Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments Part 41

These two terms are first, servant or bond-servant; second, hireling or hired servant; the first indicating involuntary servitude; the second, voluntary servitude for stipulated wages, and a specified time. Although this admits of the clearest proof _under the law_, yet it admits of proof before the law was given. On the night the Israelites left Egypt, which was before the law was given, Moses, in designating the qualifications necessary for the Pa.s.sover, uses this language,--Exod.

xii: 44, 45: "Every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circ.u.mcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof." This language carries to the human mind, with irresistible force, the idea of _two distinct states_--one a state of _freedom_, the other a state of _bondage_: in one of which, a person is serving with his consent for wages; in the other of which a person is serving without his _consent_, according to his master's pleasure.

Again, in Job iii, Job expresses the strong desire he had been made by his afflictions to feel, that he had died in his infancy. "For now,"

says he, "should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest. There (meaning the grave) the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and the great are there, and the servant is free from his master."--Job iii: 11, 13, 17, 18, 19. Now, I ask any common-sense man to account for the expression in this connection, "there the servant is free from his master." Afflictions are referred to, arising out of _states_ or _conditions_, from which _ordinarily_ nothing but _death_ brings relief.

_Death_ puts an end to afflictions of body that are incurable, as he took his own to be, and therefore he desired it.

The troubles brought on good men by a wicked persecuting world, last for life; but in _death_ the wicked cease from troubling,--_death_ ends that _relation_ or _state_ out of which such troubles grow. The prisoners of the oppressors, in that age, stood in a _relation_ to their _oppressor_, which led the oppressed to expect they would hear the voice of the _oppressor_ until _death_. But _death_ broke the _relation_, and was desired, because in the grave they would hear his voice no more.

All the distresses growing out of inequalities in human condition; as wealth and power on one side, and poverty and weakness on the other, were terminated by death; the grave brought both to a level: the small and the great are there, and there, (that is, in the grave,) he adds, the servant is free from his master; made so, evidently, by _death_. The _relation_, or _state_ out of which his oppression had arisen, being destroyed by _death_, he would be freed from them, because he would, by _death_, be freed from his master who inflicted them. This view of the case, and this only, will account for the use of such language. But upon a supposition that a _state_ or _relation_ among men is referred to, that is _voluntary_, such as that between a _hired servant_ and his _employer_, that can be _dissolved_ at the pleasure of the _servant_, the language is without meaning, and perfectly unwarranted; while such a _relation_ as that of _involuntary_ and _hereditary_ servitude, where the master had _unlimited power_ over his servant, and in an age when cruelty was common, there is the greatest propriety in making the servant or slave, a _companion with himself, in affliction_, as well as the oppressed and afflicted, in every cla.s.s where _death alone_ dissolved the _state_ or _condition_, out of which their afflictions grew. Beyond all doubt, this language refers to a state of _hereditary bondage_, from the afflictions of which, _ordinarily_, nothing in that day brought relief but _death_.

Again, in chapter 7th, he goes on to defend himself in his eager desire for death, in an address to G.o.d. He says, it is natural for a servant to desire the shadow, and a hireling his wages: "As the servant earnestly desireth the shadow, and as the hireling looketh for the reward of his work," so it is with me, should be supplied.--Job vii: 2. Now, with the previous light shed upon the use and meaning of these terms in the _patriarchal Scriptures_, can any man of candor bring himself to believe that two states or conditions are not here referred to, in one of which, the highest reward after toil is mere rest; in the other of which, the reward was wages? And how appropriate is the language in reference to these two states.

The _slave_ is represented as earnestly desiring the _shadow_, because his condition allowed him no prospect of any thing more desirable; but the _hireling_ as looking for the _reward of his work_, because _that_ will be an equivalent for his fatigue.

So Job looked at _death_, as being to his _body_ as the servant's _shade_, therefore he desired it; and like the _hireling's wages_, because _beyond the grave_, he hoped to reap the fruit of his doings.

