Chapter V: The Fugitive Slave Law (5)

Reader, were these hired servants? If so, they hired themselves for a long time. And what is very singular, they hired their posterity for all time to come. And what is still more singular, the wages were paid, not to the servant, but to a former owner or master. And what is still stranger, they hired themselves and their posterity to be an inheritance to their master and his posterity forever! Yet, reader, I am told by my distinguished correspondent, that servant in the Scriptures, when used to designate a relation, means only hired servant. Again, I ask, were the enslaved captives in Deut. xx: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, hired servants?

One of the greatest and best of men ever raised at the North, (I mean Luther Rice,) once told me when I quoted the law of God for the purchase of slaves from the heathen, (in order to silence his argument about "doulos," and hired servant,) I say he told me positively, there was no such law. When I opened the Bible and showed it to him, his shame was very visible. (And I hope he is not the only great and good man, that God will put to shame for being ignorant of his word.) But he never opened his mouth to me about slavery again while he lived.

If my reader does no _better_ than he did, at least let him not fight against God for establishing the institution of "chattel" slavery in his kingdom, nor against me for believing he did do it. But, reader, if you have the hardihood to insist that these were hired servants, and not slaves after all, then, I answer, that ours are hired servants, too, and not slaves; and so the dispute ends favorably to the South, and it is lawful for us, according to abolition admissions, to hold them to servitude. For ours, we paid money to a former owner; so did the Jews for theirs. The increase of ours passes as an inheritance to our children, so did the increase of the Jewish servants pass as an inheritance to their children, to be an inheritance forever. And all this took place by the direction of God to his chosen people.

My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no attributes that will harmonize with slavery; and that all men are born free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as Mr. Jefferson did his, and then they will be fit companions. But never disgrace the Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor Mr. Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did not bow to the authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not bow to him. How can any man, who believes the Bible, admit for a moment that God intended to teach mankind by the Bible, that all are born free and equal?

Men who engage in this controversy ought to look into the Bible, and see what is in it about slavery. I do not know how to account for such men saying, as my correspondent does, that the slave of the Mosaic law, purchased of the heathen, was a hired servant; and that both he and the Hebrew hired servant of the same law, had a passport from God to run away from their masters with impunity, to prove which is the object of one of his quotations. Again, New Testament _servants_ and _masters_ are not the servants and masters of the Mosaic law, but the servants and masters of the Roman Empire. To go to the law of Moses to find out the statutes of the Roman Empire, is folly. Yet on this subject the difference is not great, and so far as humanity (in the abolition sense of it) is concerned, is in favor of the Roman law.

The laws of each made slaves to be property, and allowed them to be bought and sold. See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i: pp. 25, 26, and Levit. xxv: 44, 45, 46. The laws of each allowed prisoners taken in war to be enslaved. See Gibbon as above, and Deut. xx: 10-15. The difference was this: the Roman law allowed _men_ taken in battle to be enslaved--the Jewish law required the _men_ taken in battle to be put to death, and to enslave their wives and children. In the case of the Midianites, the mercy of enslaving some of the women was denied them because they had enticed the Israelites into sin, and subjected them to a heavy judgment under Balaam's counsel, and for a reason not assigned, the mercy of slavery was denied to the male children in this special case. See Numbers xxxi: 15, 16, 17.

The first letter to Timothy, while at Ephesus, if rightly understood, would do much to stay the hands of men, who have more zeal than knowledge on this subject. See again what I have written in my first essay on this letter. In addition to what I have there said, I would state, that the "_other doctrine_," 1 Tim. i: 3, which Paul says, must not be taught, I take to be a principle tantamount to this, that Jesus Christ proposed to subordinate the civil to ecclesiastical authority.

The doctrine which was "_according to godliness_," 1 Tim, vi: 3, I take to be a principle which subordinated the church, or Christ in his members, to civil governments, or "the powers that be." One principle was seditious, and when consummated must end in the man of sin. The other principle was practically a quiet submission to government, as an ordinance of God in the hands of men.

The abolitionists, at Ephesus, in attempting to interfere with the relations of slavery, and to unsettle the rights of property, acted upon a principle, which statesmen must see, would in the end, subject the whole frame-work of government to the supervision of the church, and terminate in the man of sin, or a pretended successor of Christ, sitting in the temple of God, and claiming a right to reign over, and control the civil governments of the world. The Apostle, therefore, chapter ii: 1, to render the doctrine of subordination to the State a very prominent doctrine, and to cause the knowledge of it to spread among all who attended their worship, orders that the very first thing done by the church should be, that of making supplication, prayers, and intercessions, and giving God thanks for all men that were placed in authority, by the State, for the administration of civil government. He assigns the reason for this injunction, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

My correspondent complains, that abolitionists at the North are not safe when they come among us. They are much safer than the saints of Ephesus would have been in the Apostolic day, if Paul would have allowed the seditious doctrine to be propagated which our Northern brethren think it such a merit to preach, when it subjects them to no risk. How can they expect, in the nature of things, to lead a quiet and peaceable life when they come among us? They are _organized_ to overthrow our sovereignty--to put our lives in peril, and to trample upon Bible principles, by which the rights of property are to be settled.

