



Produced by Bryan Ness, S. Drawehn and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from scans of public domain works at the
University of Michigan's Making of America collection.)





[Transcriber's Note.--Italics in the original are rendered as
_underscores_. The letter 'a' with a macron is shown as [=a]. Greek
characters in the original have been transliterated and appear as
+word+. Transliterated Hebrew words appear as #WORD#, using the author's
own transliteration throughout. (For more on the Hebrew, and a list of
errata, see the end of this document.)]




                                                               No. 45.

                      IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY
                             THE BIBLE?


If there is one subject which, above all others, may be regarded as of
national interest at the present time, it is the subject of Slavery.
Wherever we go, north or south, east or west, at the fireside, in the
factory, the rail-car or the steamboat, in the state legislatures or the
national Congress, this "ghost that will not down" obtrudes itself. The
strife has involved press, pulpit, and forum alike, and in spite of all
compromises by political parties, and the desperate attempts at
non-committal by religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper.

But the distinctive feature of this, as compared with other questions of
national import, is, that here both parties draw their principal
arguments from the Bible as a common armory of weapons for attack and
defense. On the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists in
the United States, is not a moral evil; that it is an innocent and
lawful relation, as much as that of parent and child, husband and wife,
or any other in society; that the right to buy, sell, and hold men for
purposes of gain, was given by express permission of God, and sanctioned
by Christ and his apostles; that this right is founded on the golden
rule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky., "I hardly know which
is most unaccountable, the profound ignorance of the Bible, or the
sublimity of cool impudence and infidelity manifested by those who
profess to be Christians; and yet dare affirm that the Book of God gives
no sanction to slaveholding." All these affirmations are fairly summed
up thus: "As slavery was practiced by the patriarchs, received sanction
and legality from God in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced by Christ
and his apostles, it must have been right. If right then, it is so
still; therefore Southern slavery is right."

On the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery is nowhere
warranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is totally opposed both to its
spirit and teachings.

It will be the object of the present discussion to determine which of
these opinions is correct.


                      SLAVERY DEFINED.

What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in American law?

1. It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense a man may be
said to "possess" these; but he can not buy or sell them. These are
natural relations; and he who violates them for the sake of gain is
branded by all as barbarous and criminal.

2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is temporary, having
for its primary object, not the good of the master or guardian, but that
of the apprentice or minor, his education and preparation for acting his
part as a free and independent member of society; but chattelism is
_life_ bondage, for the _sole_ good of the master.

3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a bond or agreement is
implied, and therefore reciprocal rights, and the mutual power of
dissolution on failure of either in the terms of mutual agreement; but
chattelism ignores and denies the ability of the slave to _make a
contract_.

4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was attached to the
glebe or soil, and could not be severed from it, deprived of his family,
or sold to another as a chattel; being retained as part of the
indivisible feudal community. But the chattel slave is a "thing"
incapable of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or how the
master pleases.

Chattelism is none of these relations; its principle is "property in
man." Its definition is thus given in the law of Louisiana, (Civil Code,
art. 35:) "A slave is one who is in the power of his master, to whom he
belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry,
his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, acquire nothing, but what
must belong to his master."

South Carolina says, (Prince's Digest, 446,) "Slaves shall be deemed,
sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in
the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors,
administrators, and assigns, to all intents, purposes, and
constructions whatsoever."

Judge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina,
(case of State _v._ Mann,) says a slave is "one doomed in _his own
person_ and _his posterity_ to live without knowledge, and without the
capacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap
the fruits."

We now come to the point at issue: Does the Bible sanction this system?


                        OLD TESTAMENT.

                      1. _Hebrew Terms._

The Hebrew terms used in reference to this subject are #AUVADH#,
_auvadh_, "to serve;" the noun, #EVEDH#, _evedh_, "servant" or
"bondman," one contracting service for a term of years; #SAUKIR#,
_saukir_, a "hired servant" daily or weekly; #AUMAU#, _aumau_, and
#SHIPHECHAU#, _shiphechau_, "maid-servant" or "handmaid;" but there is _no_
term in Hebrew synonymous with our word _slave_, for all the terms
applied to servants are, as we shall show, equally applicable and
applied to free persons.