Again, Job (x.x.xi:) finding himself the subject of suspicion (see from verse 1 to 30) as to the rect.i.tude of his past life, clears himself of various sins, in the most solemn manner, as unchast.i.ty, injustice in his dealings, adultery, contempt of his servants, unkindness to the poor, covetousness, the pride of wealth, etc. And in the 13th, 14th, and 15th verses he thus expresses himself: "If I did despise the cause of my man-servant, or my maid-servant, when they contended with me, what then shall I do when G.o.d rises up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" Taking this language in connection with the language employed by Moses, in reference to the inst.i.tution of involuntary servitude in _that age_, and especially in connection with the language which Moses employs _after the law was given_, and what else can be understood, than a reference to a cla.s.s of duties that slave owners felt themselves above stooping to notice or perform, but which, nevertheless, it was the duty of the righteous man to discharge: for whatever proud and wicked men might think of a poor servant that stood in his estate, on an equality with brutes, yet, says Job, he that made me, made them, and if I despise their reasonable causes of complaint, for injuries which they are made to suffer, and for the redress of which I only can be appealed to, then what shall I do, and how shall I fare, when I carry my causes of complaint to him who is my master, and to whom only I can go for relief? When he visiteth me for despising _their cause_, what shall I answer him for _despising mine_? He means that he would feel self-condemned, and would be forced to admit the justice of the retaliation. But on the supposition that allusion is had to _hired servants_, who were _voluntarily_ working for _wages_ agreed upon, and who were the _subjects of rights_ for the _protection of which_, their appeal would be to "the judges in the gate," as much as any other cla.s.s of men, then there is no point in the statement. For _doing that_ which can be _demanded as a legal right_, gives us no claim to the character of _merciful benefactors_. Job himself was a great slaveholder, and, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, won no small portion of his claims to character with G.o.d and men from the manner in which he discharged his duty to his slaves. Once more: the conduct of Joseph in Egypt, _as Pharaoh's counsellor_, under all the circ.u.mstances, proves him a friend to absolute slavery, as a form of government better adapted to the state of the world at that time, than the one which existed in Egypt; for certain it is, that he peaceably effected a change in the fundamental law, by which a _state, condition, or relation_, between Pharaoh and the Egyptians was established, which answers to the one now denounced as sinful in the sight of G.o.d. Being warned of G.o.d, he gathered up all the surplus grain in the years of plenty, and sold it out in the years of famine, until he gathered up all the money; and when money failed, the Egyptians came and said, "Give us bread;" and Joseph said, "Give your cattle, and I will give for your cattle, if money fail." When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said, "There is not aught left in sight of my Lord, but our bodies and our lands. Buy us and our lands for bread." And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharoah.

So the land became Pharoah's, and as for the people, he removed them to cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt, even to the other end thereof. Then Joseph said unto the people, "Behold! I have bought you this day, and your land for Pharoah; and they said, "we will be Pharoah's servants."--See Gen. xlvii: 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25. Having thus changed the fundamental law, and created a state of entire _dependence_ and _hereditary bondage_, he enacted in his sovereign pleasure, that they should give Pharoah one part, and take the other four parts of the productions of the earth to themselves. How far the hand of G.o.d was in this overthrow of liberty, I will not decide; but from the fact that he has singled out the greatest slaveholders of that age, as the objects of his special favor, it would seem that the inst.i.tution was one furnishing great opportunities to exercise grace and glorify G.o.d, as it still does, where its duties are faithfully discharged.

I have been tedious on this first proposition, but I hope the importance of the subject to Christians as well as to statesmen will be my apology.

I have written it, not for victory over an adversary, or to support error or falsehood, but to gather up G.o.d's will in reference to holding men and women in _bondage, in the patriarchal age_. And it is clear, in the first place, that G.o.d decreed this state before it existed. Second.

It is clear that the highest manifestations of good-will which he ever gave to mortal man, was given to Abraham, in that covenant in which he required him to circ.u.mcise all his _male servants, which he had bought with his money_, and that were _born of them_ in his house. Third. It is certain that he gave _these servants_ as _property_ to Isaac. Fourth. It is certain that, as the owner of _these slaves_, Isaac received similar tokens of G.o.d's favor. Fifth. It is certain that Jacob, who inherited from Isaac his father, received like tokens of divine favor. Sixth. It is certain, from a fair construction of language, that Job, who is held up by G.o.d himself as a model of human perfection, was a great slaveholder. Seventh. It is certain, when G.o.d showed honor, and came down to bless Jacob's posterity, in taking them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, _they were the owners of slaves that were bought with money, and treated as property_; _which slaves_ were allowed of G.o.d to unite in celebrating the divine goodness to their _masters_, while _hired servants_ were excluded. Eighth. It is certain that G.o.d interposed to give Joseph the power in Egypt, which he used, to create a state, or condition, among the Egyptians, which _substantially agrees_ with _patriarchal_ and _modern slavery_. Ninth. It is certain, that in reference to this inst.i.tution in Abraham's family, and the surrounding nations, for five hundred years, it is never censured in any communication made from G.o.d to men. Tenth. It is certain, when G.o.d put a _period_ to _that dispensation_, he _recognised slaves as property on Mount Sinai_. If, therefore, it has become sinful since, it cannot be from the _nature of the thing_, but from the _sovereign pleasure of G.o.d in its prohibition_. We will therefore proceed to our second proposition, which is--

