more to thee, both in the flesh
and in the Lord.

210 MACKNIGHT.
The paraphrase is as(((bllows, viz. :
(V. 15.) " To mitigate thy resentment, consider that perhaps also
for this reason he was separated from thee for a little while, that thou
mightest have him thy slave for life."
(V. 16.) "No longer as a slave only, but above a slave, even a be
loved Christian brother, especially to me Vho know his worth, and
have been indebted to him for his services : how much more to thee
as a brother, both by nation and by religion, who will serve thee with
more understanding, fidelity , and affection than before!'
And in the note on the 2nd verse the commentator saith that " By
telling Philemon that he would now have Onesimus forever, the Apos
tle intimated to him his firm persuasion that Onesimus would never
any more run away from him."
These extracts are abundantly sufficient to prove the general ac
cordance of the author with the primitive school of the ancient fathers.
And little more remains to complete the list of our modern Protestant
annotators.

ALFORD. 211

CHAPTER XXV.
Right Reverend Brother : From the well-known volumes of the
Presbyterian divine. Dr. Macknight, I proceed to the critical and
exegetical commentary on the Greek Testament, by Henry Alford,
B.D., Dean of Canterbury, Third London Edition of 1857, a work of
extraordinary learning and most extensive research. Here I find an
interesting passage in which the old interpretation of St Chrysostom
is vindicated, in opposition to the majority of the modern expositors.
The text is in St Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 7 : 21 :
"Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it ; but if thou
mayest fe made free, use it rather!' And this is Dean Alford's
exegesis, viz. :
" Wert thou called (converted) a slave, let it not be a trouble to
thee, but if thou art even able to become free, use it (i. e., remain in
slavery) rather. This rendering, which is that of Chrys., Theodorct,
Theophyl., Cecum., Phot, Camerar., Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Meyer, De
Wette, and others, is required by the usage of the particles. — It is
also required by the context, for the burden of the whole passage is :
' Let each man remain in the state .in which he was called! — It would
be quite inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostle that in Christ
freeman and slave are all one, (GaL 3 : 28,) — and with his remarks
on the urgency and shortness of the time in this chapter, to turn out
of his way to give a precept merely of worldly wisdom, that a slave
should become free if he could. — Christ's service is perfect freedom,
-and the Christian's freedom is the service of Christ But here the
Apostle takes, in each case, one member of this double antithesis
from the outer world, one from the spiritual. The (actual) slave is
(spiritually) free. The (actually) free is a (spiritual) slave. So that
the two are so mingled, in the Lord, that the slave need not trouble
himself about his slavery, nor seek for this world's freedom, seeing
he has a more glorious freedom in Christ, and seeing also that his

212 WORDSWORTH.
brethren, who seem to be free in this world, are in fact Christ's serv
ants, as he is a servant"
In the Prolegomena of the same author on the Epistle to Philemon,
(vol. iii. p. 113,) we read as follows, viz. : " Onesimus, a native of
Colosse, the slave of Philemon, had absconded, after having, as it
appears, defrauded his master, (ver. 18.) He fled to Rome and there
-was converted to Christianity by St Paul. Being persuaded by him
to return to his master, he was furnished with this letter to recom
mend him, now no longer merely a servant, but a brother also, to
favorable reception by Philemon."
I conclude this long array of authorities with some eloquent and
very admirable extracts from the late work of the Rev. Chr. Words
worth, D.D., Canon of Westminster, entitled, " The New Testament
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the original Greeh, with
Notes," London Edition of 1859, where he speaks thus, on the Epis
tle to Philemon, in Part iii, p. 327 :
" Some persons in ancient times expressed surprise that this short
Epistle, addressed to a private person on a private occasion, should
be publicly read in the Church, and be received as a part of Canonical
Scripture." " But the world's history has fully justified the Church in this
respect." "In the age when it was written, Europe was fiUed with slaves.
Wheresoever the word ' servants ' occurs in the New Testament, we
must understand 'slaves' — slaves purchased with money or taken in
war, or reared from slaves in the house of their raaster. Phrygia,
in which Colossse was situated, was the land of slaves. A Phrygian
was another word for a slave. Nothing could be more -miserable
than their condition.''
" But Christianity was for all. How would it affect them ? What
would it do for them ? Would it leave them in their present misery ?
Would it mitigate the rigor of their sufferings ? And if so, by what
means ?"
" The answer to these questions is supplied by the Epistle to
Philemon." .
" That short letter, dictated from ' the hired house ' of the aged
Apostle, a prisoner at Rome, may be called a divine Act of Emanci
pation ; one far more powerful than any edict of Manumission pro
mulgated by sovereigns and senates ; an Act,- from whose sacred

WORDSWORTH. 213
principles all human statutes for the abolition of slavery derive their
virtue ; an Act which, by its silent influence, such as characterizes
all genuine reformations, gradually melted away and thawed the
hardships of slavery, by softening and warming the heart of the mas
ter with the pure and holy flame of Christian love ; an Act which,
while it thus ameliorated the condition of the slave, not only did not
impair the just rights of the master, but greatly improved them, by
dignifying service, and by securing obedience to man as a duty done
to Christ, and to be hereafter rewarded by him, and by changing the
fearful slave into an honest servant and a faithful brother, and by
binding every Onesimus in bonds of holy communion with every
PhUemon, in the mystical body of Christ, in the fellowship of the
same prayers, and of the same Scriptures and sacraments, in the
worship of the same Lord, and in the heritorship of the sarae
heaven." " Therefore the writing of this short letter was like a golden era in
the history of mankind. Happy is it for the world that this Epistle,
dictated by the Holy Ghost, has ever been read in the Church as
Canonical Scripture. And every one who considers the principles
laid down in this Epistle, and reflects on the reformation they have
wrought in the domestic^nd social life of Europe and the world, and
on the felicitous results -which would flow from them in still greater
abundance if they were duly received and observed, wUl acknowledge,
with devout thankfulness to God, that inestimable benefits, civil
and temporal as well as spiritual, have been conferred on the world
by Christianity."
" St. Paul did not constrain Philemon to emancipate his slave
Onesimus, but he inculcated such principles as divested slavery of
its evils. The Gospel of Christ, as preached by the holy Apostle,
did not exasperate the slave-owner by angry invectives, and by con
tumacious and contemptuous sarcasms. It did not embitter him
against the slave, and injure the interests of the slave himself by an
acrimonious advocacy of his rights, and by a violent and intemperate
partisanship, and thus inflict damage and discredit on the sacred
cause of Etoancipation. But, by Christianizing the master, the Gos
pel enfranchised the slave. It did not legislate about mere names
and forms, but it went to the root of the evil, it spoke to the heart
of man. When the heart of the master was filled with divine grace,
and was warmed with the love of Christ, the rest would soon follow.

214 WORDSWORTH.
The lips would speak kind words, the hand would do liberal things.
Every Onesimus would be treated by every PhUemon as a beloved
brother in Christ"
" Here is the genuine speciflc for the abolition of slavery. Here
also is the true groundwork for the extinction of caste in India. It is
to be found in the Incarnation of the Son of God, and in the incor
poration of all nations and famiUes of the earth in the mystical
Body of Christ Wise wiU be the Sovereigns, Senates, and States,
who recognize this truth."
To this quotation, which is worthy of aU praise, I shall only add
the comments of the same author on St. Paul's flrst Epistle to Timo
thy, ch. 6 : V. 1 : " Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count
their own masters worthy of all honor,'' etc.
"St. Paul here," saith Dr. Wordsworth, "combats and condemns
that false teaching which, under color of preaching the doctrines of
Universal Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in Christ, enlisted the
passions of slaves against masters, and subjects against their rulers,
and thus exposed the Name of God and the doctrine of the Gospel
to reproach and blasphemy from the Heathen, as if it were a religion
of anarchy and sedition, and ministered to man's evil appetites and
love of lucre, under the name of piety and godliness."
"These anarchical doctrines were a natural product of a diseased
Judaism. The Jews, supposing themselves to be the favored people
of God, resented all secular rule as an usurpation on the prerogatives
of Jehovah. Their Rabbis taught that it was a sinful thing to own
any mortal master, and to be bond-servants to heathens."
" They might, therefore, in hatred to Christianity, maliciously per
vert the doctrines of the Gospel to purposes congenial to their own
notions ; or they might, even unwittinglj^, so misunderstand and mis
interpret them, as to render them hateful to society, and subversive
of civil government and of domestic peace."
" The great Apostle had, therefore, a difficult task to perform, in
vindicating and maintaining, on the one side, the great doctrine of
Christian Liberty against some of the Judaizers ; and in asserting
and upholding the duty of Christian subjection, on the other hand,
against those of the same class who abused the sacred name of Lib
erty into a plea for licentiousness."
" How beautifully does the divine wisdom, charity, and courage,

WORDSWORTH. 215
with which the holy Apostle was endued, shine forth in the execution
of this difficult work in his BpisUe's 1"
" The relative duty of masters and slaves is to be borne by both
parties. Each of the two takes hold of it at its own end, and like the
fruitful cluster of the grapes of Eshcol, (Num. 13 : 23,) it is to be car
ried on the shoulders of both. And, like that cluster, this burden is
also a benefit. St. Paul will not flatter masters at the expense of
their slaves, nor slaves at the expense of their masters. Each is to
be a benefactor to the other. The master owes food and wages to the
slave ; the slave owes faithful service to the master."
" The force and wisdom of this Apostolic teaching wfll be more
evident and impressive, when it is borne in mind that these words of
St. Paul, addressed to the Bishop of Ephesus, would be listened to
by masters and slaves, gathered together in the Church, and hearing
this Epistle publicly read in the rehgious congregations at Ephesus
and other great cities of the world."
" If any man, under color of Christian liberty, teaches otherwise,
and exempts slaves from obedience to their masters, St Paul, in holy
indignation, inveighs against such a man, as one that is proud and
hnoweth nothing, but doteth about questions and strifes of words!'
" The false teachers ingratiated themselves with .slaves, and other
dependents, by flattering them, that because all men are equal and
brethren in Christ, therefore they need not be subject to their mas
ters ; or that, if they were subject, they had a claim to greater tem
poral advantages than they enjoyed ; and thus they excited slaves to
disobedience, and made the profession of the Gospel to be a matter
of secular traffic and worldly lucre."
"St Paul commands masters to give to their slaves what is just
and equal, (Col. 4 : 1'^ but he also teaches slaves this lesson : If a
man have food and raiment, let him be therewith content."
With these excellent comments of the Rev. Canon Wordsworth, I
concur most heartily ; in fervent thankfulness to God, that up to the
year 1859, our venerated mother Church of England has proclaimed
none other but the pure doctrine of the Apostles, and that her latest
utterance is in harmony with the only divine standard of wisdom,
truth, and peace.

216 PERVERSION OP THE PROPHETS.

CHAPTER XXVI.
Right Reverend Brother : Before I conclude the sui-vey of the
Scriptures, it may be well to notice a perversion, which it is becoming
quite comraon to urge, as a convincing argument, on behalf of ultra-
abolitionism. I allude to the favorite quotation from the prophet
Isaiah, 58 : 6 : "Is not this the fast that Ihave chosen f To loose
the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the
oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke f " This is applied,
without hesitation, to the cas^of the slaves ; and some of our modern
wise men even consider it to be a divine repeal of the law previously
laid down, for the perpetual bondage of the heathen races, by the
express authority of the God of Israel !
There is something so absurd in the idea that a formal law, set
forth repeatedly by the Almighty, should be repealed by words like
these, which do not refer to it all, and are susceptible of quite a
different application, that I should not have thought it worthy of
notice, if it were not manifest that it passes for sound reasoning with
the popular mind. It is indeed a sad proof of the low state of rever
ence towards the Word of God which permits such a wresting of
the Scriptures, not only by laymen, but by many of those who are
the commissioned servants of the sanctuary.
I shall show, therefore, by direct proof, that this novel commentary
on the language of the prophet is totally unwarranted. The true
state of the matter is this. The Israelites were expressly directed, by
the divine law, to buy slaves of the heathen, and to hold them as an
inheritance for themselves and their posterity forever. Hence, as we
have seen, those slaves were not set free at the Jubilee, the benefits
of which were wholly confined to the children of Israel, who had a
family and a possession in the land to which they might return. But
with respect to the servitude of their own brethren, they were as ex
pressly forbidden to hold them in bondage longer than six years ;
and at the expiration of that time they were commanded to set them

PERVERSION OF THE PEOPHETS. 217
free, either at the seventh year, which was the year of release, or, if
that season intervened, at the year of Jubilee. It often happened,
however, that the Jews violated this law, and continued the yoke of
bondage over their own brethren, and grievously oppressed them,
long after the period when they were entitled to their freedom. This
was the abuse against which the prophets uttered their strong de
nunciations, by the direction of the Lord The case of the heathen
races, whom they were authorized by the Almighty to retain in per
petual slavery, was not contemplated in any way. And hence ¦v.'e
may see the glaring-inconsistency of this modern misapplication, be
cause it makes the Deity contradict himself, and sets one part of his
Word in direct opposition to the other.
In order to place this matter, therefore, in its proper light, we have
only to look at the case as it stands fully exemplified in the book of
the prophet Jeremiah 34 : 8-17. The passage is long, but I shall
present it in its own integrity :
" This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Loi-d, after
that the King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people
which were in Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them, that every
man should let his man-servant, and every man his maid-servant,
being an Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free, that none should save
himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. Now when all the
princes and all the people which had entered into the covenant heard
that every one should let his man-servant, and every one his maid
servant go free, that none should save themselves of them any more,
then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned,
and caused the servants and the handmaids whom they had let go
free, to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and for
handmaids. Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah from
the Lord, saying : Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel : I made a
covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying : At the
end of seven years, let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew which
hath been sold unto thee, and when he hath served thee six years,
thou 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*xhe house that
is called by my name. But ye turned and polluted my name, and
10

218 PERVERSION OP THE PEOPHETS.
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.
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 I will make you to
be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth," etc.
Here we have u. plain statement of the oppression for which the
Jews -were so often rebuked by the prophets. It was oppression
practiced upon their own brethren the Hebrews, against the express
law of the Almighty, and had no relation whatever to the slaves of
the heathen races, whom they were directly authorized to hold in
bondage, as an inheritance for themselves and their children, in per
petuity. Thus we find that there is no inconsistency in the Bible.
It is only those modern interpreters, choosing, in the very face of
the sacred record, to set the Old Testament at variance with itself
on this subject, who are unhappily employed, however unconsciously,
in bringing confusion into the Word of God, and forging weapons for
the use of infidelity.
So plain is this matter, that it is hardly necessary to state the
opinions of commentators. Yet, to remove all possibUity of doubt, I
shall set down a few.
Thus, in D'Oyly and Mant, we read, (Jer. 34 : 8,) "By the law of
Moses, (Exod. 21 : 2, Deut. 15 : 12,) the Israelites were not allowed
to detain their brethren in perpetual bondage, but were required to
let them go free after having served six years. This law, it seems,
had faUen into disuse ; but King Zedekiah, upon the approach of the
Chaldean array, whether from religious motives, or a political view to
employ the men who were set free in the service of the war, engaged
the people to act conformably to the law, and they released their
brethren accordingly. But no sooner were their fears abated by the
retreat of the Chaldeans, than, in defiance of every principle of reh
gion, honor, and humanity, they imposed the yoke of servitude anew
upon those unhappy persons."
So in Scott's commentary on the same passage : " The law of
liberating Hebrew slaves, at the end of seven years, was an express
condition of the national covenant The seventh year was the year
of release, (Deut. 15 : 9,) consequently servants were to continue in

COMMENTATORS. 219
service but six years, and at the beginning of the seventh, were to be
let go free.''
So Clarke's commentary, on the eleventh verse : " They had agreed
to manumit them at the end of the seventh year, but when the
seventh year was ended, they recalled their engagement, and detained
their servants." And on the seventeenth verse, I proclaim a liberty
for you, etc., the paraphrase of Clarke is this, "You promised to
give liberty to your enslaved brethren : I was pleased and bound the
sword in its sheath. You broke your promise, and brought them
again into bondage. I gave liberty to the sword," etc.
So in the Comprehensive Commentary, "When Jerusalem was
closely besieged by the Chaldean army, the princes and people agreed
on a reformation in one thing, and that concerning, their servants.
The law of God was very express — that those of their own nation
should not be held in servitude above seven years, whether they had
sold themselves into servitude for the payment of their debts, or
wore sold by the judges for the punishment of their crimes. Whereas
those of other nations, tahen in war or bought with money, -might be
held in perpetual slavery, they and theirs," etc.
So Henry, in his commentary, and in his remarks on Is. 58 : 6,
saith, the Jews " were as covetous and unmerciful as ever. ' Ye
exact all your labors from your servants, and will neither release
them according to the law, nor relax the rigor of their servitude.'
This was their fault before the captirity. (Jer. 34 : 8-9.) It was
no less their fault after their captivity." (Neh. 5 : 2.)
So far, then, was this passage about breaking every yoke a repeal
of the divine law, that the sin of the Israelites consisted in their dis
obedience to that law precisely as it stood ; "and for that disobedience
the Almighty, by the mouth of His prophets,, strongly rebukes them.
Even the commentators who have written since the abolition excite
ment in England, and who show, here and there, its powerful influ
ence, do not intimate the shghtest wish to wrest the true meaning of
those texts. That seems to have been the task of a still later period,
and is one of the newest inventions in Biblical interpretation which
threaten the welfare of the Church and of the country. For I can
imagine no transgression more odious in the sight of God, and more
sure to forfeit His blessing, than the willful determination to distort
His revealed Word, and make it speak, not as it truly is, but as

220 ¦ CONCLUSION.
men, in their insane pride of superior phUanthropy, fancy that it
ought to be,
I have now, my Right Reverend Brother, gone over the list which
I promised, and more; showing the general sense of the Church
from the time of the Apostles to our own, with the exception of the
Church of Rome, which some persons claim as being, at this day, en
listed on the side of ultra-abolitionism. That this is a total mistake,
I shall prove in the next chapter.

THE CHUECH OF SOME, 221

CHAPTER XXVH.
Right Reverend Brother : The Church of Rome, as you are per
fectly aware, ruled almost the whole continent of Europe, from the
seventh to the sixteenth century, and, since the Reformation, still re
tains nearly one half of the Christian world. In very many import
ant questions of faith, of government, and of worship, I need hardly
say that we differ from the Papal communion, and claim a far more
complete accordance with the primitive Church of the first four cen
turies. But in matters of Christian morality, there is happily no se
rious difference of opinion sanctioned amongst the professed disciples
of the blessed Redeemer. And in the lawfulness of slavery, as now
established in the Southern States, the doctrine of the Roman Cath-
oUc is precisely the same with that of Protestants, as I shall proceed
to prove, by the best testimony.
The work of the late Right Reverend John England, flrst Bishop
of Charleston, entitled "Letters to the Hon. John Forsyth, on the
subject of Domestic Slavery," shall be ray text-book, because I con
sider it of unquestionable authority. The writer was one of the
most learned and accomplished prelates of his Church, and no one
can fairly doubt his competency. His personal sympathies, like my
own, were not partial to the institution, while his high official posi
tion, and his acknowledged eminence in literary character, give assur
ance that his statements are worthy of implicit confidence. My quo
tations are from the third volume of his works, published in Balti
more, A.D. 1849.
The ultra-abolitionists who say that slaveholding is a deadly sin,
under any circumstances, are accustomed to rely on the Apostolic
letter of Pope Gregory XVL dated December 3d, 1839. In that let
ter the Pontiff refers to the action of his predecessors, namely, of Pope
Paul III, May 29, 1537, of Pope Urban, VIII, April 22, 1639, of Pope
Benedict XIV, Dec. 20, 1741, and also of Pope Pius VII, aU directed
against the slave-trade, which our laws pronounce to be Piracy,

222 BISHOP ENGLAND. '
Speakingjjf the last of these Apostolic letters, Bishop England saith
that "it is not at all applicable to what is known amongst us, as do
mestic slavery. Our holy father, Pope Gregory XVI, is not the as
sociate of the abolitionists." (Letter 1, p. 116.)
"At the late Council in Baltimore," continues our author, "that
document was formally read and accepted by the prelates of the
United States. If it condemned our domestic slavery as an unlawful
and consequently immoral practice, the bishops could not have ac
cepted it, without being bound to refuse the sacraments to all who
were slaveholders, unless they manumitted their slaves ; yet if you
look to the prelates who accepted the document unanimously, you
will find that the majority of the Council were those who were in
charge of the slaveholding portion of the Union. Amongst the most
pious and religious of their flocks, are large slaveholders. The pre
lates under whose charge they are, have never, since the day on which
they accepted this letter, indicated to them the necessity of adopting
any new rule of conduct respecting their slaves. Nor did the other
six prelates, under whose charge neither slaves nor slaveholders are
found, express to their brethren any new views upon the subject, be
cause they all regarded the letter as treating of the slave-trade, and
not as touching domestic slavery." (Let 2, p. 116.)
This seems to me altogether conclusive upon the construction pro
perly belonging to the apostolic letter of Pope Gregory XVI. For
while there are expressions in that document which an ordinary reader
might readily construe as relating to the Southern institution, especi
ally if his own mind was inclined toward the doctrine of ultra-aboli
tionism, yet it must be admitted that the Bishops of the Church of
Rome are the only rightful judges of their own laws ; and the Coun
cil of Baltimore, consisting of all the prelates in the Union, and
unanimously agreeing as to the true meaning of the Pontiff, with
whom they held personal intercourse every three years in their offi
cial visits to Rome, could not be mistaken in a matter which con
cerned their pastoral duty.
But our author proceeds to state the principles of his Church at
large, and I shall set before you several other extracts from his trea
tise, which are worthy of attention.
" The abolitionists assert," saith he, " generally, that slavery is con
trary to the natural law. Our theological authors lay down the prin
ciple that man, in his natural state, is master of his own liberty, and

BISHOP ENGLAND. 223
may dispose of it if he thinks flt, as in the case of a Hebrew, (Exod.
21 : 5,) who preferred remaining with his wife and children, as a slave,
to going into that freedom to which he had a right ; and as in the case
of the Hebrew, (Lev. 25 : 47,) who, by reason of his poverty, would
sell himself to a stranger." (Letter 2, p. 117-18.)
" The existence of slavery is considered by our theologians to he as
little incompatible with the natural law, as the existence of property.
The sole question will be, in each case, whether the title, on which
the dominion is claimed, is valid." (Letter 2, p. 118.)
Speaking of his personal experience. Bishop England saith as fol
lows, viz. :
" I know many slaves who would not accept their freedom. I know
some who have refused it And although our domestic slavery raust
upon the whole be regarded as involuntary, still the exceptions are
not so few as are imagined by strangers." (lb. p. 1*18.)
And again, " It may be asked," saith our author, '' why any one
should prefer slavery to freedom. I know many instances where the
advantages to the individual are very great. Yet I am not in love
with the existence of slavery, I would never aid in establishing it
where it did not exist. But the situation of a slave, under a humane
master, insures to him food, raiment, and dwelling, together with a
variety of little comforts. It relieves him from the apprehensions of
neglect in sickness, from all solicitude for tbe support of his family,
and in return, all that is required is fldelity and moderate labor. I
do not deny that slavery has its evils, but the above are no despicable
benefits. Hence I have known many freedmen who regretted their
manumission." (lb. p. 118.)
This is strong testimony from one who was an Irishman by birth,
who was educated amongst a people to whom African slavery «-as
unknown, and yet, after he had spent years in the midst of the South
ern institution, and was well acquainted with its practical results,
notwithstanding he still retained his original antipathy to it, he gives
this candid judgment on its comparative advantages.
Bishop England thus sums up the position of his Church in another
passage, which is well worth transcribing, viz. :
" Slavery, then, is regarded by that Church, of which the Pope is
the presiding officer, not to be incompatible with the natural law, to
be the result of sin by divine dispensation, to have been established
by human legislation, and when the dominion of the slave is justly

224 BISHOP ENGLAND.
acquired by tho master, to be lawful, not only in the sight of the hu
man tribunal, but also in the eye of Heaven. But not so the slave-
trade, or the reducing into slavery the African and Indian in the man
ner that Portugal and Spain sanctioned, which they continue still to
perpetuate, and which the Apostolic letters have justly censured as
unlawful." (Letter 2, p. 119.)
With respect to the Old Testament, we have the following clear
and well-condensed view : ' ^
" The divine legislation of the Hebrews," saith our author, " is
quite decisive."
1. " A man disposes of his own liberty." (Exod. 21 : 5, Levit.
25 : 89, Deut 15 : 15.)
2. "A person is born in servitude." (Exod. 21 ; 4, Levit
25 : 45, 46.)
3. " Children sold by their parents." (Exod 16:7, Isaiah 50 : 1.)
4. " Thieves, unable to make restitution." (Exod. 22 : 3.)
5. " Creditors taking the debtor and his children to pay the debt.
(4 Sam. or 2 Kings ch. 4.)" (To this our Saviour refers in His para
ble, Matt 18 : 25.)
6. " Purchase recognized throughout as a good title to the service
of one already enslaved."
7. "Slaves made in war." (Deut 20 : 14.)
" Thus, all the divines of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledge
that they flnd, in the divine legislation for the Hebrew people, the
recognition of slavery, and the enactment of provisions for its regu
lation." (Letter 2, 122.)
"The divine legislator of Christianity," saith Bishop England,
" made no special law, either to repeal or to modify the former and
still subsisting right, but He enforced principles which produced an
extensive amelioration. Neither did the apostles consider the Christ
ian master obliged to liberate his Christian servant. St Paul, in his
epistle to Philemon, acknowledges the right of the master to the ser
vices of his slave. Thus a runaway slave still belonged to his mas
ter, and though having become a Christian, so far from being thereby
liberated from service, he was bound to return thereto, and submit
himself to his owner. In the same manner that St Paul sent One
simus, did the angel send Hagar." (Gen. 16 : 6-9.) (Letter 8, p.
124-5.) Again, saith our author, " The legislator of Christianity, whUe he

BISHOP ENGLAND. 225
admitted the legality of slavery, rendered the master merciful, and
the slave faithful, obedient, and religious." (lb. p. 127.) "The
Church which He commissioned to teach all nations to the end of the
world, has at all times considered, the existence of slaves as compati
ble with religious profession and practice." (lb. p. 128.)
" The principle which St Augustine laid down was that observed,
viz. : The State was to enact the laws regulating slavery ; the Church
was to plead for morality, and exhort to practice mercy." (lb. p. 130.)
" The right of the master, the duty of the slave, the lawfulness of
continuing the relation, and the benevolence of religion in mitigating
the sufferings of those held in bondage, and releasing them by lawful
means permitted by the State, are the results exhibited by our view
of the laws and facts, during the first four centuries of Christianity.''
(lb.) These extracts from the work of this eminent representative of the
Roman Catholic Church, are abundantly sufficient to establish her
doctrine on the subject. It differs in no respect from the doctrine of
our own, as I have proved most copiously by all the Commentators
and divines, already quoted, up to the period when we find so strong
a disposition to depart from the old paths, in this age of innovation.
And it wUl not be pretended that the Church, in any other region of
the world, has yet authorized the change.
For no man doubts that the Churches of the East still retain and
practice slavery. The Greek Church, the Armenians, the Copts, the
Nestorians, have promulgated no new rules upon the subject. And
the Church of Russia, with her sixty millions, has never yet varied
from her views of the moral and religious aspect of the question.
The late emancipation of twenty miUions of serfs was purely the act
of the State, under the absolute authority of the Czar or Emperor,
Alexander. And we have no reason to suppose that the Church had
any thing to do with it, beyond the expression of a cheerful acqui
escence in the imperial wUl.
10*

226 MAEEIAGE OF SLAVES.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Right Reverend Brother : The learned and very thorough work
of Bishop England did not come under my notice, until I had col
lected my own list of authorities from the Fathers and the Councils.
But I am indebted to it for two very interesting facts on the import
ant subject of the marriage of slaves, which escaped my attention;
and I gladly avail myself of his labors to record them here.
"One of the subjects," saith our author, "which at all times
caused slavery to be surrounded with great difficulties, was the re
sult of marriage. The interest of the owner frequently interfered
with the affection of the husband and wife, and also was irreconcil
able with the relation of parent and child. The liability to separation
of those married was a more galling affliction in the Christian law,
where the Saviour made marriage Indissoluble ; and it often happened
that an avaricious or capricious owner cared as little for the marriage
bond, as he did for the natural tie of affection. Hence as Christian
ity became the religion of the state, or of the great body of the
people, it was imperatively demanded, by the very nature of the
case, that some restraint should be placed upon that absolute power
which the owners had, and sometimes abused, of wantonly making
these separations."
" This was a strong temptation to both master and slave, to prefer
concubinage to marriage. This is one of the worst moral evils at
tending slavery, where no restraint of law effects its removal." (Let,
12, p. 160.)
Bishop England proceeds to state that a remedy was provided, to
a considerable extent, in the case of serfs, or colonists, (aoloni, or
rustici, as they were then styled, i.e., slaves who had an allotment
of land to work for the benefit of the master,) an edict being set
forth by the Emperor Justinian, in a.d. 539, (Novel, clxii. c. 3,) of
which our author gives the following translation, viz. :

MAEEIAGE OF SLAVES. 227
" The Emperor Justinian Augustus to Lazarus, the Count of the
East.
" Preamble. We have learned by relation in various ways, that a
delinquency quite upworthy of our times is allowed in the provinces
of Mesopotamia and of Osdroene. They have a custom of having
marriage contracted between those born on difi'erent estates ; whence
the masters endeavor to dissolve marriages actually contracted ; or
to take away from the parents the children who are their issue ;
upon which account that entire place is miserably afflicted, whilst
country people, husbands and wives, are drawn away from each
other, and the Children whom they brought into light are taken
away frora them ; and that there needs for the regulation only our
provision." " Wherefore we enact, that otherwise the masters of the aforesaid
keep their colonists (serfs) as they will ; but it shall not be allowed
by virtue of any custom heretofore introduced and in existence, to
put away from each other those who are married, or to force them
to cultivate the land belonging to themselves," (that is, to force the
serfs to labor on the other parts of their master's estate, outside of
their allotted portion,) " or to take away children from their parents,
under the color of colonial condition, (serfdom.) And you will be
careful that if any thing of this sort has haply been already done,
the same be corrected and restitution made, whether it be that child
ren were taken away from their parents, or women from their
consorts of marriage. And for any who shall in future act in
this way, it shall be at the hazard of losing the estate itself"
" Wherefore, let marriages of servants be exempt from that fear
which has hitherto hung over them, and from the issue of this order,
let the parents have their children. It shall not be competent foi
the lords of the estates to strive by any subtle arguments either to
take away those who contract marriage, or their chUdren." (Letter
12, p. 161.)
The same evU, however, prevailed in the ninth century, and our
author quotes the 30th canon of the Council of Chalons, on the Saone,
in Prance, a.d. 813, which was " confirmed by Charlemagne, and
made a portion of the law of the empire," in order to correct it The
translation of Bishop England is as follows, viz. :
" It has been stated to us that some persons, by a sort of magis-

228 MAEEIAGE OP SLAVES.
terial presumption, dissolve the marriages of slaves ; not regarding
that evangelical .maxim. What God hath joined together let man not
separate. Whence it appears to us, that the wedlock of slaves may
not be dissolved, even though they have different masters ; but let
them serve their masters remaining in one wedlock. And this is to
be observed with regard to those where there has been a lawful union,
and with the will of the owners." (Let. 15, p. 177.)
These enactments were wise and salutary, and clearly prove that
the ancients were sensible of the great difficulty to which slavery
has been lucre or less subject, and which legislation can never correct
until the masters themselves become earnestly intej-ested in the mat
ter. For neither of these laws took away the practice of concubinage.
Instead of this, they seem rather to have promoted it, as the easiest
mode of avoiding the restraints which followed a lawful marriage.
Yet it would seem that much might be done, by judicious legislation,
to strengthen and increase a sound public sentiment on this im
portant matter. And it is to be hoped that the clergy will not cpase,
wherever slavery exists, to use their best efforts in favor of a wise
and thorough reformation, which shall do away effectually the most
serious reproach now brought against the institution.

POLYGAMY. 229

CHAPTER XXIX.
Right Reverend Brother : I have now, I trust, redeemed my
pledge to establish the position taken in my Bible View of Slavery
against the modern doctrine of ultra-abolitionism, namely, that the
slavery of the negro race in the Southern States was lawful, not
only by the Constitution of our country, but by the word of God
and the voice of the Holy Catholic Church from the beginning. Of
course it resulted that in the relation of master and slave there was
no sin, because sin is the transgression qf the law ; and I may safely
defy my learned and zealous antagonist to point out any law of God
or of the Church which forbids or condemns the institution.
.But before I proceed to the general summing up of my authorities,
there are some popular arguments which ought to be discussed for
the better satisfaction of my readers. First, Polygamy ; second,
Man-stealing ; and third, the golden rule of doing to others what we
would they should do unto us, from which my opponents suppose
that I ought to become a slave if I vindicate the lawfulness of slavery.
I have touched on some of them already in my published letter, but
I shall consider them again rather raore at large.
Beginning with polygamy, my adversaries are very fond of con
founding it with slavery, because it was permitted among the Jews.
But the difference between the two is manifest to any candid and
fair mind in these respects, viz. :
First, that slavery was the subject of dirine prophecy and legisla
tion, while no one pretends that the Almighty ever declared it to be
His will that a man should have more wives than one. Our Saviour,
speaking of the general laxity on the subject of the marriage relation,
(Matt. 19 : 8,) expressly saith that " Moses" (not by the positive com
mand of the Deity, but in his human discretion) " suffered it because of
the ha/rdness of their hea/rts" " but from the beginning it was not so!'
And this forever settled the question. Therefore the Apostles every
where maintain the rule, as St. Paul distinctly states it in the quali-

230 POLYGAMY.
fications of a bishop, that he shall be tlie hus7/a>nd of one wife,
(1 Tim. 3 : 2.) And this restriction is the more emphatic when it is
remembered that polygamy was allowed, without reprehension,
among the Jews.
Secondly, the voice of the Church of Christ, from the beginning,
proclaimed the same distinction, defending and sustaining slavery,
while polygamy was positively forbidden. This is distinctly proved
by the following testimonies, viz. :
" If any one," say the Apostolic Canons, " after receiving holy
Baptism, is connected with two wives, or has a concubine, he can not
be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in any way of the num
ber of the priesthood." (74) /
And the first General Council of Nicea, which consisted of three
hundred and eighteen bishops from every part of the Christian worldy
assembled a.d. 325, pronounces the rule to be of universal obligation.
" No one," saith this Council, " ought to have two -vrives at the
same time, nor bring in another woman to his wife, for the indulgence
of carnal pleasure or appetite, thrusting himself into sin, by a com
merce with many, for the indulgence of lust instead of the increase
of progeny, according to the order of God. And whoever shall act
thus, if he be a priest, he shall be prohibited from the ministry of
sacrifice and the comraunion of the faithful until he sends away the
second woman from his house, retaining the first one. The same
judgment is declared concerning the laity!' (75)
So stringent was the law on this subject that St Augustine con
siders it binding under every circumstarvje. For thus he writes,
viz. :
" A man may desire to dismiss a wife who is barren, and take
another by whora he may have offspring ; yet nevertheless it is not
lawful, nor can he, in our tiraes and by the Roman custom, Jia/ve
more than one wife living!' (76)
Thus, likewise, declares St Basil, the great authority .amongst the
Oriental churches, viz. :
" The Canon condemns bigamy, trigamy, and polygamy, a certain
proportion being observed, viz., one year's penance for bigamy, but
others say two years. Trigamy is punished by three years, and
often by four, of excommunication." (74.) " The fathers have said
little of polygamy, as being a beastly thing, altogether foreign to
humanity!' (75)

POLYGAMY. 231
Such is the law of the Christian Church. The attempt made to
get rid of the authority which the Old Testament gives to slavery,
on account of the practice of polygamy amongst the Jews, is not con
sistent with sound reason. In the case of slavery they had the
divine law to sanction it In the case of polygamy there was no
law, and St Paul plainly saith : " Where no law is, there is no trans
gression." (Rom. 4 : 15.) When my antagonists shall prove that
it is the same thing whether men act with law or without it, they
may make something of this argument, but not before.
With respect to the Church of Christ, however, the application of
such .sophistry is still more absurd and inexcusable, for we have seen
that on the subject of slavery the Apostles, the fathers, the comment
ators, and the divines, sustain the lawfulness of the institution,
although they nowhere approve of polygamy. Nay, more than this,
for while they justify the one as the ordinance of divine Providence,
they decree their positive prohibition and condemnation of the other.
It shotild be constantly borne in mind that the office which Moses
sustained towards Israel, as their divinely appointed lawgiver, -was
committed to the inspired Apostles by the express authority of tho
Redeemer. " I appoint unto you a kingdom," saith He, " as my
Father hath appointed unto me.'' (Luke 22 : 29.) "Go ye there
fore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of .the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matt 28 : 19, 20.)
St Paul asserts this same authority most clearly where he saith :
" K any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the Command
ments of the Lord!" (1 Cor. 14 : 37.) Hence he delivers his pre
cepts, throughout, as the inspired organ of the divine Lawgiver, and
where he speaks merely of his own mind he states the distinction,
as where he saith : " Now concerning virgins I have no command
ment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment as one that hath obtained
mercy of the Lord to be faithful." (1 Cor. 7 : 25.) But whenever
he lays down his precepts without this distinction he exacts entire
submission, under the penalty of exclusion from all ecclesiastical fel
lowship. For thus he writes to the Thessalonians : " If any man
obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no com
pany with him, that he may be ashamed." (2 Thes. 3 : 14.)

232 POLYGAMY.
When, therefore, we find St Paul, as the divinely appointed legis
lator, clearly commanding that the bishop shall be " the husband of
one wife " — (1 Tim. 3 : 2) — when we see that, throughout all his
epistles, he speaks of the wife in the singular number, never allud
ing to the possibility of Christians having more, and that this is in
strict agreement with the principle laid down by Christ himself when
He opposed the Jewish practice of divorces, and said that Moses had
only allowed it " on account of the hardness of their hearts,'' (Matt
19 : 8-9,) we can not doubt that polygamy was regarded as inconsis
tent with the law of holiness, which was designed for the more
spiritual dispensation of the Gospel. There is, however, an objection
made by some, viz. that the restriction placed upon the bishop im
plies a greater license to the people. And the argument can only be
sustained by supposing that the laws of Christian morality were to
be one thing for the priesthood and another for the laity. But this
is contrary both to reason and to Scripture. To reason, because the
priest and the layman are equally candidates for heaven, into which
nothing unholy or impure can be allowed to enter. And to Scrip
ture, because St. Peter addresses the laity in these words, viz. :
" Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter
11 : 5.) And again : " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest
hood, an holy nation, a, peculiar people." — "Dearly beloved, I be
seech you, as strangers and pilgrims, abstain irora fleshly lusts which
war against the soul." (lb. ver. 9-11.) And again St Paul saith :
" Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man
shall see the Lord." (Heb. 12 : 14.)
Since it must thus be manifest that holiness is as ranch enjoined
on the people as on the priesthood, since the laity are even specially
exhorted to flee from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, and
since the whole Church is called a "holy priesthood," a' "royal
priesthood," a " holy nation," it seems plain that the restriction laid
down to the bishop that he should be the husband of one wife, was
the law intended for all. There is but one straight and narrow path
to the kingdom of heaven. The clergy are the leaders in that path,
but the people must .follow or they can not lead. There is but one
saving faith and one code of pure morality. The clergy are bound to
teach the world, but the same truths which they are appointed to
preach, both they and the people are alike bound to adopt, as the only
rule of hfe and conversation.