Questions and strifes of words characterized the disputes of the abolitionists at Ephesus about slavery. It is amusing and painful to see the questions and strifes of words in the piece of my correspondent. Many of these questions are about our property right in slaves. The _substance of them_ is this: that the present title is not good, because the original title grew out of violence and injustice. But, reader, our original title was obtained in the same way which God in his law authorized his people to obtain theirs. They obtained their slaves by purchase of those who made them captives in the hazards of war, or by conquest with their own sword. My correspondent speaks at one time as if ours were stolen in the first instance; but, as if forgetting that, in another place he says, that so great is the hazard attending the wars of Africa, that one life is lost for every two that are taken captive and sold into slavery. If this is stealing, it has at least the merit of being more manly than some that is practiced among us.

A case seems to have been preserved by the Holy Ghost, as if to rebuke this abolition doctrine about property rights. It is the case of the King of Ammon, a heathen, on the one side, and Jephtha, who "obtained a good report by faith," on the other. It is consoling to us that we occupy the ground Jephtha did--and we may well suspect the correctness of the other side, because it is the ground occupied by Ammon. The case is this: A heathen is seen menacing Israel. Jephtha is selected by his countrymen to conduct the controversy. He sends a message to his menacing neighbor, to know why he had come out against him. He returned for answer, that it was because Israel held property to which they had no right. Jephtha answered, they had had it in possession for three hundred years. Ammon replied, they had no right to it, because it was obtained in the first instance by violence. Jephtha replied, that it was held by the same sort of a title as that by which Ammon held his possessions--that is to say, whatever Ammon's god Chemosh enabled him to take in war, he considered to be his of right; and that Israel's God had assisted them to take this property, and they considered the title to be such an one as Ammon was bound to acknowledge.

Ammon stickled for the _eternal_ principle of righteousness, and contended that it had been violated in the first instance. But, reader, in the appeal made to the sword, God vindicated Israel's title.--Judges xi: 12-32.

And if at the present time, we take ground with Ammon about the rights of property, I will not say how much work we may have to do, nor who will prove the rightful owner of my correspondent's domicil; but certain I am, that by his Ammonitish principle of settling the rights of property, he will be ousted.

Reader, in looking over the printed reply of my correspondent to his Southern friend, which occupies ten columns of a large newspaper, to see if I had overlooked any Scripture, I find I have omitted to notice one reference to the sacred volume, which was made by him, for the general purpose of showing that the Scriptures abound with moral principles, and call into exercise moral feelings inconsistent with slavery. It is this: "Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me." The design of the Saviour, in the parable from which these words are taken, in Matt. xxv, is, to impress strongly upon the human mind, that _character_, deficient in _correct moral feeling_, will prove fatal to human hopes in a coming day.

But, reader, will you stop and ask yourself, "What is correct moral feeling?" Is it abhorrence and hatred to the will and pleasure of God? Certainly not. Then it is not abhorrence and hatred of slavery, which seems to be a cardinal virtue at the North. It has been the will and pleasure of God to institute slavery by a law of his own, in that kingdom over which he immediately presided; and to give it his sanction when instituted by the laws of men. The most elevated morality is enjoined under both Testaments, upon the parties in this relation. There is nothing in the relation inconsistent with its exercise.

My reader will remember that the subject in dispute is, whether involuntary and hereditary slavery was ever lawful in the sight of God, the Bible being judge.

1. I have shown by the Bible, that God decreed this relation between the posterity of Canaan, and the posterity of Shem and Japheth.

2. I have shown that God executed this decree by aiding the posterity of Shem, (at a time when "they were holiness to the Lord,") to enslave the posterity of Canaan in the days of Joshua.

3. I have shown that when God ratified the covenant of promise with Abraham, he recognized Abraham as the owner of slaves he had bought with his money of the stranger, and recorded his approbation of the relation, by commanding Abraham to circumcise them.

4. I have shown that when he took Abraham's posterity by the hand in Egypt, five hundred years afterward, he publicly approbated the same relation, by permitting every slave they had bought with their money to eat the Passover, while he refused the same privilege to their _hired servants_.

5. I have shown that God, as their national law-giver, ordained by express statute, that they should buy slaves of the nations around them, (the seven devoted nations excepted,) and that these slaves and their increase should be a perpetual inheritance to their children.