Second.--That it was incorporated in the only national const.i.tution emanating from the Almighty. By common consent, that portion of time stretching from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's posterity, at Mount Sinai, is called the patriarchal age; _this is the period we have reviewed_, in relation to this subject. From the giving of the law until the coming of Christ, is called the Mosaic or legal dispensation. From the coming of Christ to the end of time, is called the Gospel dispensation. The legal dispensation _is the period of time, we propose now to examine_, in reference to the inst.i.tution of involuntary and hereditary slavery; in order to ascertain, whether, during this period, _it existed at all_, and _if it did exist_, whether with the _divine sanction_, or in _violation of the divine will_. This dispensation is called the legal dispensation, because it was the pleasure of G.o.d to take Abraham's posterity by miraculous power, then numbering near three millions of souls, and give them a written const.i.tution of government, a country to dwell in, and a covenant of special protection and favor, for their obedience to his law until the coming of Christ. The laws which he gave them emanated from his sovereign pleasure, and were designed, in the first place, to make himself known in his essential perfections; second, in his moral character; third, in his relation to man; and fourth, to make known those principles of action by the exercise of which man attains his highest moral elevation, viz: supreme love to G.o.d, and love to others as to ourselves.

All the law is nothing but a preceptive exemplification of these two principles; consequently, the existence of a precept in the law, utterly irreconcilable with these principles, would destroy all claims upon us for an acknowledgment of its divine original. Jesus Christ himself has put his finger upon these two principles of human conduct, (Deut. vi: 5--Levit. xix: 18,) revealed in the law of Moses, and decided, that on them hang all the law and the prophets.

The Apostle Paul decides in reference to the relative duties of men, that whether written out in preceptive form in the law or not, they are all comprehended in this saying, viz: "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." With these views to guide us, as to the acknowledged design of the law, viz: that of revealing the eternal principles of moral rect.i.tude, by which human conduct is to be measured, so that sin may abound, or be made apparent, and righteousness be ascertained or known, we may safely conclude, that the inst.i.tution of slavery, which legalizes the holding one person in bondage as property forever by another, if it be morally wrong, or at war with the principle which requires us to love G.o.d supremely, and our neighbor as ourself, will, if noticed at all in the law, be noticed, for the purpose of being condemned as sinful. And if the modern views of abilitionists be correct, we may expect to find the inst.i.tution marked with such tokens of divine displeasure, as will throw all other sins into the shade, as comparatively small, when laid by the side of this monster. What, then, is true? Has G.o.d ingrafted hereditary slavery upon the const.i.tution of government he condescended to give to his chosen people--that people, among whom he promised to dwell, and that he required to be holy? I answer, he has. It is clear and explicit. He enacts, first, that his chosen people may take their money, go into the slave markets of the surrounding nations, (the seven devoted nations excepted,) and purchase men-servants and women-servants, and give them, and their increase, to their children and their children's children, forever; and worse still for the refined humanity of our age--he guarantees to the foreign slaveholder perfect protection, while he comes in among the Israelites, for the purpose of dwelling, and raising and selling slaves, who should be acclimated and accustomed to the habits and inst.i.tutions of the country. And worse still for the sublimated humanity of the present age, G.o.d pa.s.ses with the right to buy and possess, the right to govern, by a severity which knows no bounds but the master's discretion. And if worse can be, for the morbid humanity we censure, he enacts that his own people may sell themselves and their families for limited periods, with the privilege of extending the time at the end of the sixth year to the fiftieth year or jubilee, if they prefer bondage to freedom. Such is the precise character of two inst.i.tutions, found in the const.i.tution of the Jewish commonwealth, emanating directly from Almighty G.o.d. For the fifteen hundred years, during which these laws were in force, G.o.d raised up a succession of prophets to reprove that people for the various sins into which they fell; yet there is not a reproof uttered against the inst.i.tution of _involuntary slavery_, for any species of abuse that ever grew out of it. A severe judgment is p.r.o.nounced by Jeremiah, (chapter x.x.xiv: see from the 8th to the 22d verse,) for an abuse or violation of the law, concerning the _voluntary_ servitude of Hebrews; but the prophet pens it with caution, as if to show that it had no reference to any abuse that had taken place under the system of _involuntary slavery_, which existed by law among that people; the sin consisted in making hereditary bond-men and bond-women of Hebrews, which was positively forbidden by the law, and not for buying and holding one of another nation in hereditary bondage, which was as positively allowed by the law. And really, in view of what is pa.s.sing in our country, and elsewhere, among men who profess to reverence the Bible, it would seem that these must be dreams of a distempered brain, and not the solemn truths of that sacred book.