:^OLYGAMY, 233
Most justly, therefore, did the Church so expound the law laid
down by the great Apostle of the Gentiles, when the great Council
of Nicea applied the restriction of one wife to all Christians, without
exception. The Holy Catholic Church, in which the Apostles' Creed
requires us to believe, that is, the Church Universal, embraced this
rule throughout the whole extent of Christendom, and has always
maintained it to this day. And such being the unanimous voice of
the Church of Christ, proving her assent to slavery and her condem
nation of polygamy, I can not sufficiently wonder at the perversity
which affects to place them on the sameJbundation,

234 MAN-STEALING.

CHAPTER XXX.
Right Reverend Brother : I proceed, next, to the charge of
man-stealing, which the ultra-abolitionist is so fond of bringing
against the Southern institution. And I know of nothing, in the
whole range of religious or legal controversy, which is more unjust
and indefensible.
The argument stands thus, in the pages of one of the pamphlets
which have honored me with their condemnation :
" In the year 1562, Sir John Hawkins set fire to a city in Africa and
carried off two hundred and fifty slaves. And the king of Dahomy
captured, quite lately, a town in which he slew one third of the
population and took the remainder into captivity." This is assumed
to be the mode in which aU the slaves at the South were originally
reduced to bondage ; and as their masters can have no better title
than those who sold them, therefore they are all involved in the sin
of man-stealing I
Now, really, this sort of absurdity strikes me as a most extraordi
nary example of sophistical perverseness. If these facts were
brought forward against the slave-trade, they might be deemed appro
priate. But there we have no controversy. The slave-trade has
been abandoned long ago, and pronounced piracy by the laws of the
land. The Southern States maintain the same position that we
occupy with respect to it But what has that to do with their
domestic slavery ? Have they attacked the African towns, and
slaughtered the inhabitants, and taken away the captives ? At the
time when this sort of work was held to be legitimate, it was done by
Old England ; and New-England carried on the trade, while the
South had no share in it, although they received the Africans by fair
purchase from the persons who imported them, without any direct
participation in the mode by which they were obtained. But you
may say that " the receiver is as bad as the thief" I grant it, if the
receiver knows that the property was stolen. Two facts, however,

MAN-STEALING. 235
must be proved in order to establish this offense. Fpr in the flrst
plaee it must be shown that the property was stolen. And in the
second place, it must be testified that the purchaser was aware of the
felony, neither of which can possibly be established at this day with
respect to the original stock of Africans from whom the Southern
negroes have descended.
No one can be farther than I am from justifying the barbarity of
the African slave-trade. But to deal fairly with that, as I suppose
we should deal fairly with the worst kinds of criminality, it should
be remembered that it involved two elements, of which one was the
mode in which the slave-traders obtained the slaves, and thei other
was the horrid treatment to which they were subjected in what was
called the middle passage, or the voyage from Africa to the destined
port of delivery.
With respect to the first of these alone, our present topic is con
cerned. We are told, by Malte Brun, that in Africa two thirds of
the population are slaves, which, as the whole is estimated at ninety
miUions, would give sixty millions for the present number of the
native slaves, independent of any new war between the rulers of that
heathen continent.
Suppose then, that the slave-traders, applying to the king of Daho
mey, were supplied with their sad cargo of human beings from the
multitude who were slaves already, could they, by any propriety of
speech, be called men-stealers ? By all that I have read upon the
subject, I presume that those traders found the slaves in the absolute
power of their heathen master, and purchased them for whatever
price he was willing to take, without having any thing to do with the
mode by which he came into possession. And if they had inquired
into that mode, the barbarian despot would raost probably have
replied that it was none of their business. The slaves were his, and
they might buy them or let them alone, just as they pleased. I do '
not see, under such circumstances, how we could convict the traders
themselves as having stolen the slaves ; much less, as having burned
the towns and carried off the captives, in the style of Sir John Haw
kins, or any other man.
Suppose, again, that these degraded and wretched beings were
brought to Boston, to Bristol, or to Salem, in the days -n'hen such
traffic was permitted, and sold again to the planters of the South,
how were they to know that they were certainly stolen ? If the tra-

236 MAN-STEALING.
ders themselves had no information of that fact, how could they com
municate it to the second purchaser ? And by what process of
reasoning can it be shown that these Southern purchasers had any
thing to do with man-stealing f i
But, perfectiy plain as the matter appears to my mind, by this
simple course of common-sense and justice, I shall go further, and
maintain, that even if the first slaves imported had been stolen, and
the traders knew it and communicated the knowledge to the purchas
ers, it would be" neither lawful nor reasonable to charge the sin of
such an act upon their heirs and descendants, who have come into
possession regularly and legally, without the slightest complicity in
the original wrong.
For look at the title by which you, with every other man in the
community, must hold the lands and houses in your possession. What
is its origin ? The country once belonged to the Indian tribes, and
the claim set up to it by England was based upon the right of discov
ery. What sort of right is that ? Does my discovery of property
which belongs to another man raake it mine ? It would be mere ab^
surdity to pretend it. If I can not find the true owner, I may be
authorized to keep it ; but as soon as he appears I am bound to sur
render it, or I become a transgressor. Manifestly, therefore, there is
no law of natural justice that authorized Queen Elizabeth or her royal
successors to confer the lands of the Indians on their subjects, in the
charters granted by the crown to the Virginia colonists, or to the
Pilgrim fathers, as it is the fashion to call them, or to Lord Baltimore,
or to William Penn. All this was taken for granted by the European
maxims of those days, which assumed the right of claiming any land
inhabited by savage heathen tribes, and calling it their own ; precisely
in the same way that they assumed the right of taking the natives
themselves, and reducing them to bondage.
Now the ultra-abolitionist holds his property by the same title pre
cisely, that the Southern planter claims in his slaves. The way in
which the real Indian owners of the soU were divested of it is stamped
on the page of history. It was done by force or fraud. Battle after
battle had to be waged against them. And when the poor wretches
were compelled to submit to the superior knowledge and arms of the
invaders, the treaties of peace by which they consented to give up
their lands were in most cases, if not in all, the results of a dire ne
cessity.

MAN-STEALING. 237
When our ultra-abolitionist talks about the negro, he tells us that
all men are brothers, and is pathetically eloquent upon the Christian
rule of doing to others as we would that they should unto us. But
when his subject is the Indian, he has no idea that the rule is applic
able. Then it was all right that the strong hand should take posses
sion of their property, drive them away from their homes and the
burial-places of their fathers, and gradually exterminate the savage
race, if they stood in the way of advancing civilization.
The effects of these operations, however, on the Indian and the
negro, have been widely different ; though justice and humanity can
say very little in favor of their commencements. The Indians have
been left to their barbarism, without any attempt on the part of gov
ernment to convert or civUize them. The Africans, on the contrary,
have been elevated from the most degraded state, far more degraded
than that of the Indians, and changed from heathen savages into
Christian men. The Indians have been diminished in number until
they have become a mere reriinant, and the whole will probably disap
pear in a few generations more; while the Africans have multiphed in
eighty years from seven hundred thousand to four millions. The In
dians are wronged, dissatisfied, unhappy, and hostile. The Africans
are contented, affectionate, and attached to their masters. The pros
pect open to the Indian is- dark and gloomy, with nothing to cheer
or console him. The prospect of the African is bright and hopeful,
for a portion of his race have been enabled to plant Liberia) and he
can turn his eyes to the sunny land of his forefathers with a reason
able expectation that he or his children may rise, in time, to a fair
condition amongst the citizens of a civUized comraunity. So marked,
indeed, is the contrast between the practical working of the event in
the cases of these two savage races, that no reflecting mind can con
template them without surprise. Can any Christian believer in the
providence of God fail to see that a blessing to the African has fol
lowed in the train of Southern slavery, while a blight has rested on
the system adopted for the Indian ? Is it possible to doubt that if
the Indians could have been successfully subjected to the white man,
it would have been infinitely better for them at the present day ?
But it is unnecessary to pursue this train of reflection any farther.
My object in adverting to it is only to show that the original violence,
fraud, and injustice by which the Indians were dispossessed, have
nothing to do with the title of those who now claim what was once

238 MAN-STEALING."
their property. It would be an absurdity for any man to ask that
our citizens should surrender their farms and their city lots to some
Indian tribe, because the land was originally torn from the lawful
owners. The past can not be recalled, nor do the evil acts of other
daj's admit of any remedy. It is enough that each man has now a
valid title, transmitted from the flrst settlers, or under a-patent from
the established government in each State. What would you think
of an attempt to invalidate this, on the ground that the tract in ques
tion was originally the seat of an Indian village, that the white men
attacked it, burned the hut.s, killed many of the savages, drove off
the rest, and seized the land as their own ; and that property thus
acquired by robbery and murder could not be lawfully held by those
who derived it frora such a bloody and cruel invasion of natural right
and justice? Have you any doubt that the lawyer who should try
to nullify a regular conveyance, by a plea like this, would be laughed
at for his folly ? Yet such is precisely the course of the abolitionist,
who persuades himself that because the Africans were originally
seized by violence, and enslaved by the strong hand, therefore the
present owners of the Southern slaves have no valid title; although
they hold it by transmission or regular purchase under the same
established law of their country.
On this point, therefore, though it be such a favorite with most of
my antagonists, their agument is simply ridiculous. The title now held
to the greater part of the landed property in these United States rests
on the same foundation with that of the Southern slaveholder. Penn
sylvania, indeed, under the pacific policy of William Penn, may have
been an exception, so far as force was concerned. Whether it was an
exception with respect to the skill manifested in cheating the simplicity
of the Indian, would be a different question. We read, for example,
of a bargain in which an Indian agreed with a worthy Quaker to
take a handful of glass beads for as much land as an ox-hide would
cover. But the wily Friend cut the hide into strips as narrow as
ten to the inch, and laying these end to end upon the ground, sur
rounded a comfortable lot of almost four acres. The poor Indian
attempted to remonstrate against a construction of the contract so
very different from the natural meaning of the terms employed. But
it was in vain. Yet no jury of honest men would hesitate to condemn
such a trick, as a fraudulent imposition.
I do not vouch for the truth of this small specimen. Nor is it of

MAN-STEALING. 239
any importance. For no reasonable man has any doubt that the
superior sagacity and power of the Anglo-Saxon race were fully exer
cised in every practicable way, to despoil the poor savages of their
rights in the soil, throughout the whole extent of our vast territory.
And this is enough to prove that even if the first Southern purchasers
of the Africans could be charged with the sin of man-stealing, they
would be in no worse condition than the first settlers, who robbed
the Indians of their land and exterminated the owners without pity
or compunction. I have shown, however, that there is no testimony
which can bring home this accusation against the Southern pur
chasers of the imported negroes ; while the whole strain of history
establishes the charge with respect to the Indians. And, therefore,
notwithstanding the zeal of the ultra-abolitionist in urging this popu
lar argument, it must be perfectly manifest that the title of the pre
sent generation to their property in t'ne slaves is even less liable to
impeachment on this score, than the title to the soil itself, on a fair
comparison.

240 THE GOLDEN EULE.

CHAPTER XXXI.
Right Reverend Brother : The next ground of accusation, and one
which the eloquent declaimers against Southern slavery find most
convincing with the multitude, is derived from their management of
the " Golden Rule," as it is often called, laid down by our Saviour,
namely, " Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets." (Matt 7 : 12.)
I have touched briefly on this topic in my Bible View of Slave-ry,
but it deserves a more extended examination. Before I enter upon
it, however, I must call your attention to the important fact that it
was no new rule of Christian practice. Our dirine Redeemer ex
pressly saith, " This is the law and the prophets," plainly referring to
the existing system of the Mosaic economy, in which the slavery of
the heathen races was sanctioned by the Word of God. And this of
itself should be enough to satisfy any candid mind that the " Golden
Rule," properly understood, could not have been intended to interfere
with the institution.
But in examining the true meaning of this law, it is evident that a
qualiflcation is necessary; and this is usually expressed by under
standing the circumstances of the parties to be taken into considera
tion. Thus, for example, the master of the negro can have no doubt
that if he were in the condition of a slave he would desire to be free,
and therefore, according to the "Golden Rule," he. is bound to eman
cipate his bondman. This is the view which suits the ultra-abolition
ist exactly ; and it must be admitted that it is, at first sight, suffi
ciently plausible to convince the ordinary understanding, when there
is no motive of personal interest on the other side of the question.
To test its truth, however, let us examine how it would apply to the
other relations of civihzed society.
Take the case of a wealthy father, whose favorite daughter has
flxed her affections on some worthless rake, gifted with a handsome
person and a flattering tongue, but utterly destitute of the qualities
necessary to secure her safety or her comfort in the married relation.

THE GOLDEN RULE. 241
He knows that if he were in her place^ he would desire beyond all
things the gratification of her wishes, and the " Golden Rule" is ap
pealed to, as his law of duty. Is it, indeed, his law of duty ? Not
at all. On the contrary, haring a far clearer view than she can
form of what is best for her own happiness, he firmly refuses her
passionate prayer, turns the unprincipled fortune-hunter from his
doors, and thus proves himself the real guardian of his daughter's
welfare. Take the case of the judge or the juryman, sitting on the trial of
some unhappy culprit at the bar of justice. They know perfectly
well, that if they were in the place of the prisoner, it would be their
heart's desire that the judge would be favorable in his charge, and
the jury favorable in their verdict And the " Golden Rule" is again
brought forward. Has it any proper application ? None whatever.
The judge and the jury are bound to act according to the law and
the testimony, without any regard to the wishes of the prisoner. For
if these were to be taken for their rule, society would be unhinged,
and justice would become an empty name, signifying nothing.
Take the case of a fashionable and extravagant wife, who is earn
estly bent upon a larish display in dress, furniture, and parties of
pleasure, which her husband knows to be quite unsuited to his cir
cumstances. He understands her feelings perfectly weU, and has no
doubt that if he were in her place, he would desire to be indulged
with all the money required for her gratification. But does the
" Golden Rule" demand his compliance with her solicitations ? By
no means. It is his duty to restrain her foolish vanity and pride,
to deny her wishes, nay, to countermand her orders if necessary,
not-withstanding it may produce no small amount of reproach and
mortification ; since otherwise, the result would probably be that,
in a httle while, he might become a bankrupt, without house or
home. Or, take the common case-of tho poor beggar, who once enjoyed
the sunshine of prosperity, but now stands at your door, asking for
aid to relieve his destitution. He sees your tasteful dwelling, filled
with the best products of art and the appliances of modern refine
ment and luxury. He compares his lot with yours, and is tempted
to upbraid the partial Providence which has placed so vast a dif
ference between the conditions of men, notwithstanding the Declara
tion of Independence has pronounced that they are all created " free
11

242 THE GOLDEN EULE.
AND EQUAL." You give him, perhaps, a meal in your kitchen, and
even add to it a sraall sum in money. But you mark his eye, as it
g.azes on the opulence around him ; and you have no doubt that if
you were in his place, you would desire to have a fair partition of
the whole. Does the " Golden Rule" convince you that you ought to
make hira a sharer in your prosperity ? You would as soon think of
committing suicide. On the contrary, you feel quite satisfied that
you have already displayed a commendable amount of Christian
charity ; and sit down at your well-covered board, without the slight
est idea that you h.ive violated one of the most comprehensive pre
cepts of your divine Master.
An abundance of cases might be thus adduced, proving, beyond
the possibihty of doubt that the " Golden Rule" must be quahfied by
another restriction : " Whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them," provided it be just and reasonable.
And as this restriction is really understood and acted upon, in all
the other relations of life, it is certainly fair that it should be equally
applicable to the relation of slavery.
When, therefore, the master is required to manumit his slave, on
the ground, that if he were in the condition of the slave, he would
desire to be free, and that, consequently, according to the " Golden
Rule," he is obliged to give liberty to bis bond-servant, we are as
suredly obliged to apply the precept on the same principles. For,
in no other way can we escape the reproach which our Lord adminis
tered to the Pharisees : " They bind heavy burdens and grievous to
be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders ; but they themselves will
not move them with one of their fingers." (Matt. 28 : 4.) In such a
case, the master is really under no more obligation than all other
men ; which is, as we have shown, to obey the precept when it de
mands nothing but what is just and reasonable. And as, in every
other instance, he is compelled to judge what would be just and
reasonable, so it is in this, that he must reflect whether the grant of
freedom would be an advantage to the slave, and compatible with
the paramount duty which he owes to his own family, and the com
munity around him.
If, therefore, he believes that the slave is not fit for freedom — if he
knows, by experience, that in the majority of instances, the free ne
groes have proved to be made worse and more miserable by their
liberty than they were before — he would be not only authorized but

THE GOLDEN RULE. 243
obliged, by the true rule of duty, to deny the request, on the same
principle which compels the father to refuse indulgence to the child,
when his compliance would only work mischief to the object of his
affection. Or if the master thinks that there is no reason for granting this
supposed privilege to one slave, more than to many others, while the
extension of it would be ruin to himself and his family, justice
to them would make it his duty to refuse.
Or if, living in a slave State, to whose laws and customs he is
bound as a faithful citizen, he knows that the indiscriminate eman
cipation of his slaves would spread discontent amongst the servants
of his neighbors, and produce an excitement likely to cause serious
trouble and perhaps danger to the public peace, — in such case, even
if his circumstances could bear the loss of his property, he would
be justified in refusing to emancipate, lest, in yielding to the dictates
of his private feelings, he should riolate tho higher duty which he
owes to the general good of the community.
Thus we see that the " Golden Rule," fairly interpreted, would only
effect the freedom of the slave in those cases where the master was
persuaded that it was just and reasonable. And in all such cases,
the Southern slaveholders have pursued it, as I believe, with a liberal
kindness, which has not always worked happily even to the slaves
themselves ; though I rejoice to think that in many instances it has
been wisely applied, especially when it has been connected with the
noble enterprise, planned and executed by themselves, of planting
the colony of Liberia. If the tenth part as much had ever been done
for the negro race, by the leaders of ultra-abolitionism, I should have
a far higher respect for the character of their, philanthropy.

244 SLAVERY OF FREEMEN.

CHAPTER XXXII.
Right Reverend Brother : Some of the profound theologians who
have honored my hurable pamphlet with so many rebukes, are ap
parently convinced, that in order to be consistent with my argu
ment, I should be myself a slave. And, notwithstanding the puerUe
foUy of the intended sarcasm, it may be as well to devote a short
chapter to its consideration.
I have called it a puerile folly, because it has nothing to do with
the question ; and only reminds one of the style in which chUdren in a
passion reproach their best friends, when they happen to offend them.
But the question in dispute has no relation to the propriety of mak
ing slaves of freemen. On the contrary, the only point at issue is
upon the religious duty of making freemen of slaves. The negro
race at the South have never been free, so far as we have any know
ledge. Their ancestors were slaves in Africa, and the millions of
their posterity now in bondage, were born and bred in the same
condition, only elevated, to a vast extent, by their intercourse with
the white race, and the influence of the Gospel. The question wheth
er it is best for the true interests of both races that they should
continue as they are, until the wisdom of Providence opens the way
for the gradual abolition of slavery and the extradition of the negroes
to their parent soil of Africa, on the one hand ; or whether, on the
other, the United States should be drenched in blood, in the wild
hope of forcing their immediate emancipation, and raising them to a
perfect equality with their forraer masters on their own soil — this,
indeed, is a question of tremendous magnitude. But what ic has to
do with the suggestion that I should become a slave, who have been
born and bred a freeman, is quite too deep for my poor understand
ing. Yet nevertheless, as the proverb declares that it is sometimes expe
dient to answer even "a fool according to his folly," I shall first
remind these gentlemen that I am, in the highest sense, a slave
already, and my raaster is the Lord Jesus Christ " Ye are bought

'PERSONAL FITNESS. 246
with a price,'' saith St Paul to the Corinthians, " therefore glorify
God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.'' (1 Cor.
6 : 20.) And again saith the same Apostle : " He that is called in
the Lord, being a slave, is the Lord's freeman ; likewise also, he
that is called, being free, is Christ's slave." (1 Cor. 7 : 21.) And
devoutly do I thank Him, who has thus purchased my redemption
with His own precious blood, and saved me from being a slave to
the world, the flesh, and the devU, and brought me into His own
family — the Church — to serve Him forever !
If that divine and sovereign Lord had so determined in His wise,
though often mysterious providence, that I should also be the slave
of a Southern master, I trust that He would have given me grace to
bear it with a spirit of cheerful obedience to His will. In that case,
however, he would have fitted me for my condition. I should have
been born of the negro race, bred up in bondage, surrounded by the
associations best adapted to my lot, accustomed to its necessary toils,
and willing to take my part in its simple recreations, while, under
the care of a kind and Christian master, I should have learned to
congratulate myself on the security from want, the certainty of a
home, and food and clothing, nursing in sickness, benevolent regard
in old age, and perfect freedom from the fear of being abandoned,
when my strength should fail, to the " tender mercies " of the poor-
house. And I should have had, perhaps as fully as I now have, the
blessed assurance, that in the sight of God, through the redemption
of Christ Jesus, I was His slave yet more than my earthly master's,
that this slavery was the only perfect freedom, that my human bond
age would be ended in due time, and that I should then be released,
at His Almighty Word, to be one amongst the spirits of the just and
the society of angels, in His glorious and celestial kingdom.
But the Lord has not so ordered my condition, and therefore I am
not a fit subject for Southern slavery. He has chosen to place me
in a different sphere — a much higher sphere in the estimation of man
kind, although it is possible that many a Christian slave may be
exalted far above me, in the kingdom of heaven. My faith teaches
me that these earthly differences in the conditions of men are the
work of His providence. "He setteth up one, and putteth down
another." He " divideth severally to every man as He will," and no
one is authorized to say unto Him, What doest thou ? For, in the
language of the Apostle, " Who art thou that repliest against God ?

246 PERSONAL FITNESS.'
ShaU the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou
made me thus ? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the
same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor ? "
(Rom. 9 : 20-1.) These distinctions, therefore, are all ordered by the
divine Master. And if my condition in life is a subject of thankful
ness, because it is exempt from the humiliation of a slave, I have
none the less reason to fear the final result, if I fail to discharge the
far more difficult duties which devolve upon the freeman.
My objections to being a slave, however, might be extended much
further. I should be unwilling to be a blacksmith, a tailor, a shoe
maker, a hatter, a saUor, or a soldier. Nay, I should be unwilling
to be a politician or a statesman. And why ? Precisely for the
same reason. I am not fitted for any of them. It is not because I
lack respect for these various conditions. On the contrary, I honor
them all, as necessary and laudable parts of the vast system of soci
ety which composes the nation. But I am only qualified for the con
dition in which it has pleased God to place me. And probably you
may think me not very well qualified for that If so, there is one
point, at least, in which we shall not differ.
And this brings me to the fundamental principle which determines
the fitness of men for their respective stations in the communitj'-,
namely, the power of habit. A certain measure of capacity must of
, course be taken for granted, for without it, no habit could be formed.
But beyond that, all the rest is dependent on the repetition of the
same round of study, of labor, and of duty, which, by degrees, moulds
the whole mind, desires, and actions of the individual into the form
adapted to his circumstances. And this, for the most part, requires
many years, before the^esult can be accomplished. I speak of the
general rule, to which we all know that there are occasional excep
tions. Still, with respect to the great bulk of mankind, nothing is
more true than the fact, that habit alone can fit them fully for their
specific situations. And when that habit is completely established,
all experience proves how dangerous it is to make any serious change.
The character of thought once fixed, the circle of knowledge once
filled, the routine of occupation once settled, it is rarely possible for
the individual to succeed in any new and strange relation to society.
And the attempt to accomplish any sudden revolution in the estab
hshed course of life, seldom fails to injure the powers both of the
mind and of the body.

FORCE OP HABIT. 247
But if this be true in the case of the individual, much more must
it be true in the case of nations. All history proves that changes in
the fixed habits of whole communities can never be effected wisely
or well, except it be done gradually and slowly, by the insensible
progress of feeling and education amongst the people themselves. For
habit has been justly termed our second nature, in raost cases stronger
than the first Hence the well-known difficulty of overcoming old
habits in the individual. Hence the vastly greater difficulty of eradi
cating the old habits of society at large. And hence the perilous
character which marks the wild theory of ultra-abolitionists. That
the Southern States can be revolutionized in their social habits by a
single stroke of power — that the relations of master and slave, fixed
firmly by the habits of generations, can be suddenly torn asunder — -
that millions of slaves can be safely set free before they are fitted for
freedom — that millions of the governing race can be forcibly reduced
to an equality with those who were so lately their servants, and the
whole condition of the community totally subverted and thrown into
confusion, without any of the yise guards and careful preparation
which so vast a change requires — such a scheme as this appears to
be so contrary to every dictate of experience, every lesson of history,
every law of justice, and every rule of common-sense and reason,
that its acceptance on the part of so many enlightened minds can
only be accounted for as a sort of monomania on the part of its
zealous originators, while the crowd of their followers have never
taken the trouble to examine for themselves, seriously and calmly,
the real merits of the question.
I have already said, and have frequently published my own hope
and persuasion, that the time will corae for the total abolition of
slavery. But when it comes, it will not be by the insane projects of
poUticians, through blood and desolation. The Supreme Ruler cf
nations, in whose hand are the hearts of men, wiU incline the minds
of the South, when He sees it to be right, to institute and carry on
the process, in the only safe and eff'ectual way, which has been pur
sued by the other States in relation to it. Since the world began,
slavery has never been abolished by external force and violence. It
has only been done away by internal action on the part of those
who are directly concerned. Of this we have t-AO very different
examples. The first was that of St Domingo, where the slaves,
excited bj the pestilent orators of the French Revolution, rose

248 MODES OF ABOLITION.
against their masters, and attained their horrid triumph by the
most savage butchery which history has recorded. The other
was the abolition movement of England, where the result was
regularly effected by the peaceful action of Parliament, after the
discussion of more than twenty years, with compensation to the
masters, and the restraints of apprenticeship upon the slaves, in
order to avoid the dangers anticipated frowi a sudden and complete
change. Yet neither of these examples suits our ultra-abolitionists.
They axe philanthropists, and of course would not desire that the
South should suffer under a bloody and inhuman massacre, like that
of St Domingo. But they have quite as little inclination to imitate
the course of England, because they are determined to condemn slave-
holding as a sin, and they could not be partakers in the sin, by pay
ing the masters for their slaves, for that -would be acknowledging
that they had a right to hold them. Moreover, such payment would
be rather costly, and therefore their view is not only philanthropic,
but withal it is economical — and economy is a virtue I Hence, accord
ing to their theory, the emancipation of four millions of slaves must
be accomplished on a new principle, which they have the sole merit
of inventing. It is not in the Bible. It is not in history. It is not
in justice, nor in reason, nor in common-sense. But they cling to it,
like a fond mother to a deformed bantling, because it is their own ;
and argument, and authority, and experience, though sustained by
the Scriptures and the unanimous voice of all Christendom, fail to
convince them of their gross delusion.
The results, however, of these two cases in history, namely, that
of St Domingo, and the more recent one of England, may aid the
intelligent reader, who is not infected by the mania of ultra-abolition
ism, to understand the practical aspects of the question, and to them
I shall proceed in the next chapter.

ST. DOMINGO. 249

CHAPTER XXXIII.
Right Reverend Brother : As phUanthropy is the acknowledged
motive of the ultra-abolitionist, and he holds it to be self-evident that
the deliverance of the African race from slavery is the one thing need
ful to raise th^m to an equality with the best and most favored por
tions of mankind, it is fair to inquire how the experiment has suc
ceeded in the case of St Domingo, which has been, for two genera
tions, entirely under negro domination.
On this subject, we have had conflicting statements, on none of
which reliance can be placed, because the writers were so largely in
fluenced by their particular prejudices. But I shall set the matter
before you in the words of the eminent Alison, whose " History of
Europe" is one of the most trustworthy productions of modern litera
ture, and who, as a native of Scotland, surrounded by English sym
pathies, and naturally inclined to favor abolition, is altogether un
likely to fall into any error on the Southern side of the question.
"St. Domingo," saith this distinguished historian, "the greatest
except Cuba, and, beyond all question, the most flourishing of the
West-India Islands before the Revolution, is about three hundred
miles long, and its average breadth about ninety miles. The Spaniards
possessed two thirds, and the French the remainder. In the French
portion, the inhabitants consisted of about forty thousand whites,
sixty thousand mulattoes, and flve hundred thousand negro slaves.
This French colony was immensely productive, exceeding all the
British islands together. Its exports, including the Spanish portion,
were £18,400,000, and its imports £10,000,000 sterling. Eighteen
hundred vessels and 27,000 sailors were employed in conducting the
vast colonial traffic. It was this splendid and unequaled colonial
possession which the French nation threwaway and destroyed at the
commencement of the revolution, with a recklessness and improvi
dence of which the previous history of the world had afforded no
example." \
11*

250 ST. DOMINGO.
•*>
" Hardly had the cry of hberty and equahty been raised in Prance,"
continues our historian, " when it responded warmly and vehemently
from the shores of St Domingo. The slave population were rapidly
assailed by revolutionary agents and emissaries, and the workshops
and fields of the planters overrun by heated missionaries, who poured
into an ignorant and ardent multitude the new-born ideas of Euro
pean freedom. The constituent Assembly of March 8, 1790, had
empowered the colonies to make known their wishes on the subject
of a Constitution, by Colonial Assemblies, freely elected by their own
citizens. And on the 15th of May, 1791, the privUeges of equality
were conferred by the same authority on all persons of color, born of
a free father and mother. The planters openly endeavored to resist
the decree, and civil war was preparing, when, on the night of the
26th August, 1791, the negro insurrection, long and silently organ
ized, at once broke forth, and wrapped the wh(ile northern part of
the colony in flames. The conspiracy embraced nearly the whole ne
gro population of the island. The cruelties exercised exceeded any
thing recorded in history. The negroes marched with spiked infants
on their spears instead of colors. They sawed asunder their male
prisoners, and violated the females on the dead bodies of their hus
bands," etc.
"Louis XVI. was conderaned January 15th, 1793. On the 21st of
January he was executed. The Deraocratic p*ssions of St. Domingo
wore roused to the highest pitch by this event. Twenty thousand
negroes rushed in and completed the work of ruin. And the uni
versal freedom of the blacks was proclaimed June gd, 1793."*
'' "By the expulsion of the F;-ench from St. Domingo," saith this
historian, " it has been nominally independent, but slavery has been
far indeed from being abolished, and the condition of the people any
thing but ameliorated by the change. Nominally free, the blacks
have remained really enslaved. Compelled to lahor by .the terrors of
military disciphne, for a small part of the products of the soil, they
have retained the severity without the advantages of servitude. The
industrious habits, the flourishing aspect of the island, have disap
peared, and the inhabitants, reduced to half their former amqunt, and
bitterly galled by their republican task-masters, have relapsed into
the indolence and inactivity of savage life."t
" Alison's History of Ewrope. Vol. ii. p. 240. Harper's Ed. 1848.
t lb. p, 261.

ST. DOMINGO. 251
" The revolution of St Domingo," continues our author, "has de
monstrated that the negroes can occasionally exert all the vigor and
heroism which distinguish the Ejiropean character ; but there is yet
no reason to suppose that they are capable of the continued efforts,.
the sustained and persevering toil, requisite to erect the fabric of civil
ized freedom. An observation of Gibbon seems decisive on the sub
ject : ' The inaction of the negroes does not seem to be the effect either
of their virtue or of their pusillanimity. They indulge, like the rest
of mankind, their passions and appetites, and the adjacent tribes are
engaged in frequent acts of hostility. But their rude ignorance has
never invented any effectual weapons ; they appear incapable of form
ing any extensive plan of government or conquest, and the obvious
inferiority of their mental faculties has been discovered and abused
by the nations of the temperate zone.' If the negroes are not infe
rior, either in vigor, courage, or intelligence, to the European, how has
it happened that they have remained, for six thousand years, in the
savage state ? It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion but
I that, in the qualities requisite to -create and perpetuate civilization,
the African is decidedly inferior to the European race, and if any
doubt could exist on this subject, it would be removed by the subse
quent history and present state of the Haytian republic."
"The following table contains the comparative wealth, produce, and
trade of St Domingo, before 1789, and in 1882, after forty years of
nominal freedom."* 1789. 1832.
Population,  600,000. Population,  280,000.
Sugar exported, .... 672,000,000 lbs. Sugar exported,  none.
Coffee, do  86,789,000 lbs. Coffee,  ~  32,000,000.
Ships employed,  1,680. Ships employed  1.
Sailors  ;... 27,000. Sailors,  167.
Exports to France,  £6,720,000. Exports to Prance,  none.
Imports  £9,890,000. Imports  none.
Now here, my Right Reverend Brother, we have a very sad but
very instructive account of the results of sudden and complete eman
cipation, presented by one of the raost enhghtened historians of the
age, without any conceivable bias to incline him against the prevail-
'ng sentiment in England, which is universally known to be in favor
* Alison's Biftory of Europe. Vol. ii. p. 251. Harper's Ed. 1818.

252 ST. DOMINGO.
of negro equality. And it is perfectly clear that even if we set aside
the horrible cruelties and flend-hke atrocities which marked the rev
olution, the island has been almost ruined, whUe the African race
have lost, instead of gaining, by the change. The population reduced
from 600,000 to 280,000, less than half; the sugar exported reduced
from 672,000,000 of pounds to nothing; the coffee reduced from
ne.irly 87,000,000 of pounds to 82,000,000, less than half; the ships
reduced from 1680 vessels to one; the saUors reduced from 27,000
to 167; the exports reduced from thirty-one millions of dollars to
nothing ; the imports reduced from forty-six millions of dollars to
nothing ! What a comraentary does this exhibit on forty years of
negro liberty, produced by a sudden change, under the doctrine pro
claimed by the atheists of France, which is identical with that now
advocated by our own school of ultra-abolitionism ! In one point,
however, our philanthropists surpass the French Directory, namely,
in the discovery that slaveholding is a sin, yea, the sum of all vil
lainies ! That was left out of the GaUican prograihme, because they
were open infidels, denouncing religion, and sUencing the priests, and
closing the churches, and denying the God of truth, while they wor
shiped an infamous courtesan under the name of the goddess of
reason ! Whether it is more consistent to renounce the Bible alto
gether,- or to quote it in such a way as to subvert its teaching and set
its divine Author in opposition to His own Word, is a question which
I do not profess to determine. To my mind, it is like deciding be
tween Scylla and Charybdis. The true Christian will carefully shun
them both, without troubling himself to inquire whether it is best
to be dashed upon the rock, or swallowed in the whirlpool.

WILBERFORCE. 253

CHAPTER XXXIV.
My Right Reverend Brother : Having now set before you the re
sult of the first example recorded by history, in which negro slavery
was abolished by immediate emancipation, I turn next to the course
pursued in England, where the persevering efforts and eloquence of
the distinguished W'ilberforce, employed against a powerful opposi
tion for more than twenty years, were at length crowned with such
triumphant success.
But here we must take special notice that the whole of his assaults
were at first directed against the barbarity and cruelty of the sla/oe-
trade, without the slightest intention of interfering with the estab
lished relations of the planters in the British colonies. The notion
that the holding of a negro in bondage was a sin per se, had never
entered into his scheme of philanthropy, for he was a devout Christ
ian, and had no sympathy whatever with that class who trim the
Bible down to their own judgment of what it ought to be, and, under
the name of Christianity, are as really worshipers of reason as the
open infidels of the French Directory. The faith of Wilberforce was
the faith of the Church, and therefore the Church accorded with his
noble work in abolishing the slave-trade.
I was disappointed and sorry to find, in reading the minute and
voluminous biography of this celebrated man, published by his sons,
in five volumes, that none of his speeches were preserved entire, and
that only a few passages occurred in which this broad and important
distinction was noticed plainly. But we have enough of these scat
tered through the work, to prove the great difference between his prin
ciples and those of the ultra-abohtionists, who are so fond of thinking
that they are the same.
Thus, in Vol. 1 of his biography, p. 293, we have this note belong
ing to the year 1791. Speaking of the pamphlets published by the
abolitionists in answer to the evidence given by the advocates for the
slave-trade, the author, quoting from his father's memoranda, saith :

25 1 WILBERFORCE.
" It was necessary, in refuting this evidence, to show the mode of
obtaining the slaves in Africa, the effect of the trade upon African
manners ; the cruelty of the mode of transport ; the waste of life
which it caused in the colonies ; the practicability of maintaining
the number of slaves on the Westlndian estates by breeding ; the
injurious effects of the Guinea trade upon our own seamen ; and
the possibility of substituting for it a more advantageous as well as
humane traffic. All these points the witnesses for the abolition com
pletely established." And he adds :
" The bar were all against us. Fox could scarcely prevent Erskine
from making a set speech in favor of the trade."
Again, in 1815, (vol. iv. p. 241,) the biographer states that Wilber
force reproved one of his colleagues for going so far. "You," he tells
Mr. Stephen, " are full ten degrees above me." He was resolved, in
the first instance, to strengthen the ameliorating influence of the Act
of Abolition by preventing the illicit introduction of fresh laborers.
But he and others around him saw not as yet to what they should
be led. They had never acted on the claim of abstract rights, and
they reached emancipation at last only because it was the necessary
conclusion of a series of practical improvements. " They looked,"
says Mr. Stephen, " to an emancipation of which not the slaves, but
the masters themselves should be the willing authors."
That is precisely the ground on which Wilberforce then stood, and
on the same ground I should be perfectly willing to stand with hira.
Again, in a letter addressed to Lord Liverpool, March 17, 1815,
this eminent man expresses himself as follows, (vol. iv. p. 252 :)
" Life is wearing away, and I should indeed be sorry if mine were to
terminate before at least a foundation had been laid of a system of
reformation, which I verily believe would scarcely be more for the
comfort of the slaves, and free colored population, than it would be for
the ultimate security of the West-India colonies themselves."
Again, in an extract from one of his speeches in Parliament, 1816,
Wilberforce makes these statements, (voL iv. p. 287 :) " Ever since
the year 1789, those persons who resist all improvement in the con
dition of the negroes have been reiterating the cry against us : ' What,
then, you mean to make the slaves free ! You intend to emancipate
them at once, and without the least notice !' It might be supposed
that our opponents would have abandoned this position after we had
gone on for twenty-seven years constantly refuting it. But no ; they

WILBERFORCE. 255
still persevere. Nor have they confined their assertions to this
House, or to this country, but they have actually printed and pub
lished in the West-Indies that the design of the friends of the abolition
was to make all slaves instantly free. In short, there is nothing,
however monstrous, however dangerous to the tranquillity of our
islands, which they have not laid open to the eyes and ears of all the
inhabitants of the West-Indies."
Again, in a letter to Hannah More, 1816, (vol. iv. p. 295,) Wilber
force saith : " I have much to say to you about my Registry Bill, or
rather about its object, the amelioration of the state of the poor
slaves. Alas ! alas ! it grieves me to see the Bristol people so misled,
but it really is entirely the effect pf misinformation."
And, so late as the year 1818, we find him using these decisive
words, (vol. iv. p. 365 :) " Our grand object and our universal lan
guage was and is to produce by abolition (of the trade) a disposition
to breed i-nstead of buying. This is the great vital principle which
would work in every direction, and produce reform everywhere."
In 1822, addressing the House of Commons, (voL v. p. 131,) Wil
berforce gave the first intimation of his ultimate views for the West-
Indies. " Not I only," he said, " but all the chief advocates of the
abolition declared from the first that our object was, by ameliorating
regulations, and by stopping the influx of uninstructed savages, to
odvanAie slowly toward the period when these unhappy beings might
exchange their degraded state of slavery for that of a free and indus
trious peasantry. To that most interesting object I stiU look for
ward." "
The following year, 1823, produced an order from the English min
istry that the whip should no longer be used in the correction of the
slaves, and an insurrection broke out in Demarara, causing the death
of some white men. " These results," saith the biographer, (vol. v.
p. 201,) " Mr. Wilberforce had dreaded, as soon as he heard the mea
sures which government had taken. ' What !' he at once exclaimed,
' have they given such an order without preparation, and without ex
plaining its purpose to the slaves — why, it is positive madness! "
Speaking on the same subject in a letter to Z. Macaulay, (vol. v.
p. 252,) he saith : " I am clear that we should become the assailants,
and charge government with provoking the insurrection. As to the
mode of carrying reforms into operation, I have thought precisely
with you. The slaves, it appears to me, should be called together

256 WILBERFORCE.
and told that henceforth they would not be flogged at the time, (in
the field,) but at night, after the day's work, if they had not con
ducted themselves properly."
And in the same year, 1823, (vol. v. p. 204,) we have this state
ment : " The conduct of St Paul, in sending back the fugitive Onesi
mus, was brought against him in one of those attacks. ' St. Paul,' he
answers, ' directed Philemon to regard him as a brother. He did not
rend the civil tie that bound him to his master by indiridual power.
No more do we; but by directing hira to be treated as a brother, did
he not substantially claim for him even more than we ask for negro
slaves ? "
Finally, when he heard that the bUl for emancipation had passed
in 1833, though near his end, he exclaimed : "Thank God that I
should have lived to witness the day in which England is wUling to
give twenty millions sterling for the abolition of slavery.'' (VoL v.
p. 370.)
I have been thus particular in gleaning, from these volumes, the
passages which distinctly prove the substantial agreement of Wilber
force with the principles which I, in my humble way, have always
advocated. He attacked the slave-trade, and on this all are of the
same mind, the Southern States included.- He advocated the breed
ing of the slaves in order to keep up the requisite number for the
colonies. And such is the Southern system. He denied and repu
diated the intention of emancipating the slaves for twenty-seven years
together. He advocated the use of the whip, only desiring that, in
stead of employing it in the field, it should be applied, if required,
at night, when the work was over. He wished to ameUorate the con
dition of the slaves, without disturbing the institution itself, until
near the close of his parliamentary course : and after emancipation
was declared, he approved the paying a hundred millions of dollars
to the masters. But even when he was led to intimate the final
result to which he had looked forward, he stated his policy to be a
slow advance to the point of ultimate freedom, and that he hoped
would be accomplished with the consent of the planters themselves.
Where, in all this, do we find the dogmas of our ultra-abolitionists,
that slaveholding is a sin under any circumstances ; that it is a suffi
cient reason for debarring Christians from the Communion ; that it is
a duty to disobey the laws of the land by refusing to return the fugi
tive slave to his master ; that the Constitution which sanctions slavery

WILBERFORCE. 257
"is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," and must be
done away ; that the negroes are entitled to immediate emancipation
without any equivalent paid the owners ; that they have a right to a
perfect equality with the European race ; that it is lawful to induce
them to run away, and if the master presumes to apprehend them,
4hat they are justified in killing him, so that they may thus obtain
'^ their freedom ? And, finally, that a desolating civil war, which owes
its main origin to these very dogmas, shall be continued until fire
and sword shall force the Southern States to bow down to their au
thority ?
No, no, my Right Reverend Brother, not a trace of all this can be
defended on the principles of Wilberforce. The British Parliament,
under his guidance, proceeded carefully and cautiously, step by step,
and were more than forty years before they arrived at the conclusion ;
although they were not living, as we are, under a Constitution which
stipulated for the existence of slavery, and confined the consideration
of its policy to the government of the States concerned.' The Church
of England has never proclaimed her ban upon the institution, nor
been known to make the holding of slaves a bar to her communion.
And when, at last, emancipation was decreed, it was done, not only
with true British justice and magnanimity, under the stipulation of
payment to the masters, but also of apprenticeship to the freed
slaves, which bound them, for five years, to the service of their
former owners, and made the transition from bondage to liberty more
gradual and secure.
Yet, with all these guards, the results of the measure have been
far from satisfactory. And to the proof of this, I shall invite your
attention in the next chapter.