6. I have shown that God ordained slavery by law for their captives taken in war, while he guaranteed a successful issue to their wars, so long as they obeyed him.

7. I have shown that when Jesus ordered his gospel to be published through the world, the relation of master and slave existed by law in every province and family of the Roman Empire, as it had done in the Jewish commonwealth for fifteen hundred years.

8. I have shown that Jesus ordained, that the legislative authority, which created this relation in that empire, should be obeyed and honored as an ordinance of God, as all government is declared to be.

9. I have shown that Jesus has prescribed the mutual duties of this relation in his kingdom.

10. And lastly, I have shown, that in an attempt by his professed followers to disturb this relation in the Apostolic churches, Jesus orders that fellowship shall be disclaimed with all such disciples, as seditious persons--whose conduct was not only dangerous to the State, but destructive to the true character of the gospel dispensation.

This being the case, as will appear by the recorded language of the Bible, to which we have referred you, reader, of what use is it to argue against it from moral requirements?

They regulate the duties of this and all other lawful relations among men--but they cannot abolish any relation, ordained or sanctioned of God, as is slavery.

I would be understood as referring for proof of this summary, to my first as well as my present essay.

When I first wrote, I did suppose the Scriptures had been examined by leading men in the opposition, and that prejudice had blinded their eyes. I am now of a different opinion. What will be the effect of this discussion, I will not venture to predict, knowing human nature as well as I do. But men who are capable of exercising candor must see, that it is not against an institution unknown to the Bible, or declared by its author to be sinful, that the North is waging war.

Their hostility must be transferred from us to God, who established slavery by law in that kingdom over which he condescended to preside; and to Jesus, who recognized it as a relation established in Israel by his Father, and in the Roman government by men, which he bound his followers to obey and honor.

In defending the institution as one which has the sanction of our Maker, I have done what I considered, under the peculiar circumstances of our common country, to be a Christian duty. I have set down naught in malice. I have used no sophistry. I have brought to the investigation of the subject, common sense. I have not relied on powers of argument, learning, or ingenuity. These would neither put the subject into the Bible nor take it out. It is a Bible question. I have met it fairly, and fully, according to the acknowledged principles of the abolitionists. I have placed before my reader what is in the Bible, to prove that slavery has the sanction of God, and is not sinful. I have placed before him what I suppose to be the quintessence of all that can be gleaned from the Bible to disprove it.

I have made a few plain reflections to aid the understanding of my reader. What I have written was designed for those who reverence the Bible as their counsellor--who take it for rules of conduct, and devotional sentiments.

I now commit it to God for his blessing, with a fervent desire, that if I have mistaken his will in any thing, he will not suffer my error to mislead another.

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.

[The following letter, in substance, was written
to a brother in Kentucky, who solicited a copy of
my slavery pamphlet, as well as my opinion on the
movement in that State, on the subject of
emancipation.]

DEAR BROTHER:--

I received your letter, and the slavery pamphlet which you requested me to send you, I herewith inclose.

When I published the first essay in that pamphlet, I intended to invite a discussion with Elder Galusha, of New York; and when I received Mr. Galusha's letter to Dr. Fuller, I still expected a discussion. But after manifesting, on his part, great pleasure in the outset, for the opportunity tendered him by a Southern man, to discuss this subject, he ultimately declined it. This being the case, I did not at that time present as full a view of the subject as the Scriptures furnish. I have since thought of supplying this deficiency; and the condition of things in Kentucky furnishes a fit opportunity for saying to you, what I said to a brother in Pennsylvania, who, like yourself, requested me to send him a copy of my pamphlet.

I do not know that I could add any thing, beyond what I said to him, that would be useful to you. To this brother I said, among other things, that Dr. Wayland (in his discussion with Dr. Fuller,) relied principally upon _two arguments_, used by all the intelligent abolitionists, to overthrow the weight of Scriptural authority in support of slavery. The first of these arguments is designed to neutralize the sanction given to slavery by the law of Moses; and the second is designed to neutralize the sanction given to slavery by the New Testament.

The Dr. frankly admits, that the law of Moses did establish slavery in the Jewish commonwealth; and he admits with equal frankness, that it was incorporated as an element in the gospel church. For the purpose, however, of destroying the sanction thus given to the legality of the relation under the _law of Moses_, he assumes two things in relation to it, which are expressly contradicted by the law. He assumes, in the first place, that the Almighty, under the law, gave a _special permission_ to the Israelites to enslave the seven devoted nations, as a punishment for their sins. He then _assumes_, in the second place, that this _special permission_ to enslave the seven nations, prohibited, by _implication_, the enslaving of all other nations. The conclusion which the Dr. draws from the above assumptions is this--that a _special permission_ under the law, to enslave a particular people, as a punishment for their sins, is not a _general permission_ under the gospel, to enslave all, or any other people. The premises here assumed, and from which this conclusion is drawn, are precisely the reverse of what is recorded in the Bible.