Well, I will now proceed to make them good to the letter, see Levit.

xxv: 44, 45, 46; "Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession they shall be your bond-men forever." I ask any candid man, if the words of this inst.i.tution could be more explicit? It is from G.o.d himself; it authorizes that people, to whom he had become _king and law-giver_, to purchase men and women as property; to hold them and their posterity in bondage; and to will them to their children as a possession forever; and more, it allows _foreign slaveholders_ to _settle_ and _live among them_; to _breed slaves_ and _sell them_. Now, it is important to a correct understanding of this subject, to connect with the right to _buy_ and _possess_, as property, the amount of authority _to govern_, which is granted by the _law-giver_; this amount of authority is implied, in the first place, in the law which prohibits the exercise of rigid authority upon the Hebrews, who are allowed to sell themselves for limited times. "If thy brother 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 until the year of jubilee--_they shall not be sold as bond-men_; thou _shalt not rule over them with rigor_."--Levit. xxv: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. It will be evident to all, that here are _two states_ of servitude; in reference to _one_ of which, _rigid_ or _compulsory_ authority, is _prohibited_, and that its _exercise is authorised in the other_.

Second.--In the criminal code, that conduct is punished with death, when done to a _freeman_, which is not punishable at all, when done _by a master to a slave_, for the express reason, that the slave is the _master's money_. "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall surely be put to death."--Exod. xxi: 20, 21. "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. xxi: 20. Here is precisely the same crime: smiting a man so that he die; if it be a freeman, he shall surely be put to death, whether the man die under his hand, or live a day or two after; but if it be a servant, and the master continued the rod until the servant died under his hand, then it must be evident that such a chastis.e.m.e.nt could not be necessary for any purpose of wholesome or reasonable authority, and therefore he may by punished, but not with death. But if the death did not take place for a day or two, then it is to be _presumed_, that the master only aimed to use the rod, so far as was necessary to produce subordination, and for this, the law which allowed him to lay out his money in the slave, would protect him against all punishment. This is the common-sense principle which has been adopted substantially in civilized countries, where involuntary slavery has been inst.i.tuted, from that day until this. Now, here are laws that authorize the holding of men and women in bondage, and chastising them with the rod, with a severity that terminates in death.

And he who believes the Bible to be of divine authority, believes these laws were given by the Holy Ghost to Moses. I understand modern abolition sentiments to be sentiments of marked hatred against such laws; to be sentiments which would hold G.o.d himself in abhorrence, if he were to give such laws his sanction; but he has given them his sanction; therefore, they must be in harmony with his moral character. Again, the divine Law-giver, in guarding the property right in slaves among his chosen people, sanctions principles which may work the separation of man and wife, father and children. Surely, my reader will conclude, if I make this good, I shall force a part of the saints of the present day to blaspheme the G.o.d of Israel. All I can say is, truth is mighty, and I hope it will bring us all to say, let G.o.d be true, in settling the true principles of humanity, and every man a liar who says slavery was inconsistent with it, in the days of the Mosaic law. Now for the proof: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee, and in the seventh 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 (one of his bond-maids) and she have borne him sons and daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out by himself."--Exod. xxi: 2, 3, 4. Now, the G.o.d of Israel gives this man the option of being separated by the master, from his wife and children, or becoming himself a servant forever, with a mark of the fact, like our cattle, in the ear, that can be seen wherever he goes; for it is enacted, "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, (in open court,) he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door post, (so that all in the court-house, and those in the yard may be witnesses, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." It is useless to spend more time in gathering up what is written in the Scriptures on this subject, from the giving of the law until the coming of Christ.

Here is the authority, from G.o.d himself, to hold men and women, and their increase, in slavery, and to transmit them as property forever; here is plenary power to govern them, whatever measure of severity it may require; provided only, that _to govern_, be the object in exercising it. Here is power given to the master, to separate man and wife, parent and child, by denying ingress to his premises, sooner than compel him to free or sell the mother, that the marriage relation might be honored. The _preference_ is given of G.o.d to _enslaving the father_ rather than _freeing the mother and children_.