258 WILBERFORCE.

CHAPTER XXXV.
Mt Right Reverend Brother : The eminent historian, Ahson, in
his History of Europe, gives us the following statement of the argu
ments employed by Wilberforce, Lord Howick, and Earl Grenville,
for the abolition of the slave-trade, in a.d. 1806, before the British
Parliament, and I commend the extract to the attention of all who
are disposed to advocate the perilous dogma of immediate eman
cipation :
"The grand; the decisive advantage," said they, "which recom
mends the abolition of the slave-trade, is, that, by closing that sup
ply of foreign negroes to which the planteps have hitherto been
accustomed to trust, we will compel thera to promote the -multiplica
tion of the slaves on their own estates, and it is obvious that this can
not be done, without improving their physical and moral condition.
The dangers so powerfully drawn, as hkely to result from this meas
ure, are really to be apprehended, not from it, but from another
with which it has no connection, viz. the immediate emancipation
of the negroes. That would produce horrors similar to those which
have happened in St Domingo. But nothing of that kind is in con
templation. On the contrary, it is expressly to exclude them, and
induce that gradual emancipation which is called for, alike by just
ice to the planters and the interests of the slaves themselves, that
the measure under discussion is proposed."*
Nothing can prove, more decisively, the difference between the
views entertained by those true Christian philanthropists of Old
England, and the course which is so strongly urged by the school of
our ultra-abolitionists in New-England. But if the dangers of imme
diate emancipation were deprecated so earnestly by Wilberforce and
his colleagues, when the question only concerned the coraparatively
small number of negroes in their West-Indian Colonies, how much
more would they have shrunk from incurring those dangers if they
'* Alison's History of Europe, 2 vols. p. 407. Harper's Ed. 1S4S.

RESULTS OF EMANCIPATION. 259
had been placed in our circumstances, with the safety of fourteen
States, and the condition of four millions of slaves, depending on the
issue !
I proceed, however, to the remarks of the historian upon the
results which ' followed the English movement, guarded as it was by
so much of cautious wisdom.
" There can be no question," saith our author, " that this great
step was recommended by every consideration of justice and human
ity. Nevertheless its effects hitherto have been in the highest degree
deplorable. The prophecy of Mr. Hibbert and the opponents of the
abolition, that the slave-trade, instead of ceasing, would only change
hands, and at length fall into the management of desperate wretches
who would double its horrors, has been too fatally verified, and to an ex
tent even greater than they anticipated. From the returns laid before
Parliament it appears that the slave-trade is now four times as exten
sive as it was in 1789, and twice as great as it was when the efforts
of Mr. Wilberforce procured its abolition in the British dominions.
Nearly 200,000 captives now annually cross the Atlantic. Their
former sufferings in the large and capacious Liverpool slave-ships
were as nothing compared to those which they now endure, in the
hands of the Spanish and the Portuguese. And they are brought,
not to the comparatively easy life of the British West-India Islands,
but to the desperate service of Cuba or Brazil, in the latter of which
they are worked like animals, in droves of several hundreds, without
a single female among them, and without any attempt to perpetuate
their race. They are thus worn down to the grave by a lingering
process, which, on an average, terminates their existence in seven
years." "The precipitate and irretrievable step of emancipation, forced on
the Legislature in 1834, by benevolent but incautious, and perhaps,
mistaken feeling, has already occasioned so great a decline in the
produce of the British West-Indies, and excited such general ex
pectations of a still greater and increasing deficiency, that the im
pulse thereby given to the foreign slave-trade to fill up the gap,
has been unbounded, and, it is to be feared, almost irremediable."*
" It is the multitude who forced on those measures," continues the
historian, " who frustrated all the benevolent efforts of Mr. Wilber-
* Alison's History of Europe, vol. ii. p. 499.

260 ADVANTAGES OF SLAVERY. ,
force and Mr. Fox, and rendered the abolition of the slave-trade in
the British dominions the remote and innocent cause of boundless
misfortunes to the negro race. The British slaves, since the slave-
trade was abolished, had become fully equal to the wants of the
colonies ; their numbers were on the increase, their condition was
comfortable and prosperous beyond that of any peasantry in Europe,
and large numbers were annually purchasing their freedom from the
produce of their own industry. But now all these admirable effects
of the abolition of the slave-trade have been completely frustrated,
and the humane but deluded inhabitants of Great Britain are bur
dened with twenty millions, to ruin, in the end, their own planters,
consign to barbarism their own negroes, cut off a principal branch of
their naval strength, and double the slave-trade in extent, and quad
ruple it in horrors throughout the world."*
I shall close my extracts from this distinguished writer with a
passage of great force, which adds the profound wisdom of the phi
losopher to the truth of the historian. Speaking of the system of
Russian slavery, which has since been done away, he saith :
" The laborers on an estate constitute, as they formerly did in the
West-Indies, the chief part of its value, and thus the proprietor is
induced to take care of his slaves by the same motives which prompt
him to do so with his buildings or his cattle. Relief in sickness,
care of orphans, maintenance of the maimed, or in old age, are im
portant advantages to the laboring classes, even in the most favorable
circumstances, and with all the facilities for rendering themselves
independent, which the habits of civilized life, and the power of ac
cumulating and preserving capital arising from the interchange of com
merce, afford. — In rude periods, when these advantages are unknown,
and the means of providing during the vigor for the weakness of life
do not exist, they are of inestimable value. — Stripes, insults, and
compulsory labor, are no light evUs, but they are as nothing com
pared to the wasting agonies of famine, and the violence of ill-directed
and ungovernable passions, which never fail to seize upon prema
turely emancipated man. The servitude and forced industry of the
serf fills up the interval, the long and important interval, between
the roving independence of the savage, who fives by the chase, or
the milk of his herds, and the voluntary toil of the freeman, around
* AUaon'a History of Evrope, vol. il. p. 500.

ADVANTAGES OF SLAVERY. 261
whom artificial wants have thrown the unseen but riveted chains of
civihzed life. But for its existence, this wide chasm could never
have been passed, for man will never labor voluntarily till he has
acquired the habits and desires of an advanced state of society ; and
those habits, when generally pervading the community, can exist
only from the effect of previous centuries of compulsory labor."*
Such are the opinions of an author who occupies a high place
amongst the most enlightened and thoroughly informed historians of
the age, and whose proclivities, from his birth, his education, and
his natural sympathy with the tone of sentiment around him, would
all tend to an exaggerated estimate of the evils of slavery, and the
advantages of freedom. I could add a large amount of other testi
mony, to prove the correctness of his views upon the dangers of
sudden and hasty emancipation. But it is unnecessary. The state
ments of this eminent writer are enough for any candid mind, and to
those who are fond of their delusion, and determined to maintain it,
all the facts and arguments which could be heaped together would
be addressed in vain.
"' Alison's History of Europe, vol. iv. p. 12-18. Harper's Ed. 1843.

262 GRADUAL CESSA-nON OF SLAVERY.

CHAPTER XXXVI.
Right Reverend Brother : The favorite argument of our ultra-
abolitionists is derived from the assumption that the slave-system of
the South is in direct contrariety to the Gospel, and that the extinc
tion of slavery in Europe was owing to the influence of Christianity.
No statement can be more utterly unsupported by the facts of history,
although it is repeated, over and over again, by writers and orators,
who ought to know better. But I am sorry to say that it is the
fashion of too many to repeat these declarations with as much confi
dence as if they were self-evident, and, like the axioms in mathemat
ics, needed no demonstration ; because they are perfectly aware that
they are always acceptable to those who have no personal interest in
the institution, and that very few will object to the eloquence which
seems to honor religion, when it costs them nothing more than an
empty tribute of applause.
I have already shown, by the most abundant testimony, that the
Church of Christ, from the beginning, recognized slavery as a system
established by the laws of the State, in accordance with the wisdom
of Divine Providence ; and I have now to prove, by the best writers
of law and history, that the causes which led to its extinction in
Europe were entirely of a civil and not of a rehgious character. This,
indeed, would be a necessary result from the evidence which I have
so largely furnished ; but I desire to set it forth with the fuU force of
many concurrent witnesses.
The system of slavery, as it formerly existed amongst our Euro
pean ancestors, is thus stated by the historian Hume. (Appendix to
vol. i. p. 136.)
" The most numerous rank by far, in the community, seems to
have been the slaves or villeins who were the property of their lords
and were consequently incapable of possessing any property. The
power of the master was not unlimited among the Anglo-Saxons as
it was among their ancestors. If a man beat out his slave's eye or

GRADUAL CESSATION OP SLAVEEY. 263
teeth, the slave recovered his liberty ; if he killed hira, he paid a fine
to- the king, provided the slave died within a day after the wound
or blow ; otherwise he passed unpunished. The selling of theraselves
or children to slavery was always in practice among the German
nations, and was continued by the Anglo-Saxons."
Blackstone, in his commentaries, is more express. " Under the
Saxon government," saith he, " there were, as Sir WiUiam Temple
speaks, a sort of people in a condition of downright servitude, used
and employed in the most servile works, and belonging, both they,
their children, and effects, to the lord of the soil, like the rest of the
cattle or stock upon it On the arrival of the Normans here, it seems
not improbable that they who were strangers to any other than a
feudal state, might give some sparks of enfranchisement to such
wretched persons as fell to their share, by admitting them, as well as
others,*to the oath of fealty ; which conferred a right of protection,
and raised the tenant to a kind of estate , superior to downright
slavery, but inferior to every other condition. This they called
villenage, and the tenants villeins, either from the word vilis, or
else, as Sir Edward Coke tells/us, a villa, because they lived chiefly
in villages, and were employed in rustic works of the most sordid
kind." (BL Com. b. ii. ch. vi. sec. 3, p. 92.)
"These villeins, belonging principally to lords of manors, were
either villeins regardant — that is, annexed to the manor or land — or
else they were in gross, or at large — that is, annexed to the person of
the lord, and transferable by deed from one owner to another. They
could not leave their lord without his permission, but if they ran
away, or were purloined from him, might be claimed and recovered
by action, like beasts or other chattels." (lb. p. 93.)-
" The children of villeins were also in the same state of bondage
with their parents. The law, however, protected the persons of vil
leins, as the king's subjects, against atrocious injuries of the lord ;
for he might not kill or maim his villein, though he might beat him
with impunity." (lb. p. 93-4.)
" When tenure in villenage was virtually abolished by the statute
of Charles II., there was hardly a pure villein left in the nation.
For Sir Thomas Smith testifies that in all his time (and he was
Secretary to Edward VI.) he never knew any villein in gross through
out the realm, and the few villeins regardant that were then remain
ing were such only as had belonged to bishops, monasteries, or

264 GRADUAL CESSATION OF SLAVEEY.
other ecclesiastical corporations, in the preceding times of popery."
(lb. p. 96.)
Here then, we see that this sort of English slavery died out by
degrees, without any direct assault either by Church or State. The
villeins were of the same race of Anglo-Saxons, and there was no bar
rier of color to prevent their gradual emancipation. But to prove
conclusively that Christianity had nothing to do with the change,
the last of the villeins that remained were those who belonged to the
bishops, the monasteries, and other ecclesiastical corporations. It is
perfectly manifest that if the Church had disapproved the system, as
being inconsistent with the Gospel, the bishops and the monasteries
would have been the first, instead of the last, to let their bondmen go.

GIBBON. 265

CHAPTER XXXVn.
Right Kb-veeend Brother : The next witness to the state of slavery
during the first centuries of the Christian era, is the historian Gibbon,
from whose luminous and accurate pages I shall quote a highly inter
esting statement on the subject, for my readers' satisfaction.
After giving a masterly sketch of the Roman polity and law, this
admirable writer proceeds as follows, viz. :
" It was by such institutions that the nations of the empire insen
sibly melted away into the Roman name and people. But there still
remained, in the centre of every province and of every family, an
unhappy condition of men who endured the weight, without sharing
the benefits of society. In the free states of antiquity, the domestic
slaves were exposed to the wanton rigors of despotism. The slaves
consisted, for the most part, of barbarian captives, taken in thousands
by the chance of war, purchased at a vile price, accustomed to a life
of independence, and impatient to break and avenge their fetters.
Against such internal enemies, whose desperate insurrections had
more than once reduced the republic to the brink of destruction, the
most severe regulations and the raost cruel treatment seemed almost
justified by the great law of self-preservation. But when the princi
pal nations of Europe, Asia, and Africa, were united under the laws
of one sovereign, the source of foreign supplies flowed with much
less abundance, and the Romans were reduced to the milder but
more tedious method of propagation. In their numerous families, and
particularly in their country estates, they encouraged the marriage of
their slaves. The sentiments of nature, the habits of education, and
the possession of a dependent species of property, contributed to alle
viate the hardships of servitude. The existence of a slave becarae
an object of greater value, and though his happiness still depended
on the temper and circumstances of the master, the humanity of the
latter, instead of being restrained by fear, was encouraged by the
12

266 GIBBON.
sense of his own interest. The progress of manners was accelerated
by the virtue or policy of the emperors ; and by the edicts of Had
rian and the Antonines, the protection of the laws was extended to
the most abject part of mankind. The jurisdiction of life and death
over the slaves — a power long exercised and often abused — was taken
out of private hands, and reserved to the magistrates alone. The
subterranean prisons were abolished, and upon a just complaint of
intolerable treatment, the injured slave obtained either his deliverance
or a less cruel master."
" Hope, the best comfort of our imperfect condition, was not denied
to the Roman slave ; and if he had any opportunity of rendering him
self either useful or agreeable, he might very naturally expect that
the diligence and fidelity of a few years would be rewarded with the
inestimable gift of freedom. The benevolence of the master was so
frequently prompted by the meaner suggestions of vanity and avarice,
that the laws found it more necessary to restrain than to encourage
a profuse and undistinguishing liberality, which might degenerate
into a very dangerous abuse. It was a maxim of ancient jurispru
dence, that as a slave had not any country of his own, he acquired
with his liberty an admission into the political society of which his
patron was a meraber. The consequences of this maxim would have
prostituted the privileges of the Roman city to a mean and promiscu
ous multitude. Some seasonable exceptions were therefore provided ;
and the honorable distinction was confined to such slaves only as,
for just causes, and with the approbation of the magistrate, should
receive a solemn and legal manumission. Even those chosen freed
men obtained no more than the private rights of citizens, and were
rigorously excluded from civil or military honors. Whatever might
be the merit or fortune of their sons, they likewise were esteemed
unworthy of a seat in the Senate ; nor were the traces of a servile
origin allowed to be completely obliterated till the third or fourth
generation.'' (Gibbon's Decline and Fall, etc., vol. i. pp. 51-2.
New-York ed. 1822.)
"The youths of a promising genius,'' (among the slaves,) continues
our author, " were instructed in the arts and sciences, and their price
was ascertained by the degree of their skill and talents. Almost
every profession, either liberal or mechanical, might be found in the
house of an opulent senator. It was more for the interest of the
merchant or manufacturer to purchase than to hire his workmen;

GIBBON. 267
and in the country, slaves were employed as the cheapest and most
laborious instruments of agriculture. Four hundred slaves were
maintained in a single palace of Rome. The same number belonged
to an estate which an African widow, of a very private condition,
resigned to her son, whUe she reserved to herself a much larger share
of her property. A freedman, under the reign of Augustus, though
his fortune had suffered great losses in the civil wars, left behind him
three thousand six hundred yoke of oxen, two hundred and fifty
thousand head of smaller cattle, and, what was almost included in
the description of cattle, four thousand one hundred and sixteen
slaves." (lb. pp. 52-3.)
With regard to the immense number of the slaves, the historian
makes the following estimate :
"After weighing with attention every circumstance which could
influence the balance, it seems probable that there existed, in the
time of the Emperor Claudius, about one hundred and twenty mil
lions of persons, a degree of population which possibly exceeds that
of modern Europe, and forms the most numerous society that has
ever been united under the same system of government. The slaves
were at least equal in number to the free inhabitants of the Roman
worid." (lb. p. 53^.)
On this copious extract from our eminent historian, I would sug
gest a few points worthy of special observation.
1. That these sixty millions of slaves included a vast multitude,
equal, in capacity and intellect, to their masters. Descended as they
were from all the nations with whom the Romans had ever been at
war, there were doubtless some Africans, but the greater part, by far,
were Asiatics and Europeans; and Greeks, Germans, Gauls, and
Britons were in abundance amongst them. Their system was not
confined to one savage and barbarous race, taken from the most
degraded portion of the human family, as it is in the Southern States.
And hence it is easy to account for the fact that they were far more
liable to insurrections, and that those insurrections were much more
formidable ; because the great majority of the slaves possessed a full
amount of native energy and talent. The most serious of these revolts
had for its leader Spartacus, a Greek, who was a noted gladiator. To
such men as these, slavery must indeed have been a galling debase
ment While, to the negro race, it has been the means of improve-

268 GIBBON.
ment and elevation, greatly superior to any condition which they
enjoyed before.
2. I would remark, in the next place, the checks which the
Roman government thought necessary to prevent indiscriminate
emancipation, and the restraints which they placed on the freedmen,
not permitting them to be admitted into the army, nor to hold any
civil office, untU the third or fourth generation. Notwithstanding
their equality of race, and the progress of many amongst them
in art and science, the idea that a newly-emancipated slave was forth
with fit for the full privileges of freemen, was regarded, by these wise
ancients, as an utter absurdity.
3. And lastly, I must charge the historian with a very unfair
omission, where he speaks of the causes which produced so great an
amelioration in the treatment of the slaves. For these causes were
mainly the results of the Gospel. We have seen, in the early fathers
and councils of the Christian Church, how earnestly they set forth
the precepts of the Apostles in the duty of the masters, to be just,
and kind, and merciful to those whom they held in bondage. It was
the proper office of the Church, from the beginning, not to make the
slightest effort to abolish the institution, but to render its practical
administration as consistent as possible with justice and with love.
This gifted historian, however, was an infidel philosopher ; and much
as we may admire his learning, his accuracy, and his style, we could
hardly expect from his pen a -willing tribute to the humane and puri
fying influence of Cliristianity.

ROBERTSON. 269

CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Right Reverend Brother : The next historical testimony bearing
on the subject, is that of Robertson, whose celebrated work on the
reign of Charles V. gives a clear statement of slavery in Europe, an
terior to the sixteenth century. I quote from Note ix. vol. 1, p. 191,
of Hosford's ed. 1822 :
" The servi, or slaves," saith this author, " seem to have been the
most numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,
or of persons, the property in whom was acquired in some of the
various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. servus, v. 6, p. 447.
Ihe wretched condition of this numerous class will appear from sev
eral circumstances. 1. Their masters had absolute dominion over
their persons. They had the power of punishing their slaves capi
tally, without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right
they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their man
ners were fierce, but it continued as late as the twelfth century. Even
after the jurisdiction of masters came to be restrained, the life of a
slave was deemed to be of so little value, that a very slight compen
sation atoned for taking it away. They were not originally permitted
to marry. During several centuries after the barbarous nations em
braced the Christian rehgion, slaves who hved as husband and wife
were not joined together by any religious ceremony, and did not re
ceive the nuptial benediction from a priest. When this conjunction
carae to be considered as a lawful marriage, they were not permitted
to marry without the consent of their master ; and such as ventured
to do so, without obtaining that, were punished with great severity,
and sometimes were put to death. When the manners of the Euro
pean nations became more gentle, and their ideas more hberal, slaves
who married without their master's consent were subjected only to a
fine. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with their
parents, and became the property of their masters ; and that so en
tirely, that they could sell them at pleasure. Slaves had a title to

270 ROBERTSON.
nothing but subsistence and clothes from their master ; aU the profit
of their labor accrued to him. Conformably to the same principle,
aU the effects of slaves belonged to their master after death, and they
could not dispose of them by testament — It was enacted in the laws
of almost all the nations of Europe, that no slave should be admitted
to give evidence against a freeman in a court of justice."
" The villani (or serfs) were adscripti glebce or villas, (bound to the
soil or vUlage,) from which they derived their name, and were trans
ferable along with it But in this they differed from slaves, that they
paid a fixed rent to their masters for the land which they cultivated,
and after paying that, all the fruits of their labor and industry be
longed to themselves."
" Such was the spirit of tyranny, however, which prevailed among
the great proprietors of lands, and so various were the opportunities
of oppressing those who were settled on their estates, or of rendering
their condition intolerable, that many freemen, in despair, renounced
their hberty, and voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to
their powerful masters. This they did in order that their masters
might become more immediately interested to afford them protection,
together with the means of subsisting themselves and their famUies.
It was still more common for freemen to surrender their liberty to
bishops or abbots, that they might partake of the security which the
vassals and slaves of churches and monasteries enjoyed, in conse
quence of the superstitious veneration paid to the saint under whose
immediate protection they were supposed to be taken. The number
of slaves in every nation of Europe was immense. The greater part
of the inferior class of people, in France, were reduced to this state
at the commencement of the third race of kings. The same was the
case in England."
In another part of this volume, (Note 20, § 1, p. 229,) the histo
rian, Dr. Robertson, states the practice of manumission on religious
motives which actuated individuals, and then (p. 232) proceeds to say
that " as sentiments of religion induced some to grant liberty to their
fellow-Christians who groaned under the yoke of servitude, so mis
taken ideas concerning devotion led others to relinquish their liberty.
The oblati, or voluntary slaves of churches or monasteries were very
numerous. Row zealous the clergy were to encourage the opinion
which led to this practice will appear from a charter by which one
gives himself up as a slave to a monastery. Great, however, as the

ROBERTSON. 271
power of religion was, it does not appear that the enfranchisement of
slaves was a frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its
vigor. On the contrary, there were laws which set bounds to it, as
detrimental to society. The inferior order of men owed the recovery
of their liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy, which lodged
the most extensive power in the hands of a few members of the so
ciety, and depressed all the rest When Louis X. issued his ordinance,
several slaves had been so long accustomed to servitude, and their
minds were so much debased, by that unhappy situation, that they re
fused to aecept of the liberty which was offered them. Long after
the reign of Louis X. several of the French nobility continued to as
sert their ancient dominion over their slaves. It appears from an
ordinance of the famous Bertrand de Guesclin, Constable of France,
that the custom of enfranchising them was considered a pernicious
innovation. There is no general law for the manumission of slaves
in the statute-book of England, similar to that of the kings of France.
Though the genius of the English Constitution seems early to have
favored personal liberty, personal servitude, nevertheless, continued
long in England in some particular places. In the year 1514, we flnd
a Charter of Henry VIII. enfranchising two slaves belonging to one
of his manors. As late as the year 1574, there is a Comraission from
Queen Elizabeth with respect to the manumission of certain bondmen
belonging to her."
I have extracted the whole of these passages at great length, be
cause I wish to give the reader the fullest information in my power.
But their evidence is clear on two points, which properly belong to
my argument. First, that- large numbers oi freemen became volun
tary slaves to the churches and monasteries in Europe, and that the
clergy were zealous to encourage the practice ; a very decisive proof
that no sin was attached to the relation in their judgment And
secondly, that the inferior order of men owed the recovery of their
liberty, not, as is commonly supposed, to the influence of Christianitj'-,
but to the decline of the aristocratic feudal system. Here, therefore,
we have another proof of the same fact, viz. that the Church did not
consider it a religious duty to meddle with the law of the State on
this subject, but took a full share in the existing institution, while her
influence was used to ameliorate and improve the treatment of the
slaves, both by precept and example. Hence, freemen, who were dis-

272 ROBERTSON,
posed to seek the greater protection which slavery gave them, during
those turbulent ages of baronial strife and contention, preferred to
have the Church or the monastery for their master ; because they
knew that they would there experience a milder and kindlier exercise
of authority than they could expect elsewhere.

MOTLEY. 273

CHAPTER XXXIX,
Right Rb-veeend Brother : There are some interesting statements
of our distinguished American historian, Mr. Motley, in his " Dutch
Republic," to which I shall next inrite your attention.
Thus, speaking of the Gauls, in the time of Julius Cesar, he saith :
that " the people were all slaves. The knights or nobles were all
trained to arms. The people had no rights at all, and were glad to
assign themselves as slaves to any noble who was strong enough to
protect them. In peace, the Druids exercised the main functions of
government." (Vol. 1, p. 7-8.)
" The Anglo-Saxon WilUbrod, in the eighth century, destroyed the
images of Woden in Walcheren, and founded churches in North Hol
land. Charles Martel rewarded him with extensive domains above
Utrecht, together with many slaves and other chattels. Soon after
wards he was consecrated Bishop of all the Frisians. Thus arose
the famous episcopate of Utrecht." (lb. p. 31.)
Describing the condition of the Netherlands in the tenth century,
the historian saith that " slavery was both voluntary and compulsory.
Paupers sold themselves that they might escape starvation. The
timid sold themselves that they might escape violence. These volun
tary sales, which were frequent, were usually made to cloisters and
ecclesiastical establishments, for the condition of Church slaves was
preferable to that of other serfs. Persons worsted in judicial duels,
shipwrecked sailors, vagrants, strangers, criminals unable to pay the
money-bote imposed on them, were all deprived of freedom ; but the
proliflc source of slavery was war. Prisoners were almost univer
sally reduced to servitude. A free woman who intermarried with a
slave, condemned herself and offspring to perpetual bondage. The
number of slaves throughout the Netherlands was very large ; the"
number belonging to the Bishopric of Utrecht, enormous." (lb.
pp. 32-3.) 12*

274 MOTLEY,
Tracing the progress of society, Mr. Motley gives the following
masterly sketch : " The Crusades," saith he, " made great improve
ment in the condition of the serfs. He who became a soldier of the
Cross, was free on his return, and many were adventurous enough to
purchase liberty at so honorable a price. Many others were sold or
mortgaged by the crusading knights, desirous of converting their
property into gold, before embarking upon their enterprise. The
purchasers or mortgagees were in general churches or convents, so
that the slaves thus alienated obtained at least a preferable servitude.
The place of the absent serfs was supplied with ^ free labor, so that
agricultural and mechanical occupations, now devolving on a more
elevated class, becarae less degrading, and, in process of time, opened
an ever-widening sphere for the industry and progress of freemen.
Thus a people began to exist. It was, however, a miserable people,
with personal but no civil rights whatever. Their condition, although
better than servitude, was almost desperate." (Vol. 1, p. 33-4.)
And the change which gradually brought about the general decline
of the feudal system of vassalage, is rightly stated by Mr. Motley to
have been not religion but commerce, " In the fifteenth century,"
saith he, " commerce had converted slaves into freemen, freemen into
burghers, and the burghers were daily acquiring a larger hold upon
the government" (lb. p. 42.)
And to prove, still further, how little the change had to do with
the idea that slavery was inconsistent with religion, we find the fol
lowing historical fact, a hundred years later. At the battle of Le
panto, in A.D. 1545, our author states correctly that " the Turks
taken prisoners were made slaves to the victorious Spaniards.''
" The Turkish slaves,'' saith he, " were divided among the rictors
in the proportion of one half to Philip, and one half to the Pope and
Venice. Don John received, as a present, one hundred and seventy-
four slaves. Alexander of Parma received thirty slaves ; Requesens
thirty. To each general of infantry was assigned six slaves ; to each
colonel, four ; to each ship's captain, one. The number of slaves in
chains allotted to Philip was 3600. Seven thousand two hundred
Turkish slaves, therefore, at least, were divided among Christians."
(Dutch Repubhc, v. 3. p. 140, in note.)
' These extracts serve to demonstrate the universal judgment of
Christendom, that there was no sin in holding slaves. In their treat
ment there might be, and doubtless was, an abundance of sin. And

MOTLEY, 275
amongst fallen creatures like ourselves, there is no relation of society
in which we are not compelled to say the same. It is the result of
Christianity to improve the administration of all the relations of hfe,
by bringing mankind under the government of heaven. And slavery
was thus improved, among the rest. But to abolish it was another
matter, which belonged to the State, and not to the Church. Hence
we find that the Church has never meddled with it, because the
Church is the Kingdom of Christ, which is "not of this ¦world."
And therefore she leaves the State to manage its temporal interests
in its own way, always willing to " render unto Caesar the things that
be Caesar's," while she " renders unto God the things that be God's."

276 HARGRAVE,

CHAPTER XL,
Right Reverend Brother : The celebrated case of the negro Som
erset, as you probably know, produced, in the year 1772, a new era
of thought in England on the subject of slavery ; and doubtless aided
powerfully, under the great authority of Lord Mansfield, to attach
many influential minds to the side of WUberforce, in his subsequent
assault upon the slave-trade.
On the side of the negro, who claimed his freedom from West-In
dian slavery on the ground that his master had brought him to Eng
land, where slavery was no longer known, the eminent lawyer Har-
grave, with others, was engaged, and his written argument is in the
State Trials. (Vol. 11 and 12, app. p. 340.) From this very learned
and interesting specimen of legal and historical research, I shall ex
tract another testimony which well deserves attention. Of course
you will remember on which side this accomplished jurist was re
tained. "Notwithstanding," saith Mr. Hargrave, "the force of the reasons
against the allowance of domestic slavery, there are civilians of great
credit who insist on its utihty. This opinion is favored by Puffen-
dorf, and Ulricus Huberus. In the dissertation on slavery prefixed
to Potgiesserus on the German law, De Statu Servorum, the opinion
is examined minutely and defended."
" The great origin of slavery is captivity in war, though sometimes
it has been coraraenced by contract. It has been a question much
agitated, whether either of these foundations of slavery is consistent
with natural justice. It would be engaging in too large a field of inquiry
to attempt reasoning on the general lawfulness of slavery. I trust,
too that the liberty for which I am contending does not require such
a disquisition, and am impatient to reach that part of my argument
in which I hope to prove slavery reprobated by the law of England
as an inconvenient thing. Here, therefore, I shall only refer to some

HARGRAVE. 277
of the most eminent writers, who have examined how far slavery,
founded on captivity or contract, is conformable to the law of nature,
and shall just hint at the reasons which influence their several opin
ions." " The ancient writers suppose the right of kiUing an enemy van
quished in a just war, and thence infer the right of enslaving him.
In this opinion, founded, as I presume, on the idea of punishing the en
emy for his injustice, they are foUowed by Albericus Gentilis, Grotius,
Puffendorf, Bynkershoeck, and many others. But in The Spirit of
Laws (Montesquieu) the right of killing is denied, except in case of ab
solute necessity, and for self-preservation. However, when a country
is conquered, the author seems to admit the conqueror's right of en
slaving for a short time, that is, till the conquest is effectually secured.
Dr. Rutherford, not satisfled with the right of killing a vanquished
enemy, infers the right of enslaving him from the conqueror's right to
a reparation in damages for the expenses of the war. The lawfulness
of slavery by contract is assented to by Grotius and Puffendorf,
who found themselves on the maintenance of the slave, which is the
consideration moving from the master.''
"But however reasonable it may be to doubt the justice of domes
tic slavery, however convinced we raay be of its ill effects, it must be
confessed that the practice is ancient, and has been almost universal.
Its beginning raay be dated from the remotest period, in which there
are any traces of the history of mankind. It commenced in the bar
barous state of society, and was retained, even when men were far
advanced in civilization. The nations of antiquity most famous for
countenancing the system of domestic slavery, were the Jews, the
Greeks, the Romans, and the ancient Germans, amongst all of whom
it prevaUed, but in various degrees of severity. By the ancient Ger
mans it was continued in the countries they overran; and so was
transmitted to the various kingdoms and states which arose in Europe
out of the ruins of the Roman Empire. At length, however, it fell
into decline in most parts of Europe. The history of its decline in
Europe has been traced by many eminent writers, particularly Bodin,
Albericus Gentilis, Potgiesserus, Dr, Robertson, and Mr. Millar. It
is sufficient here to say that this great change began in Spain, accord
ing to Bodin, about the end of the eighth century, and was become
general before the middle of the fourteenth century. Bartolus, the
most famed commentator on the Civil Law, in that period, represents

278 HAEGRAVE,
slavery as in disuse, and the succeeding commentators hold much the
same language. However, they must be understood with many re
strictions and exceptions, and not to mean that slavery was completely
and universally abolished in Europe. Some modern civilians, not
sufficiently attending to this circumstance, rather too hastily repre
hend their predecessors for representing slavery as disused in Europe.
The truth is that the ancient species of slavery, by frequent emanci
pations, became greatly diminished in extent, the remnant of it was
considerably abated in severity ; and the disuse of the practice of
enslaving captives taken in the wars between Christian powers, as
sisted in preventing the future increase of domestic slavery."
"Such was the expiring state of domestic slavery in Europe at the
commencement of the sixteenth century, when the discovery of
America and of the western and eastern coasts of Africa gave occa
sion to the introduction of a new species of slavery. It took its rise
from the Portuguese, who, in order to supply the Spaniards with
persons able to sustain the fatigue of cultivating their new posses
sions in America, particularly the islands, opened a trade between
Africa and America for the sale of negro slaves. This disgraceful
commerce in the human species is said to have begun in the year
1508, when the flrst importation of negro slaves was made into His-
paniola from the Portuguese settlements on the western coasts of
Africa. In 1540 the Emperor Charles V. endeavored to stop the
progress of the negro slavery, by orders that all slaves in the Ameri
can isles should be made free ; and they were accordingly manumit
ted by Lagasca, the governor of the country, on condition of conti-n-
uing to labor for their masters. But this attempt proved unsuccess
ful, and on Lagasca's return to Spain, domestic slavery revived and
flourished as before. The expedient of having slaves for labor in
America was not long peculiar to the Spaniards, being afterwards
adopted by the other Europeans as they acquired possessions there.
In consequence of this general practice, negroes are become a very
considerable article in the commerce between Africa and America,
and doraestic slavery has taken so deep a root in most of our Ameri
can colonies, as well as in those of other nations, that there is little
probability of our seeing it generally suppressed."
" The law of England," continues Mr. Hargrave, " never recognized
any species of domestic slavery except the ancient one of villenage
now expired ; and has sufficiently provided against the introduction

HAEGEAVE. 279
of a new slavery under the name of vUlenage, or any other denomina
tion whatever."
" The condition of a villein had most of the incidents belonging to
slavery in generaL His service was uncertain, and indeterminate,
such as his lord thought flt to require — ^he was liable to beating,
imprisonment, and every other chastisement his lord could devise,
except killing and maiming. He was incapable of acquiring property
for his own benefit, the rule being, quicquid acquisitur servo,
acquisitur domino. He was himself the subject of property; as
such saleable and transmissable. If he was a villein regardant, he
passed with the manor or land to which he was annexed, but might
be severed, at the pleasure of his lord. If he was a villein in gross,
he was an hereditament or a chattel real according to his lord's inter
est, being descendible to the heir when the lord was absolute owner,
and transmissible to the executor when the lord had only a term of
years. Lastly, the slavery extended to the issue if both parents were
rilleins, or if the father only was a villein ; our law deriving the con
dition of the child from that of the father, contrary to the Roman
law, in which the rule was, Partus sequitur ventrem!'
" The origin of villenage is principally to be derived from the wars
between our British, Saxon, Danish, and Norman ancestors, whilst
they were contending for the possession of the country."
"After the Conquest, many things concurred happily, first, to
check the progress of domestic slavery in England, and finally to
suppress it. The cruel custom of enslaving captives in war being
abohshed, from that time the accession of a new race of villeins was
prevented ; and the humanity, policy and necessity of the times were
continually wearing out the ancient race. Sometimes, no doubt,
manumissions were freely granted, but they probably were much
oftener extorted during the rage of the civil wars, so frequent before
the reign of Henry VII., about the forms of the constitution or the
successions to the crown. Another cause which greatly contributed
to the extinction of villenage, was the discouragement of it by the
courts of justice. They always presumed in favor of liberty, throvv-
ing the onus probandi upon the lord. And manumissions were in
ferred from the slightest circumstances of mistake or negligence in
the lord, from every act or omission which legal refinement could
strain into an acknowledgment of the villein's liberty. I shall not
attempt to follow vUlenage in the several stages of its decline, it being

280 HAEGRAVE,
sufficient to mention the time of its extinction, which, as all agree,
happened about the latter end of Elizabeth's reign, or soon after the
accession of James. Prom the fifteenth of James I., being more than
one hundred and fifty years ago, the claim of villenage has not been
heard in our courts of justice: and nothing can be more notorious,
than that the race of persons who were once the objects of it, was
about that time corapletely worn out by the continued and united
operation of death and manumissions."
The conclusion of Mr. Hargrave was, that " the law of England
excludes every slavery not commencing in England, every slavery,
though commencing there, not being ancient and immemorial. Vil
lenage is the only slavery which can possibly answer to such a
description, and that has long expired by the deaths and emancipa
tions of those who were once the objects of it Consequently there
is now no slavery which can be lawful in England, until the legisla
ture .shall interfere to make it so."
Lord Mansfield decided the case in accordance with this argument,
as you doubtless know, and the slave was pronounced to be a free
man. But I have quoted so largely from Mr. Hargrave, in order to
show the perfect accordance of his statements with the position which
I have maintained.
For he does not say one word about the sinfulness of slaveholding,
nor claim any action of the Church against it, as being inconsistent
with religion or morahty. He admits that the great majority of the
most eminent writers were in favor of it on the ground of natural jus
tice. He attributes its extinction in England, not to any direct
opposition by Church or State, but to its gradual decay, by death
and manumission ; and while he contemplates the establishment of
negro slavery in the colonies as a settled practice, he contents him
self with opposing its introduction into England as an inconvenient
thing, not warranted by law, nor agreeable to modern usage, since
slavery had ceased to exist there, in ainy form, one hundred and fifty
years before.