The Bible statement is this: that the Israelites under the law, so far from being permitted or required to enslave the seven nations, as a punishment for their sins, were expressly commanded to _destroy them utterly_. Here is the proof--Deut. vii: 1 and 2: "When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittities, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, _and utterly destroy them_, thou shalt make no covenant with then, nor show mercy unto them." And again, in Deut. xx: 16 and 17: "But the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, _thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth_. But thou shalt _utterly destroy them_, namely, the Hittities, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, _as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee_." This law was _delivered_ by Moses, and was _executed_ by Joshua some years afterward, to the letter.

Here is the proof of it, Josh. xi: 14 to 20 inclusive: "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; _but every man they smote with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe_."

"_As the Lord commanded Moses_ his servant; so did Moses command Joshua, and _so did Joshua_; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses. So Joshua took all that land, the hills and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same. Even from the mount Halak that goeth up to Sier, even unto Baalgad, in the valley of Lebanon, under mount Hermon, and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them. Joshua made war a long time with all these kings. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, _save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon_, all others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in the battle, _that he might destroy them utterly_, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, _as the Lord commanded Moses_." In this account of their _destruction_, the Gibeonites, who deceived Joshua, are excepted, and the reason given is, that Joshua in their case, failed to ask counsel at the mouth of the Lord. Here is the proof: "And the men took of them victuals, and asked not counsel of the mouth of the Lord."--Josh. ix: 14. This counsel Joshua was expressly commanded to ask, when he was ordained some time before, to be the _executor_ of God's _legislative will_, by Moses. Here is the proof--Numb. xxvii: 18-23: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thy hand upon him; and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. And thou shalt put some of thine honor upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient. _And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him, after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation._ And Moses did as the Lord commanded him; and he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation. And he laid his hands upon him, _and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses_." These scriptures furnish a palpable contradiction of the first assumption, that is--that the Lord gave a _special permission to enslave_ the seven nations. The Lord ordered that they should be destroyed utterly.

As to the second assumption, so far from the Israelites being prohibited _by implication_, from enslaving the subjects of other nations, they were expressly authorized by the law _to make slaves by war, of any other nation_. Here is the proof--Deut. xx: 10 to 17 inclusive: "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein, shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, then shalt thou smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. _But the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city_, even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. _Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee._" They were authorized also by the law, to purchase slaves with money of any nation except the seven. Here is the proof--Levit. xxv: 44, 45, and 46: "Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; (that is, round about the country given them of God, which was the country of the seven nations they were soon to occupy;) of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, (that is, the mixed multitude of strangers which come up with them from Egypt, mentioned in Exod. xii: 38,) 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."

Now, let it be noted that this first law, of Deut. xx: above referred to, which authorized them to make slaves by war of any other nation, was executed _for the first time_, under the direction of Moses himself, when thirty-two thousand of the Midianites were enslaved. These slaves were not of the seven nations.

And it is worthy of further remark, that of each half, into which the Lord had these slaves divided, he claimed for his portion, one slave of every five hundred for the priests, and one slave of every fifty for the Levites. These slaves he gave to the priests and Levites, who were his representatives to be their property forever.--Numb. xxxi. These scriptures palpably contradict the Dr.'s second assumption--that is, that they were _prohibited by implication_ from enslaving the subjects of any other nation. The Dr.'s assumptions being the antipodes of truth, they cannot furnish a conclusion that is warranted by the truth.

The conclusion authorized by the truth, is this: that the making of slaves by war, and the purchase of slaves with money, was legalized by the Almighty in the Jewish commonwealth, as regards the subject of _all nations except the seven_.

The second argument of the Dr.'s, as I remarked, is designed to neutralize the sanction given to slavery in the New Testament.

The Dr. frankly admits that slavery was sanctioned by the Apostles in the Apostolic churches. But to neutralize this sanction, he resorts to two more assumptions, not only without proof, but palpably contradicted by the Old and New Testament text. The first assumption is this--_that polygamy and divorce were both sins under the law of Moses, although sanctioned by the law_. And the second assumption is, that polygamy and divorce are _known to be sins under the gospel_, not by any gospel teaching or prohibition, but by the general principles of morality. From these premises the conclusion is drawn, that although slavery was sanctioned in the Apostolic church, yet it was a sin, because, like polygamy and divorce, it was contrary to the principles of the moral law. The premises from which this conclusion is drawn, are at issue with the word of God, and therefore the conclusion must be false. The first thing here assumed is, that polygamy and divorce, although sanctioned by the law of Moses, were both sins under that law. Now, so far from this being true, as to _polygamy_, it is a fact that polygamy was not only sanctioned, when men chose to practice it, but it was expressly enjoined by the law in certain cases, and a most humiliating penalty annexed to the breach of the command.--Deut. xxv: 5-9. As sin is defined by the Holy Ghost to be a transgression of the law, it is impossible that _polygamy_ could have been a sin under the law, unless it was a sin to obey the law, and an act of righteousness to transgress it. That _polygamy_ was a sin under the law, therefore, is palpably false.