Under every view we are allowed to take of the subject, the conviction is forced upon the mind, that from Abraham's day, until the coming of Christ, (a period of two thousand years,) this inst.i.tution found favor with G.o.d. No marks of his displeasure are found resting upon it. It must, therefore, in its moral nature, be in harmony with those moral principles which he requires to be exercised by the law of Moses, and which are the principles that secure harmony and happiness to the universe, viz: supreme love to G.o.d, and the love of our neighbor as ourself.--Deut. vi: 5.--Levit. xix: 18. To suppose that G.o.d has laid down these fundamental principles of moral rect.i.tude in his law, as the soul that must inhabit every preceptive requirement of that law, and yet to suppose he created relations among the Israelites, and prescribed relative duties growing out of these relations, that are hostile to the spirit of the law, is to suppose what will never bring great honor or glory to our Maker. But if I understand that spirit which is now warring against slavery, this is the position which the spirit of G.o.d forces it to occupy, viz: that G.o.d has ordained slavery, and yet slavery is the greatest of sins. Such was the state of the case when Jesus Christ made his appearance. We propose--

Third. To show that Jesus Christ recognized this inst.i.tution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties.

Having shown from the Scriptures, that slavery existed with Abraham and the patriarchs, with divine approbation, and having shown from the same source, that the Almighty incorporated it in the law, as an inst.i.tution among Abraham's seed, until the coming of Christ, our precise object now is, to ascertain whether _Jesus Christ has abolished it_, or _recognized it_ as a _lawful relation_, existing among men, and prescribed duties which belong to it, as he has other relative duties; such as those between husband and wife, parent and child, magistrate and subject.

And first, I may take it for granted, without proof, that he has not abolished it by commandment, for none pretend to this. This, by the way, is a singular circ.u.mstance, that Jesus Christ should put a system of measures into operation, which have for their object the subjugation of all men to him as a law-giver--kings, legislators, and private citizens in all nations; at a time, too, when hereditary slavery existed in all; and after it had been incorporated for fifteen hundred years into the Jewish const.i.tution, immediately given by G.o.d himself. I say, it is pa.s.sing strange, that under such circ.u.mstances, Jesus should fail to prohibit its further existence, if it was his intention to abolish it.

Such an omission or oversight cannot be charged upon any other legislator the world has ever seen. But, says the abolitionist, he has introduced new moral principles, which will extinguish it as an unavoidable consequence, without a direct prohibitory command. What are they? "Do to others as you would they should do to you." Taking these words of Christ to be a body, inclosing a moral soul in them, what soul, I ask, is it?

The same embodied in these words of Moses, Levit. xix: 18; "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" or is it another? It cannot be another, but it must be the very same, because Jesus says, there are but two principles in being in G.o.d's moral government, _one_ including all that is _due to G.o.d_, the _other_ all that is _due to men_.

If, therefore, doing to others as we would they should do to us, means precisely what loving our neighbor as ourself means, then Jesus has added no new moral principle above those in the law of Moses, to prohibit slavery, for in his law is found this principle, and slavery also.

The very G.o.d that said to them, they should love him supremely, and their neighbors as themselves, said to them also, "of the heathen that are round about you, thou shalt buy bond-men and bond-women, and they shall be your possession, and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your bond-men forever." Now, to suppose that Jesus Christ left his disciples to find out, without a revelation, that slavery must be abolished, as a natural consequence from the fact, that when G.o.d established the relation of master and servant under the law, he said to the master and servant, each of you must love the other as yourself, is, to say the least, making Jesus to presume largely upon the intensity of their intellect, that they would be able to spy out a discrepancy in the law of Moses, which G.o.d himself never saw. Again: if "do to others as ye would they should do to you," is to abolish slavery, it will for the same reason, level all inequalities in human condition. It is not to be admitted, then, that Jesus Christ introduced any new moral principle that must, of necessity, abolish slavery. The principle relied on to prove it, stands boldly out to view in the code of Moses, as the _soul_, that must _regulate_, and _control_, the _relation_ of _master and servant_, and therefore cannot abolish it.