TREATY OF UTRECHT. 281

CHAPTER XLI,
Right Reverend Brother: The public feehng in England, with
respect to negro slavery, at the time when our Constitution was
established, is set forth with great abUity in a manuscript defense of
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott, which
has been sent to me by a friend. And from this I shall take a few
additional facts, in corroboration of the preceding statements.
The treaty of Utrecht, which crowned the victories of Marlborough,
in the reign of Queen Anne, a.d. 1713, was distinguished by a spe
cial regard to the slave-trade, securing to the English African com
pany a monopoly in the introduction of negroes into the several ports
of Spanish America, for the term of thirty years. And the flrst
Article of this treaty stipulated that this company should bring into
the West-Indies one hundred and forty-four thousand- negroes,
within that period, being at the rate of four thousand eight hundred
in every year, one fourth part of the commercial profits being re
served to the King of Spain, and another fourth part to the Queen
of England. The negro race was then held to be a proper subject
of commerce by the universal sentiment of Europe. The transferring
them from their deplorable savage state to the mastership of civilized
men, was considered to be a benefit of the highest value to the ne
groes themselves. And had it been otherwise, the " good Queen
Anne," who was certainly a rehgious and excellent woman, would
never have been an actual partner in the trade of the English African
company. The provisions of the treaty of Utrecht on this subject were kept
in view by the subsequent treaties, in the reigns of George I. and
George H., clearly proving that there was no change of English sen
timent down to 1749, when the monopoly of the English company
having expired, the slave-trade was thrown open to every British
subject who chose to embark in it. This was done by statute twen-
ty-thu-d George Second, chapter thirty-one. And the result produced

282 STATUTE OF GEORGE III,
so great an influx of negroes into the colonies, that the Legislature of
South-Carolina passed an act prohibiting the further importation.
But the British government disaUowed this act, and reprimanded the
governor for having assented to it.
The American Revolution having been successfully accomplished,
and peace proclaimed in 1783, we find the British Parliament passing
another act, granting certain privileges of trade to the ports of the
West-Indies. The fourth section of this, (statute twenty-seven,
George Third, chapter twenty-seven, 1787,) authorizes the exporting
of merchandise from the English islands to any foreign colony, and
in this merchandise there is special mention of rum and negroes.
This was thirteen years after the decision of Lord Mansfield in the
case of Somerset, and only two years before the adoption of our pre
sent Constitution.
In the year 1773, when that famous case was decided, there were
no less than fourteen thousand negro slaves in London alone. And the
opinion of Lord Mansfield was denied to be law by several gTeat
authorities. Lord Hardwicke and Lord Stowell being clearly opposed
to it We have seen the statement of Mr. WUberforce, that all the
lawyers were against him, and we know that it cost more than
twenty years of struggle before the slave-trade was abolished, while
it was not until 1833 that emancipation was granted to the British
slaves in the West-Indies, through the pressure, as the historian
Alison states, of the new popular feeling.
The success of the Republican theory in the establishment of the
United States was undoubtedly the first great step which led the
rainds of men in this direction. But that went no further than the
abolition of the slave-trade, leaving the domestic institution alone, and
even providing for its protection. The great blow against slavery
was reserved for the French Revolution, which freed the negroes of
St. Domingo, and led to the horrid massacre of the whites, and threw
all Europe into alarm and consternation by the conflicts which arose
in every quarter, between popular rights and the old systems of mon
archy. In all this the Church of Christ took no part, save by prayer
and loyal sufferance. The atheism of France, which uprooted slavery,
did not spare the altar. Liberty, equality, and fraternity became the
new trinity which men adored, instead of the God of the Bible. And
hanging, drowning, and the guiUotine were the prompt punishment
of those who refused to bow down and worship them.

PUBLIC OPINION, 283
That the Church of England held slavery to be perfectly lawful in
itself, as well as the Church of Rome and all the Christian denomina
tions of Europe and America, through the whole period of their his
tory, down to the end of the last century, and far into the present, is
therefore as incontrovertible as any fact can be. The bishops of that
Church saw no sin in the treaty of Utrecht, to which the religious
Queen Anne was a party. They concurred in the Act of Parliament
under George the Third, which regarded the negroes as lawful mer
chandise. The Puritans of New-England sold the Indians as slaves,
and were the chief importers of the Africans for the Southern market.
Even the Quakers of Pennsylvania had slaves, and WUliam Penn was
a slaveholder, though that was the flrst State which passed an act of
gradual abolition, and this estimable people have been among the
most ardent and constant friends of the measure. Their principles,
however, were in no substantial respect at variance with my own.
They did not denounce slavery as a sin in itself, and the " sura of all
villainies." They did not denounce the Constitution as "a covenant
with death and an agreement with hell." They did not insist on im
mediate emancipation. And, above all, they sought to accomplish
their object only by the use of kind persuasion and friendly argument,
on the ground of a wise expediency, without bringing it into the region
of party politics, without kindling hatred, discord, and strife between
brethren, and with that love of " peace and good-will to men " which
has so honorably marked their character.

284 THE ENGLISH POOR.

CHAPTER XLH.
Right Reverend Brother : I now come to consider the treatment
of the Southern slaves, which, in the popular mind, constitutes the
main ground of the horror expressed by so many persons with regard
to the institution. And here, I trust that I may claim as strong an
antipathy to all cruelty and oppression, as becomes the character of a
Christian rainister. But this charge of cruelty concerns the rehgious
consistency of thousands araongst ray brethren : men who, though now
unhappily separated from us by this deplorable war, are yet belong
ing to the same spiritual fraternity. Justice is due to those slave
holders, as well as to the slaves. I only ask that the evidence brought
against them shall be tested fairly, by the same rules which apply to
human conduct in general. And this can only be done by a com
parison of the evils which the slaves suffer from their masters, with
those to which the laboring classes are liable in the state of freedom.
The Journal of Mrs. Kemble, during her residence on the Georgia
plantation of her husband, is one of the most popular books on the
evils of negro slavery ; and deservedly so, not only from its literary
merits, and the wide-spread reputation of the -writer, but mainly
because it deals in facts, with actual knowledge, on the spot, of the
practical results of the institution. And yet, passing from its perusal
to the recent work of Joseph Kay, Esq., on the social condition of the
people of England, no intelligent and candid mind can avoid the con
viction that her picture of misery and degradation amongst the slaves
falls far short of the dehneations of brutalized licentiousness and de
basement amongst the lower class of Enghsh freemen. I shall make
a copious selection of extracts from this sadly interesting book, to
prove the assertion.
"I speak it," saith Mr. Kay, "with sorrow and with shame, but
with not the less confidence, that our peasantry are more ignorant,
more demoralized, less capable of helping themselves, and more pau
perized, than those of any country in Europe, if we except Eussia

THE ENGLISH POOR. 285
Turkey, South Italy, and some parts of the Austrian Empire." (p. 24,
Harper's New- York ed.)
" The laborer has no longer any connection with the land he culti
vates ; he has no stake in the country ; he has nothing to lose, noth
ing to defend, and nothing to hope for," (p. 16.) "His position is
one of hopeless and irremedial dependence. The work-house stands
near him, pointing out his dismal fate if he faUs one step lower,"
(p. 17.) " In the civihzed world there are few sadder spectacles than
the present contrast in Great Britain of unbounded wealth and luxury,
with the starvation of thousands and tens of thousands, crowded into
cellars and dens, without ventilation or light, compared with which
the wigwam of the Indian is a palace. Misery, famine, brutal
degradation, in the neighborhood of stately mansions which ring
with gayety and dazzle with pomp and unbounded profusion, shock
us as no other wretchedness does. — It is a striking fact that the
private charity of England, though almost incredible, makes little im
pression on this mass of misery," (p. 28.)
The writer gives the following statement on the amount oi pauper
ism, which is truly astounding :
" Before the enactment of the new poor-law," saith he, " we were
expending annually between six and seven millions of pounds sterling
for the relief of abject pauperism in England and Wales alone. Since
then, we have been expending, in the same cause, between four and
five miUions per annum — without reckoning the vast sums which
have been sunk in the administration of the poor-law in the different
Unions, or the immense sums which have been given away annually
by charitable individuals and societies. All this, be it remembered,
has been required to alleriate the miserable condition of our laboring
population, and to keep crowds from actual starvation. Their inde
pendence is destroyed ; they can not live unless they depend upon
the charity of the higher classes," (p. 29.)
Our author proceeds to show, from a carefully prepared table, the
comparative increase of crime in the agricultural districts. " The
proportional amount of crime to population," saith he, "in 1841 and
1847 was greater in almost all the agricultural counties of England
than it was in the manufacturing and mining districts." This table
" also shows how fearfully the araount of crime is increasing in the
agricultural districts of Westmoreland, Lincoln, Cambridge, Hunting
don, Leicestershire, Rutland, Bedfordshfrc, Buckinghamshire, Wor-

286 THE ENGLISH POOR.
cestershire, and Devonshire." — " Does not this show that the peas
ants of England must be subjected to a singularly demoralizing sys
tem, to produce so strange, so almost incredible a result?" (p. 44-6.)
He next passes on to the " awfully wretched state of the children
of London," and our author observes that " although this singular
account refers to London alone, it does in reality give a vei»y correct
picture " of other cities. " In the towns of Lancashire," saith he,
"and in all the larger of the manufacturing and provincial towns,
the life and character of an equal proportion of the whole number of
the children is precisely similar to that of the juvenile population of
the back streets of London," (p. 45.)
They maybe seen everywhere ; " but in Lambeth and Westminster
we find the most flagrant traces of their swarming activity. There
the foul and dismal passages are thronged with children of both
sexes, and of every age from three to thirteen. Though wan and hag
gard, they are singularly vivacious, and engaged in every sort of occu
pation but that which would be beneficial to themselves and credit
able to the neighborhood. Their appearance is wild ; the matted hair,
the disgusting filth, that renders necessary a closer inspection, before
the flesh can be discerned between the rags which hang about it, and
the barbarian freedom from all superintendence and restraint, fill the
mind of a novice in these things with perplexity and dismay. Visit
those regions in the summer, and you are overwhelmed with the ex
halations ; visit them in the winter, and you are shocked by the
spectacle of hundreds shivering in apparel that would be scanty in
the tropics ; many are all but naked ; those that are clothed are gro
tesque ; the trowsers, when they have them, seldom pass the knee ;
the tail-coats very frequently trail below the heels. In this guise
they run about the streets, and line the banks of the river at low
water, seeking coals, sticks, corks, for nothing comes amiss as
treasure trove," (pp. 60-1.)
" A large proportion of those who dwell in the capital, and aU the
larger towns of the British empire, are crammed into regions of filth
and darkness, the ancient but not solitary reign of the newts and
toads." " Here are. the receptacles of the species we investigate ; here they
are spawned, and here they perish. Can their state be a matter of
wonder? We have penetrated alleys terminating in a cul-de-sac
long and narrow, like a tobacco-pipe, where air and sunshine were

THE ENGLISH POOR. 287
never known. On one side rose walls several feet in height, blacken
ed with damp and slime ; on the other side stood the dwellings, still
more revolting, while the breadth of the wet and bestrewed passage
would by no means allow us the full expansion of our arras ! We
have waited at the entrance of another, of similar character and di
mensions,, but forbidden by the force and pungency of the odors to
examine its recesses. The novelty of a visit from persons clad like
gentlemen, gave the hope that we were official ; and several women,
haggard, rough, and exasperated, surrounded us at once, imploring
us to order the removal of the filth, which had poisoned their tene
ments, and to grant them a supply of water, from which they had
been debarred for many days. Pass to another district, you may
find it less confined ; but there you will see, flowing before each hovel,
and within a few feet of it, a broad, black, uncovered drain, exhaling
at every point the most unwholesome vapors. If there be not a
drain, there is a stagnant pool ; touch either with your stick, and the
mephitic mass will yield up its poisonous gas like the coruscations
of soda-water."
" The children sit along these depositories of death, or roam through
the retired courts, in which the abominations of years have been
suffered to accumulate. Here reigns a melancholy silence, seldom
broken but by an irritated scold, or a pugnacious drunkard. The
pale, discolored faces of the inhabitants, their shriveled forms, their
abandoned exterior, recall the living skeletons of the Pontine marshes,
and sufficiently attest the presence of a secret agency, hostile to every
physical and moral improvement of the human race."
" The interior of the dweUing is in strict keeping ; the smaller
space of the apartments increasing, of course, the evils that prevail
without — damp, darkness, dirt, and foul air. Many are wholly des
titute of furniture ; many contain nothing except a table and a chair ;
some few have a common bed for all ages and both sexes, but a large
proportion of the denizens of these regions lie on a heap of rags more
nasty than the floor itself Happy is the family that can boast of a
single room to itself, and in that room, of a dry corner."
" The children that survive the noxious influences and awful ne
glect, are thrown, as soon as they can crawl, to scramble in the gut
ter, and leave their parents to amusement or business." ....
" The ' duris ingens in rebus egestas ' stimulates these independent
urchins ; and at an age when the children of the wealthy would still

288 THE ENGLISH POOR,
be in leading-strings, they are off, singly or in parties, to beg, borrow,
steal, and exercise all the cunning that want and a love of evU can
stir up in a reckless race."
" This is a fair picture of the state of things m ^11 our larger
towns," (p. 61-3.)
The author gives a sad account of what he rightly calls " a very
singular and very melancholy proof of the degradation and pauperism
of u, great part of the laboring population. Large and ever-increas
ing hordes of vagrants or wandering beggars infest all the highways
of England and Wales. These poor wretches are miserably clothed,
filthily dirty, covered with vermin, and generally very much diseas
ed ; sometimes from debauchery, and sometimes — though this would
appear to be the exceptional case — from the want of food. These
vagrants consist, in some parts of the country, of nearly equal parts
of Irish and English ; while, in other parts, two thirds of them are
Irish, and the other third English. They are composed of persons
of both sexes, and of all ages. Very few are married. The women,
of whom there are great numbers, are nearly all prostitutes. Each
man is generally attended by one or two such companions in misery
and crirae."
" To nearly every work-house there are attached what are called
vagrant-wards, or buildings which are specially set apart for the re
ception of tramps, such as those I have described. In some places,
such is the filthy state of tho poor viTctches who are admitted at
night, that it is necessary to have the framework of the beds white
washed every day. In many places it is found impossible to give
them beds, because the tramps swarm so horribly with vermin. In
those cases, a rug is allowed to each, and the rug is washed in the
morning." " Men are kept, in order to guard these foul receptacles every
night, but it is needless to observe that nothing can prevent scenes
which I may not attempt to describe," (p. 73-5.) " The conduct
of the poor wretches is reported to be bad in the extreme. They
are described as being noisy and turbulent ; as making the wards
resound with the vilest songs and language ; as being ungrateful and
refractory towards the ward-offioerg, and as having habits too filthy
and indecent to be named," (p. 76.)
" If I were only to state," saith our author, " that 16,000 of such
poor wretches wore wandering about our roads begging alms in 1848

THE ENGLISH POOR. 289
I should give no idea of the magnitude of this plague. Hitherto, I
have only spoken of those who seek shelter for the night in the
work -house vagrant-wards. But besides these, there are vast num
bers who sleep every night in the vagrant lodging-houses in the
towns. These lodging-houses, which are to be found in most of our
towns, consist of long low rooms, filled with beds or mattresses,
upon which the vagrants of all ages and of both sexes sleep, two or
three in one bed or upon one mattress. These rooms are unventi-
lated, seldom cleaned, filthy and close beyond comprehension to those
who have not been into them. In these dens, the vagrants, pick
pockets, beggars, and, in fine, all the houseless wanderers of the
streets, sleep, crowded together — old men and young men, old women
and young women, and children of all ages, from the infant at the
breast, to the boy who is just ripening into the felon. The scenes
which take place are horrible. In one bed sleeps a man with two
women ; in another, a woman with two men ; in another, two or three
women or men ; in another, a poor mother and her children. Drunk
ards, pickpockets, prostitutes, and beggars, covered with vermin, are
packed in together. Foul songs, oaths, drunken yells, and groans
mingle every night in one sad chorus, until sleep closes the eyes of
all," (p. 79-80.)
" One of the city missionaries, describing the state of the Mint
district in London, says : ' It is utterly impossible to describe the
scenes which are to be witnessed here, or to set forth, in its naked
deformity, the awful characters sin here assumes. . . . In Mint
street alone, there are nineteen lodging-houses, the majority of which
are awful sinks of iniquity. Quarrels and fights are very comraon,
and the cry of murder is frequently heard. The public-houses in
this street are crowded to excess, especially in the Sabbath evenings,"
(p. 80-81.)
" If the nightly inmates of these dens are added to the tramps who
seek lodging in the vagrant-wards of the work-houses, we shall find
that there are at least between 40,000 and 50,000 tramps daily in
festing our roads and streets," (p. 81.)
Now all this is revolting enough, but the next set of facts which
this author sets forth is still more so. " Another sad symptom of
the condition of the poor," saith he, " is the use they make of the
' burial clubs.' In some of our towns the degradation of many of the
poor is such, that parents often cause tho death of their children in
13

290 THE BURIAL CLUBS.
order to obtain the premiums from the societies. It appears that in
our larger provincial towns the poor are in the habit of entering their
children in what are called ' burial clubs.' A small sum is paid
every year by the parent, and this entities him to receive from three
to flve pounds from the club, on the death of the child. Many par
ents enter their children in several clubs. One man in Manchester
has been known to enter his child in nineteen different clubs. On
the death of such a child, the parent becomes entitled to a large sum
of money, and as the burial of the child does not necessarily cost
more than one pound and ten shillings, the parent realizes a consid
erable sum after all the expenses are paid."
" It has been clearly ascertained that it is a common practice
among the more degraded classes of poor in many of our towns, to
enter their infants in these clubs, and then to cause their death,
either by starvation, ill-usage, or poison ! What more horrible
symptom of moral degradation can be conceived ? One's mind re
volts against it, and would fain reject it as a monstrous fiction. But
alas ! it seems to be but too true," (p. 82.)
This awful stateraent is proved by numerous cases, which occupy
twelve pages of the book. And the author concludes by saying :
" There can be no doubt that a great part of the poorer classes of this
country are sunk into such a frightful depth of hopelessness, misery,
and utter moral degradation, that even mothers forget their affection
for their helpless little offspring, and kill them, as a butcher does his
lambs, in order to make money by the niurder, and therewith to
lessen their pauperism and misery," (p. 94.)
Mr. Kay passes on from this terrible statement to the "great num
bers and miserable condition of the inhabitants of the cellars."
" In all our larger towns," saith he, " and especially in those in
which manufactures are carried on, there are a great number of cel
lars beneath the houses of the small shopkeepers and operatives,
which are inhabited by crowds of the poor. These rooms measure,
in Liverpool, from ten to twelve feet square. In some towns they
are rather larger. They are generally flagged. The flags lie directiy
upon the earth, and are generally wretchedly damp. In wet weather
they are very often not dry for weeks together. Within a few feet
from the windows rises the wall which keeps the street from falling
in, darkening the gloomy rooms, and preventing the sun's rays from
penetrating into them."

THE CELLARS, 291
" Dr. Duncan, in describing the cellar-houses of the manufacturing
districts, says : ' The cellars are ten or twelve feet square, generally
flagged, but frequently having only the bare earth for a floor, and
sometimes less than six feet in height There is frequently no win
dow, so that light and air can gain access to the cellar only by the
door, the top of which is often not higher than the level of the street. In
such cellars, ventilation is out of the question. They are of course
dark, and, from the defective drainage, they are very generally
damp," (pp. 95-6.)
" They have never more than two, and generally only one room
each, but small as they are, they are crowded to excess. It is no
uncommon thing for two and three, and sometimes for four families,
to live and sleep together in one of these rooms, without any division
or separation -whatever for the different families or sexes. There are
very few ceUars where at least two famUies do not herd together in
this manner. Their beds are made sometimes of a mattress, and
sometimes of straw in the corners of the cellar, and upon the damp,
cold, flag floor; and on these miserable sleeping-places, the father,
mother, sons, and daughters crowd together in a state of fllthy inde
cency, and much worse off than the horses in an ordinary stable. In
these cellar-houses, no distinction of sex and age is made. Some
times a man is found sleeping with one woman, sometimes with two
women, and sometimes with young girls ; sometimes brothers and
sisters of the age of eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, are found in bed
together, while at other times the husband and wife share the bed
-fl'ith all their children."
"The poor creatures who inhabit these miserable receptacles are of
the most degraded species; they have never learned to read; have
never heard of the existence of a Deity ; have never been inside a
church, being soared from the door by their own fllth and wretched
ness, and have scarcely any sense of a distinction between right and
wrong." " I have heard gentlemen who have visited these kinds of dens in
London say, that they have found men and women sleeping together,
three and four in a single bed, that they have not disturbed or shamed
them in the least by discovering thera in these situations, but that, on
the contrary, their remonstrances have been answered only by a laugh
or by a sneer,'' (p. 96-7.)
"In the twelve wards forming the parish of Liverpool, there are

292 THE VILLAGES,
6294 inhabited ceUars, containing 20,168 inhabitants, exclusive of
the inhabited cellars in courts, of which there are 621, containing
probably 2000 inhabitants." And these numbers Dr. Duncan thinks
are " under the mark." " The whole of the cellar population of the
parish, upwards of 20,000, are absolutely without any place of de
posit for their refuse matter," (p. 97-8.)
"But what," continues our author, "is the condition of the houses
of the poor in our towns and viUages ? The further we examine, the
more painful, disgusting, and incredible does the tale become !"
" We see on every hand stately palaces, to which no country in the
world offers any parallel. The houses of our rich are more gorgeous
and more luxurious than those of any other land. Every clime is
ransacked to adorn them. The soft carpets, the heavy rich curtains,
the luxuriously easy couches, the beds of down, the services of plate,
the numerous servants, the splendid equipages, and all the expensive
objects of literature, science, and the arts, which crowd the palaces
of England, form but items in an ensemble of reflnement and mag-
niflcence which was never imagined or approached in all the splendor
of the ancient empires. But look beneath all this display and lux
ury, and what do we see there ? A pauperized and suffering people.''
" To maintain show, we have degraded the masses, until we have
created an evil so vast, that we now despair of ever flnding a remedy.
The Irish poor have drunk the dregs of the cup of misery, and are
hardly kept from revolution by the strong arm of the soldiers and
police ; while the English poor are only saved from despair and its
dread consequences, by the annual expenditure of many millions in
relief, which our own neglect and misgovernment have rendered ne
cessary," (p. 99-100.)
If this dreadful picture were confined to the condition of the poor
in the cities and towns, it would be a very raelancholy spectacle.
But unhappily it extends to the country at large. For thus our
author proceeds with his sad narration.
"Miserable," saith he, "as the habitations of a great part of the
poor of our towns are, the cottages and the cottage life of the peas
ants are still worse, and, what is more, they have been for some time
past, and still are, rapidly deteriorating. The majority of the cot
tages are wretchedly built, often in very unhealthy sites ; they are
miserably small, and are crowded to excess ; they are very low, sel
dom drained, and badly roofed ; and they scarcely ever have any eel-

THE VILLAGES, 293
lar or space under the floor of the lower rooms. The floors are formed
either of flags, which rest upon the cold, undrained ground, or, as is
often the case, of nothing better than a mixture of clay and lime,
which receives, day after day, and year after year, water and drop
pings of all kinds, and gives back pestilential vapors, injurious to the
health of the inhabitants. Such cottages are fit abodes for a peas
antry pauperized and demoralized by the utter hopelessness of their
situation," (p. 115-6.)
" The accounts we receive from all parts of the country show that
these miserable cottages are -crowded to an extreme, and that the
crowding is progressively increasing. People of both sexes, and of
all ages, married and unmarried, parents, brothers, sisters, and strang
ers, sleep in the same rooms and often in the same beds. Women
have been delivered in bed-rooms crowded with men, young women,
and children, and facts are witnessed much too hon-ible to be alluded
to. Nor are these solitary instances, but similar reports are given by
gentlemen -vri-iting in all parts of the country," (p. 117-8.)
" The landlords are unwilling to increase the number of the cottages
in the rural districts, because they fear to increase the numbers of
the resident laboring population, and the amount of their poor-rates ;
and they are generally unwilling, even when they are able, to spend
money in improring the size or character of the cottages, because
they know that they can easUy let any of the existing cottages, no
matter how wretched, owing to the great demand for house-room."
" The crowding of the cottages has, therefore, of late, been growing
worse and worse. The promiscuous mingling of the sexes in the bed
rooms has been increasing very much, and is productive of worse con
sequences every year. Adultery is the very mildest form of the vast
amount of crime which it is engendering. We are told by magis
trates, clergymen, surgeons, and union officers, that eases of incest,
and reports of other cases of the same enormity, are becoming more
and more common," (p. 119.) *
" Such is the hideous social system to which we have subjected our
poor," (p. 123.)
The apathy with which this matter is regarded by all the parties,
^s strongly stated by our author.
" One singular thing is," saith he, "that this state of things has
existed so long, that ths poor have sunk below complaining, and that
the landlords and richer classes are quite surprised, if you talk to

294 THE PEASANTRY,
them of the miserable condition of the peasants' cottages. They have
learned to think it a necessary state of things, and ridicule the idea
of its being the result of a system of defective legislation. Many go
much further and boldly maintain that it is better that the peasants
should not be educated, as education would make them thoroughly
discontented with their present position in life," (p. 126.)
With respect to the diseases of the English peasantry, we have the
following statement :
"Fever, and scrofula in all its forms, prevail under such circum
stances," (p. 134.) And the nourishment is of the humblest quality.
" Persons living in these cottages are generally very poor, very dirty,
and usually in rags, living almost wholly on bread and potatoes,
scarcely ever tasting animal food, and consequently highly suscepti
ble of disease, and very unable to contend with it," (p. 135.)
"It is impossible," says a writer quoted by Mr. Kay, "fully to es
timate the wretchedness to which the inmates of the hovels, which
meet the eye at all points, are exposed, without a close personal in
spection of them. We are accustomed to associate with the idea of a
country village, or with a cottage situated in a winding vale, or hang
ing upon the side of a rich and fertile slope, nothing but health, con
tentment, and happiness. A rural dwelling of this class, with its
heavy thatch and embowering trees, makes such a nice pencil-sketch,
that we are naturally inclined to think it as neat and comfortable as
it appears. But to know it aright, it must be turned inside out, and
its realities exposed to the gaze of the observer. How often does the
cot which looks so attractive and romantic upon paper, conceal an
amount of wretchedness, filth, squalor, disease, privation, and fre
quently of immorality, which, when exposed in their reality, are
perfectiy appalling ? It is high time that people divested themselves
of the false impressions too generally entertained of the character of
our rural cottages. They are chiefly drawn from descriptions which
at one time may have suited the reality, when the condition of the
agricultural laborer was much better than it is now ; for that it was
much better than at present, is evident from the information derived
from a variety of valuable sources. To go a considerable way back :
we flnd Fortescue alluding to their condition in his day, as one of great
comfort and happiness ; inasmuch as they lived chiefly upon butcher
meat, of which they had plenty, and had abundance of good ale with
which to accompany it at their meals. In regard to their diet at

THE PEASANTRY. 295
least, their condition now seems the very reverse of what it was then ;
and as it is impossible that they could. have fallen back so much in
this iraportant element of their physical condition, without having all
the others deteriorated in the same proportion^ it is fair to infer that
their house accommodation was better formerly than now. It was
better in this, if in no other respect — that fewer people were to be
found under one and the same roof, — a state of things much more fav
orable to health, cleanliness, and good morals, than that which now
prevails. We must therefore judge of the laborer's condition, not
from past descriptions of it, but from the sad realities of the present
hour," (142-4.)
Describing one of the parish houses on the borders of Devonshire
and Cornwall, our author saith, that "In each room there lived a
famUy, night and day, the space being about twelve feet square. In
one were a man and his wife and eight children ; the father, mother,
and two children lay in one bed, the remaining six were huddled
' head and foot,' (three at the top and three at the foot,) in the other
bed. The eldest girl was between fifteen and sixteen, the eldest boy
between fourteen and fifteen ! Is it not horrible to think of men and
women being brought up in this foul, brutish manner in civilized and
Christian England ? The lowest of savages are not worse cared for
than these children of a luxurious and refined country," (p. 151.)
"It is, perhaps, worthy of remark, that dishes, plates, and other
articles of crockery seem almost unknown. There is, however, the
less need for thera, as grist bread forms the principal and, I believe,
the only hind of food that falls to the laborer's lot," In no single
instance did I observe meat of any kind during my progress. The
furniture is such as may be expected — a rickety table and two or
three foundered chairs generaUy forming the extent," (p. 153.)
" This misery," says another country rector, " is not confined to
Dorsetshire. If you go to Devonshire, Wiltshire, and the hill coun
try of Gloucestershire, you will find the peasant at the point of starva
tion," (p. 154.)
"We need not wonder,'' continues our author, "if we find that
the amount of crime in counties, where the peasants are in such a
horrible social condition, is alarmingly and terribly increasing. The
Times of the 30th of November, 1849, shows this terrible increase of
crime in the last few years in Dorsetshire. ' We yesterday pub
lished,' saith the editor, ' in a very short compass, some grave par-

296 INCEEASE OF CRIME.
ticulars of the unfortunate county of Dorset It is not simply the
old story of wages inadequate for life, hovels unfit for habitation, and
misery and sin alternately claiming our pity and our disgust. This
state of things is so normal, and we reaUy believe so immemorial, in
that notorious county, that we should rather deaden than excite the
anxiety of the public by a thrice-told tale. What compels our at
tention just now is a sudden, rapid, and, we fear, a forced aggrava
tion of these evils, measured by the infallible test of crime. Dorset
shire is fast sinking into a slough of wretchedness, which threatens
the peace and morality of the kingdom at large. The total number
of convictions which, in 1846, was seven hundred and ninety-eight,
in 1847, eight hundred and twenty-one, in 1848, nine hundred and
fifty, mounted up in 1849 to the astonishing number of one thousand
three hundred for the whole year ! Unless something is done to
stop this flood of crime, or the tide happily turns of itself, the
county will have raore than doubled its convictions within four
years ! " (p. 156-7.)
Again, speaking of the hovels of the peasants, the author saith :
"During the present century, we have been building dweUings for
the poor, as if we were running up sties for pigs," (p. 162.)
" The food of the laborer and his family in Norfolk and Suffolk is
principally bread, potatoes, and the Norfolk dumpling, which consists
of the dough of which the bread is made. In none of the cottages
that I have visited in either of the three counties have I ever seen
such a thing as apiece of fresh butcher's meat," (p. 164.)
"One species of iraraoraUty, which is peculiarly prevalent in these
counties, is that of bastardy — being fifty-three per cent above the
average of England or Wales. There appears to be a perfect want of
decency among the people. 'The immorality of the young women,'
said the rector of the parish to me, ' is literally horrible, and I regret
to say it is on the increase in a most extraordinary degree. When I
first carae to the town, the mother of a bastard child used to be
ashamed to show herself. The case is now quite altered ; no person
seems to think any thing at all of it When I first came to the town
there was no such thing as a common prostitute in it ; now there is
an enormous nuraber of them. When I am called on to see a woman
conflned with an illegitimate child, I endeavor to impress upon her
the enormity of the offense ; and there are no cases in which I receive
more insult fi'om those I visit than from such persons. They gener-

BOLD IMMORALITY, 297
ally say : ' They'll get on as well, after all that's said about it, and if
they never do any thing worse than that, they shall get to heaven as
well as other people.' There appears to be, among the lower orders,
a perfect deadness of all moral feeling upon this subject," (p. 169.)
With respect to the mining and manufacturing populations in
Wales, the evidence is nothing better. Thus the Rev. John Griffith
saith : " Nothing can be lower, I would say more degrading, than the
character in which the women stand relative to the men. The men
and women, married as well as single, sleep in the same room. Pro-
miscuous intercourse is most common, is thought of as nothing, and
the women do not lose caste by it," (p. 183.)
Again, saith Edward W. Seymour, Esq., speaking of the mining dis
tricts : " The vices of lying, thieving, swearing, and drunkenness, and
the vastly increasing crirae of ilhcit intercourse between the sexes, pre
vail to a great extent, and these are by no means conflned to the
uneducated," (p. 189.)
The Rev. James Denning, Brecknock, saith that " the poor seem
ignorant on most subjects, except how to cheat and speak evU of each
other. They appear not to have an idea what the comforts of life are.
There are at least two thousand persons living in this town in a state
of the greatest fllth, and to all appearance they enjoy their filth and
idleness, for they make no effort to get rid of it. From my experi
ence of Ireland, I think there is a great similarity between the lower
orders of Welsh and Irish — both are dirty, indolent, bigoted, and
contented." — "The number of illegitimate children, when compared
with England, is astounding,'' (p. 190.)
"Morals are generally at a low ebb, but want of chastity is the
giant sin of Wales.''
But others say that " the lower classes of Wales are far superior
to the same class in other parts of the kingdom," (p. 192.)
Speaking of the mining population of Monmouthshire, Mr. Sy
mons says : " Evil in every shape is rampant in this district, demoral
ization is everywhere dominant, and all good influences are compara
tively powerless. They drink to the most brutal excess. They have
little regard to modesty or the truth, and even the young children in
the streets, who can scarcely articulate, give utterance to impreca
tions. The bodies and habits of the people are almost as dirty as
the towns and houses of the swarthy region in which they swarm.
The whole district, with the exception of Newport, teems with crime,
13*

298 BOLD IMMORALITY.
and all the slatternly accompaniments of animal power and moral
disorder, with scarcely a ray of mental or spiritual intelligence.
The people are savage in their manner, and mimic the repulsive rude
ness of those in authority over them," (p. 199.)
" The Rev. St George Armstrong WiUiams testifies that the moral
principles of the Welsh people are totally corrupt and abandoned in
this respect While the sexes continue to herd like beasts, it were
idle to expect that they can be restrained by religion or conscience,
I assert -n'ith confidence as an undeniable fact, that fornication is not
regarded as a vice, scarcely as a frailty, by the common people in
Wales. It is avowed, defended, and laughed at, without scruple, or
shame, or concealment, by both sexes alike," (p. 211.)
On the state of education, the assertions of our author are what
might be expected from the foregoing. Thus he saith, that " about
one half of our poor can neither read nor write, have never been in
any school, and know little, or positively nothing, of the doctrines of
the Christian religion, of moral duties, or of any higher pleasure than
beer or spirit-drinking and the grossest sensual indulgence. They
live precisely like brutes, to gratify, as far as their means allow, the
appetites of their uncultivated bodies, and then die, to go they have
never thought, cared, or wondered, whither. Brought up in the
darkness of barbarism, they have no idea that it is possible for them
to attain any higher condition; they are not even sentient enough to
desire, with any strength of feeling, to change their situation ; they
are not intelligent enough to be perseveringly discontented ; they are
not sensible to what we call the voice of conscience ; they do not un
derstand the necessity of avoiding crime, beyond the mere fear of the
police and a jail ; they do not in the least comprehend that what is
the interest of society is their own also ; they do not in the least un
derstand the meaning, necessity, or effect of the laws — they eat, drink,
breed, work, and die ; and while they pass through their brute-like
existence here, the richer and raore intelligent classes are obliged to
guard them with police and standing armies, and to cover the land
with prisons, cages, and all kinds of receptacles for those who, in
their thoughtlessness or misery, disturb the quiet and happiness of
their more intelligent and consequently more moral and prosperous
neighbors, by plunder, assault, or any other deed which the law is
obliged, for the sake of the existence of society, to designate a ' crime

IGNORANCE, 299
although most of those who commit it do not in the least comprehend
its criminality," (pp. 2, 16, 17.)
" Let it not be said that this picture is too strongly drawn. The
subject is one which does not admit of exaggeration," (p. 219.)
" It has been calculated that there are at the present day, in Eng
land and Wales, nearly eight millions of persons who can not read
and write."
" Of all the chUdren in England and Wales, between the ages of
five and fourteen, more than the half are not attending any school." ,
" Even of the class of the farmers, there are great numbers who
can not read and write.''
" Of the teachers who are officiating in many of the village schools,
there are many who can not read and write correctly, and who know
very httle of the Bible which they profess to explain."
" A very great part of our present village and town schools are
managed by poor and miserably instructed dames, who thus seek to
gain a livelihood, and who literally do no good to the children, except
it be by keeping them for a certain number of hours in the day, out
of the dirt, and out of worse society," (p. 252-3.)
" In most of our schools, it is necessary, in order to provide sala
ries for the teacher, and funds for the support of the school, to charge
from twopence to fourpence a week per head, for the instruction of
scholars. This absolutely excludes the children of all paupers and
of all poor persons, who can not afford to pay so much out of their
small earnings," (p. 255.)
I conclude these multiplied extracts with a few strong words of se
rious warning, on the inevitable results of the awful condition of the
masses in Great Britain.
"We stand," saith Mr. Kay, "on dangerous ground. We know
not now how far the mine has been excavated. AVe know not how
strong the enemy is ; but certain it is that a spirit omnipotent for evil,
a spirit of revolution, irreverence, irreligion, and recklessness, and,
more dangerous than all, a spirit of unchecked, unguided, and licen
tious intelligence, is abroad, which will be the most dangerous enemy
with which Christianity has hitherto had to cope. If religious teach
ers are not found, and that soon, for this people, where will the
Church be fifty years hence ? Where the French Church was in 1796 —
overthrown by an infidel multitude. Can any one look on, for the
next half century, without dismay ?" (p. 294.)

300 THE ENGLISH POOR.
" I repeat that the great majority of the people in the great towns
of this kingdom have no religion," (p. 298.)
" Here, -with our vast accumulated masses ; ^vith a population in
creasing by 1000 per diem ; with an expenditure on abject pauperism
which amounts to £5,000,000 per annum ; with a terrible deficiency
in the numbers of our churches and of our clergy ; with the raost
demoralizing publications spread through the cottages of our opera
tives ; with democratic ideas of the wUdest kind, and a knowledge of
the power of union daily gaining ground among thera ; — here, too,
where the poor have no stake whatever in the country, — where the
most frightful discrepancy exists between the richer and the poorer
classes ; where the poor fancy they have nothing to lose and every
thing to gain from a revolution ; — where the majority of the opera
tives have no religion ; — where our very freedom is a danger, unless
the people are taught to use and not abuse it, — and here, too, where
the aristocracy is richer and more powerful than that of any other
country in the world — the poor are more depressed, more pauperized,
more irreligious, and very much worse educated than the poor of any
other European nation, solely excepiting Russia, Turkey, South Italy,
Portugal, and Spain. Such a state of things can not long continue !"
(p. 322-3.)