As to _divorce_, the Almighty gave it the full and explicit sanction of his authority, in the law of Moses, for various causes.--Deut. xxiv: 1. For those causes, therefore, divorce could not have been a sin under the law, unless human conduct, in exact accordance with the law of God, was sinful. The first thing assumed by the Dr., therefore, that polygamy and divorce were both sins, under the law, is proved to be false. They were lawful, and therefore, could not be sinful.

The Dr.'s second assumption (with respect to polygamy and divorce,) is this, that they are _known_ under the gospel to be sins, not by the prohibitory _precepts_ of the gospel, but by the general _principles_ of morality. This assumption is certainly a very astonishing one--for Jesus Christ in one breath has uttered language as perfectly subversive of all authority for polygamy and divorce in his kingdom, as light is subversive of darkness. The Pharisees, ever desirous of exposing him to the prejudices and passions of the people, "asked him in the presence of great multitudes, who came with him from Galilee into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan," whether he admitted, with Moses, the legality of divorce for every cause. Their object was to provoke him to the exercise of legislative authority; to whom he promptly replied, that God made man at the beginning, male and female, and ordained that the male and female by marriage, should be one flesh. And for satisfactory reasons, had sanctioned divorce among Abraham's seed; and then adds, as a law-giver, "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, (except for fornication,) and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and if a woman put away her husband, and marry again, she committeth adultery." Here polygamy and divorce die together. The law of Christ is, that _neither_ party shall put the other away--that _either_ party, taking another companion, while the first companion lives, is guilty of adultery--consequently, polygamy and divorce are prohibited forever, unless this law is violated--and that violation is declared to be adultery, which excludes from his kingdom.--1 Cor. vi: 9. After the church was organized, the Holy Ghost, by Paul, _commands_, let not the wife depart from her husband, but, and if she depart let her remain unmarried--and let not the husband put away his wife.--1 Cor. vii: 10. Here _divorce_ is prohibited by _both parties_; a second marriage according to Christ, would be adultery, while the first companion lives; consequently, _polygamy_ is prohibited also.

This second assumption, therefore, that polygamy and divorce are known to be sins by _moral principles_ and _not by prohibitory precepts_, is swept away by the words of Christ, and the teaching of the Holy Ghost. These unauthorized and dangerous assumptions are the foundation, upon which the abolition structure is made to rest by the distinguished Dr. Wayland.

The facts with respect to polygamy and divorce, warrant precisely the opposite conclusion; that is, that if slavery under the gospel is sinful, then its sinfulness would have been made known by the gospel, as has been done with respect to polygamy and divorce. All three, polygamy, divorce and slavery, were _sanctioned_ by the law of Moses. But under the gospel, slavery has been _sanctioned_ in the church, while polygamy and divorce have been _excluded_ from the church. It is manifest, therefore, that under the gospel, polygamy and divorce have been made sins, _by prohibition_, while slavery remains lawful because _sanctioned_ and _continued_. The _lawfulness_ of slavery under the gospel, rests upon the sovereign pleasure of Christ, in _permitting it_; and the _sinfulness_ of polygamy and divorce, upon his sovereign pleasure in _prohibiting_ their continuance. The law of Christ gives to the relation of slavery its full sanction. _That law_ is to be found, first, in the _admission_, _by the apostles_, of slaveholders and their slaves into the gospel church; second, in the _positive injunction_ by the Holy Ghost, of obedience on the part of Christian slaves in this relation, to their believing masters; third, in the _absence_ of any injunction upon the believing master, under any circumstances, to dissolve this relation; fourth, in the _absence_ of any instruction from Christ or the apostles, that the relation is sinful; and lastly, in the _injunction_ of the Holy Ghost, delivered by Paul, _to withdraw_ from all such as teach that this relation is sinful. Human conduct in exact accordance with the law of Christ thus proclaimed, and thus expounded by the Holy Ghost, in the conduct and teaching of the apostles, cannot be sinful.