Why a master cannot do to a servant, or a servant to a master, as he would have them do to him, as soon as a wife to a husband or a husband to a wife, I am utterly at a loss to know. The wife is "subject to her husband in all things" by divine precept. He is her "head," and G.o.d "suffers her not to usurp authority over him." Now, why in such a relation as this, we can do to others _as we_ would they should do to us, any sooner than in a relation, securing to us what is just and equal as servants, and due respect and faithful service rendered with good will to us as masters, I am at a loss to conceive. I affirm then, first, (and no man denies,) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command: and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction, under the gospel dispensation; and that the principle relied on for this purpose, is a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law, under which slavery was inst.i.tuted by Jehovah himself: and third, with this absence of positive prohibition, and this absence of principle, to work its ruin, I affirm, that in all the Roman provinces, where churches were planted by the apostles, hereditary slavery existed, as it did among the Jews, and as it does now among us, (which admits of proof from history that no man will dispute who knows any thing of the matter,) and that in instructing such churches, the Holy Ghost by the apostles, has recognized the inst.i.tution, as one _legally existing_ among them, to be perpetuated in the church, and that its duties are prescribed.

Now for the proof: To the church planted at Ephesus the capital of the lesser Asia, Paul ordains by letter, subordination in the fear of G.o.d,--first between wife and husband; second, child and parent; third, servant and master; _all, as states, or conditions, existing among the members_.

The relative duties of each state are pointed out; those between the servant and master in these words: "Servants be obedient to them who are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ; not with eye service as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of G.o.d from the heart, with good-will, doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters do the same things to them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your master is also in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with him." Here, by the Roman law, the servant was property, and the control of the master unlimited, as we shall presently prove.

To the church at Colosse, a city of Phrygia, in the lesser Asia,--Paul in his letter to them, recognizes the three relations of wives and husbands, parents and children, servants and masters, as relations existing among the members; (here the Roman law was the same;) and to the servants and masters he thus writes: "Servants obey in all things your masters, according to the flesh: not with eye service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing G.o.d: and whatsoever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance, for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong he has done; and there is no respect of persons with G.o.d. Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a master in heaven."

The same Apostle writes a letter to the church at Corinth;--a very important city, formerly called the eye of Greece, either from its location, or intelligence, or both, and consequently, an important point, for radiating light in all directions, in reference to subjects connected with the cause of Jesus Christ; and particularly, in the bearing of its practical precepts on civil society, and the political structure of nations. Under the direction of the Holy Ghost, he instructs the church, that, on this particular subject, _one general principle_ was ordained of G.o.d, applicable alike in all countries and at all stages of the church's future history, and that it was this: "_as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk_." "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is called." "Let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with G.o.d."--1 Cor. vii: 17, 20, 24. "_And so ordain I in all churches_;" vii: 17. The Apostle thus explains his meaning:

"Is any man called being circ.u.mcised? Let him not become uncirc.u.mcised."

"Is any man called in uncirc.u.mcision? Let him not be circ.u.mcised."

"Art thou called, being a servant? Care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather;" vii: 18, 21. Here, by the Roman law, slaves were property,--yet Paul ordains, in this, and all other churches, that Christianity gave them no t.i.tle to freedom, but on the contrary, required them not to care for being slaves, or in other words, to be contented with their _state_, or _relation_, unless they could be _made free_, in a lawful way.

Again, we have a letter by Peter, who is the Apostle of the circ.u.mcision--addressed especially to the Jews, who were scattered through various provinces of the Roman empire; comprising those provinces especially, which were the theater of their dispersion, under the a.s.syrians and Babylonians. Here, for the s.p.a.ce of seven hundred and fifty years, they had resided, during which time those revolutions were in progress which terminated the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Macedonian empires, and transferred imperial power to Rome. These revolutionary scenes of violence left one half the human race (within the range of their influence,) in abject bondage to the other half. This was the state of things in these provinces addressed by Peter, when he wrote. The chances of war, we may reasonably conclude, had a.s.signed a full share of bondage to this people, who were despised of all nations.

In view of their enslaved condition to the Gentiles; knowing, as Peter did, their seditious character; foreseeing, from the prediction of the Saviour, the destined bondage of those who were then free in Israel, which was soon to take place, as it did, in the fall of Jerusalem, when all the males of seventeen, were sent to work in the mines of Egypt, as slaves to the State, and all the males under, amounting to upwards of ninety-seven thousand, were sold into domestic bondage;--I say, in view of these things, Peter was moved by the Holy Ghost to write to them, and his solicitude for such of them as were in slavery, is very conspicuous in his letter; (read carefully from 1 Peter, 2d chapter, from the 13th verse to the end;) but it is not the solicitude of an abolitionist. He thus addresses them: "Dearly beloved, I beseech you."

He thus instructs them: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." "For so is the will of G.o.d." "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."--1 Peter ii: 11, 13, 15, 18. What an important doc.u.ment is this! enjoining political subjection to _governments of every form_, and Christian subjection on the part of servants to their masters, whether good or bad; for the purpose of showing forth to advantage, the _glory of the gospel_, and putting to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who might think it seditious.