TREATMENT OF SLAVES, 301

CHAPTER XLIH,
Right Reverend Brother : The book of Mr. Kay, from which I
have made so many extracts, is a perfect demonstration that millions
of people, descended from the superior races of mankind, are in a
worse condition, by far, in free England, than the negro slaves of the
South, in their social habits, in their sense of morality and religion,
and in every other element of human comfort.
But the Southern slaves are subject to the lash of the overseer, if
they are insubordinate ! Suppose they are, no man doubts that some
kind of discipline is necessary for those who are idle and refractory ;
and the only question is whether the summary punishment of twelve
stripes* is more cruel than the substitute of imprisonment, which
modern philanthropy prefers, oa the ground of its greater humanity,
I confess that I am more than doubtful of the assumption that the
wisdom of our age has made any improvement on the practice of
former times in this matter. The Mosaic law, which was divine, or
dered forty stripes even for the free Israelite; and children were to be
corrected by the rod, as a necessary element in their moral and re
ligious training. I shall quote the words of Scripture, however, not
for your information, of course, but for my other readers ; as a famili
arity with the language of the Bible on these subjects is by no means
common, at this day. Thus then we read in Deut. 25 : 1-8 :
" If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judg
ment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the
righteous, and condemn the wicked. And if the wicked man be
worthy to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be
beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
Forty stripes he may give him and not exceed, lest if he should ex
ceed, and beat him with many stripes, then thy brother should seem
vUe unto thee.''
¦'' This is all, according to Mrs. Kemble, which are allo-wed to be given In the field. In
bad cases, the head overseer may extend the punishment to fifty, -which is rarely exceeded.

302 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
The same kind of discipline is recognized in the book of Proverbs.
Thus, ch. 10, V. 13 : " A rod is for the back of him that is void of un
derstanding." Again, ch. 26, v. 3 : "A whip for the horse, a bridle
for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back."
And we find it most expressly laid down in the education of child
ren, Prov. 13 : 24: "He that spareth the rod, hateth his son; but he
that loveth him, chasteneth him betimes." Again, ch. 22, v. 15 :
"Foohshness is bound in the heart of a chUd, but the rod of correc
tion shall drive it far from him." Again, ch. 23, v. 13-4, "Withhold
not correction from the child, for if thou beatest him with the rod,
he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver
his soul from hell."
Here there is no restriction laid upon the parent with respect to
the number of stripes, because the affection of the father was a suffi
cient guard against excess. And in the case of the slave, there was
no restriction, since the interest of the master was enough, as a gen
eral rule, to prevent undue severity, which could only deprive him of
the labor of the servant, and thus prove to be a loss to himself,
independent of the feelings of humanity.
But the strongest evidence in favor of bodily correction is that
which our blessed Saviour gave in person. For thus we read, (John
2 : 18-5:) "And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up
to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen, and
sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting ; and when he
had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the
temple," etc.
I have briefly referred to these passages in the Bible View of
Slavery, but I set them forth here in full, because there is nothing
which I regard with more regret than the disposition, so manifest in
our day, to regard such precepts as only fit for a barbarous age, and
totally inconsistent with the mild precepts of the Gospel. It is a
slander on the character of God to charge His laws \A-ith any thing
hke cruelty, or unnecessary harshness. On the contrary, I maintain
that His system, as laid down for His chosen people, paid more re
gard to love, and tenderness, and consideration for the poor, than any
code of laws which has ever existed, or now exists, in the boasted re
finement and philanthropy of the nineteenth century. And I shall
proceed to prove this stateraent by positive testimony from the same

MOSAIC LAW, 303
book of Deuteronomy, which commands the use of the scourge, even
to the free Israelite. Thus, then, we read :
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with aU thine heart, and with
aU thy soul, and with aU thy might" (Deut 6 : 5.)
" The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because
ye were more in number than any people, for ye were the fewest of
all people ; but because the Lord loved you, and because he would
keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers.'' (Deut.
7 : 7-8.)
"He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow,
and loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment. Love ye
therefore the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"
(Deut 10 : 18-9.)
" At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. Every
creditor that lendeth aught unto his neighbor shall release it; he shall
not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother; because it is called the
Lord's release. Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again : but that
which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release." (Deut
15 : 1-3.)
" If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within
any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord th}"- God giveth thee,
thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand frdm thy poor
brother, but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt
surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth."
" Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying :
The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand, and thine eye be
evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he
cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee. Thou shalt
surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest
unto him ; because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless
thee in all thy works, and in all thou puttest thine hand unto. For
the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee,
saying, thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy
poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." (Deut 15 : 7-11.)
" Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that
thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine. And thou shalt rejoice
in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-serv
ant, and thy maidservant, (thy bondman and thy bondmaid in the

304 MOSAIC LAW,
Hebrew,) and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the
¦widow, that are within thy gates." (Deut 16 : 13-4.)
These passages clearly prove that the great law of love to God and
love to man was the fundamental principle in this divine system.
The release of all debts every seventh year, the benevolence and lib
eral charity to the poor, and the special regard paid to the stranger,
the orphan, and the -widow, stand preeminent above the legislation of
the whole Christian -world, and claim our highest reverence and
admiration. But now I pass to the divine rule in time of war, which is marked
¦n-ith such peculiar regard for human feelings, viz. :
" When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest
horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of
thera, for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out
of the land of Egypt. And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto
the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people,
and shall say unto them : Hear, 0 Israel, ye approach this day unto
battle against your enemies ; let not your hearts faint ; fear not, and
do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them ; for the Lord
your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your
enemies, to save you."
" And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying: What man
is there that hath built a new house and hath not dedicated it ? Let
him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another
man dedicate it. And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard,
and hath not yet eaten of it ? Let him also go unto his house, lest
he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. And what man is
there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her ? Let him
go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another
man take her."
" And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they
.shall say : What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted ? Let
him go and return to his house, lest his brethren's heart fail as well
as his heart" (Deut. 20 : 1-9.)
Here we see a contrast between the laws of God and the laws of
men, which is a wonderfully impressive proof of the tenderness to
natural human feeling, manifest throughout this divine system.
There is no dragging of the unwilling soldier from his house, his vine
yard, or his betrothed bride, agairfst his will. Even the shrinking of

COURAGE, 305
the coward is respected, instead of shooting him for a defect which is
rooted in his physical temperament, and beyond his control. In
deed it is remarkable, that in the whole Bible there is no praise be
stowed on mere physical courage, for this belongs only to the animal
part of human nature. We see it in the brutes, and even in the in
sects. The hornet and the enraged bee will follow a man for a mile,
and attack him with fury. But what human being would venture to
assault a creature as much superior to himself in size and strength,
as the man is superior to the insect ? So we see it in the dog, that
some of the species are endowed by nature with the most obstinate
courage, as the mastiff and the bull-dog ; while others, like the spaniel,
could never be made to fight, by any training. So with the birds-
Some are made for violent assaults, as the eagle and the hawk, but
who would expect the dove to manifest the sarae ferocity ? All these
varieties of natural temperament may be found in man, who is the
head and complement of the creation in our lower world. And hence,
the courage which belongs merely to our physical constitution is no
just subject of praise from the Almighty. It is the animal nature,
and nothing more. The moral courage of the soul is quite another
thing, because it is the result of spiritual principle. This, therefore,
and this only, is properly a virtue. Such was the courage of David
when he offered himself to the combat against Goliath, in faithful re
liance on the God of Israel. Such was the courage of the noble
three, who were ready for the fiery furnace, rather than bow down
before the idol of the Babylonian king. Such was the courage of the
blessed Apostles, who endured scourging, imprisonment, and death,
in the service of their divine Master. Such was the courage of the
martyrs in all ages. And such is the courage which alone may claim
the admiration of the Christian, and the approval of the divine
Redeemer, in the judgraent of the great day.
But this code of laws contains several other commandments, bear
ing on the same subject of a kind and affectionate spirit, which dis
tinguish it above all other systems as the work of the God of love.
For thus we read in the twenty-second chapter :
" Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and
hide thyself from thera ; thou shalt in any case bring thera again
unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if
thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house,
and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou

306 MOSAIC LAW,
shalt restore it to him again."— "And with aU lost things of thy
brother's, M'hich he hath lost and thou hast found, shalt thou do like
wise ; thou mayest not hide thyself"
" Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox faU down by the
way, and hide thyself from them ; thou shalt surely help him to lift
thera up again."
" If a bird's-nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree,
or on the ground, whether they be young ones or eggs, and the dam
Bitting upon the young or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam
with the young ; but thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take
the young to thee, that it may be well with thee, and that thou may
est prolong thy days."
" When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battle
ment for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any
man fall frora thence." (Deut. 22 : 1-8.)
"When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war,
neither shall he be charged with any business ; but he shall be free
at home one year, and shall cheer up the wife which he hath
taken." " No man shall take the nether or the upper mill-stone to pledge ;
for he taketh a raan's life to pledge."
" AVhen thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go
into his hou_se to fetch his pledge: thou shalt stand abroad, and
the man to whora thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad
unto thee."
" And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge : In
any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth
down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee ; and it
shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy God."
" Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy,
whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in the
land within thy gates. At his day thou shalt give him his hire,
neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is poor and setteth his
heart upon it : lest he cry unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee."
" When thou outtest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast for
gotten a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it ; it shaU
be for the stranger, the fatherless and the widow : that the Lord thy
God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands."
" When thou beatest thine olive-tree, thou shalt not go over the

MOSAIC LAW, 307
boughs again : it shaU be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the
widow." " When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not
glean it afterwards ; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and
the widow."
" And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land
of Egypt; therefore I command thee to do this thing." (Deut.
24 : 5-6, 10-5, 19-22.)
Now we may search in vain through the whole legislation of the world
for any thing to be compartd with these laws of the God of Israel, so
full of tender compassion for the poor, of brotherly kindness in the
acts of social interest, and even of pitiful consideration towards the
birds and beasts ; the least performance of mercy being regarded by
Him, without whom the sparrow can not fall to the ground, and His
favor being only assured to those who cherish, in their dally life, the
spirit of benevolent affection.
When, therefore, we find that the same God of love directs offend
ers to be chastised with the scourge, and even orders the rod to be
used in the education of children, we can not, without absolute im
piety, suppose that these punishments are cruel, or liable to be
charged with inhumanity. On the contrary, we are bound to believe
that they were dictated by the unerring wisdom of Him who thor
oughly understands the requirements of human nature, and who com
manded them precisely because he knew that they were best adapted
to secure the proper objects of all punishment, namely, the reforma
tion of the offender, and the warning of others against the offense.
To show how this should be understood by every Christian believer,
wiU be my labor in the next chapter.

308 COEPOEAL PUNISHMENT,

CHAPTER XLIV,
Right Reverend Brother : In the divine system laid down for
the chosen people, we read nothing of imprisonment for debt, oisfor
crime, or for any offense against established authority. Tl>e debtor
might be sold for six years, in order to pay the creditor by his labor,
and if this did not suffice, the remainder of the debt was canceled,
and the creditor was obliged to let him go free. The thief was com
pelled to make restitution fourfold, and if this was not in his power,
he likewise was sold into bondage. The murderer, adulterer, rav-
isher, etc., were to be stoned by the whole multitude, the witnesses
beginning the work of punishment. The man-slayer who was not
guilty of murder, because the death was unintentional, was forced to
betake himself to a city of refuge, and remain there until the decease
of the High Priest The transgressor in small matters was ordered
to be chastised with the scourge, according to the discretion of the
judges. And in cases of injury by maiming, the culprit suffered the
loss of the same meraber of which he had deprived'his neighbor, "an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," etc. But we read of no jails, no
penitentiaries, no imprisonraents for years or for life, no shutting up
of men from the free light and air of heaven, and from social inter
course with their families and the community around them.
Now the special question to be considered is this, viz., whether the
infliction of the scourge or the lash was, or was not, more safe, more
raerciful, and more effectual, than the modern substitute of imprison
ment, which so many philanthropic minds imagine to be a vast im
provement upon the divine system.
I ara perfectly aware that in justifying the law of God in this
matter, I run counter to the prevailing habits and notions of our
country. In the last century it was otherwise. The punishment of
scourging was then the established course for all the lighter misde
meanors. Flogging was the chastisement of the soldier in the army,
of the sailor in the navy, of the pupU in the school, of the chUd in

COEPOEAL PUNISHMENT, 309
the family. But so rapidly have the ideas of society advanced about
what they are pleased to call the dignity of human nature, that this
sort of discipline has become discreditable and even odious. In the
administration of justice the old common-law maxim, Qui non habet
in crumena, luat in corpore — i.e., "He that has no money in his
purse, must pay in his body," has entirely disappeared. Flogging
in the army and the navy is abolished by the Legislature. Schools
are managed as they may be, without the rod, and the dignity of
human nature must not be violated by giving twelve stripes even to
the Southern slave, although the law of God directed forty to be
administered to the Jewish freeman !
It is no part of my present purpose to set forth the results already
apparent from this rapid change in public sentiment, though I think
it would be easy to show that it has produced a serious deterioration
in the old reverence for law and order, without which freedom must
degenerate into anarchy, and prosperity into corruption. But I con
fine myself to my proper object by considering it in its relation to
the authority of the Word of God. In the progress of these new
ideas, Christianity has been made to bow down to the popular opinion,
until the Bible has almost ceased to be the standard of truth. Men
have discovered that the ancient Jews were a barbarous race, and
therefore the law laid down to them by the wisdom of the Almighty
is regarded as a barbarous code, no longer entitled to religious vener
ation. The tone and spirit of a godless literature have infected even
the professed ministers of the sanctuary ; and too many are found
doing the work of Bishop Colenso in another way, by denying the
meaning and the application of the Old Testament, because " the
people love to have it so."
I thank God, however, that the Church has not yet been forced
to change her system. The Old Testament is still read along with
the New, according to her Calendar. The Psalms of David still hold
their place, as her chief songs of praise. And there are still left, I
trust, a goodly number amongst her bishops, her clergy, and her
laymen, willing and able to resist the encroachments of modern in
fidelity, and maintain the preeminence of the whole Bible, as the
AVord of inspiration.
But I return from this digression to the specific point which I have
undertaken to discuss, namely, whether the punishment of the
scourge, ordered by the authority of the divine and Omnipotent

310 COEPOEAL PUNISHMENT.
Lawgiver, is not more safe, more merciful, and more effectual, than
the modern substitute of imprisonment. That it is so, I should be
willing to assume, because it was the system appointed by the Al
mighty for His chosen people. But I think it may be proved to any
reflecting and candid mind, for the foUowing reasons :
First, then, it is more safe for the offender, both in mind and in
body. In mind, because it is universally conceded that a residence
for some time in a jail or a work-house rarely fails to make the pri
soner, morally and socially, a far worse man when he leaves, than
he was when he entered it His companionship, during the time of
his conflnement, is with men, raany of whom are deeply depraved,
and familiar with iniquity. He finds no one trying to cure him of
his errors, while the leading spirits are disposed to make light of his
fault, to teach him to curse the law, and to sink him to their own
level. Thus the prison becomes a school of vice, and the punishment
of a light offense prepares him for a much more perilous course of
future criminality.
But imprisonment is also less safe for the body, because the change
of his habits, from daily exercise in the open air, to the unwholesome
atmosphere of thejaU, with its wretched fare, and its contaminating
associations, must soon reduce his strength, and lay the foundation,
at least, for disease and suffering, perhaps to the total ruin of his
constitution. In the second place, the punishment of the scourge is more mer
ciful than imprisonment, because, though sharper at the time, it is
soon over. The culprit is not cut off from tho kind sympathy of his
hurable home, his accustomed friends, and his affectionate family.
He suffers nothing from the unfeeling jests and often insulting taunts
of such companions as he would have found in the jaiL The conduct
of those around him is adapted to soothe and comfort him. And he
returns to his labor without any loss of health or moral principle.
In the third place, I consider the punishment of the scourge to be
much more effectual than imprisonment, both as it respects t'he
offender himself, and the community to which he belongs. For the
temper of insubordination or rebellion -which calls for chastisement
is very apt to be rather inflamed than put down bj' confinement The
culprit broods over the hardship of his case, with sullen wrath ; and
regards the law which shuts hira up with the fee'ling of indignation.
Whereas the summary infliction of the lash humbles his pride and

COEPOEAL PUNISHMENT. 311
subdues his temper, and thus reforms him by the strong hand, which
is the most convincing argument with ordinary human nature. This,
therefore, effects, much more surely than the prison, the first object
of punishment, which is the correction and amendment of the offend
er. And the second object, namely, the warning given to others, in
order to save them from transgression, is evidently better accom
plished ; because the lesson is given publicly, and operates on all who
witness the infiiction. If he were imprisoned, on the contrary, he
would be taken out of sight ; and what he suffered, or whether he
suffered at all, would excite comparatively but little interest in others.
On the whole, therefore, I can see no reason whatever for doubting
the superior effects of the punishment prescribed by the law of God,
and universally retained by ali Christendom for eighteen centuries
together. And thus far, the practice of the Southern slaveholder, in
the usual mode of keeping his servants in subordination, seems
abundantly sanctioned by the highest authority. For it is certain
that the Bible, the Church, and the State, everywhere, concurred
upon the subject, until the present era of sensitive transcendentalism
raised against it the reproach of cruel barbarity, and in so doing, set
itself in opposition to every previous rule of discipline, whether
human or divine.
That it is hable to abuse, is no argument against its reasonable
and just application. For so is every other kind of discipline, and
none more so than the favorite plan of imprisonment But it has
this advantage on its side, namely, that it is public in its administra
tion ; and this very publicity is one of the surest guards against ex
cessive severity. Whereas the abuses of imprisonment are private
of necessity, and the sufferers are exposed to all the impositions,
exactions, and caprices of their keepers, with the least probable chance
of exposure. No class of men in the community are more liable to
be led into every practice of petty tyranny than the officers of prisons,
from the very nature of their employment And no offense against
humanity is more difficult to prove than the maltreatment to which
the prisoners must needs be subject, if those who are virtually
their masters should be lacking in conscience or in moral prin
ciple. But this privacy protects them from reproach, because the wise
philanthropists of our day see and hear nothing of any abuse, and
therefore take it for granted that their favorite system is open to no

312 MRS. KEMBLE.
suspicion. The Southern mastersV'on the contrary, are sheltered
by no secrecy. AU the punishments which they inflict, and a vast
deal which they doVof inflict, are sure to be wafted on the wings of
the wind, to every quarter of the land, and across the ocean, and
dressed up in eloquent oratory, in pathetic poetry, and in exciting
novels, to stir the generous pulse of public sympathy and indignation.
AVe have seen that by the Jewish law, the Roman law, the English
law, and, in fine, by the law of every other people, the testimony of
slaves could not be received on any trial. But to make amends for
this, the mere statements of every slave, without any oath at all, are
received by all our modern philanthropists in the most absolute con
fidence, while the contrary statements of freemen, bishops, clergy,
and laity, are set at nought, as perfectly unworthy of regard. And
this is what our ultra-abolitionists call justice !
It was thus with Mrs. Kemble, whose journal of six months' resi
dence upon a Georgia plantation is accepted as so conclusive a de
scription of the treatment of the slaves throughout the whole Southern
population. I entertain the utmost respect for this lady's talents,
for her very attractive style, and for her perfect sincerity. But I
demur to the sufficiency of the testimony, because the greater part
of it rested on the veracity of the slaves, in opposition to her husband
and his overseer ; and was besides strongly influenced by her own
previous prejudices, by her exceedingly susceptible temperament,
and by her manifest ignorance of the state of brutal depravity which
Mr. Kay sets forth as the condition of the poorer classes in her own
beloved England, -n-here the substance of slavery remains, under the
form of freedom.
Granting, therefore, most willingly, all that can be claimed for the
personal character of this lady, I can not admit that she was properly
qualified for the work which she had undertaken. The daughter of
a distinguished tragedian, herself highly educated and accomplished
for the stage, brought up in the midst of affluent indulgence, a fas
cinating actress and refined gentlewoman, what opportunity had she
to learn the debased condition of the laboring poor in her own coun
try ? And when she came, in her bloom of youth and loveliness, to
dazzle her admiring audiences in the United States, knowing nothing
about the negro beyond the popular voice of English abohtionism,
what time and attention could she possibly devote to the thorough
investigation of the problem, which had tasked the abilities of the

MRS. KEMBLE. 313
ablest statesmen, North and South, to understand its true political
and social character ? Had she ever looked into the awful degradation
and heathenism of the colored race, on their native soil in Africa ?
Had she taken any pains to investigate the condition of the free ne
groes in the great cities ? Did she belong to the class of those angels
of mercy who ply their religious task amongst the degraded and
demoralized masses of our own country ? Had she, in a word, ac
quired any degree whatever of the experience, observation, and prac
tical wisdom, necessary for the formation of a calm and reliable
judgment on such a question ?
Not at all I She passed through a brilliant course of histrionic
celebrity, and then married a gentleman of great wealth, residing in
Philadelphia, but owning a large plantation in Georgia. She hved
and moved in the most luxurious and aristocratic circle. And when
she accompanied her husband on a visit to his property, where he
had not been for some years, she brought with her all her strong
English prejudices against slavery, all her refined disgust towards
the ordinary habits of English and Irish as well as African laborers,
all her impulsive and gushing sensibilities, all her fixed resolution to^
open her ears and eyes to one side, while she closed them fast against
the other, and all her ignorance of the wide field of facts and expe
rience the knowledge of which is absolutely essential, before even a
cool and masculine mind can be fully prepared to form a fair estimate
of the Southern institution.
A worse qualified witness, therefore, on such a subject, it would
be difficult to imagine. I should as soon think of appointing a board
ing-school girl to frame a code of laws, or to inspect the management
of our colleges, as of selecting Mrs. Kemble to settle the administra
tion of a social system, embracing four millions of slaves, and involv
ing the interests of nearly half the States on our vast continent
Yet even under the strong bias of her habits, her feelings, and her
prejudices, she informs us of much which places the condition of the
slaves on this Georgia plantation far above the debased state of the
English peasantry, as it is described by Mr. Kay. She found amongst
them no promiscuous licentiousness of all ages and both sexes, herd
ing like brutes in the same wretched den of filth and darkness. She
found no drunkenness, no oaths, no obscene and wanton songs, no
blasphemy, no fighting or violence, no midnight cries of murder, no
stohd ignorance of the simplest religious truth, no chUdren brought up
14

314 MRS. KEMBLE.
to be thieves and pickpockets, no fathers and mothers poisoning or
starving their littie ones to obtain the burial-fees, no wandering beg
gars, no work-houses to be the miserable refuge of cast-off old age,
and no necessity for an annual tax, to keep body and soul together.
All this, and more, I have proved to exist throughout the laboring
masses in England, by the testimony of Mr. Kay, transcribed from
the speeches of Lord Ashley, the committees appointed by the British
Parliament, the letters of magistrates, rectors, and curates, from every
quarter of the land, the author of the book being himself appointed
by the great University of Cambridge as a commissioner, to collect
the facts ; and having spent a long period in traveling throughout the
kingdom, in the execution of his sad but most important mission.
But there is one fact recorded by Mrs. Kemble, which I confess
astonished me. And as it is one which is equally likely to surprise
my readers, I shall transcribe her words in full.
On her visit to St Simon's Island, she saith : " At the door, I
found another petitioner, a young woman named Maria, who brought
a fine child in her arms, and demanded a present of a piece of flannel.
Upon my asking her who her husband was, she replied, without
much hesitation, that she did rot possess any such appendage. I
gave another look at her bonny baby, and went into the house to get
the flannel for her. I afterwards heard from Mr.  that she and
two other girls other age — about seventeen — were the only instances
on the island of women with iUegitimate children," (pp. 134-5, Har
per's ed 1863.)
When we look back at Mr. Kay's statement of bastardy amongst
the English peasantry, where he informs us that the cases amount
to flfty-three per cent ; and then compare with it the condition of the
negroes on this plantation, containing sorae hundreds of slaves, and
yet having only three girls who were the mothers of illegitimate child
ren ; we can not fail to see the vast superiority on the side of this
much-abused institution, even in that special point, which its adver
saries assume to be most open to reprobation.
Nor is this the whole of Mrs. Kemble's statements. She praises
the docility and affectionate temper of the slaves. She praises their
devout spirit, their readiness to receive religious instruction, and their
attention to the teaching of their own pious colored preacher. She
praises the attainments and character of the slave who was the en
gineer, and conducted the miUs of the establishment. She praises the

MRS, KEMBLE. 315
deportment of the young slave who was her special attendant. She
describes the ball which the slaves got up in honor of her arrival.
She tells her readers that the slaves profess, at least, to be contented,
and had no wish to run away. She sets forth their music and their
songs — not very poetical, indeed, but free from any thing Uke cor
ruption. And whUe she complains that the driver was allowed to
carry a whip into the field, and to give twelve lashes, but no more, to
the disobedient or the lazy, she forgets, or is ignorant, that in her
own beloved country, the schoolmaster carried his rod, and laid it on
his pupils, at his discretion ; that the system of fagging, in which
every younger pupil is a servant to the senior, still prevaUs in Eng
land ; that flogging remains in the army in Canada ; that eight
mUlions exist in that happy kingdom, who can not read or write ;
that five millions sterling are expended every year, to keep them
from starving ; and that they are sunk, by wretchedness and poverty,
to the lowest degree of immorality and degradation.
And, above all, she forgets to compare the condition of these slaves
in Georgia with that of the savages of Dahomey, from which they
-were descended. She forgets that slavery was the only means by
which they could have been raised to their present degree of light
and civilization. She forgets that three thousand slaves are emanci
pated by their masters, on an average, every year. She forgets that
out of these emancipated slaves the State of Liberia has sprung int-o
existence, and that the future extension of the same noble work will be
the great instrumentality, through which the providence of the All-wise
God will redeem, in time, the whole vast continent of heathen Africa,
thus making this much-abused institution a blessing, not only to the
slaves, but to the world.
The bondage of Egypt was appointed to the Israelites, as the pre
paratory state for their establishment in Canaan. There was no
attempt to free them by rising against their masters, or inciting them
to rebellion, although their numbers attained to six hundred thousand
men, able to bear arms. Moses undertdbk the work, supposing, as
St. Stephen saith, that " his brethren would understand how that
God by his hand would deliver them, but they understood not."
(Acts 7 : 25.) The time had not yet come. Moses was obliged to
flee from the wrath of the king, and spend forty years in humble
labor as a shepherd, before he was commissioned as their leader.
And then the work was effected, by the power of the Most High,

316 THE DIVINE PLAN,
without war, or tumult, or violence. The Lord turned the hearts of
Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and His people were commanded to de
part, with gifts and offerings, from " the land of bondage."
So, when the Israelites were doomed, by the divine decree, to the
captivity in Babylon, the Almighty, at the time predicted by the
prophet Jeremiah, inclined Cyrus to send them back into Judea, and
it was accomplished in concord and in peace.
So, when slavery died out in the nations of Europe, it was by the
providence of God, through the various changes of society. No war
was made upon it, by Church or State. But it faded gradually away,
without trouble or commotion.
So, when the slaves were emancipated in the West-Indies, it was
done by the British Parliament, peaceably and legally, with an ap
prenticeship of five years to the negroes, and a fair price paid to the
masters. The only instance in which slavery was abolished, in war and
blood, is the horrible case of the St Domingo butchery, and that was
the work of an infidel French Directory, when every atrocity was
coraraitted in Paris, under the naraes of liberty, equality, and frater
nity. The historian Alison has told us the wretched result to the
negroes themselves.
Contemplating these facts, and looking to Liberia, I anticipate the
time when the sarae Almighty Ruler will give emancipation to the
negro race in the Southern States, by inclining the minds of their
masters to adopt it on a gradual scale of peaceful and beneficent en
largement. Not by the red hand of war ; not by a bloody and cruel
insurrection ; not by arming the blacks against the whites, which
would be most likely to produce a general massacre of the colored
population ; not by keeping up a bitter and unceasing assault upon
an institution which is preparing a Christian host to regenerate the
barbarous hordes of heathen Africa ; not by degrading the pulpits of
the North, in order to elevate the dogmas of ultra-abolitionism ; and
not by hostile attacks upon the Word of God, the testimony of the
Church, and the Constitution of the country. But by a faithful and
patient trust in the government of divine Providence, which orders
every change among the nations by the counsels of unerring wisdom ;
by kindness and charitable forbearance towards the principles and
feelings of those who are placed in different circumstances from our
own ; by a quiet abstinence from a busy intermeddUng with evUs

THE DIVINE PLAN. 817
which we have no power to correct ; and by a hopeful assurance
that, if we do not thwart the course of things by a dangerous precipi
tancy, the grace and mercy of the Almighty will accomplish all that
is best for the negro race, in His own appointed time. And then
there will be no blood, no desolations, no groans, nor sighs, nor tears,
to stain the triumph of emancipation. Ethiopia will stretch out her
hands to the divine Redeemer, and His faithful disciples will be ready
to proclaim, " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-
wUl towards men."

318 SOUTHERN APPEAL,

CHAPTER XLV,
Right Reverend Brother: I shall now invite your attention,
and that of my readers in general, to the positive testimony of the
Southern clergy, on the subject of the treatment and condition of the
slaves ; not derived from a residence of six months on a single planta
tion, but drawn from an intimate and life-long famUiarity with aU the
facts connected with the institution.
The first evidence is entitled to serious consideration and respect,
being an extract from an " Appeal of Southern Clergymen, addressed
to Christians throughout the world," signed by ninety-five ministers,
and representing all the principal Protestant denominations. It was
published in England, in the Edinburgh Review, as well as in the
Southern States, and bears date at Richmond, April 22, 1863. I
omit all that portion of this interesting document which discusses the
war, and confine my extract to the paragraphs which concern my
special subject
" We are aware,'' saith this Appeal, " that in respect to the moral
aspects of the question of slavery, we differ from those who conceive
of emancipation as a measure of benevolence, and on that account we
suffer much reproach which we are conscious of not deserving. With
all the facts of the system of slavery, in its practical operations be
fore us, ' as eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, having had
perfect knowledge of aU things' on the subject of which we speak, we
may surely claim respect for our opinions and statements. Most of
us have gi-own up from childhood among the slaves ; aU of us have
preached to and taught them the Word of Life ; have administered
to them the ordinances of the Christian Church ; sincerely love them
as souls for whom Christ died ; we go among them freely, and know
them in health and sickness, in labor and rest, from infancy to old
age. We are familiar with then- physical and moral condition, and
alive to all their interests ; and we testify in the sio-ht of God that
the relation of master and slave among us, however wo may deplore

SOUTHEEN APPEAL, 319
abuses in this, as in other relations of mankind, is not incompatible
with our holy Christianity, and that the presence of the Africans in
our land is an occasion of gratitude in their behalf, before God, seeing
that thereby Divine Providence has brought them where missionaries
of the Cross may freely proclaim to them the word of salvation, and
the work is not interrupted by agitating fanaticism. The South has
done more than any people on earth for the Christianization of the
African race. The condition of slaves here is not wretched, as North
ern fictions would have men believe, but prosperous and happy, and
would have been yet more so, but for the mistaken zeal of abolition
ists. Can emancipation obtain for them a better portion ?"
" The practicable plan for benefiting the African race must be the
providential plan — the Scriptural plan. We adopt that plan in the
South, and while the States should seek, by wholesome legislation, to
regard the interest of master and slave, we, as ministers, would preach
the Word to both, as we are commanded of God. This war has not
benefited the slaves. Those that have been encouraged or compelled
to leave their masters have gone, and we aver can go, to no state of
society that offers them any better things than they have at home,
either in respect to their temporal or eternal -nxlfare. We regard
abolitionism as an interference with the plans of Divine Providence.
It has not the signs of the Lord's blessing. It is a fanaticism which
puts forth no good fruit : instead of blessing, it has brought forth
cursing ; instead of love, hatred ; instead of life, death ; bitterness
and sorrow, and pain and infidelity, and moral degeneracy, follow its
labors. We remember how the Apostle has taught the minister of
Jesus upon this subject, saying, '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 be
lieving masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren ;
but rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved, par
takers 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 sur
misings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute
of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness ; from such withdraw
thyself"

320 SOUTHERN APPEAL,
" This is what we teach, and obedient to the last verse of the text,
from men that ' teach otherwise ' — hoping for peace— we ' withdraw '
ourselves." In the notes appended to this " Appeal," the following facts are
stated, and we can not have a better authority for their truth.
" From the best sources of information, it is ascertained that the
whole number of communicants in the Christian Churches of the
Confederate States is about two millions and fifty thousand."
" Of these, the number of white communicants is about one mil^on
five hundred and fifty thousand. Supposing the total white population
to be eight millions, and one half that number to be over eighteen
years of age, a little more than one third of the adult population are
members of the Church of Christ."
" The number of colored communicants is about five hundred thou
sand. Assuming the colored population to be four mUlions, there
would be, upon the same method of computation, one fourth of the
adult population in union with the Church of Christ Thus has God
blessed us in gathering into his Church frora the children of Africa
more than twice as many as are reported from all the converts in the
Protestant missions throughout the heathen world."
I regard this testimony as conclusive as any evidence can be, when
we remember that there is no proof of the contrary which can be at
all compared with it in number or in value. And I proceed to another
statement published by Brj'an Tyson, Esq., of North-Carolina, at
AVashington, 1863, which is important on the two most serious charges
concerning evil treatment and marriage.
" We shall look at the institution of slavery," saith this writer, " in
a family where there are some thirty or forty servants. AA'e find
among them a good many women and chUdren, and some old men
and women who are not able to do regular field labor. So, out of the
whole, we shall probably not get more than four ninths who are regu
lar field-hands. The children play about at their sports, the white
and black almost invariably together, until they reach a proper age
to be put to work, which is light at first, but as they grow older
gradually assumes a heavier form, until they can do any work belong
ing to the farm. They thus continue to labor, and in the course of
time, declining years set in, and they cease to be regular field-hands
any longer. They have now some light work assigned to them, such
as boiling food, feeding stock, looking after the children, etc. Thus

BEYAN TYSON. 321
of the three stages, youth, maturity, and old age, through which the
servants pass, there is but one in which they are relied on as regular
laborers. In childhood and in old age, they are well taken care of,
and thus the whole slave population is rendered self-supporting. So,
of the 3,963,760 slaves that were in the United States in 1860, there
was not one supported by a public tax. Such an instance, I presume,
is unknown among an equal number of the industrial classes, any
where in the civilized world. I will ask where else on the face of the
globe could you go to find, in a population of nearly four millions, no
paupers?" (Pamphlet on the Institution of Slavery, etc., by Bryan
Tyson, p. 8-9.)
" The servants at the South, for the most part, receive good treat
ment, as is evident from the census returns of 1860. During that
year there were 3000 servants manumitted, and 803 escaped to the
North, making a total loss to the slave population of 3803. Taking
this as the average for the past decade, there would have been a loss
to the slave population of 38,030. But with these odds against them,
the slave population at the South increased during the decade ending
in 1860 no less than 23.89 per cent, while the free blacks, after being
augmented by about 38,030, increased only 12.33 per cent. The
women, at times when their health is delicate, are not required to
"labor, being taken about as good care of as a member of the white
famUy under similar circumstances."
" The servants at the South are not only, generally speaking, well
treated, but becoming respect is also shown to them in old age. The
white children are even taught to call the elderly servants uncle or
aunt, as the case may be. I was thus brought up myself, and it still
appears natural for me to do so." (lb. p. 10-1.)
" As regards evil treatment, I admit that there are a few who do
not treat their servants well, but the number is small in comparison
with those who do treat them well. The time has never been, and
probably never will be, when, in a population of four millions of
people, whether they be bond or free, there wUl not be some acts of
violence committed on the weak and inoffensive." (lb. p. 27.)
" The past summer, a year ago, I was at a friend's house in Chat
ham County, North-Carolina, who owned a good many servants. It
was in time of wheat-harvest. About dusk, the hands came in from
their laborious work. It would seem that aU might have been tired
enough without seeking farther exercise in diversions ; but not so.
14*

322 BEYAN TYSON.
After supper the banjo was brought forth, and preparations made for
a social dance. They soon struck up in high glee. I remarked to
my friend that negroes enjoyed a great deal of satisfaction and pleas
ure. Yes, said he, the most of any people in the world. He told
me that wishing to finish a certain field of grain, they h»d labored
very hard that day. But one would not have judged so from present
appearances. When I went to rest, they were still in the midst of
their glee, their busy feet keeping time to the music." (lb. p. 12.)
The writer states another fact, which gives a stronger proof of the
estimation attached by the negroes to their condition. " The com
fort of the bond-servant is such,'' saith he, "that I have actually
known free persons of color to choose their masters and voluntarily
enslave themselves. This may appear very singular to us, but unless
they expected to better their circumstances it is still more strange
that they should thus voluntarily give away their liberty." (lb.
p. 13.)
In answer to the prevailing opinion at the North that the slaves
are never legally married, Mr. Tyson makes the following statement,
which is worthy of great attention :
" A great many of the servants are married after book form ; and
they all, so far as my knowledge extends, have their choice in this
matter, whether to be married after book form, or cohabit under a
vow. The essential part of the marriage contract consists in a solemn
vow between the parties, and a faithful observance thereof The
servants that cohabit under a vow are fully as faithful to their com
panions as those who are married after book form, and in both cases
they are generally true to their engagements.'' (lb. p. 22-3.)
And with regard to the separation of families, the writer saith :
"In a sojourn of over twenty years at the South, I have known but
very few cases where a man and his wife were parted. There is a
disposition among the people to keep them together as much as pos
sible. But I should be glad to see laws passed at the South to
prohibit a man and his wife from being separated under any and all
circurastances, and such is now the case in some of the States." (lb.
p. 26-7.)
On the comparative advantages to the slave over the free laborer
the writer remarks as follows :
" It should be borne in mind that the relations existing between a
master and his servant are quite different from those existing between

BEYAN TYSON. 323
the same person and a hired servant In the one case he is con
sidered and treated as a member of the family ; in the other, but
little regard is manifested for him after receiving his wages, and
he is able to obtain but few favors — only such as he can purchase
with his money — which in many instances are fewer than the bond
servant enjoys." (lb. p. 26.)
Of the feelings expressed by the freed negroes, the writer gives
some instances which fell under his own observation :
" A negro raan (one of the lately eraancipated servants) told me in
the streets of Newbern, that he was not as free now as he was before
he came into the Federal lines. And also that he fared better, par
ticularly in sickness, for, said he, when I got sick, I had some person
to bring medicine to me ; but it is not so now."
" A woman that had belonged to a gentleman who owned some
three hundred of those people, said she fared better and was better
contented before obtaining her freedom than she had been since."
" And an old colored person with whora I conversed at the raarket-
house, in this city, (Washington,) but a few days ago, said that a
good many years before, his master, living in South-Carolina, eman
cipated himself and family, consisting of his wife and seven children —
four boys and three daughters — and gave them money to pay their
expenses to a free State. He said that at first he hailed this change
with much joy, as he expected to get aid from his children ; but they
had all scattered off, his wife was dead, and he was dependent on
his own labor for support, and now, being very old, he was ill able
to labor. I asked him which situation he would prefer, to be back
with his master, or live the way he was now living ? He said that
his master was a good and kind raan, and if he was now back with
him, he would never consent to leave him again. Said he, I then
had some time to rest, but I have none now." (lb. p. 31-2.)
This testimony from a witness who speaks with a perfect know
ledge of the truth, is more minute than the Appeal frora the 95
Southern clergy, but it is in entire accordance with it, and must go
far, with any impartial mind, to correct raany of the raost popu
lar prejudices against the Southern institution. But I shall add
one more extract from a different quarter, before I dismiss the topic,
and then hasten to my conclusion.