There are other portions of God's word, in the light of which we may add to our stock of knowledge on this subject. For instance, the Almighty by Moses legalized marriage between female slaves and Abraham's male descendants. But under this law the wife remained a slave still. If she belonged to the husband, then this law gave freedom to her children; but if she belonged to another man, then her children, though born in lawful wedlock, were hereditary slaves.--Exod. xxi: 4. Again, if a man marries his own slave, then he lost the right to sell her--if he divorced her, then she gained her freedom.--Deut. xxi: 10 to 14, inclusive. Again, there was a law from God which granted rights to Abraham's sons under a matrimonial contract; for a violation of the rights conferred by this law, a _free woman, and her seducer_, forfeited their lives, Deut. xxii: 23 and 24; also 13 to 21, inclusive. But for the same offense, _a slave_ only exposed herself to stripes, and her _seducer_ to the penalty of a sheep.--Levit. xix: 20 to 22, inclusive. Again, there was a law which guarded his people, whether free or bond, from personal violence. If in vindictiveness, a man with an unlawful weapon, maimed his own slave by knocking out his eye, or his tooth, the slave was to be free for this wanton act of personal violence, as a penalty upon the master.--Exod. xxi: 26 to 27, inclusive. But for the same offense, committed against a free person, the offender had to pay an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, as the penalty.--Levit. xxiv: 19, 20, and Exod. xxi: 24 and 25, inclusive. Again, there was a law to guard the personal safety of the community against dangerous stock. If an ox, known to be dangerous, was suffered to run at large and kill a person, if the person so killed _was free_, then the owner forfeited his _life_ for his neglect,--Exod. xxi: 29. But if the person so killed _was a slave_, then the offender was fined thirty shekels of silver.--Exod. xxi: 32. In some things, slaves among the Israelites, as among us, were invested with privileges above hired servants--they were privileged to eat the Passover, but hired servants were not, Exod. xii: 44, 45; and such as were owned by the priests and Levites were privileged to eat of the holy things of their masters, but hired servants dare not taste them.--Levit. xxii: 10, 11. These are statutes from the Creator of man. They are certainly predicated upon a view of things, in the Divine mind, that is _somewhat different_ from that which makes an abolitionist; and, to say the least, they deserve consideration with all men who worship the God of the Bible, and not the God of their own imagination. They show very clearly, that our Creator is the _author_ of social, moral, and political inequality among men. That so far from the Scriptures teaching, as abolitionists do, that all men have ever had a divine right to freedom and equality, they show, _in so many words_, that marriages were sanctioned of God as lawful, in which _he enacted_, that the children of free men should be born hereditary slaves. They show also, that he guarded the chastity of the free by the price of life, and the chastity of the slave by the rod. They show, that in the judgment of God, the life of a free man in the days of Moses, was too sacred for commutation, while a fine of thirty shekels of silver was sufficient to expiate for the death of a slave. As I said in my first essay, so I say now, this is a controversy between abolitionists and their Maker. I see not how, with their present views and in their present temper, they can stop short of blasphemy against that Being who enacted these laws.

Of late years, some obscure passages (which have no allusion whatever to the subject) have been brought forward to show, that God _hated slavery_, although the work of his own hands. Once for all, I challenge proof, that in the Old Testament or the New, _any reproof was ever uttered against involuntary slavery, or against any abuse of its authority_. Upon abolition principles, this is perfectly unaccountable, and of itself, is an unanswerable argument that the _relation_ is not sinful.

The opinion has been announced also of late, that slavery among the Jews was felt to be an evil, and, by degrees, that they abolished it. To ascertain the correctness of this opinion, let the following consideration be weighed: After centuries of cruel _national bondage_ practiced upon Abraham's seed in Egypt, they were brought in godly contrition to pour out "the effectual fervent prayer" of a righteous people, to the Almighty for mercy, and were answered by a covenant God, who sent Moses to deliver them from their bondage--but let it be remembered, that when this deliverance from bondage to the nation of Egypt was vouchsafed to them, they were extensive domestic slave owners. God had not by his providential dealings, nor in any other way, shown them the sin of domestic slavery--for they held on to their slaves, and brought them out as their property into the wilderness. And it is worthy of further remark, that the Lord, _before they left Egypt_, recognized these slaves _as property_, which they had bought with their money, and that he secured to these slaves privileges above hired servants, _simply because they were slaves_.--Exod. xii: 44, 45. And let it be noticed further, that the first law passed by the Almighty after proclaiming the ten commandments or moral constitution of the nation, was a law to regulate property rights in hereditary slaves, and to regulate property rights in Jewish hired servants for a term of years.--Exod. xxi: 1 to 6, inclusive. And let it be considered further, that when the Israelites were subjected to a cruel captivity in Babylon, more than eight hundred years after this, they were still extensive slave owners; that when humbled and brought to repentance for their sins, and the Lord restored them to their own land again, that he brought them back to their old homes as slave owners. Although greatly impoverished by a seventy years' captivity in a foreign land, yet the slaves which they brought up from Babylon bore a proportion of nearly one slave for every five free persons that returned, or about one slave for every family.--Ezra ii: 64, 65. Now, can we, in the face of these facts, believe they were tired of slavery when they came out of Egypt? It had then existed five hundred years. Or can we believe they were tired of it when they came up from Babylon? It had then existed among them fourteen hundred years. Or can we believe that God put them into these schools of affliction in Egypt and Babylon to teach them, (and all others through them,) the sinfulness of slavery, and yet, that he brought them out without giving them the first hint that involuntary slavery was a sin? And let it be further considered, that it was the business of the prophets which the Lord raised up, _to make known to them the sins for which his judgments were sent upon them_. The sins which he charged upon them in all his visitation are upon record. Let any man find involuntary slavery in any of God's indictments against them, and I will retract all I have ever written.