By "every ordinance of man," as the context will show, is meant governmental regulations or laws, as was that of the Romans for enslaving their prisoners taken in war, instead of destroying their lives.

When such enslaved persons came into the church of Christ let them (says Peter) "be subject to their masters with all fear," whether such masters be good or bad. It is worthy of remark, that he says much to secure civil subordination to the State, and hearty and cheerful obedience to the masters, on the part of servants; yet he says nothing to masters in the whole letter. It would seem from this, that danger to the cause of Christ was on the side of _insubordination among the servants_, and a _want of humility with inferiors_, rather than _haughtiness among superiors_ in the church.

Gibbon, in his Rome, vol. 1, pages 25, 26, 27, shows, from standard authorities, that Rome at this time swayed its scepter over one hundred and twenty millions of souls; that in every province, and in every family, _absolute slavery existed_; that it was at least fifty years later than the date of Peter's letters, before the absolute power of life and death over the slave was _taken from the master_, and _committed to the magistrate_; that about sixty millions of souls were held as property in this abject condition; that the price of a slave was four times that of an ox; that their punishments were very sanguinary; that in the second century, when their condition began to improve a little, emanc.i.p.ation was prohibited, except for great personal merit, or some public service rendered to the State; and that it was not until the third or fourth generation after freedom was obtained, that the descendants of a slave could share in the honors of the State. This is the _state, condition_, or _relation_ among the _members of the apostolic churches_, whether among _Gentiles_ or _Jews_; which the Holy Ghost, by Paul for the Gentiles, and Peter for the Jews, recognizes as lawful; the mutual duties of which he prescribes in the language above.

Now, I ask, can any man in his proper senses, from these premises, bring himself to conclude that slavery is _abolished by Jesus Christ_, or that obligations are imposed by him upon his disciples that are subversive of the inst.i.tution? Knowing as we do from cotemporary historians, that the inst.i.tution of slavery existed at the time and to the extent stated by Gibbon--what sort of a soul a man must have, who, with these facts before him, will conceal the truth on this subject, and hold Jesus Christ responsible for a scheme of treason that would, if carried out, have brought the life of every human being on earth at the time, into the most imminent peril, and that must have worked the destruction of half the human race?

At Rome, the authoritative centre of that vast theater upon which the glories of the cross were to be won, a church was planted. Paul wrote a long letter to them. On this subject it is full of instruction.

Abolition sentiments had not dared to show themselves so near the imperial sword. To warn the church against their treasonable tendency, was therefore unnecessary. Instead, therefore, of special precepts upon the subject of relative duties between master and servant, he lays down a system of practical morality, in the 12th chapter of his letter, which must commend itself equally to the king on his throne, and the slave in his hovel; for while its practical operation leaves the subject of earthly government to the discretion of man, it secures the exercise of sentiments and feelings that must exterminate every thing inconsistent with doing to others as we would they should do unto us: a system of principles that will give moral strength to governments; peace, security, and good-will to individuals; and glory to G.o.d in the highest.

And in the 13th chapter, from the 1st to the end of the 7th verse, he recognizes human government as an ordinance of G.o.d, which the followers of Christ are to obey, honor, and support; not only from dread of punishment, but _for conscience sake_; which I believe abolitionism refuses most positively to do, to such governments as _from the force of circ.u.mstances_ even _permit_ slavery.

Again. But we are furnished with additional light, and if we are not greatly mistaken, with light which arose out of circ.u.mstances a.n.a.logous to those which are threatening at the present moment to overthrow the peace of society, and deluge this nation with blood. To t.i.tus whom Paul left in Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting, he writes a letter, in which he warns him of false teachers, that were to be dreaded on account of their doctrine. While they professed "to know G.o.d," that is, to know his will under the gospel dispensation, "in works they denied him;" that is, they did, and required others to do, what was contrary to his will under the gospel dispensation. "They were abominable," that is, to the Church and State, "and disobedient," that is, to the authority of the apostles, and the civil authority of the land. t.i.tus, he then exhorts, "to speak the things that become sound doctrine;" that is, that the members of the church observe the law of the land, and obey the civil magistrate; that "servants be obedient to their own masters, and please them well in all things," not "answering again, not purloining, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of G.o.d our Saviour in all things," _in that which subjects the ecclesiastical to the civil authority in particular_.