824 EEV, DR, CUMMINS,

CHAPTER XLVL
Right Reverend Brother : Amongst the great number of dis
courses published on the subject of slavery in the Southern States, I
shall select for my readers a portion of one which was delivered by
the Rev. George D. Cummins, D.D., in St Peter's Church, Baltimore,
January 4, 1861. The title of this able and eloquent sermon ex
presses the leading idea of most of the Southern clergy : " The Af
rican A Trust from God to the American." And I shall confine
myself to that part of it in which this position is maintained.
" By the light of Scripture, and the history of the early Church,"
saith Dr. Cummins, " a Christian man whose lot is cast amidst
slavery in this age and nation, is enabled to ascertain his duty to
wards it — and that is :"
" To regard the African race in bondage (and in freed-nn too) as
a solemn trust committedj to this people from God, and that Re has
given to us the great mission of ivorking out His purposes of mercy
and love towards them. The Anglo-American, the tutelar guardian
of the African — this is the lofty view to which we now rise. It is a
study of intense interest to trace the workings of God's Providence
in the mode He has chosen to effect His purposes concerning these
children of Ham. He has linked together, by a counsel of infinite
wisdom, the destiny of two races, more diverse from each other than
any two upon the globe. By the silver thread of His Providence the
weakest race on the earth ha-? been joined to the strongest, the oldest
to the newest, the most repulsive barbarism to the highest civili
zation, the darkest superstition to the brightest and purest Christ
ianity.'' " Other races have at different periods of history been brought into
close and intimate relations with the African race, as the Roman and
the Castilian, but not to these has God intrusted this great work.
To the Anglo-Saxon and the American has he reserved the high
honor."

REV, DR. CUMMINS, 325
" God has brought these people to our doors, and placed them in
our homes, and said to us by His Providence : ' Take this chUd and
nurse it for me, and I will give thee wages.' It is a sublime trust,
a stupendous work worthy of the genius of this Christian nation, to
train, to discipline a race, to prepare them to work out the destiny of
a continent of one hundred and fifty millions of the same race. We
believe this to be the design of God, in the presence and condition of
the African in this land. And it is for us to decide whether we will
fulfill this high mission, or fail ignominiously under it. We can not
decline the trust ; it is ours by inheritance, and not by our seeking.
AVe can not escape from its responsibilities if we would. But how
shall we best fulfill that trust ? This question involves and deter
mines our duty towards the African in servitude. How shall we
prove ourselves their truest friends — their best guardians ? How
discharge our duty towards them in the light of our duty to the
Master whom we serve ? Will it be by seeking hastily and violently
to change their condition, and bid them go forth from under our
guardianship ? As well might we turn from our doors our children
of tender years, and send them forth, helpless, into the world, expos
ed to every evil. It has been well and truthfully said that ' if the
South should, at this moment, surrender every slave, the wisdom of
the entire world, united in solemn council, could not solve the ques
tion of their disposal.' But we raay add, that the Providence of God
will solve it, in His own tirae, if we do not rashly thwart His plans,
by our short-sighted schemes. It may, indeed, be a long time before
He develops all His purposes towards the African race, and, like
ancient Israel, He may prolong the time of their discipline. But in
all His sublime arrangements, there is ever the same slow and stately
movement, ever the absence of all haste. It required four thousand
years to prepare the world for the advent of Christianity ; and it may
require four thousand more to extend its triumphs over the whole
earth. — But we can well be patient and wait on Him, with whom a
thousand years are as one day," (p. 19-22.)
After giving a full account of the great attention paid at the South
to the religious instruction of the slaves, Rev. Dr. Cummins proceeds
to make the foUowing interesting statement :
" To a Christian slaveholder, his slaves occupy a relation scarcely
inferior to that of children ; they form part of his household, and for
their temporal and eternal welfare he feels himself responsible to God.

326 REV. DE. CUMMINS,
How profound is this feeling of responsibility, I can attest from a
personal residence among the pious masters of Virginia ; I ' speak
that which I know, and testify that which I have seen.' It was my
lot to minister at the altar of a church where, along with three hun
dred whites, fifty slaves knelt by them to receive the sacrament of
the Lord's supper. I have seen the master standing at the chancel
of the church to act as sponsor in baptism for a faithful slave who
came forward to receive the sacred rite. I have seen Christian
woraen of the highest refineraent and social position, sitting down on
every Lord's day in the midst of the classes of a Sunday-school of
slaves, to instruct them in the knowledge of salvation. I have known
the slave girl in consumption to be taken into the chamber of her
mistress, and nursed with a care equal to a mother's tenderness, and
the passage to the grave illumined by the light of Christian sympathy
and love. And I have seen a congregation of three thousand slaves
presided over by their regular pastor, the President of a College, al
the close of each sermon responding to the catechetical instruction
concerning the truths preached."
"But it wUl be said that, according to the example of the Apostles
and the early Christians, our whole duty towards slavery is not ful
filled until we do our part to correct its abuses and remove the evils
attendant upon it — and we freely adrait this. It is our part and
duty, following in the steps of the Apostles, to tell both masters and
servants of their mutual duties, and to warn them against abusing
the relation in which they stand to each other — to say to the servant,
' Obey your master in singleness of heart, as unto the Lord ' — to say
to the masters, ' Give unto your servants that which is just and equal.'
And we firmly and earnestly believe that there is not an evil con
nected with slavery, as it now exists in the Southern States, which
in due time would not be corrected and removed by the force of
Christian sentiment, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and guided by
the Word of God. There is power enough in the Christianity of
the South to grapple with and solve all the difficulties of this great
question, if left unhindered by interference from without," (p.
25-6.) I might fill a volume with similar testimony from bishop.s, clero-y-
men, and laymen ; but this may suffice to prove the general fact to
which there are few exceptions, namely, that the Southern slave
holders are just and kind to their slaves, and that the negro race

TREATMENT, 327
under their care, are far better provided for, both temporally and
spiritually, than the laboring classes in England, or the free negroes
among ourselves.
My own personal acquaintance with the institution is very trifling,
being limited to a residence of three weeks in St Louis and New-
Orleans, during the delivery of a course of lectures — about as long in
Richmond, at our General Convention, in 1859, where you were also
present, and afterwards, some three months in Tennessee. All the
slaves with whom I came in contact on these occasions were house-
servants ; but a superior class of domestics I have never seen, nor has
it ever been my lot to witness so much kindliness of feeling towards
servants as seemed to exist towards these, from all the members of
the famUy.
I can not, however, pretend to any knowledge personally of the
condition of the slaves upon the plantations. But I conversed largely
on the subject with our episcopal and clerical brethren, in whose state
ments I could place the most absolute confldence ; and it was impos
sible to avoid the conclusion that the generous credulity of the North
had been grossly deluded with respect to the treatment of the slaves ;
that the cases of severe or inhuman usage were rare and exceptional,
and that, as a general rule, the negroes were really w-hat the Southern
people esteemed them — the happiest laborers in the world.
But what then, it may be asked, are we to make of the strong dis
like expressed towards slavery by Washington, Jefferson, and many
of the eminent men who formed the Constitution ? AVhat of the
efforts made, after their day, to abolish it in Virginia and Kentucky ?
And what of the array of facts collected and published, in positive
proof of the terrible barbarity connected with the system ?
I answer that all this is freely admitted as a very reasonable ground
for objecting to the institution. If it were an original question. And
it may also warrant a strong desire that it might be abolished as soon
as it can be, peaceably, justly, and wisely for the interests of all con
cerned. But it furnishes no ground for denouncing it as a sin to hold
a slave, when he is properly treated — no ground for supposing that
the slaves are not generally treated well — no ground for abusing the
Constitution which provides for slavery, and which Washington and
all his colleagues approved; and especially no ground for imputing
iniquity to a social relation which was sanctioned both by the Old
and the New Testament, which was held to be lawful before God by

328 WASHINGTON AND OTHEES,
the voice of the Universal Church for more than eighteen centuries,
and which is stiU allowed by the vast majority of Christians at the
present day. Let us examine the objections, however, a littie more
particularly. With respect to the wish expressed for the abolition of slavery by
Washington, Jefferson, and others, I have over and over again main
tained the same opinion, that such a measure was highly expedient
and desirable, and have further endeavored to show how it might be
effected. But did these great men esteem it a sin to hold slaves ? The
notion is absurd, because it is notorious that they were slaveholders
themselves to the end of their days. Or did they even make any sys
tematic effort in Virginia to have slavery abolished ? They certainly
did not. And if they had made such an effort, is it possible to suppose
that they would have insisted, like the ultra-abolitionist, upon imme
diate emancipation, and have thus nuUifled the provisions of the Con
stitution which they had just approved ? Surely such foUy and incon
sistency could never be imputed to those distinguished patriots by
any one who has not himself lost his reason.
The truth is that the abhorrence of these great raen was raost pro
bably produced by the slave-trade, which was not given up until 1808,
and which brought into the South, every year, fresh importations of
the wretched Africans, in their savage state, the civilizing and instruct
ing of whom must have been a very distressing and difficult task to
the planters at the South — a task which, doubtless, they would gladly
have avoided if it had been in their power. But it is against all reason
to suppose that the fathers of the Araerican Constitution could ever
have given the slightest countenance to our modern ultra-abolitionism,
which was not heard of until some years after they were in their
graves. Washington died in 1799, Jefferson in 1826, and the emanci
pation of the slaves in the British AVest-Indies, which gave birth to
ultra-abolitionism, did not take place until 1834, eight years after-
¦n-ards. The plan of abolition advocated in Virginia and Kentucky by Mr.
Randolph and Mr. Clay, was not rested on the modern absurdity that
slaveholding was a sin, because they also, as well as Washington and
Jefferson, were slaveholders all their lives. Neither was it a plan of
immediate but of gradual abolition, like that which Pennsylvania
and many other States had adopted long before. Between their views
and my own there is no difference.

STOEIES OF CEUELTY, 829
And with regard to the array of facts collected by the gifted Mrs.
Stowe and others, I do not question their truth ; but I deny that they
afford any ground for impeaching the lawfulness of the institution, so
far as the relation of master and slave is concerned, because they arc
all cases of abuse, which are not the proper, much less the necessary
results of the institution ; on the contrary, they are transgressions
against the rules laid down to the master in the Word of God, and
therefore sins before heaven. No maxim is better settled than this,
namely, that the abuse of a thing does not take away the use of it
If it were otherwise, every relation in life would be destroyed, for
there is not one amongst them that is not abused continually.
Suppose, for example, that the same industry were applied to the
relation of man and wife, and that some feminine advocate of the
Free-love notion were to advertise in the city of New-York that she
was ready to listen to the complaints of every poor woman who had
a cruel, a dissipated, or a faithless husband, and give her relief Is
there any doubt that such a phUanthropist would be thronged with
visitors, and that the tales of domestic suffering — many of them most
sad and heart-breaking — would be numerous enough to flll a volume
in a very short time ? Fifty .such stories would make a respectable
book, and if related with the talent of Mrs. Stowe or Mrs. Kemble,
would certainly be painfully interesting. What then ? Granting
that they were all true, as many of them unquestionably would be,
could they authorize any man to conclude that all the other wives in
the city were equally abused, that abuse is therefore inseparable from
marriage, that marriage is consequently a sin against humanity, and
hence, that the institution itself should be abolished without delay f
The population of New-York is about eight hundred thousand. I
presume that amongst the whole there must be at least one tenth
who are married women, which would give us eighty thousand wives
to be sent adrift, on account of the abuse suffered by fifty or one hun
dred ! Is there any reason, justice, or even common-sense in this ?
Yet such is precisely the logic of theultra-abolitionist when he makes
the narrative of some hundred instances of cruelty a reason for the
immediate emancipation, not of eighty thousand, but four million of
Southern slaves.
But judging fairly by the rules of evidence, notwithstanding my
own habits and sympathies are in nowise partial to the institution, I
can not doubt that these cases of abuse are mere exceptions, and that

350 SOUTHEEN TESTIMONY.
the general treatment which the slaves receive is such as would be
come a Christian people. For such, as we have seen, is the positive
evidence of the most competent witnesses. And I can .see no reason
why it should be otherwise. It is natural that the master should use
them kindly, because they arc a part of his own family ; and harsh
treatment would not only prevent their laboring cheerfully and pro
fitably, but would provoke them to mischief or tempt them to run
away. It is natural that he should regard them with affection, and
desire that they should regard him with aff'ection in return ; for how
can a man, who loves even his horse and his dog, fail to love a human
being who works for his benefit, and looks up to him for protection
and support ? And when, to the ordinary sympathies of nature, we
add the duty of religion in the case of those who are Christians, how
manifest does it seem that the treatment of the slave, as a general
rule, raust be in accordance with justice, benevolence, and conscien
tious care ?
That it is so, is proved by the direct testimony of the Southern
clergy, and by these unquestionable facts besides : First, that not
withstanding all the inducements held out by ultra-abolitionists, only
eight hundred and three slaves out of four millions, (or one in five
thousand,) abandoned their master in the year 1860, while three thou
sand were voluntarily emancipated. Secondly, that during the three
years of this mournful war, the great body of the slaves have been
faithful and attached. There has been no taking advantage of the
absence of the male members of the family — no rising into insurrec
tions — and no apprehensions entertained by the white population that
any disturbance would occur, unless they were alienated and per
verted by hostile infiuences from some other quarter. This fact alone
is worth more than a volume of individual testimony, and ought to
be decisive on the question.
It may be said, indeed, that the declarations of Southern men should
be put out of view, because they are interested in the maintenance of
slavery, and it is a sound rule of law that no man is a competent wit
ness in his own cause. But this rule is limited to matters of private
and individual dispute, and operates only on the parties who appear
before a court of justice. Whereas this controversy involves an in
stitution which aff'ects the whole of the Southern States, and therefore
the people of the South are the proper judges of its practical results
among them. If it were a Northern institution, the men of the North

THE FAIE EULE. 331
would be the best witnesses. But being a Southern institution, the
men of the South raust know it far better than we do. It is thus
that we deal with all great questions. We do not expect a foreign
traveler to do justice to our Araerican systera. We say, and say
truly, that he does not understand it ; and we claim the right to be
its exponents ourselves. We say that even the different portions of
these United States can not form a fair estimate of each other ; that
Southern men do not and can not appreciate the merits of the North-
em character, while Northern men are just as liable to err concerning
the South. There is, indeed, nothing more rare amongst the best and
most enlightened persons, than the disposition to make a kindly and
liberal estimate of customs, laws, or habits with which they have not
been thoroughly familiarized ; and the difficulty is greatly increased
wh^n the institutions of a country are opposed to the ideas a,nd sym
pathies which we have cherished from infancy. Hence, in order to
be really just to other states of society, we must try to put ourselves,
as much as possible, in their position ; and this we can only do by
placing all reasonable confidence in what they say of themselves, in
those open and public documents which they set before the world.
Instead of this, however, the ordinary course is to regard the insti
tution from our own stand-point, as if it were a controversy aJDOut
the propriety of making slaves of freemen. Hence the popular ques
tion, which so many take for a convincing argument : " How would
you like to be a slave ?" They forget that the history of the matter
has nothing to do with the enslaving of any freeman. They forget
that these Southern slaves, so far as we know, have never been free,
at least for centuries — that their ancestors were slaves araongst the
barbarous and heathen tribes of Africa — that their Southern raasters
have not deprived them of any right which they possessed before, but
have, on the contrary, raised them up from the lowest depths of
pagan darkness to be Christian men and women, and have bestowed
liberty upon thousands every year, from whom the State of Liberia
has taken its rise, giving the best ground for hope that mUlions of
these Southern negroes will in due time issue from the South, to be
the missionaries to their fatherland, and regenerate that savage con
tinent by the power of the Gospel. And they forget that the South,
having in truth done more to elevate the African race than all the
world besides, have a right to consider the -work as belonging to

332 NO PAUPERISM.
themselves, in the order of Providence, and should be permitted to
carry it on, without reproach or interference, in their own way.
There is another popular notion which does very little credit to
our Northern understanding, and that is the strangely absurd state
ment that the negro slave gets nothing for his labor ! On the con
trary, it is demonstrable that he receives a larger compensation, on
the whole, than any of us would choose to pay, in the support of
himself from his birth to his burial, and the support besides of his
wife and children, in sickness and in health, in childhood and old
age, without any danger of the poor-house, or of begging, or of starva
tion. Mrs. Kemble herself states that the slaves had not only a reg
ular allowance of food and clothing, but also had a garden-spot at
tached to their cottages, and were free to raise all sorts of fowls,
except turkeys, for their own use, while a regular physician was em
ployed to attend to their diseases. I doubt whether any Northern
farmer or manufacturer would be wUling to make the same bargain
with his laborers. I doubt whether he would think himself likely to
clear as much profit from their work as he does now, when he only
pays for what is actually done, and is at no expense for house, or lot,
or food, or clothing, or children, or old age, or sickness, or burial.
And* the superiority of advantage to the negro is sufficiently plain, if
the reader considers the iraraense amounts paid yearly in our North
ern States for the support of the poor, and then remembers that
among the four millions of Southern slaves there is not one pauper
dependent on public charity.

THEODORE PARKER, 533

CHAPTER XLVH.
Right Reverend Brother : Amongst the prominent and admired
antagonists of the Southern institution, the late Theodore Parker oc
cupied a conspicuous place ; and a few extracts from his autobi
ography may be instructive as a convincing proof, that the philan
thropy of the great leaders in ultra-abolitionism has no affinity with
the religion of the Bible. I quote from the recent volumes containing
his "Life and Correspondence, by John Weiss,'' published by the
Messrs. Appleton.
Speaking of the results of his theological studies, while preparing
for the ministry, Mr. Parker presents us with this frank statement of
infidelity, in the appendix to the second volume, p. 454, viz. :
" I studied," saith he, " the historical development of religion and
theology amongst Jews and Christians, and saw the gradual forma
tion of the great ecclesiastical doctrines which so domineered over
the world. As I found the Bible was the work of men, so I also
found that the Christian Church was no more divine than the British
State, a Dutchman's shop, or an Austrian farm. The miraculous in-
falhble Bible, and the miraculous infallible Church, disappeared when
they were closely looked at ; and I found the fact of history quite dif
ferent from the pretension of theology."
Here we have the open avowal of sheer infidelity. This man of
superior talents, energy, and influence, professing to be a minister of
the Gospel, attaches no importance to the express words of Christ :
" Upon this Rock I will build mt Church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it." (Matt. 16 : 18.) He takes no account of our
Lord's declaration : "If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be
unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matt 18 : 17.) And
the multiplied statements of the Apostles, of course, go for nothing.
St Paul might say that " Christ is the head of the Church," (Eph.
5 : 23 ;) that Christ " loved the Church, and gav6 Himself for it,"
(Eph. 5 : 25 ;) that the Church is " the pillar and ground of the

334 MR, EMERSON,
truth," (1 Tim. 3 : 15.) And St Luke might declare that the Lord
added to the Church daily, " such as should be saved." (Acts 2 : 47.)
AU these, together with a large number of similar passages, were of no
weight in the judgment of Mr. Parker, because he had satisfled him
self that the Bible was " the work of men," and that " the Church
was no more divine than a Dutchman's shop, or an Austrian's farm 1"
And this is the teaching which thousands of deluded minds accept,
as if it were the utterance of an infallible oracle !
The highly-gifted Mr. Emerson seems to have as little confidence
in the Church as Mr. Parker. " I and my neighbors,'' saith he, " have
been bred in the notion, that unless we came soon to some good
Church — Calvinism, or Behmenism, or Romanism, or Mormonism —
there would be a universal thaw and dissolution. No Isaiah or Jer
emy has arrived. Nothing can exceed the anarchy that has followed
in our skies. The stern old faiths have all pulverized ! 'Tis a whole
population of gentlemen and ladies out in search of a religion." *
This is tolerably strong ; but he exceeds it in the startling declara
tion that " God builds His temple in the heart on the ruins of
Churches and religions."^
And his estimate of the masses is remarkable for its severity.
"Shall we judge a country by the majority," saith he, "or by the
minority ? By the minority, surely. Leave this hypocritical prating
about the masses. Masses are rude, lame, unmade, pernicious in
their demands and influence, and need not to be flattered, but to be
schooled. I wish not to concede any thing to them, but to tame,
drill, divide, and break them up, and draw individuals out of them.
The worst of charity is that the lives you are asked to preserve are
not worth preserving. Masses ! the calamity is the masses. I do not
wish any mass at all, but honest men only; lovely, sweet, accom
plished woraen only; and no shovel-handed, narrow-brained, gin-
drinking, million stockingers or lazzaroni at all. If Government
knew how, I should like to see it check, not multiply the population."!
In this extraordinary effusion of transcendental philosophy, the
nerves of Mr. Emerson seem to have gotten the mastery of his under
standing. The society of the uncultivated " masses " might not be
agreeable to his refined and sensitive habits ; but how would his m-
* See Emerson's Conduct of Life, p. 177, Boston ed. ot 1861.
+ Ib. p, 178. t lb- p. 218-9.

ME. EMEESON. 835
tellectual " minority " of men, and his " lovely, sweet, accomplished
women,'' contrive to live in such a world as ours, without the "hew
ers of wood and drawers of water," the laborers, the artisans, the
" shovel-handed " tillers of the soil, and the operatives of the mine
and of the workshop ? Where would they find the food that sustains,
or the garments that clothe, or the dwellings that shelter them?
AYhat means would they employ to build the ships and navigate the
ocean ? Nay, how would they supply their minds with their favorite
literature, if the " masses " had not reduced the ores of lead and iron,
and formed the printing-press, and raised the flax, and made the
paper, and tanned the leather, and bound the book, and performed
the whole of the mechanical but indispensable work, which gives the
best means of earthly fame to the successful author? And what
would our mighty Republic be at this day, if Mr. Emerson's policy
had been adopted, by " checking " instead of encouraging the increase
of those "masses,'' who are, in truth, the very bone, and sinew, and
muscle of our country ?
But strange as such extravagance appears in the eyes of common-
sense, it seems much worse than strange when we regard it in con
trast with the spirit of Christianity. The Saviour of the world looked
down upon " the masses," not with philosophical contempt, but with
loving compassion, " as sheep having no shepherd." He did not re
serve His Gospel for the intellectual "minority" of men, nor for the
" sweet, accomplished women," but preached it freely to the multi
tudes. He did not praise the self-righteous Pharisee who thanked
the Lord that he was " not as other men," but rather justified the
despised publican, who " smote upon his breast, saying : God be
merciful to me, a sinner." He even chose His own earthly lot among
" the masses," aided His reputed father, Joseph, in the labors of a
carpenter, and after He entered on His sacred ministry, and had re
fused the offer of a kingly throne, yet He stUl continued His work of
mercy to the " common people," from whom He had selected, as His
favored Apostles, the fishermen of Galilee. Is it possible to conceive
a more striking contrast than the whole life and doctrine of Christ
present, to the conscious pride of this transcendental philosopher ?
Is it possible that we can suppose him to be influenced by religious
truth when we hear him exclaiming: "The masses! The calamity
is the masses. The worst of charity is that the lives you are asked
to preserve are not worth preserving ;'' and then listen to the divine

336 ME. EMERSON.
Saviour, saying : " To the poor the Gospel is preached. Blessed are
the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ? "
But I pass on to some further developments of this admired writer's
sentiments. In an eloquent Address to the Senior Divinity Class
connected with Harvard University, delivered July 15th, 1838, this
passage occurs:
"It is my duty to say to ypu that the need was never greater of
new revelation than now. From the views I have already ex
pressed, you will infer the sad conviction, which I share, I believe,
with numbers, of the universal decay and now almost death of faith
in society. The soul is not preached. The Church seems to totter
to its fall, almost all life extinct!'*
And he enlightens his readers by an intimation of his system in
the following propositions, which he seems to have drawn from that
grand old heathen slave, the philosopher Epictetus :
"That is always best," saith he, "which gives me to myself. The
sublime is excited in me by the great stoical doctrine. Obey thyself.
That which shows God in me, fortifies me. That which shows God
out of me, makes me a wart and a wen. There is no longer a neces
sary reason for my being."t
Speaking, in the same volume, of the decay of religion, Mr. Emer
son makes the following statement, viz. :
"Certainly there have been periods when, from the inactivity of
the intellect on certain truths, a greater faith was possible in names
and persons. The Puritans in England and America found, in the
Christ of the Catholic Church, and in the dogmas inherited from
Rome, scope for their austere piety, and their longings for civU free
dom. But their Greed is passing away, and none arises in its room-.
It is already beginning to indicate character and rehgion, to withdraw
from the religious meetings. I have heard a devout person, who
prized the Sabbath, say, in bitterness of heart: ' On Sundays, it seems
wicked to go to Church.' And the motive that holds the best there,
is only a hope and a waiting."|
These passages, which might be greatly multiplied, prove suffi
ciently the results of Mr. Emerson's experience within his special
sphere of observation. And these results appear to my mind to be
* Emerson's Miscellanies, p. 131. .|. j^ „ 127.
i Emerson's Miscellanies, p. 188-9.

MR. EMERSON. 837
the necessary consequence of indulgence in the same self-will, which
began by a wanton separation from the apostolic system of the Church
of England, and went on, by degrees, to question the divine authority
of the Bible. The commencement was Puritanism. The next step
was Socinianism. And the end was a departure, farther and farther,
from the Standard of religious truth, until the Word of God was re
garded as the word of man, and all real faith was set aside, in the
worship of the individual reason. " Obey thyself," saith this modem
phflosopher. " That which shows God in me, fortifies me. That
which shows God out of me, makes me a wart and a wen." Here is
the doctrine which deifies the human mind, and seeks for salvation,
not in the humble and grateful acceptance of the atoning sacrifice and
mediation of the glorious Redeemer, offered to us in mercy by the
free grace of the Holy Spirit ; but in the proud reliance on our own
inward hght, which scorns to submit itself to any other teacher, how
ever celestial and divine !
But the ideas of this gifted, though sadly erroneous -writer, are yet
more developed in the following passages, viz :
" The religion which is to guide and fulfil the present and coming
ages, whatever else it may be, must be intellectual. The scientific
mind must ha.'-je & faith which is science. 'There are two things,'
said Mohammed, ' which I abhor, the learned in his infidelities, and the
fool in his devotions.' Our times are impatient of both, and especially
of the last Let us have nothing now which is not its own evidence:
There is surely enough for the heart and the imagination in the re
ligion itself. Let us not be pestered -with assertions and half truths;
with emotions and snuffle.''
" There will be a new church founded on moral science, at first cold
and naked, a babe in a manger again, the algebra and mathematics of
ethical law, the church of men to come, without shawms, or psaltery,
or sackbut ; but it wUl have heaven and earth for its beams and raf
ters ; science for symbol and illustration ; it will fast enough gather
beauty, music, picture, poetry. Was never stoicism so stern and ex
igent as this shall be. It shall send man home to his central solitude
shame these social, supplicating manners, and make him know that
much of the time he must have himself to his friend. He shall ex
pect no cooperation, he shall walk with no companion. The nameless
Thought, the nameless Power, the superpersonal Heart, — he shall
repose alone on that. He needs only his own verdict No good fame
15

338 MR. EMERSON.
can help, no bad fame can hurt him. The Laws are his consolers, the
good Laws theraselves are alive, they know if he have kept thera,
they animate him with the leading of great duty, and an endless hori
zon. Honor and fortune exist to him who always recognizes the
neighborhood of the great, always feels himself in the presence of
high causes."*
Here, then, we have Mr. Emerson's ideal of what religion should
be. He had told us before that the old faiths " have all pulverized" —
that " God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches
and religions" — that " the need was never greater of new revelation
than now." And he predicts, accordingly, a new church, not founded
on the Bible, nor on tradition, nor on the authority of miracles and
prophecy, nor on the recorded Word and work of Christ ; but on
what he calls moral science. The evidence of the old truth is of no
further value. We raust have " nothing now which is not its own
evidence !"
The sympathy of Mr. Emerson with Mr. Parker is exhibited very
plainly in a letter, acknowledging the receipt of a book which the lat
ter had dedicated to him. This letter is worth transcribing, as a fair
exponent of the growing power of ultra-abolitionism, in connection
-with infidelity, viz. : " Concord, Mass., March 19, 1853.
" Mt Dear Parker : Before that book came to me, though not un
til several weeks after it was sent, I read the inscription, if with more
pride than was becoming, yet not without some terror. Lately I took
the book in hand, and read the largest part of it with good heed. I
find in it all the traits which are making your discourses material to
the history of Massachusetts ; the realism, the power of local and
homely illustration, the courage and vigor of treatment, and the mas
terly sarcasm— now naked, now veiled— and I think with a marked
growth in power and coacervation — shall I say ? — of statement To
be sure, I am in this moment thinking also of speeches out of this
book, as weU as those in it AVell, you will give the times to come
the means of knowing how the lamp was fed, which they are to thank
you that they find burning. And though I see you are too good-
natured by half in your praise of your contemporaries, you will
neither deceive us nor posterity, nor— forgive me— yoursel^'any more,
* Conduct nf Ufe, p. 210.

THEODORE PARKER. 339
in this graceful air of laying on others your own untransferable lau
rels." " AVe shall all thank the right soldier whom God gave strength and
will to fight for Him the battle of the day."
" Ever hew strength and victory be to you 1" "R. W. Emerson."
I shall now return to Mr. Parker, whose course is made perfectly
plain in his own letters, so copiously pubUshed by his admiring bio
grapher. Thus he writes to the Hon. S. P. Chase, in 1854. (Vol. ii.
p. 226.)
"I have studied this matter of the Divine origin of the Bible and
the Divine Nature of Jesus of Nazareth all my life. If I understand
any thing, it is that. I say there is no evidence — external or internal
¦ — to show that the Bible or Jesus had any thing miraculous in their
origin or nature, or any thing divine in the sense that word is com
monly used. The common notion on this matter I regard as an error
— one, too, most fatal to the development of mankind. Now in all
my labors I look to the general development of mankind, as^well as
to the removal of every such special sin as American slavery, as war,
drunkenness, etc., therefore I introduce my general principle along
with my special measures. I become personally unpopular, hated
even ; but the special measures go forward obviously ; the general
principle enters into the public ear, the public mind, and what is true
of it will go into the heart of mankind and do its work. I think I
work prudently — I know I do not rashl}^, and without consideration."
" Here let me say that the thing I value most in a man is fidelity
to his own nature, to his mind and conscience, heart and soul."
No language can be more clear, in proving that this professed min
ister of the Gospel had utterly abandoned the old faith of Christian
ity. And we shall see the political and philanthropic working of his
rehgion, in the following extracts :.
Thus, in a letter to the Hon. Horace Mann, June 27, 1866, (vol. ii.
p. 188,) Mr. Parker saith: "What a state of things we have in poli
tics! The beginning of the end ! I take it we can elect Fremont; if
so, the battle is fought and the worst part of the contest is over. If
Buchanan is elected, I don't believe the Union holds out three years.
I shall go for dissolution."
* See Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker. Vol. ii. p. 45,

840 THEODORE PARKER,
In another letter, addressed to Professor Desor, during the same
year, he saith: "If Fremont is not elected, then I look forward to
what is worse than civil war in the other form, viz., a long series of
usurpations on the part of the slave-power, and of concessions by the
North, until we are forced to take the initiative of revolution at the
North. That will be the worst form of the case, for then the worst
fighting will be among the Northern men — ^between the friends of free
dom and tho Hunkers. / expect civil war, and make my calculations
accordingly!' (lb. 189,)
And again, in a letter to Hon. J. P. Hale, dated Oct. 21, 1856, we
have this declaration, viz. :
" If Buchanan is President, I think the Union does not hold out
his four years. It must end in civil war, which I have been prepar
ing for these six months past. I buy no books, except for pressing
need. Last year I bought fifteen hundred dollars' worth. This
year I shall not order two hundred dollars' worth. I may want the
money for cannons. Have you any plan in case we are defeated ?
Of course the principles and measures of the administration will re
main unchanged, and the mode of execution wiU be the more intense
and rapid."
The views of Mr. Parker are yet more clearly set forth in the fol
lowing extract from his Journal, (2 vol. p. 190,) written on the day
when President Buchanan was elected :
"This day is not less critical in our history for the future than
4th July, '76, was for the past At sunrise there were three alter
natives :"
" 1. Freedom may put down slavery peacefully by due course of
law."
"2. Slavery may put down freedom in the same way."
" 3. The friends of freedom and its foes may draw swords and fight"
"At sunset the people had repudiated the first alternative. Now
America may choose between Nos. 2 and 3. Of course we shall
fight. I have expected civil war for months; now I buy no more
books for the present Najr, I think affairs may come to such a pass,
that my own property may be confiscated; for who knows that we
shall beat at the beginning — and I hung as a traitor ! So I invest
property accordingly. Wife's will be safe. I don't pay the mortgage
tiU 1862."

THEODORE PARKER, 341
And once more, I quote from Mr. Parker's letter to Miss Hunt, in
Europe, Nov. 17, 1856, (vol. 2, p. 191,) viz. :
" At New- York and elsewhere, Banks said the election of Fremont
would settle the slavery question, and stop agitation for thirty years 1
I opened my eyes when I went out West, and saw that the hands
of the Republicans are not yet quite clean enough to be trusted with
power. There has a deal of bad stuff come over to the Republican
party. I am more than ever of opinion that we must settle this
question in the old Anglo-Saxon way — with the sword."
" There are two Constitutions for America^one writ on parchment
and laid up at Washington ; the other also on parchment, but on
CoJS'head of a drum. It is to this we must appeal, and before long.
I make all my pecuniary arrangements — with the expectation of civil
war!' I must confess that I read these declarations of Mr. Parker with
astonishment, and should not believe them on any evidence less
satisfactory than that of his admiring biographer. How a professed
minister of Christ, however he had wandered from the true faith of
the Gospel, could continue to proclaim, Sunday after Sunday, even
the moral doctrines of religion, and yet hail with satisfaction the
bloody horrors of civil war — how a zealous philanthropist, in his
fervent devotion to the abolition of negro slavery, could resolve that
it must be accomplished by the sword of slaughter — how a native
American, bound by his allegiance to support the Constitution, could
coolly determine, almost five years before the crisis arrived, that the
Union should be destroyed by an appeal to the other constitution
written on the head of a drum, and make all his pecuniary arrange
ments with a view to the possibility that he might himself be hung
as a traitor — all this seemed to me so little in accordance with the
principles and feehngs of common humanity, that I could only regard
it as a kind of monomania — a terrible delusion, proceeding from the
Prince of Darkness, and in direct hostility to the precepts of that
Divine Redeemer who is the Prince of Peace.
But Mr. Parker was consistent with all this in his theory of na
tural ethics, where he justifies the maxims of supposed right which
led to the horrid butchery of St. Domingo. For thus he writes in a
letter to Francis Jackson, dated at Rome, in 1859, (vol. u. p. 170) :
" In my best estate," saith he, " I do not pretend to much political
wisdom, and still less now while sick ; but I wish yet to set down a

312 THEODORE PAEKER.
few thoughts for your private eye, and it may be, for the ear of the
fraternity. They are, at least, the result of long meditation on the
subject ; besides, they are not at all new nor peculiar to me, but are
a part of the public knoioledge of all enlightened men!'
" 1. A man held against his will as a slave, has a natural right to
hill every one who seeks to prevent his enjoyment of liberty. This
has long been recognized as a self-evident proposition, coming so
directly from t!ae primitive instincts of human nature, that it neither
required proofs, nor admitted then!."
"2. It may be a natural duty of the slave to develop this natu
ral right in a practical manner, and actually hill all those who seek
to prevent his enjoyment ofliberty. For if he continues patiently in
bondage — First, he entails the foulest of curses on his children ; and,
secondly, he encourages other men to commit the crime against na
ture -n'hich he allows his own master to commit," etc.
" 3. The freeman has a natural right to help the slaves to recover
their liberty, and in that enterprise to do for them all which they
have a right to do for themselves. This statement, I think, requires
no argument or illustration."
"4. It may be a natural duty for the freeman to help the slaves
to the enjoyment of their liberty, and as raeans to that end, to aid
them in hilling all such as oppose their natural freedom."
" 5. The performance of this duty is to be controlled by the free
man's power and opportunity to help the slaves. The impossible is
never the obligatory. — If I could help the bondmen in Virginia to
their freedom as easily and effectually as I can aid the runaway at
my own door, then I ought to do so."
" These five maxims have a direct application to America at this
day, and the people of the free States have a certain dim perception
thereof, which, fortunately, is becoming clearer every year."
Here, then, we have a full display of the new revelation — the gos
pel of ultra-abolitionism which anticipated our mournful war as the
true means to emancipate the negro, and seeks to accomplish this
favorite object through a deluge of blood, and at any sacrifice of life
and treasure. The Union is nothing, for Mr. Parker is for "dissolu
tion." The Bible is nothing, for it is " the work of men." The
Church is nothing, for it has no more sanctity about it than " a
Dutchman's shop or an Austrian's farm." The Constitution is only
"a piece of parchment laid up in Washington,'' and the real consti-

THEODOEE PAEKER, 843
tution is -written on the "parchment on the head of a drum !" The
power of established law, the safety and contentment of the negro
race, the advancement of our national prosperity in the path marked
out by the revolutionary patriots, the oath of office, the feelings of
civUized humanity, the connections and relationships of families
spread abroad. North and South, throughout the land — all these are
nothing in the scale of social consideration. The one thing needful
is the destruction of slavery, no matter at what cost of fearful con
sequences. The negroes must be roused to kill their -masters.
The freemen must be roused to help them, as in the case of John
Brown, who honestly acted on this theory. And the millennium of
the new Church must be inaugurated in the victory of infidelity, the
ruin of all the old faith, the contempt of every civil obligation, the
groans and tears of suffering millions, and the threatened reign of
bloody anarchy ; ending, too probably, in the worst form of military
despotism, over a once happy, prosperous, and peaceful people 1

844 THE PROTEST.

CHAPTER XLVIII.
Right Reverend Brother : With the exhibition of the infidel prin
ciples, the sanguinary plan of abolitionism, and the frank desire to
disunite the States, which were so plainly professed by Mr. Theodore
Parker, (a great leader in this dangerous school,) I shall close my
extracts, saving only the matters which the reader will find in the
Appendix. And I think it will be admitted that I have amply re
deemed my promise in the answer to your Protest. The doctrines
laid down in the Bible View of Slavery have been sustained by
abundant testimony, and nothing more remains but to bring my
work to its conclusion.
To this end, I would recall to your memory the precept delivered
by St Paul to Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus : " Rebuke not an
elder, but intreat him as a father!' (1 Tim. 5 : 1.)
I am your elder, in years, and especially in office. You have not
merely rebuked, but much more, denounced me, without warning,
examination, or the slightest effort to practice the ordinary rules of
justice, and far less of Christian courtesy. And your denunciation
accuses me of a grave offense against the laws, amounting to mis
prision of treason, although, for this preposterous charge, you had
not a shadow of proof, or even of probable presumption. This false
and insulting accusation, moreover, you induced your clergy to in
dorse, and proclaimed it in handbills, far and wide, to be used in
your political election. And aU for what ? Simply because, at the
request of some of your own gentlemen in PhUadelphia, nearly five
months before, I sent them a pamphlet containing my opinions on
the lawfulness of slavery, which I had published substantially several
times within the last thirteen years. And this pamphlet I gave them
my consent to have reprinted at their expense, and made no objec
tion, two months afterwards, to have it circulated by the Democratic
party. And this is the whole of my course, which you denounce in
your protest as " unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ " and chal
lenging your "indignant reprobation."