In my original essay, I said nothing of Paul's letter to Philemon, concerning Onesimus, a run-away slave, converted by Paul's preaching at Rome; and who was returned by the Apostle, with a most affectionate letter to his master, entreating the master to receive him again, and to forgive him. O, how immeasurably different Paul's conduct to this slave and his master, from the conduct of our abolition brethren! Which are we to think is guided by the Spirit of God? It is _impossible_ that both can be guided by that Spirit, unless sweet water and bitter can come from the same fountain. This letter, itself, is sufficient to teach any man, capable of being taught in the ordinary way, that slavery is not, _in the sight of God, what it is in the sight of the abolitionists_.

I had prepared the argument furnished by this letter for my original essay; I afterward struck it out, because at that time, so little had the Bible been examined at the North in reference to slavery, that the abolitionists very generally thought that this was the only scripture which Southern slaveholders could find, giving any countenance to their views of slavery. To test the correctness of this opinion, therefore, I determined to make no allusion to it at that time.

Now, my dear sir, if from the evidence contained in the Bible to prove slavery a lawful relation among God's people under every dispensation, the assertion is still made, in the very face of this evidence, that slavery has _ever been_ the greatest sin--_everywhere, and under all circumstances_--can you, or can any sane man bring himself to believe, that the mind capable of such a decision, is not capable of trampling the word of God under foot upon any subject?

If it were not known to be the fact, we could not admit that a Bible-reading man could bring himself to believe, with Dr. Wayland, that a thing made lawful by the God of heaven, was, notwithstanding, the greatest sin--and that Moses under the law, and Jesus Christ under the gospel, had sanctioned and regulated in practice, the greatest known sin on earth--and that Jesus had left his church to find out as best they might, that the law of God which established slavery under the Old Testament, and the precepts of the Holy Ghost which regulate the mutual duty of master and slave under the New Testament, were laws and precepts, to sanction and regulate among the people of God the greatest sin which was ever perpetrated.

It is by no means strange that it should have taken seventeen centuries to make such discoveries as the above, and it is worthy of note, that these discoveries were made at last by men who did not appear to know, at the time they made them, what was in the Bible on the subject of slavery, and who now appear unwilling that the teachings of the Bible should be spread before the people--this last I take to be the case, because I have been unable to get the Northern press to give it publicity.

Many anti-slavery men into whose hands my essays chanced to fall, have frankly confessed to me, that in their Bible reading, they had overlooked the plain teaching of the Holy Ghost, by taking what they read in the Bible about masters and servants, to have reference to hired servants and their employers.

You ask me for my opinion about the emancipation movement in the State of Kentucky. I hold that the emancipation of hereditary slaves by a State is not commanded, or in any way required by the Bible. The Old Testament and the New, sanction slavery, but under no circumstances enjoin its abolition, even among saints. Now, if religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, was inconsistent with slavery, then this could not be so. If pure religion, therefore, did not require its abolition under the law of Moses, nor in the church of Christ--we may safely infer, that our political, moral and social relations do not require it in a State; unless a State requires higher moral, social, and religious qualities in its subjects, than a gospel church.

Masters have been left by the Almighty, both under the patriarchal, legal, and gospel dispensations, to their individual discretion on the subject of emancipation.

The principle of justice inculcated by the Bible, refuses to sanction, it seems to me, such an outrage upon the rights of men, as would be perpetrated by any sovereign State, which, to-day, makes a thing to be property, and to-morrow, takes it from the lawful owners, _without political necessity or pecuniary compensation_. Now, if it be morally right for a majority of the people (and that majority possibly a meagre one, who may not own a slave) to take, without necessity or compensation, the property in slaves held by a minority, (and that minority a large one,) then it would be morally right for a majority, without property, to take any thing else that may be lawfully owned by the prudent and care-taking portion of the citizens.