"These things speak, and exhort and rebuke with all authority; let no man despise thee. Put them in mind to be subject to princ.i.p.alities and powers, to obey magistrates."--t.i.tus i: 16, and ii: from 1 to 10, and iii: 1. The context shows that a doctrine was taught by these wicked men, which tended in its influence on servants, to bring the gospel of Christ into contempt in Church and State, because of its seditions and insubordinate character.

But at Ephesus, the capital of the lesser Asia, where Paul had labored with great success for three years--a point of great importance to the gospel cause--the Apostle left Timothy for the purpose of watching against the false teachers, and particularly against the abolitionists.

In addition to a letter which he had addressed to this church previously, in which the mutual duty of master and servant is taught, and which has already been referred to, he further instructs Timothy by letter on the same subject: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of G.o.d and his doctrine be not blasphemed."--1 Tim. vi: 1. These were unbelieving masters, as the next verse will show. In this church at Ephesus, the circ.u.mstances existed, which are brought to light by Paul's letter to Timothy, that must silence every cavil, which men, who do not know G.o.d's will on this subject, may start until time ends. In an age filled with literary men, who are employed in transmitting historically, to future generations, the structure of society in the Roman Empire; that would put it in our power at this distant day, to know the state or condition of a slave in the Roman Empire, as well as if we had lived at the time, and to know beyond question, that his condition was precisely that one, which is now denounced as sinful: in such an age, and in such circ.u.mstances, Jesus Christ causes his will to be published to the world; and it is this, that if a Christian slave have an unbelieving master, who acknowledges no allegiance to Christ, this believing slave must count his master worthy of all honor, according to what the Apostle teaches the Romans, "Render, therefore, to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom is due, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."--Rom. xiii: 7. Now, honor is enjoined of G.o.d in the Scriptures, from children to parents--from husbands to wives--from subjects to magistrates and rulers, and here by Jesus Christ, from Christian slaves to unbelieving masters, who held them as property by law, with power over their very lives. And the command is remarkable.

While we are commanded to honor father and mother, without adding to the precept "all honor," here a Christian servant is bound to render to his unbelieving master "all honor." Why is this? Because in the one case nature moves in the direction of the command; but in the other, against it. Nature being subjected to the law of grace, might be disposed to obey reluctantly; hence the amplitude of the command. But what purpose was to be answered by this devotion of the slave? The Apostle answers, "that the name of G.o.d and his doctrine (of subordination to the law-making power) be not blasphemed," as they certainly would by a contrary course on the part of the servant, for the most obvious reason in the world; while the sword would have been drawn against the gospel, and a war of extermination waged against its propagators, in every province of the Roman Empire, for there was slavery in all; and so it would be now.

But, says the caviler, these directions are given to Christian slaves whose masters did not acknowledge the authority of Christ to govern them; and are therefore defective as proof, that he approves of one Christian man holding another in bondage. Very well, we will see. In the next verse, (1 Timothy vi: 2,) he says, "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." Here is a great change; instead of a command to a believing slave to render to a believing master _all honor_, and thereby making that believing master in _honor_ equal to an unbelieving master, here is rather an exhortation to the slave _not to despise him, because he is a believer_. Now, I ask, why the circ.u.mstance of a master becoming a believer in Christ, should become the cause of his believing slave despising him while that slave was supposed to acquiesce in the duty of rendering all honor to that master before he became a believer? I answer, _precisely_, and _only, because_ there were _abolition teachers_ among them, who _taught otherwise_, and consented not to wholesome words, _even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ_.--1 Timothy vii: 3; and "to the doctrine which is according to G.o.dliness," taught in the 8th verse, viz: having food and raiment, servants should therewith be content; for the p.r.o.noun us, in the 8th verse of this connection, means _especially_ the _servants he was instructing_, as well as Christians in general. These men taught, that G.o.dliness abolished slavery, that it gave the t.i.tle of freedom to the slave, and that so soon as a man professed to be subject to Christ, and refused to liberate his slaves, he was a hypocrite, and deserved not the countenance of any who bore the Christian name. Such men, the Apostle says, are "proud, (just as they are now,) knowing nothing," (that is, on this subject,) but "doating about questions, and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and dest.i.tute of the truth, supposing that gain is G.o.dliness: from such withdraw thyself."--1 Tim. vi: 4, 5.

Such were the bitter fruits which abolition sentiments produced in the Apostolic day, and such precisely are the fruits they produce now.

Now, I say, here is the case made out, which certainly would call forth the command from Christ, to abolish slavery, if he ever intended to abolish it. Both the servant and the master were one in Christ Jesus.

Both were members of the same church, both were under unlimited and voluntary obedience to the same divine law-giver.