THE ADMONITION. 345
The spirit and the action which become me, under this extraordi
nary provociftion, are marked out by another precept of the Apostle :
" \Vo command you, brethren," saith he, " in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that
walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of
u.s, and have no company with him. Yet count him not as an enemy,
but admonish him as a brother." (2 Thes. 3 : 6, 14-5.)
I might, with perfect propriety, according to the rules of worldly
justice, prosecute you and your clergy, for a gross and scandalous
libeL I might also take measures to have you presented before a
court of Bishops for your transgression ; which I consider to be of a
far more dangerous character to the law and order of the Church,
than any of the charges brought in former years before that tribunal.
But I have no desire to trouble our brethren or myself with any hos
tile proceeding. As a lover of peace, I take the mildest possible
view of your conduct, by calling it " disorderly," and not "after the
tradition" or rule of the Apostle. And therefore, in obedience to
his command, I withdraw myself from your company, not counting
you as an enemy, but admonishing you as a brother.
For you are still my brother in Christ, notwithstanding you are so
thoroughly alienated by your course of public and hbelous denuncia
tion, that I can not look forward to any future association with you
on earth, however I may hope to meet you in His heavenly kingdom.
But this is of small importance. The time of my sojourn in this
troublesome world is not likely to be very long ; and, since it must
be so, I can finish my humble course in the Church below, without
any renewal of my former fraternal intercourse with the Diocesan of
Pennsylvania. With this brief statement of the matter, I proceed, in obedience to
the precept of St Paul, to complete my unwelcome duty, trusting
that it may be useful to others, if not to you.
1. In the first place, I admonish you to remember your ordination
vows, which are registered in heaven. When you were ordained a
priest, you were asked : " AVill you give your faithful dUigence al
ways so to minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline
of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church hath
received the same ?" And you answered : " I wiU so do, by the help
of God"
Again you were asked : " WiU you be ready, with aU faithful dih-

346 THE ADMONITION.
gence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and
strange doctrines contrary to God's AVord ?" And yoiJSnswered :
" I will, the Lord being my helper." The same question and answer
were repeated, when you were consecrated a bishop.
Now I maintain that it is utterly irapossible to tolerate the dogmas
of ultra-abolitionism, or to bring them into the sanctuary of God, or
to recommend them to His people, without a direct infraction of these
vows of ordination. For the Church never held that it was a sin
to buy, or sell, or hold a slave ; much less that it was the wo7-st of all
sins, and " the sum of all villainies." On the contrary, she has ever
repudiated it as false doctrine. She has even placed slaveholders, as
bishops, in her highest seats of honor ; and up to the commencement of
this mournful conflict, you professed as much esteem for the piety
and Christian consistency of those bishops, as any man.
But I would further observe, that between these two doctrines
there can be no middle ground of compromise. Slaveholding is either
a sin, or it is not. If it is a sin, the Northern Methodists were right
in excommunicating their Southern brethren ; for it is manifestly for
bidden to administer the sacrament to any one who is living openly
in sin, and refuses to forsake it. If it is not a sin, these Northern
Methodists were wrong, and stand chargeable themselves with the
sin of schism, by casting off their brethren without any justification.
And here, in truth, was the fatal act which lighted up the torch of
religious discord amongst the Christian societies of the land, and thus
furnished material to the politicians, who brought about, in due time,
the civil war now raging through our unhappy country. The ultra-
abolitionists, who had previously been regarded as a small body of
absurd and deluded enthusiasts, suddenly rose to dignity and im
portance, under the powerful wing of Northern Methodism. The
pulpits of the various denominations began to ring with the sin of
slaveholding, the wrongs of the poor Africans, and the barbarities of
the tyrants who held them in bondage. The exciteraent spread from
sect to sect, with a few individual exceptions, until at length our
Church was the only ark of refuge among Protestants for the old
faith of the Bible, where the AVord of Christ and the doctrine of His
inspired Apostles could be heard, unpolluted by the eloquent ravings
of a very sincere but utterly mistaken philanthropy. The novel-
writers, the magazines, and the editors, all echoed the new cry of
the equal rights of man, and the infidel reformer, the ambitious

THE ADMONITION. 847
statesman, and the intriguing demagogue worked in loving unity with
the fervent and earnest preachers, who had unhappUy been persuaded
to change the Gospel of peace into the trumpet-blast of war and con
fusion. But has this mournful work of philanthropy, run mad, discharged
you from your vows of ordination? Not so, my Right Reverend
Brother ; for you are still bound as much as ever to maintain " the
doctrine and discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and
as this Church hath received the same." I can not conceive that the
false light which has deluded the Christian sects should have any
influence on you ; and therefore it is that I admonish you to remem
ber your solemn obligation.
2. In the next place, I admonish you to ponder seriously the divine
authority of the Holt Scriptures on this subject I contend that
every Christian man must adhere to the language of the Bible, in
speaking of slavery. He may desire and promote its peaceable abo
lition, on the score of expediency, if he will ; but he can never justify
its abolition by force, on the ground that it is a sin to hold a slave,
without a direct conflict with the plain teaching of both the Old and
the New Testament. Such a course would be at war with the faith ¦
even of a private Christian. How much more must it be inconsistent
with your office, as a bishop over the flock of the Redeemer I
8. In the third place, I admonish you to remember the reverence
which you owe to the voice of the Church. You repeat the ancient
creed every Sunday, in which you profess your belief in the holy
catholic Church, meaning thereby the universal Church of Christ,
in the first pure centuries of the Christian era, before it was divided ;
and taking for your guide the rule of St Vincent, Quod semper, quod
ubique, quod ab omnibus — what was beheved " always, everywhere,
• and by all" — as the only sure standard of Scriptural interpretation.
I have proved, by many indisputable witnesses, that this rule recog
nized the lawfulness of slavery, as it existed in the old Roman empire.
And I have also proved that, up to the period of the English Act of
Emancipation, there was no variance on the subject in any part of
the Christian world. Hence, if there could be a doubt concerning
the meaning of the Bible, the voice of the Holy Catholic Church must
be decisive on the question. And against that authority no Bishop
is at liberty to rebel.
4. In the fourth place, I admonish you to remember your alle-

848 THE ADMONITION.
GIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, which every
naturalized foreigner is sworn to support, as well as every officer in
the Government. The same allegiance, as you must be aware, de
volves on every native citizen by virtue of his birth ; and tiierefore
you are bound as fully as if you had taken the oath, and to an equal
extent, precisely. This, however, is not only a civil, but also a reli
gious obligation ; because the Constitution is the " supreme law of
the land," and the Saviour commands us to " render unto Csesar the
things that be Csesar's,'' and the Apostle lays down the precept :
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." By the terms
of this Constitution, slavery is made lawful. And therefore I do not
see how you can deny its lawfulness, without opposing the " supreme
law of the land," which you are solemnly bound to support ; and
thus becoming the patron of treason in sentiment, if not in action.
5. In the fifth and last place, I admonish you not to rush again,
through your zeal for political expediency, into a libelous assault on
a brother bishop ; nor to bring your clergy into a false position, with
out at least some decent regard to the usual course of previous in
quiry and consultation. The mode in which you did this thing would
be a disgrace to the lowest court of justice, in deciding upon the act
of the most worthless individual. Even the self-appointed tribunal
which is called "Lynch law" gives an opportunity to the culprit to
make his defense before a jury, and imitates, to some extent, the order
established in every civilized community. But your clergy were not
summoned to meet together. Your intended victim was not notified
The false and defamatory sentence was drawn up by your own hand,
and a committee of three were deputed to obtain the subscribers ; the
object being to accomplish the work in the least possible time, in
order that the placards containing your Protest might be posted at
the corners of the streets before the day of election ! '
And yet your proceeding was nothing short of a pubhc judgment,
pronounced on a brother bishop, your senior in years and in office,
who had labored at least as hard in the service of the Church, who
had published more books in defense of her principles than all your
diocese together, and who had some little character to lose, and some
few friends to be disgusted and amazed by the total want of justice
and propriety, of feeling and courtesy, which marked the whole
extraordinary transaction.
As the party whom you have thus publicly defamed, I have justified

SUMMARY. 349
my pamphlet by an appeal to the highest authority ; and I challenge
yourself and your phalan.x of " indi_gnant reprobationists " to prove
that I am in error, by any argument worthy of a consistent Christian
or a loyal citizen. The position which I occupy is impregnable, for
it is defended by the AVord of God, the voice of the Church, and the
Constitution of the country. Your zealous adherents may continue
to assail it, as some of them have already done, by invective, by
abuse, and by misrepresentation. But like the -waves which dash
against the rock, such assaults will make no impression ; and even
though their violence may be favored for a while by the strong wind
of popular excitement, it will end in nothing raore substantial than
froth and foam.
I conclude with a brief summary of the whole. To slavery under
the domination of any human master, I am as much opposed as you
or your clergy, by birth, education, and the habits of a long lifetime.
I desire to see the Southern institution abolished as soon as it can
be, peaceably, lawfully, and with a just regard to the best interests
of all concerned. I have put forth my argument many years ago, in
favor of such abolition, on the principles of Thomas Jefferson, of
Rufus King, of President Harrison, and others ; being the constant
advocate of a gradual emancipation connected with the planting of
the freedmen in Africa, after the model of Liberia. Hence, I contend
that I have never been in favor of the perpetual bondage of the-negro
race, and never have opposed their peaceable and gradual enfranchise
ment, and their future elevation to the highest development which
they may be able to attain. To charge me with such sentiments is a
sheer calumny, in the face of those publications which were issued
and repeated years before the commencement of our present national
warfare. But along with this I have raaintained, and shall always maintain
that the relation of the master to the slave in the Southern States
involves no sin, provided the treatment of the slave be in accordance
with the Scriptures ; because the slavery of the heathen races was
sanctioned by the divine law in the Old Testament, and the system
of Roman slavery was allowed to Christians by the apostles in the
New Testament ; and it was regarded as a providential arrangement
of society by the fathers, the councils, the theologians, and commen
tators in every branch of the Church for more than eighteen centuries ;
so that there is no question on which the Holy Catholic Church was

350 SUMMARY.
more perfectiy unanimous — that by necessary consequence the mo
dern doctrine of ultra-abolitionists is an impious error, because it
opposes the Bible and the Church — that it is a dangerous error, be
cause it divides Christian coramunities into hostile sects, bitterly war
ring against each other — that it is rebellious to the State as well as to
the Church, because it traraples on the Constitution, calling it a
"covenant with death and an agreement with heU," and has driven
the old Union of the States into discord and strife, of which no man
can foretell the issue — that to the negro race, slavery in the hands of
their Southern masters has been a blessing ; because it has been the
means appointed in wisdom hy divine Providence to redeem them from
a far more bitter bondage in x^frica, in the midst of savage barbarism
and heathen degradation, to train thera up to the civilization of the
Gospel, to qualify a portion of them to plant the State of Liberia, and
to enrol five hundred thousand communicants amongst the professed
Christians of the South — that if there had been no such arrangement
opened to them through the Southern institution, all these, with other
millions of their ancestors, must have lived and died in African bond
age and in the darkest paganism — that the same Providence which has
thus far produced so vast a benefit to a portion of the negro race, wiU
doubtless incline the masters to their ultimate emancipation on a
much larger scale, when the Almightj'- sees that the proper time has
come, if His designs are not rashly opposed by human presumption — ¦
that, meanwhile, the Church has no right to interfere with the in
stitution, warranted as it is not only by the " supreme law of the
land," laid down in the Constitution, but by the word of God and the
unanimous judgment of Christendom — that we have no reason to
question the assurances of the Southern clergy, concerning the justice
and kindliness of the treatment which the slaves receive, as the gen
eral rule, notwiti-istanding occasional exceptions, nor to doubt that
the Christians of the South are quite as sensible of their responsibUity,
and as indulgent and humane as we are — that the ultimate result will
be the preparation, in due time, of a vast host of missionary laborers,
able, by their physical peculiarities, to enjoy the climate of Africa,
which few of the white race can endure : and that these will multiply
the influence of Liberia a thousand fold, regenerate, by the light of
Christian truth, the whole of that barbarous and benighted continent,
and open a rich field of civilization to the commerce of the world.
Such, my Right Reverend Brother, is the view which I have taken.

SUMMARY. 351
on this most important and deeply interesting subject Thus be
lieving, I claim the right of every American freeman to proclaim my
belief, and utterly deny the justice or propriety of your denunciation
for the maintenance of sentiments which have been held substantially
by the best and most devoted men in all preceding ages. But while
I have plainly expressed my sense of the grievous wrong which you
and your clergy have committed, both in the fact and in the style of
your false and libelous Protest, yet I should be blameworthy if I
omitted to mention the Christian and manly course of those who re
fused to set their names to that most unwarrantable document. I
thank God that there were more than sixty of your clergy who had
the honesty and courage to resist the pressure of the popular political
current, though it carried you and so many others away. I thank
God that two of those who were induced to sign had afterwards the
magnanimity to withdraw their names, from motives of honor and of
conscience. And I doubt not that all of these just and independent
men, who had the firmness to withstand the force so strongly used
to warp their true Church principles, will be rewarded, not only by
their consciousness of religious duty, but by the increased respect of
all candid minds, when the excitement of strife and passion shall
have cooled down, and given place, once more, to the counsels of
sober sense and reason.
With respect to yourself and those who acted with you, although
I am compelled, in obedience to the Apostolic precept, to withdraw
from your fellowship and to admonish you, yet I wish you to re
member that I do so without any personal feelings of resentment. I
know how to make all charitable allowance for the delusions pro
duced by the warmth of political zeal ; and I regard your course
with the indulgence due to the extravagance of good men, who are
for a time demented. I have lived too long and experienced too
much, to be ignorant of the devices of our spiritual adversary, who
understands so well how to appear as an angel of light AVere not
the most pious ministers in New-England carried away into acts of
horrid injustice during the times of the Salem witchcraft ? Did they
not banish the zealous Roger Williams into the wilderness, in the
depth of a severe Northern winter, only because he had become a
Baptist ? Did they not publicly whip his followers at the cart's tail
from village to village, and hang the Quakers, for the glory of God ?
It w/is the accepted notion of those good old Puritans, that tolera-

852 CONCLUSION.
tion of religious errors was the doctrine of the devil ; and in all
these acts, and hundreds of the same character, they were perfectiy
conscientious, though perfectly deluded. Nay, we have a still more
awful instance of the adversary's power, when we remember that
even the great Apostle Peter was led, by the temptation of Satan, to
deny his Divine Lord and Master ! And what a trifling case of de
lusion does your Protest against the poor Bishop of Vermont pre
sent in comparison with examples like these !
True indeed, it is, that persecution for religious opinions has long
ceased to trouble the peace of society. It is not religion, but politics,
which now excites the passions of men ; and our subtle enemy adapts
himself adroitly to the change of circumstances, wearing the robe of
Christian philanthropy to give him influence with pious minds, but
relying on political zeal to stir them up to action. That is the reason
¦n'hy my publications against the heresy of ultra-abolitionism attracted
no notice from you or }'our clergy, until the Democratic party thought
fit to use them in your election. Then, the doctrines which were pre
viously suffered to pass without the slightest sign of disapproval
started forth to your excited minds under a new aspect, as if they
were the very utterances of treason. Then, the ecclesiastical thunder
began to roll in the Vatican of Pennsylvania. And then, the light
ning flash of your redoubtable Protest, was launched at my devoted
head without delay, under the powerful excitement of political expe
diency !
So be it, while it pleases God to suffer this popular frenzy to pre
vail. I have no difficulty in forgiving the act, as a small example of
the delusions to which the best men are liable, and which, sooner or
later, are certain to pass away. Meanwhile, it has no effect on my
old partiality for the Diocese and State of Pennsylvania. I can not
forget that Philadelphia was the principal scene of my education ; and
the meraories of those youthful years are all associated with persons
and with places on which I look back with peculiar affection. Pitts
burgh and its vicinity were the witnesses of my early manhood. It
was there ray married life began. There, my elder children were born.
There, I passed through the struggles which prepared me for success
in the practice of the law. There, I entered into the ministry, and
became the architect and flrst rector of the present Trinity Church 
the mother of so many of your western parishes. There, I passed
eight years of prosperous labor, under the wise and indulgent gov-

CONCLUSION. 353
ernment of the venerable Bishop White ; when as yet there was no
ultra-abolitionism to raise its voice against the Word of God, and the
Constitution of our country. And although I was then induced to
accept a call to Boston, and soon afterwards was elected as the Bishop
of Vermont, yet I still looked on Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with
special attachment, as the residence of many personal friends, who
esteemed me for my work, and whom I regarded with cordiality and
confidence. During the thirty years which have since elapsed, I
have paid numerous visits to your Diocese ; some in its service, and
more in the service of the Church Institutions belonging to my own.
And the warm hospitality, the generous liberality, and the kindly
greetings which marked those visits, have left a grateful impression
on my heart, too deep and strong for a hundred protests to obliterate.
Your action, of necessity, destroys my former intercourse. But the
old feeling remains unchanged. And I am as constant as ever in my
prayer that the blessing of God raay rest, in rich abundance, on the
clergy and laity of Pennsylvania !
And here, my Right Reverend Brother, I close my unwelcome labor.
Frankly and unreservedly, but I trust not unkindly, I have set forth
" the truth wherein I stand." It is the same truth which was held
from the beginning, founded on the absolute Will of the Almighty
and .all-wise Creator, taught by Moses and the prophets, sanctioned
by the inspired Apostles, and maintained by the Holy Catholic Church
throughout the world, even to our own day. It is none the less true,
because, in many portions of the land, it has become distasteful.
And, therefore, being myself the " bond-servant of Christ," our divine
Eedeemer, I can not be diverted from my obligations to contend, un
der his banner, for the authority of His Word, for the judgment of
His Church, and, in harmony with these, for the allegiance which I
owe to the Constitution of my country. Relying on His strength,
which is "made perfect in weakness," I hope to persevere in the
fearless and honest performance of my duty, whether popular or un
popular, whether "in honor or in dishonor," looking for no human
praise, and dreading no human censure, but depending, with all hu
mility, yet with all confidence, on Him who is "the way, the truth,
and the life," whose Word is the only standard of right, and whose
power alone can secure the final victory.

APPEIfDIX,

Note 1.
The proper meaning of the Hebrew word ^^aj being sometimes denied, I
have made the foUovring extracts from JBagster's Polyglot, showing the true
sense of the Hebrew, as it was given by the Jews themselves, in the Septua
gint version of the Fourth Commandment, to which I have added the Vul
gate and others.
Thy man-servant and thy -maid-servant. (Ex. 20 : 10.)
6 -Kali aov Kai fj -Kaidlaicri aov, Septuagint.
Servus tuus et anciUa tua, Latin Vulgate.
dein knecht, noch deine magd, German.
ton serviteur ni ta servante, French.
tuo servo, ne la tua serva, Italian.
ni tu siervo, ni tu sierva, Spanish.
Now the word used here by the old Jews of Alexandria, viz., iraif, signi
fies a child, a son, a daughter, u, young male or female slave. See Donne-
gan's Greek and English Lexicon, and also Liddell and Scott, edited by Pro
fessor Drisler.
The appropriate signification, therefore, must be that of bondman and
bondmaid, or male and female slaves ; because the son and the daughter were
already mentioned jiist before. And this is, accordingly, the meaning given
in the Latin, Italian, and Spanish versions.
The Tenth Commandment has the same words as the Fourth, both in the
original Hebrew, and in all the versions. Thus we have slave or bondman
in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, and Italian, and servant in the Ger
man, French, and English versions.
Levit. 20 : 44. Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou sludt
have, shall he of the heathen, etc.
Here the Hebrew has the same words as iu the Fourth and Tenth Com
mandments, fi)asi 'lis-
Thc Septuagint has the same, -nalr Kal -TvaidisKTi.

APPENDIX. 355
The Latin has the same, servus et ancilla.
The German has the same, knecht und magd.
The French has esclave et servante.
The Italian has the same, servo ed alia tua serva.
The Spanish has the same, siervo y sierva.
The true meaning is given in this text, by all the versions save the Ger
man, -which uses the doubtful word knecht, as before.
To these I shaU add the following, from Robinson's Gesenius : " 125>
& servant, who among the Hebrews was also a slave."
" In addressing superiors, the Hebrews, from modesty or humility were ac
customed to call themselves servants, and those whom they addressed, lords."
And this extract from Robinson's edition of Calmet's Dictionary of the
Holy Bible agrees with all the rest, viz. : ¦' Servant. This word, in Scrip
ture, generally signifies a slave, because, among the Hebrews and the neigh
boring nations, the greater part of the servants were such, belonging abso
lutely to their masters, who had a right to dispose of their persons, and in
some cases, even of their lives."
" Slavery, compulsory servitude. To punish the indignity received from
his son H.am, Noah foretold the slavery of his descendants. Gen. 9 : 25."
" Moses notices two or three sorts of slaves among the Hebrews ; who had
foreign slaves, obtained by capture, by purchase, or born in the house. Over
these, masters had entire authority ; they might sell them, exchange them,
punish them, judge them, and even put them to death without public process.
In which the Hebrews followed the rules common to other nations."
The meaning of Sovlo(, in the New Testament, is hardly susceptible of a
cavil. It signifies a slave, according to Donnegan, to Liddell and Scott,
edited by Professor Drisler, to Parkhurst, and, in a word, to all the authori
ties. Of course, examples may be found in which both these words are ap
plied in another sense than that of strict bodily servitude for life. Thus,
no word is better understood than our English term slave, yet we use it con
stantly in a larger sense, as when we say, a slave to lust, a slave to drink, a
slave to fashion, a slave to popularity. So, too, we say of an overtasked
wife : " She is a perfect slave to her husband." But this license does not
interfere with the proper meaning of the term, which is as firmly fixed as
language can be.
On the meaning of the Latin word servus, which is invariably applied in
the sense of slave, there is and can be no dispute whatever.
Note 2.
From the foregoing examples it will appear manifest that the proper
meaning of the Hebrew Ebed, and the Greek doulos, and the Latin serv^ia,

356 APPENDIX.
is a bond-scrva-nt or slave. The hired servant is expressed in aU these
languages by a, different word — sakir in the Hebrew, misthotos or mis-
thoplwros in the Greek, and mercenarius in the Latin. Our translators
have not been precise in our English Bible. In some places they have trans
lated the very same -(vord by bondservant, and in a far greater number they
have employed the general term servant, while, in almost all, they have
avoided the word slave, doubtless because slavery had died out in England
before the reign of James I., when their translation was published, and they
wished to secure the advantage of the precepts in the Scriptures for the re
lation of master and servant, in the form which was customary at the time.
The Southern slaveholders and their slaves continue the same practice of
avoiding the word slave. The milder word, servant, is the only one in com
mon use among them. But if our English Bible had been translated with a
view to the present question, which had not theu been contemplated in its
moral and religious aspect, the authority of the Scriptures would have ap
peared, as it really is, perfectly free from any ambigvuty,
Note 3.
De Jure persona-rum.
Summa itaque divisio de jure personarum hseo est : quod omnes homines
aut liberi sunt aut servi. Et libertas quidem (ex qua etiam liberi vocantur)
est naturalis facultas ejus, quod ouique facere libet, nisi si quid vi aut jure
prohibetur. Servitus autem est constitutio juris gentium, qua quis dominio
alieno contra naturam subjicitur.
Servi autem ex eo appellati sunt, quod Imperatores captives, -iiendere ac
per hoc servare, neo oecidere solent : qui etiam mancipia dicti sunt, quod ab
hostibus manu capiuntur.
Servi autem aut nascuntur, aut fiunt : nascuntur ex ancillis nostris : fiunt
aut jure gentium, id est, ex captivitate, aut jure civih, cum liber homo major
XX annis ad pretium partieipandum sese venundari passus est. In servorum
conditione nulla est differentia : in liberis autem multse : aut enim sunt in-
genui, aut libertini. — Inst. Justin. L. 1. Tit. III. Corpus Juris Civilis.
JSd. Amstel. 1663. Tom. 1, p. 4. Note 4.
Libertini sunt, qui ex justa servitute manumissi sunt. Manumisisio autem
est de manu datio, nam quamdiu aliquis in servitute est, manui et potestati
suppositus est: manumissus, liberatur potestate. Quse res k jure gentium
originera sumpsit: utpote cum jure natural! omnes liberi nascerentur, nee
esset nota manumissio, cum servitus esset incognita. Sed postquam jure
gentium servitus iuvasit, sequutum est beneficium manumissionis : et cum
uno communi nomine omnes homines appellarentur, jure gentium tria

APPENDIX. 357
hominum genera esse coeperunt : liberi, et his contrarium servi, et tei-tium
genus libertini, qui desierant esse servi, Multis autem modis manumissio
procedit : aut enim ex sacris constitutionibus in sacrosanctis Ecclesiis, aut
vindicta manumittitur, aut inter amicos, aut per epistolam, aut per testa-
mentum, aut per aliam quamlibet ultimam voluntatem. — I-nst. Justin. Corp.
Juris Civilis, Tom 1, p. 4. Note 5.
Sequitur de jure personarum alia divisio. Nam quaedam personse sui
juris sunt, qusedam alieno jure subjectae. Rursus earum, quae alieno juri
subjects sunt, aUse sunt in potestate parentum, aliae in potestate domino-
rum. — In potestate itaque dominorum sunt servi, quse quidem potestas,
juris gentium est. Nam apud omnes perseque gentes animadvertere possu-
mus, dominis in servos vitse necisque potestatem fuisae : et quodcumque per
seryum adquiritur, id domino adquiri.
Sed hoc tempore nulUs hominibus, qui stfh^iraperio nostro sunt, licet sine
causa legibus coguita, in servos suos supra modum ssevire. Nam ex con-
stitutione divi Antonini, qui sine causa servum suum occiderit, non minus
puniri jubetur, quam si alienum servum occiderit Sed et major asperitas
dominorum ejusdem principis consti tutione coercetur: nam Antoninus
consultus a quibusdam prsesidibus provinciarum de his servis, qui ad sdem
sacram, vel ad statuam principum confugiunt, prseeipit, ut si intolerabilis
videatur SEEvitia dominorum, cogantur servos suos bonis conditionibus veu-
dere, ut pretium dominis daretur : et recte : expedit enim reipublicie, ne
sua re quis mal4 utatur. — Corpus Civilis, (Inst. Justin.) Tom, 1., p. 6.
Note 6.
§ 17. Item ea quse ex hostibus capimus, jure gentium statim nostra fiunt :
aded quidem, ut et liberi homines in servitutem nostra,m deducantur, qui
tamen, si evaserint nostram potentiam, et ad suos reversi fuerint, primum
statum reeipiunt. — Oorp-us Civilis, (Instit. Justin.) Tom. 1, p. 10.
Note 7.
Tit. iv. De injuriis.
§ 3. Servis autem ipsis quidem nulla injuria fieri intelligitur, sed domino
per eos fieri videtur ; non tamen iisdem modis quibus etiam per liberos et
uxores : sed ita, cum quid atrocius commissum fuerit, et quod aperte ad
contumeliam domini respicit : veluti si quia alienum servum atrociter verb-
eraverit : et in hunc casum actio proponitur. At si quis servo convicium
fecerit, vel pugno eum percusserit : nulla in eum actio domino competit.
— Corpus Civilis, (Institut. Justin,) Tom, 1, p. 32.
Note 8.
Servos sane sociari clericorum consortiis, volentibus atque consentientibua

358 APPENDIX,
dominis, modis omnibus pi-ohibemus : cum liceat eorum dominis, data priua
servis libertate, licitum cis ad susoipiendos hpnores clericorum iter (si hoc
voluerint) aperire. — Corpus Juris Civilis, (Codez Justin,) Tom, 11, p. 16.
Note 9.
Si servus, sciente domino, et non contradicente, iu clericum ordinatus
fuerit ab Episcopo : ex hoc ipso, quod coustitutus est, liber et ingenuus erit.
Si vero, ignorante domino, ordinatus fuerit ; liceat domino, intra anni unius
spatium, et servilem fortunam probare, et servum suum accipere. Si vero
servus, sciente vel nesciente domino (sicut diximus) ideo quod in clero
constitu tus, liber est factus, ministerium ecclesiasticum reliquerit, et ad
secularem vitam transierit ; suo domino ad serviendum tradatur. — Corpus
Juris Civilis, (Codex Justin.) Tom. 11, p. 16.
Note 10.
Quoniam igitur de servis fugitivis ad vitam monaaticam devenientibus,
statutum a superioribus est, ut si intra tres annos fugitivus manifestus fiat,
ilium habitu nudatum recipiendi facultatem dominus habeat : si vero
usque in tertium annum incognitus manserit, tametsi postmodum agnosca-
tur, ut domini potestati non obnoxius sit, prseterque illius voluntatem liber
nuncupetur : et vero inde multos fugiendi dominos suos occasionem cepisse,
ac re honesta monasticse vitae professione, ad tegendam malitiam abuti
videmus, (cuilibet enim servo perfacile est, ut ad triennium se occultet,
deindeque libertatem consequatur,) jubemus, ut quantocunque tempore
servus tali consilio monachus factus delituerit, si ipsum ahquando dominus
inveniat, nihilominus is quem malo proposito habitum sumpsit, hoc exuatur,
rursumque in domini potestatem subigatur. — Corpus Juris Civilis, (Imp.
Leonis Constit. X.) Tom. 11, p. 1Vl,pars 2.
Note 11.
De illis servis quibus nesciente domino ad primarii sacerdotii honores
conscendere visum est, statuimus : ut videlicet secundum ecclesiasticae
eonstitutionis voluntatem exauthorati, honore in quem clam irrepserint,
priventur, et ad suum servilemque statum revocantur. — Imp. Leonis Const.
XI. Corpus Juris Civilis. Tom. 11, pars 2, p. 242.
Note 12.
Testimonium cum magnl momenti, necessariaque ad tuenda communis
vitse negotia res sit, non a quibuslibet, sed ab iis qui extra ignominiam vi-
vunt, ferri aequum est. Recte ergo exquisita ratione de hoc disceptant
leges, et non simpliciter ad dicendum testimonium cuique aditum praebent.
Verumtamen, quia nonnuUffi leges servilis conditionis hominibus in quibus
dam rebus testari conoessorunt ; visum nobis est, hoc nota inducendum

APPENDIX. 859
esse, ut qui liberse vitas participes non sunt, in universum ad testandum non
admittautur, lexque Novellarum Constitutionum obtineat, et de quocunque
simpliciter testimonio statuat, idque in quacunque re, sive testamenta., sive
aliam humanae vitae actionem testimonium complectatur. Si enim illis qui
cum liberas vita sint, vitam ingenue, eaque libertate quam nacti sunt digne
nou degunt, neque quantum fieri potest animi magnitudinem a servitute
Uberam conservant, sed iu illicitarum actionum servitutem subiguntur, tes
timonium dicere non licet : neque his quorum vitam non esse liberam
constat, ferre testimonium concedetur. Nam tametsi alius hie servitutis
modus sit, attamen ea servitus est, quam libertatis dignitate participem esse
indigaum sit. — Imper. Leonis Constit. XLIX. Corpus Juris Civilis, Tom.
\\,pars 2, p. 257. Note 13.
Si quis ita demens sit, ut libertatem servitute commutans seipsum ven-
dat, ne is contractus validus sit, sed evertatur, et simul ipse libertatis suae
proditor, simul is qui cum ipso id facinus designavit, verberibus castigen-
tur, nihiloque minus vesanis mancipio libertas iu pristine suo statu ser-
vetur, — hnp. Leonis Constit. LIX. Corpus Juris Civilis. Tom. 11, pars
2, p. 260.
The reasons assigned for this imperial change in the civil law mak^ no
allusion whatever to religion. Note 14.
Servitus quaedam animi, quaedam corporis dieitur ; corporibus dominantur
homines, animis affectus et vitia, — Phil. Jud. p. 867.
Note 13.
At lex divlna regulas juris non fortunie sed naturae accommodat. Ideo
decet dominos non abuti sua potestate coutra famulos, cavereque ab inso-
lencia, contemptu atque saevitia. Nam ista non sunt indicia placidi animi,
sed impotentiae tyrannicae, exerccntis licentiam pro arbitrio. — Phil. Jud.
Liber de Special. Leg. p. 798. Note 16.
Quid enim injustius, quid iniquius, et improbrius, qudm ita alieno bene-
facere servo, ut domino eripiatur, ut alii vindicetur, ut adversus caput do
mini subornetur, et quidem, quo indignius, in ipsa adhuc domo domini, de
ipsius adhuc horreis vivens, sub ipsius adhuo plagis tremens ? Talis adser-
tor etiam damnaretur in seculo, nedum plagiator. — Tertul. adv. Marcion.
Lib. 1, g xxm. p. 377, C. Note 17.
Quicunque sunt sub jugo servi Dominos suos omni honore dignos arbi-
trentur. Non solum bonos, sed etiam infideles. Ne vidieantur per religionem

360 APPENDIX.
in deterius profecisse. Ne sibi aequalem contcmnant. Si serviebant infidel-
ibus timore odioso, quanto magis debent servire fidelibus quorum charitatis
participes esse merentur. — Hieron. Op. T. IX. p. 314.
Note 18.
Christianae religioni conditio non potest obesse servilis, ne dicas ergo, quo
modo Deo possum plaoere, qui servus sum ? Deus enim non conditionem
aspicit, sed voluntatem quaerit et mentera. Usque adeo non prodest libertas,
nee servitus nooet — Qui hominia servus est, liber est Deo, et qui hominibus
liber est, servus est Christi. Ambo ergo unuin sunt. — Op. Hieron. Tom. IX.
p. 249. Note 19.
Providet san^ hie Apostolus, ne doctrina Dei in aliquo blasphemetur, si
credentes servi suis dominis inutiles fiant. Et qui forte permissurus erat
alios servos fieri Christianos, de ipsis jam factis ineipiat poBuitero. Si vero
viderit eos in melius profecisse, et ex infidelibus fideles effectos, non solim
alios optabit credere famulos suos, sed etiam ipse fortasse salvabitur. —
Hieron. Op. T. IX. p. 294. Note 20.
Sed hoc muudi iniquitate factum est, ut dum alter alterius fines invadit,
tunc captives ducit ingenuos, unde et manu capti dicti sunt a veteribus, inde
mancipia. Hio casus et conditio etiam nunc apparet, alii redimuntur, alii
remanent servi. Apud Deum autem hie servus habetur, qui peccaverit.
Denique peccati causa Cham servus audivit : Maledictus puer Chanaan, ser
vus servorum erit fratribus suis. — S. Ambros. Supp. Gomm. in Epist. ad
Coloss. Tom. 2 Op. p. in app. 274. Note 21.
Servorum obsequiis dominos Deo gratias vult referre, ciim enim per Dei
disciplinam fidelia illis exhibuerint servitia, forte huic etiam ipsi se subjicient
disciplinas. Si profanis dominis serviendum tota solicitudine imperat, quanto
magis fidelibus ? Tunc enim probat se timori Dei subjectum, si fideli ct
temporali domino toto animo fuerit obsequtuus. — App. Op. S. Ambros.
Tom. 2, p. 302. Com. m 1 Tim. 6 : 1-2.
Note 22.
Tu (i. e. Ecclesia Catholica) dominis servos, non tam conditionis necessi
tate, quS,m officii delectatione doces adhaerere. Tu dominos servis, summi
Dei communis Domini consideratione placabiles, et ad consulendum quam
coerceudum propensiores facia. — Augustini Op. Tom. I. p. 527 /.
Note 23.
Timet servus offendere dominum suum ne jubeat ilium verberari jubeat

APPENDIX, 861
in compedes mitti, jubeat carcere includi, jubeat eum piatrino contiheri.
Hajc timens servus non peccat. — Aug-ustini Op. Tom. V. p. 542, D.
Note 24.
Servum autem hominem homini, vel iniquitas vel adversitas fecit ; ini^uitas
quidem, sicut dictum est ; Maledictus Chanaan, erit aervus fratribus aula :
adversitas vero, sicut accedit ipsi Joaeph, ut venditus a fratribus aervua alieni-
genae fieret. Itaque prunes servos, quibus hoc nomen in Latina lingua iu-
ditum est, bella fecerunt. Qui enim homo ab homine auperatua jure belli
possit occidi, quia aervatus est, servua est appellatua ; inde et mancipia, quia
manu capta sunt. Est etiam ordo naturalia in hominibus, ut serviant feminae
viris, et filii parentibus : quia et illic haec jujtitia eat, ut infirmior ratio ser-
viat fortiori. Haec igitur in dominationibus et aervitutibus clara juatitia est,
ut qui excellunt ratione, exceUant dominatione. — A-ug. Op. Tom. UL
p. 311, C. Note 25.
Quae de servo Hebraeo praecipiuutur, ut sex annos aerviat, et dimittatur liber
gratia, ne aervi Chriatiani hoc flagitarent a dominia auis, Apostolica auctoritas
jubet servos dominis suis esse aubditos, ne nomen Dei et doctrina blasphem
etur. lUud enim ex hoc aatia conatat in mysterio praeceptum, quia et per-
tundi subuld ejus aurem ad postem, prfecipit Deus, qui libertatem Ulam
recusasaet. — Aug. Op. Tom. III. ¦p. 333, E.
Note 26.
Prima et quotodiana potestas hominia in hominem domini est in servum.
Propfi omnea domus habent hujuamodi poteatatem. Sunt domini, sunt et
servi, diveraa aunt nomina ; sed hominea et homines parla sunt nomina. Et
quid dicit Apostolus, docens servos dominis auis subditoa eaae ? Servi ob
audite dominis vestris secundum carnem : quia est Dominus secundhm Spiri-
tum. Hie est verus Dominus et aeternus, illi autem temporales secundtau
tempus. Tu ciim ambulas in via, cum vivis in hac vita, non vult te facere
Buperbum Christus. Contigit tibi ut Chriatianua efficeria, et haberes dominum
hominem ; non ideo Christianus effectus es, ut dedigneris servire. Ctun
enim Christo jubente servis homini, non iUi servis, sed illi qui juasit. Et hoc
\ait, Obaudite dominia vestris secundum carnem, cum timore et tremore, In
Bimplicitate cordis, non ad oculum aervientea, quasi hominibua placentes, sed
quasi aervi Chriati, facientes voluntatem Dei ex animo, cum bona voluntate,
Ecoe non fecit de servis liberoa, aed de malia servis bonoa servoa. Quantum
debent divitea Christo, qui illis componit domum ? — A-ugust. Op. Enar. in
Ps. 124, Tom, IV, Pars Prima, p. 1059, 0.
Note 27.
Porro quicumque servi sub jugo detenti, ad fratrum conventum confugiant,
16

362 APPENDIX,
admoniti et meUorea effect!, ad dominoa suos remittendi sunt : in quo imitan-
dus est beatua Paulus, qui, cum genuiset Oneaimum per evangelium, eum ad
Phfiemonem remisit— & BasU. Op. T. 2, p. 353, D. et T. 3, p. 479, A. B.
^ Note 28.
Hegula LXXV.
Qudd oportet aervos, cum omni benevolentia ad Dei gloriam suis secundum
carnem dominis obedire, in iia certe, in quibus mandatum Dei non aolvitur.
Caput 1.
Servi obedite dominis carnalibua cum timore et tremore in Bimplicitate
cordis vestri, sicut Christo : non ad oculum servientes, quasi homini placentes.
Bed ut servi Christi, facientes voluntatem Dei ex animo, cum benevolentia
servientes, aicut Domino, et non hominibus : scientes quoniam unusquisque
quodcumque fecerit bonum, hoc recipiet a Domino, sive aervua, aive liber.
Quicumque sunt sub jugo servi, dominos sjios omni honore dignos arbitrcntur,
ne nomen Dei et doctrina blaaphemetur. Qui autem fidelea habent dominos;
non contemnant, quia fratrea aunt, sed magis serviant, quia fidelea aunt et
dilecti, qui beneficii participes aunt Servoa dominia auia aubditos esse, iu
omnibus placentes, non contradicentea, non fraudentes, sed omnem fidem
bonam ostendentes, ut doctriuam Salvatoris nostri Dei ornent iu omnibus.
—S. Basil, Op. Om. T, II p. 310. Note 29.
Aut enim potentia oppreasi, sub jugum servitutis inducti sunt, velut in bello
capti, aut ob paupertatem in servitutem edacti sunt velut .^gypti Pharaoni,
aut juxta aapieutem quaudam et arcanam dispensationem, qui inter filios de-
teriores sunt, parentum voce, sapientioribus ac melioribua in servitutem ad
dict! sunt, quam haudquaquam condemnationem, aed beneficium potiua dix-
erit asquus rerum aestimator. Nam qui ob senaua inopiam, non habet in sese
id quod natura imperat, huic utifiua eat alterius fieri mancipium. — S, Basil,
Op, Om, T, IIL p. 42-3. Note 30.
Unusquisque .n qua vocatione vocatus ea, in ea permaneat. Uxorem ha-
bena infidelem vocatua es, permane earn habens, ne propter fidem cjicias ux
orem. Servus ciim esaea, fuisti vocatua : ne sit tibi curas, permane aerviens.
Ciim praeputium haberes ea vocatus, permane habens praeputium. Credi-
disti ciim esses circumciaua, permane circumoisus. Quomodo nihil juvat oir-
cumcisio, neque Isedit praeputium, ita neque servitus neque libertas. Et ut
ex abundantia hoc docerit evidentiua, dicit : Sed si poles fieri liber, maaia
utere. Hoe eat, magis servi. Et curnam eum qui potest Uberari, jubet ma-
nere servum ? Voleas ostendere qu6d nihil Itedit servitus, sed etiam prodest