The verb #AUVADH#, _auvadh_, according to Gesenius, signifies primarily,
to labor; then, to labor for one's self, for hire, or compulsory labor
as a captive or prisoner of war. Gen. 2:5, 15; 3:23; 29:15. Ex. 20:9;
21:2. Next, national servitude as tributary to others; as Sodom and the
cities of the plain to Chedorlaomer, Gen. 14:4; Esau to Jacob, Gen.
25:23; the Israelites in Canaan to surrounding nations, Moabites,
Philistines, and others, Judg. 3:8; Jer. 27:7, 9. Next, national and
personal servitude or serfdom, as of the Israelites in Egypt. Lastly,
the service of God or idols, Judg. 3:7, &c. From these and similar
passages we see that neither the generic nor specific meaning of the
term, taken in its connections, implies chattel slavery, but labor,
voluntary, hired, or compulsory, as of tributary nations or prisoners of
war, whose claim to regain, if possible, their freedom and rights, is
ever admitted and acted on; showing that freedom is the normal state of
man, subjection and compulsory servitude the abnormal and unnatural.

But it is objected that, though the proper meaning of the verb "to
serve" does not imply chattel slavery, it is certain that the derived
noun #EVEDH#, _evedh_, translated "servant" and "bondman" in our
version, is frequently used to designate involuntary servitude, the
service of one "bought with money," and therefore a chattel slave. We
reply, By far the most frequent use of this term, as is well known,
represents either the common deferential mode of address of inferiors to
superiors, or equals to equals, used then and to-day in the East, or the
political subordination of inferior to superior rank invariably existing
in Eastern governments. Otherwise we have Jacob saying to Esau, "The
children which God hath graciously given thy" _slave_; and Joseph's
brethren saying to him, "Thou saidst to thy _slaves_, Bring him down to
me." "When we came up to thy _slave_ my father." Saul's officers and
soldiers are his slaves, David is Jonathan's, and _vice versa_; Abigail,
David's wife, is his slave; his people, officers, and even embassadors
are all his slaves; all are slaves to each other, and none are masters,
unless it be the king.

How, then, can we properly define the meaning and status of the term
"servant" in any particular passage? We answer, only by the context and
the usage of the particular time and place, so far as known.

                    2. _The Curse of Canaan._

We first meet with the term "servant" in the oft-disputed passage, Gen.
9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his
brethren.... Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his
servant." ... Now, as we have no state of servitude in the context or
the usage of the times with which to compare this, and as only Canaan
and his descendants are included in the curse, we must look to their
subsequent history for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the kind of
servitude there implied.

We find the descendants of Canaan and their land defined in Gen.
10:15-20. They were not the Africans, as some ignorantly assert, but the
Canaanites, who dwelt in Canaan, and were there destroyed by the
Israelites, or rendered tributaries, except the Gibeonites, who were
doomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water," the serfs of the
temple service. Josh. 9:23, 27. There is not one word of buying and
selling _individuals_--no chattelism, or any sanction of it; there is a
performing of the service of the temple, or paying tribute, but never
slaves or chattels. Canaan thus became the servant (not slave) of Shem;
and when afterward Israel was oppressed and rendered tributary to other
nations, the Canaanites became thus not only "servants," but "servants
of servants."

                    3. _Patriarchal Servitude._

The next example of the word "servant" brings us to that epoch in
relation to which the Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina says,
"Slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholders
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven,) to
the time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his master
Philemon, and wrote a Christian and paternal letter to this slaveholder,
which we find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures."