As for intelligent philanthropy, it shudders at the infliction of certain ruin upon a whole race of helpless beings. If emancipation by law is philanthropic in Kentucky, it is, for the same reasons, philanthropic in every State in the Union. But nothing in the future is more certain, than that such emancipation would begin to work the degradation and final ruin of the slave race, from the day of its consummation.

Break the master's sympathy, which is inseparably connected with his property right in his slave, and that moment the slave race is placed upon a common level with all other competitors for the rewards of merit; but as the slaves are inferior in the qualities which give success among competitors in our country, extreme poverty would be their lot; and for the want of means to rear families, they would multiply slowly, and die out by inches, degraded by vice and crime, unpitied by honest and virtuous men, and heart-broken by sufferings without a parallel.

So long as States let masters alone on this subject, good men among them, both in the church and out of it, will struggle on, as experience may dictate and justify, for the benefit of the slave race. And should the time ever come, when emancipation in its consequences, will comport with the moral, social, and political obligations of Christianity, then Christian masters will invest their slaves with freedom, and then will the good-will of those follow the descendants of Ham, who, without any agency of their own, have been made in this land of liberty, their providential guardians.

Yours, with affection,
THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.

[It is or ought to be known to all men, that
African slavery in the United States originated
in, and is perpetuated by a social and political
necessity, and that its continuance is demanded
equally by the highest interests of both races.
All writers on public law, from Drs. Channing and
Wayland, among the abolitionists, up to the
highest authorities on national law, admit the
necessity and propriety of slavery in a social
body, whenever men will not provide for their own
wants, and yield obedience to the law which guards
the rights of others. The guardianship and control
of the black race, by the white, in this Union, is
an indispensable Christian duty, to which we must
as yet look, if we would secure the well-being of
both races.]

FOOTNOTE:

[230] These letters were first published in the _Religious Herald_, Richmond.

STATISTICAL VIEW OF SLAVERY.

To satisfy the conscientiousness of Christians, I published in the _Herald_, some years past, Bible evidence, to prove slavery a lawful relation among men. In a late communication you[231] refer to _this essay_, and express a wish that it should be republished. Many have expressed a similar wish.

Some who admit the _legality_ of slavery in the sight of God, question the _expediency of its expansion_. It is believed by them to be an element that is hostile to the best interests of society, and therefore, great efforts have been, and are now being made, to exclude it from all the new States and Territories which may hereafter be organized upon our soil.

While the _expediency_ of its _expansion_ or _continuance_, are questions with which I have not heretofore meddled, yet I hold their _investigation_ to be within the legitimate range of Christian duty.

If unquestionable _facts_ and _experience_ warrant the _conclusion_, that while slavery is lawful, yet its _continuance_ or _expansion_ among us is _inexpedient_, then let us act accordingly.

Being _prompted_ by your request, I propose to examine _facts_, which are admitted the world over, as evidence of prosperity and happiness in a community, and to compare the evidence thus furnished in different sections of our country, where the experiment of freedom, and the experiment of slavery have been fully and fairly upon trial since the commencement of our colonial existence, that we may see, if possible, what is true on this subject. This seems to be the _unerring_ method of coming at the truth. And if it shall appear, by such a comparison--fairly made--between States of equal age, where slavery and freedom have had a fair opportunity to produce their legitimate results, that in all the elements of prosperity, slaveholding States suffer nothing in the comparison--but that, in almost every particular, are decidedly in advance of the non-slaveholding States, why then we are bound to let the testimony of these facts control our judgment.

Every man and woman in the United States should not only be willing, but desirous to know, what is the matter-of-fact evidence on this all-absorbing question. It is but lately that any method existed, of coming at _undisputed_ facts, which would throw light upon this subject. The Congress of the United States seeing this, thought proper to order that such facts as tend to demonstrate the relative prosperity of the different States of the Union, in religion--in morals--in the acquisition of wealth--in the increase of native population--in the prolongation of life--in the diminution of crime, etc., etc., should be ascertained, under oath, by competent and responsible agents, and that these facts should be published at the national expense for the benefit of the people: so that the people could, understandingly, apply the corrective for evils that might be found to exist in one locality, and profit by a knowledge of the greater prosperity that might be found to exist in another locality.

Up to that time, the non-slaveholding States affirmed, and the slaveholding States tacitly admitted, that by this test, the slaveholding States must suffer in the comparison, in some important items. The facts which belong to the subject, are now before the world, in the census of 1850.

It is my purpose to compare some of the most important of these facts, which have a bearing on this subject. I shall take for the most part, the six New England States, on one side, and the five old slave States, (extending from, and including Maryland and Georgia,) on the other side, for the comparison.