APPENDIX, 363
Neque verd ignoremoa, quod quidam iUud, Magia utere, aiunt dictum eaae de
libertate, dicentea. Si potea Uberari, liberare. Modo autem Pauli hoc verbum
est valde contrarium, ai hoc aignificat. Non enim conaolans servum, osten.
dendo eum nulla esse injuria affectum, juasiaset eum fieri liberum. Diceret
enim fortfe quiapiam. Quid vero si non possum, affectus aum injuria et dam
num accepi. Non ergo hoc dicit, aed sicut dixi, volena oatendere quod nihil
emolumenti ei obtingit qui factua eat liber, dicit : Etiamai ait in tua poteatate
ut manumittaris et liber fias, permane potius serviens. Deinde subjungit
etiam causam. Qui enim in Domi-no vocatus est servus, libertus est Domini,
Similiter qui liber vocatus est, servus est Christi, In iia enim quae aunt secun
dum Christum, ambo aunt parea. — Quomodo ergo qui est servus, est libertus ?
Quoniam se liberavit, non soldm a peccato, sed etiam ab externa servitute,
manentem servum. — ^Et quomodo qui est servus est liber, manens servus 1
Quando fuerit Uberatua ab affectionibua et animi segritudinibus. Quando
despezerit pecunias, iramque et ejuamodi alias animi perturbationes. Pretio
empti estis: nolite fieri servi hominum. Hoc dictum est non aoli^ servis sed
etiam Uberis. Fieri enim potest ut et ciini ait aervua, non ait servus, et ci!im
sit liber, sit servus. Et quomodo ciim sit servus, non est servus ? Quando
propter Deum omnia fecerit : quando non simularit neque fuerit hypocrita,
nee aliquid agat ut serviat oculis hominum : hoc est hominibus aervientem
esse Uberum. Aut quomodo ruraua quiapiam ciim ait liber, fiat aervua ?
Quando hominibua aliquod malum obit miniaterium, aut propter ingluviem,
aut propter pecuniae cupiditatem, aut propter potentiam. Nam qui eat ejus-
modi, est omnibus serviUor, etsi sit liber. Utraque autem haec considera.
Servus erat Joseph : sed non aervua hominum. Quamobrem etiam in servi
tute erat omnibus hominibua liberior. Dominae quidem certe non cessit in
iis quae volebat quae ipaum poasidebat Rursus ilia erat libera, et omnibus
erat serviUor, ut quae servo asaentaretur et eum rogaret et provocaret Sed
non persuasit libero ut faceret quod noluit Non erat ergo res ilia servitus,
sed summa libertas. Quid enim illi ad virtutem impedimento fuit servitus ?
Audiant aervi et Uberi. — Hoc quidem cert6 tacit^ aignificat dicena, Nolite
fieri servi hominum. Si autem non ita eat, sed juaait dominoa relinquere, et
contendere ut fiant liberi, quomodo monebat dicena, Unusquisque in eo
maneat in quo vocatus est? et alibi, quicumque sunt sub jugo servi, suos
dominos omni honore dignos cenaeant. — Ad Epheaioa quoque acribens et
Colossenses, eadem praeoipit et statuit Unde est perapicuum quod non
toUit banc servitutem, sed earn quse est a vitio, in qua sunt etiam liberi. —
S. Clarysostom, in Ep. ad, Corin, c. vii. Hom. xix. Ed. Paris, 1636. T. v.
p. 196-8. Note 31.
Nomen et conditionem servitutis culpa genuit, non natura, et prima hujua

364: APPENDIX,
subjectionis causa peccatum est ; quia aicut acriptum est. Omnia qui facil
peccatum, servus est peccati, Unde melior ejus status est qui famulatur ho
mini, quam qui suae servit cupiditatl — Prosper. Aquit. Op. Om. p. 566.
Note 32.
Sciendum eat duo genera eaae bonae aervitutis : unum timoris, aUud dilec-
tionis : unum timentium ancillorum et servorum, ahud diligentium ct placen-
tium filiorum, timet enim ancilla, ne flagelletur, timet matrona, ne offendat
animum viri sui. — S. Greg. Mag. Op. T. III. Par. 2, p. 562.
Note 33.
"Admonitio VI. — Aliter admonendi sunt aervi, atque aliter domini.
Servi, scilicet, ut in se semper humUitatem conditionis aspioiant: domini
vero, ut naturae suae qua aequaliter aunt cum servis conditi, memoriam non
amittant. Servi admonendi sunt ne dominos despiciant, ne Deum offendant
ai ordinationi illiua superbiendo contradicunt : domini quoque admonendi
aunt, quia contra Deum de munere ejua auperbiunt, si eos quos per condi
tionem tenent aubditos, aequalea aibi per natures conaortium non agnoscent.
Isti admonendi sunt ut sciant se servos esse dominorum ; iUi admonendi
sunt ut cognoscant se conservos ease servorum. Istis namque dieitur : servi,
cbedite dominis carnalibua. Et rursum ; quicumque sunt sub jugo servi,
dominos suos omni honore dignoa arbitrcntur : illis autem dieitur : et vos,
domini, eadem facite illis, remittentes minas, jcientes quod et illorum et
vester Dominus est in coelis." — S. Greg. Mag. Op. Pastoralis Curce, Pars
3, c. 1. Note 34.
" Gregori-us Felici Episcopo Portuensi."
" Charitatis vestrae gratia provocati, ne infructuosi vobia videamur existere,
praecipu^ cum et minus voa habere servitia noverimus, ideo Johannem juris
eccleaiastici famulum, natione Sabinum, ex mass& * Flavian^,, annorum plus
minua decem et octo, quem nostra voluntate jam diu possidetis, fraternitati
vestras jure directo donamua atque concidemua ; ita ut eum habeatia, poasi-
deatia, atque juri proprietatique vestrae vindioetis atque defendatis, et quid-
quid de eo facere volueritis, quippe ut dominus, ex hujus . donationis jure
libero potiamini arbitrio. Contra quam munificentiae noatrae chartulam
nunquam nos successoresque nostros noveria esse ventures. Hanc autem
donationem a Notario nostro peracriptam legimua atque aubacripsimua, tribu-
entea etiam, non expcctat^ professione veatrS, quo volueritis tempore alli-
gandi licentiam legitima atipulatione et sponaione interpositft. Actum
Romae."— A 67-eg. Mag. Op. Liber. X. Ep. LII.
* The massa above mentioned was generally a farm or plantation.

APPENDIX, 3fi5

Note 35.

Propter peccatum primi hominia humano generi poana divinitus illata eat
servitutis, ita ut quibua aspicit non congruere libertatem, hia miserioordiua
irroget aervitutem. Et licet peccatum humanffi originis per baptiami gratiam
cunctia fidehbua dimissum ait, tamen aequua Deus ideo discrevit hominibua
vitam, alios aervos conatituena, ahoa dominoa : ut licentia male agendi aervo-
rum, potestate dominantium reatringatur. Nam si omnes sine metu fuissent,
quis easet qui a malis quempiam prohiberet ? Inde et in gentibua principea
regeaque electi aunt, ut terrore auo populos a malo coercerent, atque ad recte
viveudum legibus subderent. — Melior est subjecta servitus, qualm elata liber
tas. Multi enim inveniuntur Deo liberS servientes sub dominis flagitiosia, qui
et si subject! aunt illia corpore, praelat! tamen aunt mente. — Isidor. Hispal.
Op. Om. Senteni. L. Ill c. XLVII p. 471.
Note 36.
Servus in clerum proveh! aine voluntate dominorum, non permittimus, ad
eorum qui possident moleatiam, domorum enim eversionem talia efficiunt.
Siquando autem, etiam dignua servua visus est, qui ad gradum eligatur,
quails noster quoque Onesimus visus est, et domini concesserint ac libera-
verint, et aedibus emiserint, fiat — Can. Apostol. Can. LXXXI.
Note 37.
De fa-muUstquid amplius dicamus, quam quod servus habeat benevolentiam
erga dominum cum timore Dei, quamvia sit impius, quamvia sit improbua,
non tamen cum eo religione consentiat. Item dominus servum dUigat, et
quamvia praeatet ei, judicet tamen esse aequalitatem, vel quatenua homo eat.
Qui autem habet dominum Chriatianum, aalvo dominatu, diligat eum, tum ut
dominum, tum ut fidei consortem et ut patrem, non sicut servus ad oculum
serviens, sed sicut dominum amans, ut qui aciat mercedem famulatAs sui a
Deo sibi aolvendam ease. Simihter dominus, qui Chriatianum famulum
habet, aalvo famulatu, diligat cum tanquam filium, et tanquam fratrem prop
ter fidei communionem. — Constit. Apostol. Clem. Lib. IV. ch. 5.
Note 38.
Si quia aervum, praetextu divini cultus, doceat dominum contemnere pro-
prium, ut discedat ab ejus obsequio, nee ei cum benevolentia et omni honore
deserviat, anathema sit — Cohcilinm Qangrense, a.d. 341. Hardouim
Coneil. Tom. 1, p. 534. Note 39.
Si quos de aervis ecclesiae bene meritos sibi epiacopus libertate donaverit,
coUatam Ubertatem a auccesaoribus placuit cuatodiri, cum hoc quod eia man-
umiasor in libertate contulerit — ConcUiwm Agathense, Can. VII. a.d. 506.
Hardouim Con. Tom. 2, p. 998.

866 APPENDIX.

Note 40.

Servus qui ad ecclesiam pro qualibet culpa confugerit, si a domino pro
admissa culpa sacramenta susciperet, statim ad aervitium domini sui redira
cogatur. — Concilium Aurelianense 1, Can. IU. A.D. 511. Sardouini Con.
Tom. 2, p. 1009. Note 41.
Si quia aervum proprium sine conscientia judieis Occident, excommunica-
tionia biennii effusionem sanguinis expiabit. — Concilium Epaonense, Can.
XXXIV. A.D. 617. Hardmiini Con. Tom. 2, p. 1051.
Note 42.
Ut servis ecclesiae, vel sacerdotum, praedas et captivitatea exereere non
Uceat : quia iniquum est, ut quorum domini redemptionis praestare sclent
suffragium, per servorum eicessum diaciplina ecclesiastica maculetur. — Con-
cU'ium Aureliatieme IV. Can. XXUL a.d. 541. Hardmiini Con. Tom. 2,
p. 1439. Note 43.
Ut servum, qui Ubertatem a dominia propriis non acceperit, aut etiam
jam libertum, nuUua episcopus aljsque ejus tantum voluntate, cujus aut
servus est, aut eum absolvisse dignoscitur, clericum audeat ordinare. — Con
cilium Aurelianeme V. Can. VL a.d. 649. Hard, Con. Tom, 2, p. 1444-5.
Note 44.
Idcirco praesenti conciHo, Deo auctore, sancimus, ut nullus Christianus,
Judaeo denieeps debeat deservire, sed datis pro quoUbet bono mancipio duo-
decim solidis, ipsum mancipium quicumque Christianus, sen ad ingenoitatem,
seu ad servitium, hcentiam habeat redimendi ; quia nefas est, ut quos
Christus Dominus sanguinis aui effusione redemit, persecutorum vinculis
maneant irretiti. Quod si acquiescere hia quae statuimus, quicumque
Judaeus noluerit, quamdiu ad pecuniam constitutam venire distulerit, liceat
mancipio ipsi eum Christianis, ubicumque voluerit, habitare. — Concilium
Matiaeonejiae 1, a.d. 681, Coti. XVI, Hardouini Con, Tom, IU, p. 453.
Note 45.
Quoniam cognovimus per multas civitates eccleaiarum servos, et episco-
porum, vel omnium clericorum a judicibus vel aetoribus pubUcia diversis
angariia fatigari, omne concilium a pietate domini nostri poposcit, ut tales
deinceps ausus inhibeat : sed servi suprascriptorum officiorum, in eorum
uaibus vel ecclesiae laborent— Con. Toletanum UI. Can. XXI. a.d. 689.
Hard. Con. Tom. IU. p. 483. Note 46.
Ut omnis homo, tam ingenuus, tam servus, Gothus, Romanua, Syrus

APPENDIX. 867^
Gnecus, vel Judaeua, diei Dominico nullam operam faciant, nee boves
jungantur ; excepto ai in metando neces.sitaa incubuerit. Quod si quisquam
prteaumpaerit facere, ai ingenuua eat, det comiti civitatis aolidoa aex ; ai
BSrvua, centum flagella suscipiat. — Concilium. Narbonense, a.d. 689. Can.
IV. Hardmiini Con. Tom. UI. p. 492.
Note 47.
Si quis servum suum ad altere manumiserit, liber esto, et habilis sit ad
gaudendum hereditate et wirgildo, et fas sit ei ubi volet sine fimite versari.
—Con. Bergha-mstedmse, Can. IX. a.d. 697. Hard. Con. T. UI, 1819.
Note 48.
Propter peccatum primi hominia, humano generi pcena divinitua illata eat
servitutia: ita ut quibua aspicit non congruere libertatem, his miserioordrus
irroget aervitutem. Et licet peccatum humanae originis, per baptismi gra
tiam cunctis fidelibus dimiaaum sit, tamen sequus Deus ideo discrevit homini
bus vitam, alios aervos constituens, alios dominoa, ut Ucentia male agendi
servorum, poteatate dominantium reatringatur. Non est personarum ao-
ceptio apud Deum. — Unus enim Dominus aequaliter, et dominis refert con-
Bultum, et servis. Melior est subjects aervitua, quam elata fibertas. Multi
enim inveniuntur Deo libere servientes, aub dominia coustituti flagitiosis :
quo etsi subjecti sunt illis corpore, praelati tamen aunt mente. — Coneil.
Aquisgranense Can. CIV. a.d. 816. Hard, Con, T, IV. p. 1115.
Note 49.
De servorum vero ordinatione, qui passim ad gradus ecclesiasticos indis
crete promoventur, placuit omnibus cum aacria canonibua concordari debere :
et statutum est, ut nullus episcoporum deinceps eos ad aacroa ordinea pro-
movere praeaumat, nisi priua a dominia propriis libertatem consecuti fuerint
Et si quilibet servus dominum suum fugiens, aut latitana, aut adhibitia teati-
bus munere conductis vel corruptis, aut qualibet calliditate vel fraude ad
gradua ecclesiaaticoa pervenerit, decretum eat ut deponatur, et dominua ejua
recipiat. — I/udovixA Pii Imperatoris Capitidare, anno imperii ejus editum.
Hard. Con. Tom, IV. p. 1214. Note 50.
Si quia aervum proprium sine conacientia judicum, qui tale quid commis-
erit, quod morte sit dignum, occiderit, excommunicatione vel poenitentia
biennii reatum sanguinia emundabit. — Concilium Wormatense, Can.
XXXVUl A.D. 868. Hard. Con. Tom. V. p. 743.
Note 61.
Si servus, absente vel nesciente domino auo, epiacopo autem sciente quod
servua sit, diaeonus aut presbyter fuerit ordinatus, ipse in clericatua ofiicio

368 APPENDIX,
permaneat : epiacopus tamen eum domino duplici satisfactione peraolvat Si .
vero epiacopus eum servum esse nescieret et ita eum ad aacros ordinea pro-
movit, qui teatimonium de iUo perhibebant, aut eum postulabant ordinari,
simiU recompensatione teneantur obnoxii. — Concilium Wormatense, Can.
XL. A.D. 868. Hard. Con. Tom. V. p. 743.
Note 52.
Ne quis illud nefarium negotium quo hactenus in Anglia aolebant hominea
sicut bruta animaha venundari, deinceps uUatenus facere praeaumat.
Note 53.
¦' Anselmus archiepiacopua WiUelmo archidiacono dilecto auo, salutem et
benedictionem. Sententiaa capitulorum concilii exfiositas, nolo vobia aut alicui ad praeaena
mittere: quia quando in ipao concilio expositae sunt, non potuerunt ad
plenum et perfecte recitari, propterea quia aubitfl aine praemeditatione, ac
competenti tractatione, sicut oportuerat, sunt prolatae. Unde quaedam
videntur addenda, et forsitan quaedam mutanda, quod non nisi communi
conaenau coepiacoporum noatrum volo facere. Volo ergo eas dictare, et
prius eisdem episcopis ostendere, cum primo convenerimus, quam per eccle-
aiaa Angliae dictatae et expositae mittantur. Nomina tamen rerum, de quibua
ibi locuti aumua, vobia mittimus, ut secundum quod recordari poteritis, noa
de 'illia decreviase facialis." Then follows a list of subjecta, but the topic of
selling slavea is entirely omitted. — Hard. Coneil. Tom. VI. Pars. 2, p. 1863-6.
Note 54.
Nous avons encore le testament de S. GregOire de Nazianze, en date de der
nier jour de Decembre de cette annee 381. II y prend le titre d'eveque de
C. P. — II conserve a uue vierge nommee Russiene, la pension qu'il lui dou-
nait pour aa subaiatence, avec une habitation a son choix, et lui donne deux
fiUes esclavea, qu'elle choisira, pour demeurer avec elle toute sa -vie : il lui
donne pouvoir de les affranchir, si non elles appartiendront a I'^ghse de
Nazianze.— £««<. Ecc, de Fleury, Tome IV, p. 419-420. Ed. Paris. 1758.
Note 55.
Saint Perpetuus vecut jusqu'en 491, et nous avons aon teatament fait vera
le premier de Mai, I'an 475, par lequel U affranchit pluaieura esclavea, remet
a aes debiteura tout ce qu'Ua lui doivent, et legue 4 sou ^gfise plusieurs
fonds de terre, et aes fivres — Hist. Ecc, de Fleury, Tome VI. p. 556. Ed.
Pans. 1758. Note 56.
Alcuin avoit la diapoaition du revenu de sea abbayes, et comme leura terrea
fetoient peupUes de serfs, Elipand de Tolede lui reprochoit d'en avoir jus-
qu'a vingt miUe. — Hist. Ecc. de Fleury, Tome X. p. 35. Ed. Paris. 1758.

APPENDIX, 869
Note 67.
Dans le Coucile de Soisaona, tenu a.d. 853. "Les 6vSques prioient le roi
d'appuyer de son autorit6, et pour cet effet il publia dans la septieme aea-
aion un capitulaire de douze articles. . . . Defense aux aeigneura d'empe-
cher lea ^veques de faire battre de vergea les colons ou paysans aerfa sujeta
des mtoea aeigneura, quand iia I'auront m4rit6 pour leura Crimea. — Hist,
Ecc, de Fleury, Tmne X, p. 471. Ed. Paris. 1758.
Note 68.
Aprea cette preface, eat le dficret du pape (Benoit VIII. a.d. 1022,) divis6
en sept articlea. H renouvelle la defenae d'avoir ni femme ni concubine, et
aemble I'etendre'i tons les clercs aans exception. II declare que les enfans
des clerca aont aerfa de I'^ghae en laquelle aervent leura p^rea, quoique leura
merea aoient libres, et prononce anatheme centre le juge qui les declarera
libres. Aucuu serf de I'egliae, clerc ou laique, ne pourra faire aucune ac
quisition sous le nom d'un homme fibre, aoua peine de fouet et de prison,
jusqu'a ce que I'egfise ait retir^ tous les titres de I'acquisition. — Hist. Ecc.
• de Fleury, Tome XIL p. 405. Ed Paris. 1758.
Note 69. /
In sexto capite initio aervis praeceptum dat, ubi meminerint juniorea com-
muuem regulam confirmari, quas SEEpe repetitur, Evangelium non abolet
oeconomias et politias, aed concionatur de alus rebus, videlicet de aeternis
bonis, de aetema justioia et vita, quam Deua efficit in cordibua hominum,
quoa tamen, vult in hac vita mortaU aubjectoa eaae huic ordini, qui juxta
voluntatem Dei convenit vitae corporali. Vult nos cibo et potu sustentari,
vult esse legitima conjugia, et propagationem. Vult esse consociationera
ordinariam generis humani, distinctionem dominiorum, defensionem per
imperia, contractus, leges, judicia, poenas. Ita hue videmua approbari servi
tutem, qualis tunc in legibus descripta fail. Prodest autem et conscientiis et
ad pacem inteUigere hanc doctrinam de approbatione ordinis politici. — Philip,
Melanthonis, Com. in 1 Ep. ad Tim. 6 : 1. Ed. 1564. Pars IV. p. 422.
Note 60.
Quincunque sub jugo.'\ Quia sibi quisque praestantiam falsa opinione arro-
gat, nemo est qui asquo animo ferat, alios sibi imperare. Qui effugere necea-
aitatem nequeunt, parent illi quidem inviti auperioribua : aed intua fremunt
et indignantur, quia aibi putant fieri injuriam. Omnes ejuamodi disputationes
uno_ verbo praecidit Apostolus, quum voluntariam aubjectionem exigit ab
omnibua qui aub jugo aunt Significat enim non esse inquirendum sintne
digni tali fortuna an meliore : quia aufficiat hac conditione esse obatrictoa. —
Calvin's Com. on 1 Tim. 6:1.
16*

370 APPENDIX. Note 61.
Ne Dei nomen.'] Semper in nostrum commodum plusquam oporteret inge-
niosi aumua. Ita aervia si infideles habeant dominos, prompta eat objectio,
indignum ease ut, qui diabolo serviunt, impercnt filiis Dei. Paulus autem
in contrariam partem retorquet argumentum, ideo infidelibus dominis paren-
dum eaae, ne mal4 audiat nomen Dei et EvangeUum, quaai EvangeUum con-
tumacea reddat ct praefractos, qui aliis subjecti eaae debent — lb.
Note 62.
Quanta fuerit apiritua Paulini celaitudo, etsi ex gravioribus ejus acriptis
perspici meliua potest, haec quoque Epistola testia est, in qua argumentum
tractans humile alias et abjectum, auo tamen more sublimia ad Deum evehitur.
Fugitivum aervum et furem Domino remittena, pro illo deprecatur veniam.
— Calvin's Commentary on the Epistle to Philemon, introductory paragraph.
Note 63.
Prolegomena.] Haec epiatola novo genere a Paulo acripta est, et sola verS
proprieque epistola dici meretur. Ejus utilitas multiplex. Atonet enira '
nos. 1, neminem, quamvis imfimae aortia, contemnendum : 2, de servorum
ingenio non ease desperandum : 3, Servos credentes in Christum non prop
terea liberos fieri, vel invitis eripi dominis: 4, quodnam sit Episcopi officium,
tum ergo inferiorea, tum ergo nobiliorea — Scribendi causa erat, ut servum
hero reoonciUaret Quod cim ei difficile videretur apud dominum juatissimis
de causis iratum, ciim et servus, rebus uti creditur, ablatis, profugisset omni
orationis artificio eum aggreditur. Si quid in ge'nere suasorio admirandum
est, certe hoc epistolicum est. — Poli Synopsis Criticorum, in Epist. Pauli
ad Philemonem. Note 64.
Servi.] Non tollit morem tunc receptum servia utendi : habet enim aua
commoda, et licet eo rect6 uti. Docet libertatem Ch-risfianam consiatere cum
servitute politica, et per Christum non tolli, nee mutari, status poliiicoa. — Poli
Synopsis, in Epist. ad Ephesios' 6:5. Note 66.
1 Ep. ad Oorinthoa 7 : 21. Sed si potea liber fi^, potius, utere.] 1. Servi
tute utere : magis serviaa, miyoria boni caus4, scil, ad tuam exercitioneta, et
domini tui salutem. Syrus locum sic reddit. Sed etiamai posses fiber fieri,
(tuia nempe artibua et fraudibus) elige tibi ut serviaa. — Huic senaui optimd
quadrat aequens ratio consolatoria. Nam qui aervua vocatua eat, libertua eat
Domini, Non tamen hoc voluit, ut servitutem praeferrent libertati ai heria
sponth oblata, sed Ubertati iUegitimae per fugam, aut fraudem, etc. — Poli
Synopsis, in 1 Epist. ad Corinthos, 7.

APPENDIX, 871
Note 66.
Gen 9 ; 26. Maledictus Canaan.] Quidam aubaudiunt ^ass pater. Pator
Canaa-iK Ita Ar. — quod paulo ante hia expreasum est. Alii accipiunt de
Canaan. Hunc populum maledictum fuiaae eventua docuit Hinc proba-
biliter coUigitur eum fuisse paternae iniquitatis socium. Nee tamen Cham
immimia eat a maledictione, quia filius ejua nominatur ; aicut Semo bene-
dicitur, vers, sequente quamvis Deua nominetur, et Jacob dieitur ien«fc«re
Josepho, Gen. 48 : 15, quia Uberis ipsius benedixit, v. 16. Punitur parens
in filio, sceleris conscio, forsan et auctore et indice, ut volunt Hebraei et
Theodoretus. Quidam observant maledicaisse Noe posteritati Cham, sed
omissis reliquis filiis Cham, singulariter de Canaan expresaiaae Mosen, quia
tanti^m ea commemor^sae voluit quae Israelitaa confirmare et alacriorea red-
dcre posaent ad capeaaendam terram promiaaam Canaan. — Poli Synopsia,
in loco. Note 67.
Servita Servo-mm,] i. e. Servua infimus et vilissimua. — lb.
Note 68.
Gen. 17 : 12. Thm veniaeulus quam emptitius.] Incircumciaua in terra
Eebraeorum vivere poterat a)ib bonis legibus, non item in domo Hebraei,
ne mores exemplo confunderentur. Qu. An aervi emptitii ad.circumciaionem
eogi poterant ? Affirmant multi ex hoc loco. Nam. 1. Servua eat possessio
domini. 2. Illud, circumcidetur, praeceptum eat, quod elides, si aubaudias
ct vdit. 3. Aliaa nulla diatinctio easet inter mercenarium et servum nam
mercenariia penniaaa erat (non praecepta) circumcisio, Exod, 12 : 44. Negant
aUi. Exiatimant nuUum adultum aervum obUgari ad circumciaionem suas
aut prolis, nisi sponte consentiat. Nam sic sumenti (circumciaionem) im-
poneretur peccamdi neceasitaa, et juberetur hypocriaia. Nee talia circumciaio
sacramentum eaaet Dei fcederis, quod non niai volentea amplectimur. Deni
que, vera religio suaderi debet, non imperari. Adde quod Maimonides sic
explicat, de Circumcisione, cap. 1, sect 6. Si quia (inquit) servum jam
adultum a Cuthoeia eompara-vit, qui circuyncidi nolit — debet Outhaeia iterum
venundari. — Poli Syn, Note 69.
Exodua 20 : 10. Servua tuus.] Nee laborea illia injungas, nee coa laborare
patians. Intelligitur hoc de iis qui non erant Judaei, nam qui Judaei per pre-
cedeutia erant prohibit! — Peli Syn. in loco.
Note 70.
lb. 17. Non eoncupiases, etc.] His legis verbis maxim6 stabilitur dbmtniuOT
*l proprietaa rerum quas ne concupiscere licet, servit-ua praetera et lierilia
potestas. — Poli Syn. in loco.

372 APPENDIX, Note 71.
Deuter. 23 : 15. Jfon trades servum, etc.] Agit de domino extraneo. Sic
terra Israelitica asylum fit InteUige de servis qui ab Ethnicis dominis, prop
ter tyrannidem, confugiebant ad IsraeUtas, Judaiami amplectendi gratia. —
Poli Synopsis in loco. Note 72.
Exod. 21:16. Que furatus fucit hominem hominetn et vendiderit.] Nempe
laraelitam. Patet ex Deut. 24 : 7. Quem Judaeua aliquis vi vel fraude per-
trahere posaet in servitutem, et GentiUbus devendere. — Poli Syn. in loco.
Note 73.
Esdras 2d, c. 65. Servi — septem millia, etc.] Vide tenuem captivorum
fortunam, ctun tot miUia non haberent plures servos.— jPoK Syn. in loco.
Note 74.
Qui post sanctum baptismum, duobus conjugiis fuerit implicitua, vel
habuerit concubinam, non potest esse episcopus, vel preabyter, vel diaeonus,
vel omnino ex numero saoerdotali. — C'anonea Apostolorum, Hardouini
Coneil, Tom. 1, p. 14. Note 75.
Nemo debet duas uxores aimul ducere, nee uxori auae alteram mulierem
propter voluptatem et desiderium carnia aubintroducere, projiciendo ae iu
periculum pecoandi, veraando cum pluribus ad concupiscentiam, nee ad
aemen suseipiendum, aicut Deus ordinavit: et qui hoc fecerit, si fuerit
sacerdos, prohibeatur ministerio sacrificandi, et communione fideUum,
quousque ejiciat domo aecundam ; et debet retinere primam. Idem judicium
est de laicis. — Canon XXIV. Concilii Nicwni Versio AraUca. Hardouini
Con. Tom. 1, p. 467, A, Note 76.
Polygamy,
Possit enim homo demittere sterilem uxorem, et ducere de qua filios
habeat; et timen non licet, et nostris quidem jam temporibus ac more
Romano, nee auperinducere, ut ampliua habeat quam unam vivam. — Au
gustin, Op, Tom, VI. De Bono Conjugali, p. 237, B.
Note 77.
De trigamia et polygamis definiere eumdem Canonem, quem et de digamis,
aervata proportione, annum videlicet in digamis, aUi vero duos annos. Tri-
gamos autem tribus et saepe quatuor annis segregant. — Basil. Epiatola 188,
Canonica 1, Tom, III p. 211, D.

APPENDIX, 373
Note 78.
Polygamiam Patrea silentio praetermiaere, ut belluinam, prorausque ab hom
inum genere aUenam. — Basil. Epist. 217, Canonica 3, Tom. III. p. 329, C.
Note 79.
From the volume of Captain Canot, pubhshed by Appleton & Co., 1854,
I make the following extract, which gives a more graphic statement of the
atrocities committed by the native Africans than many books of much
greater pretension. See chapter LXI. p. 382-6.
" During my first visit to Digby," saith our author, " I promised my
trading friends — ^that I would either return to their settlement, or at least
send merchandiae and a clerk to establiah a factory." ,
" There were two towns at Digby, governed by couaina, who had always
Uved in harmony. My mercantile venture, however, waa unhappily dea-
tined to be the apple of discord between them. The establishment of so
important an institution aa a alave-factory within the juriadiction of the
younger aavage, gave umbrage to the elder ; and in a very abort time, thia
unlucky partiality ripened the noble kinamen into bitter enemies." i
" It is not the habit in Africa for negroes to expend their wrath in harm-
leaa worda, ao that preparationa were aoon made in each settlement for
defence as well as hostUity. Both towns were stockaded and carefuUy
watched by sentinels, day and night. At times, forays were made into each
other's auburba, but as the chiefs were equally vigilant and alert, the ex
tent of harm was the occasional capture of women and children, as they
wandered to the forest and stream for wood and water."
" Thia dalUance, however, did not suit the ardor of my angry favorite.
After waiting a couple of months, he purchased the aid of certain buahmen,
headed by a notorious scoundrel named Jen-ken, who had acquired renown
for his barbarous ferocity throughout the neighborhood. Jen-ken and hia
chiefs were cannibals, and never trod the war-path -without a pledge to re
turn laden with human flesh to gorge their houaeholda."
'•Several assaults were made by this aavage and hia buahmen on the dis
satisfied cousin, but as they produced no significant results, the barbarians
withdrew to the interior. A truce enaued. Friendly propoaala were made
by the younger to the elder, and again a couple of montha glided by in
aeeming peaice."
" Juat at this time business called me to Gallinas. On my way hither 1
looked in at Digby, intending to supply the displeased chieftaui with goods
and an agent, if I found the eatabliahment profitable."
"It was aunset when I reached the beach; too late, of courae, to land my
merchandiae, so that I poatponed furnishing both places untU the morning.

374 APPENDIX,
As might fairly be expected, there waa abundant joy at my advent The
neglected rival waa wild with satisfaction at the report that he, too, waa at
length* favored with a ' white man.' Hia ' town ' immediately became
a acene of unbounded merriment. Powder waa burnt without atint.
GaUona of rum were diatributed to both sexes ; and dancing, amokmg, and
carouaing continued tUl long afler midnight, when all stole off to maudlin
sleep." " About three in the morning, the audden acreams of women and child
ren aroused me from profound torpor I Shrieks were followed by vol
leys of musketry. There waa a loud tattoo of knocka at my door, and
appeals from the negro chief tO rise and fly. ' The town was besieged —
the head-men were on the point of escaping — resistance waa vain — they
had be.en betrayed — there were nd fighters to defend the stockade.' "
" I was opening the door to comply with thia advice, when my Kroomen,
who knew the country'a wai^a even better than I, diaauaded me from de
parting, with the confident assurance that ouraaaailanta were unqueationably
composed of the rival townsfolk, who had only temporarily discharged the
bushmen to deceive my entertainer. The Kroos insisted that I had nothing
to fear. We might, they said, be seized and even imprisoned ; but alter
a brief detention, the captors would be glad enough to accept our ran
som. If we fled, we might be slaughtered by mistake."
"I had ao much confidence in the sense and fidelity of the band that al
ways accompanied me — partly aa boatmen and partly aa body-guard — that I
experienced very little peraonal alarm when I heard the shouts as the
savages rushed through the town, murdering every one they encountered.
In a few moments our own door was battered down by the barbarians,
and Jen-ken, torch in hand, made his appearance, claiming us as prison
ers." " Of course, we submitted without reaiatance, for although fuUy armed,
the odds were so great in thoae ante-revolver days, that we should have
been overwhelmed by a single wave of the infuriated crowd. The barbarian
chief instantly selected our house for hia headquartera, and dispatched his
followers to complete their task. Prisoner after prisoner waa thruat in.
At times the heavy mash of a war-club and the cries of strangling women,
gave notice that the work of death was not yet ended. But the night of
horror wore away. The gray dawn crept through our hovel's bars, and all
waa atiU, save the groans of wounded captivea, and the waiUng of women
and chUdren."
" By degreea, the warriora dropped in around their chieftain. A palaver'
hmiae, immediately in front of my quartera, waa the general rendezvous ;
and scarcely a bushman appeared without the body of aome maimed and

APPENDIX 875
bleeding victim. The mangled but living captives were tumbled on a heap
in the centre, and aoon every avenue to the square waa crowded with ex-
ultmg savages. Rum was brought forth in abundance for the chiefs. Pre-
sentiy, slowly approaching from a distance, I heard the drums, horns, and
war-bells ; and in leas than fifteen minutes, a proceaaion of women, whose
naked Umba were ameared with chalk amd ochre, poured into the palaver-
houae to join the beastly rites. Each of these devUa was armed with a
knife, and bore in her hand aome cannibal trophy. Jen-ken'a wife, a cor
pulent wench of forty-five, dragged along the ground, by a aingle limb,
the slimy corpse of am infant ripped alive from ita mother'a womb. As
her eyea met thoae of her husband, the two fiends yelled forth a shout
of mutual joy, while the lifeleaa babe waa toaaed in the air and caught, aa it
deacended, upon the point of a spear. Then came the refreshment, in the
shape of rum, powder, and blood, which was quaffed by the brutes tUl
they reeled off, with linked hands, in « wild dance around the pile of
victims. Aa the women leaped and aang, the men applauded and encour
aged. Soon the ring was broken, and with a yell, each female leaped on
the body of a wounded prisoner, and commenced the final sacrifice with the
mockery of lascivious embraces !"
" In my wanderings in African forests, I have often seen the tiger pounce
upon ita prey, and with inatinctive thirat, satiate ita appetite for blood, and
abandon the dradned corpae ; but theae African negresses were neither as
decent nor aa merciful as the beast of the wilderness. Their malignant
pleasure aeemed to conaiat in tbe invention of torturea that would agonize,
but not alay. There was a devilish spell in the tragic scene that fascinated
my eyea to the spot. A alow, Ungering, tormenting mutUation was prac
tised on the living as weU as on the dead ; and, in every instance, the
brutality of the women exceeded that of the men. I can not picture the
helUsh joy with which they paaaed from body to body, digging out eyea,
wrenching off lipa, tearing the eara, and alicing the flesh from the quiver
ing bones ; while the queen of the harpies crept amid the butchery, gath
ering tbe brains from each several skull as a bonne bowche for the approaching
feast !"
" After the last victim yielded hia life, it did not require long to kindle a
fire, produce the requiaite utenaila, and fill the air with the odor of human
fieah. Yet, before the various masses were half broiled, every mouth was
tearing the dainty morsels with shouts of joy, denoting the combined satis
faction of revenge and appetite ! In the midst of this appalling scene, I
heard a fresh cry of exultation, aa a pole waa borne into the apartment, on
which waa impaled the living body of the conquered chieftain's wife. A
hole waa quiddy dug, the atave planted, and fagota aupplied ; but before

876 APPENDIX,
a fire could be kindled, the wretched woman was dead, so that the bar-
bariana were- defeated in their hellish scheme of burning her alive."
" I do not know how long theae brutalitiea lasted, for I remember very
little after this last attempt, except that the buahmen packed in plaintain
leaves whatever fleah waa left from the orgie, to be conveyed to their
frienda in the forest. Thia waa the first time it had been my lot to behold
the most savage development of African nature under the stimulus of war.
The butchery made me aick, dizzy, paralyzed. I sank on the earth be
numbed with stupor ; nor was I aroused tUl nightfall, when my Kroomen
bore me to the conqueror's town, and negotiated our redemption for the
value of twenty slaves."
I had prepared a large number of other extracts from the works of the
missionary. Rev. Mr. Moffat, of Dr. Livingstone, and especially of Captain
Burton, whose book, entitled,' ?7ie Lake Regions of Central Africa, presents,
in the last chapter, the fuUeat and most satisfactory account of African char
acter and habits that I have seen. But I have already exceeded the limits
allotted to this volume, and shall only say, in conclusion, that I am not able
to conceive how any Christian can seriously reflect on the awful depravity,
the dark heathenism, the gross licentiousness, the cruel ferocity, and the
worse than brutish degradation of the posterity of Ham, in their native coun
try, and yet denounce, as a sin, the Southern institution, which has been the
only means to raise mUlions out of that terrible abyss, and endow them with
the knowledge of civilization, and of morality, founded on true religion.
For my own part, as a friend to the negro race, and to the best interests of
Africa, I can not hesitate to regard it as a dispensation of Providence ; through
which the noble enterprise of the American Colonization Society, commenc
ing with Liberia, will furnish, in due time, the best and most available instru
mentality for the ultimate regeneration of that benighted continent. In the
accomplishment of thia grand design, the descendants of Canaan wfll have
the largest scope for the development of all their faculties and powers. And
looking forward to the result, which, sooner or later, will be effected, I
consider the Constitution of the United States to be, not a " covenant with
death, and an agreement with hell," but rather a covenant with life, and an
agreement with the final purpose of divine mercy, for countless generatioua

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39Q02 0030291G3b

"^ 1,/ "^ I'

^ nvk!... * ' hwjgtt r„',.,l « *
-l,»'Mte.'"» ' ."J*"'"-" "¦ iT 'I"--' '-1.V,
Ml?k J±V ' 'r^'--'''^^*'«*'tirVEV*'^-»':r ,V * . <-'''-.' "'

•¦¦,'..' VtfSSSi',,' %-