The account we have of Abraham's servants is briefly as follows: That
he had men-servants and maid-servants, Gen. 12:16; 14:14; 17:27, (not
_slaves_, for we have shown above by numerous passages that to give such
a definition to the term "servant" is false and absurd, unless sustained
by the context or the usage of the times;) that they numbered some two
thousand persons, (reckoning by the number of fighting men among them,
generally one in five of the population,) were trained and accustomed to
arms, Gen. 14:14; could inherit property, Gen. 15:3, 4; in religious
ordinances were perfectly equal with the master, Gen. 17:10-14; had
entire control not only over the property, but also the heirs of the
household, Gen. 24:2-10; lastly, they were invariably considered as
_men_, not slaves or chattels. Gen. 24:30, 32. "And the _man_ (servant
of Abraham) came into the house, and he ungirded his camels, and gave
straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the
_men's_ feet that were with him."

"But," it is objected, "some of these servants were 'bought with money;'
therefore they must have been possessed as 'chattel slaves.'" This
conclusion depends partly on the meaning of the Hebrew verb #KAUNAU#
_kaunau_, "to buy;" and asserts that whenever this term is applied to
persons, it implies the relation of chattel slavery. The primary
definition of the verb, given by Gesenius, is, to erect; then, 1. To
found or create; 2. To get, gain, obtain, acquire, possess; 3. To get by
purchase, to buy.

Let us see the meaning of this term, applied to persons in other
passages. In Gen. 31:15, Rachel and Leah say of their father, "He hath
_sold_ us, and quite devoured also our money," referring to Jacob's long
service for them; were they chattels? Gen. 47:23, Joseph _bought_ the
Egyptians; were they chattels? Ex. 21:2, "If thou _buy_ a Hebrew
servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out
free, for nothing;" was he a chattel? Ruth 4:10, "Ruth the Moabitess
have I _purchased_ this day to be my _wife_;" was she a chattel? These
passages clearly show that the simple application of the term "bought
with money" does _not_ imply property and possession as a chattel.

The phrase "bought with money" relates, in the case of wives, to the
dowry usual in Eastern countries; in the case of servants, to the ransom
paid for captives in war, and paid by the individual on adoption into
the tribe; or to an equivalent paid as hire of time and labor for a
limited period, either to parents for their children as apprentices,
&c., or to the individual himself, as Jacob to Laban. Gen. 31:41, "Thus
have I been twenty years _in thy house_; I served thee fourteen years
for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle, and thou hast
changed my wages ten times." Thus Abraham could acquire a claim on the
service of a man during life by purchase from himself; could acquire the
allegiance of a man and his family, and all born in it, by contract, not
to be broken but by mutual agreement; and in a few years have a vast
household under his authority, "born in his house," and "bought with
money," yet not one of them a slave.

Another general proof already alluded to is, that the terms #EVEDH#,
"servant," and #NAAR#, _naar_, "young man," are applied synonymously
and equally to servants and free persons. Gen. 14:24, Abraham calls his
servants young men, and again in Gen. 17:23, 27. So in Job 1:15-19, the
term #NAAR# is applied alike to Job's servants and sons. Also in
Judg. 7:10; 19:3, 11, 19; 1 Sam. 9:3, 5, 10, 22, and numerous other
places, these terms are applied indiscriminately to servants, showing
that they were always regarded as men, never as chattels.

But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the status or condition
of Abraham's servants; we will bring proofs showing that it could not
have been chattel slavery.

Two of the fundamental characteristics of chattelism are, The status of
the mother decides that of the child, and The slave, being property, can
not inherit or possess property. Was this the condition of "servants" in
patriarchal society? If so, then these characteristics brand them as
chattels; but on the contrary, if no record is found of their being
sold, (the buying we have already reasonably accounted for;) if the
children of these servants were reckoned free, if they and their
children could inherit property, then even American slave law and custom
declare them free persons, and not chattels personal.

Take the case of Hagar. We read, Gen. 16:1, she was an Egyptian
"handmaid, maid-servant," perhaps one of those referred to in Gen.
12:16. Abraham, at Sarah's instigation, makes her his concubine. The
usual bickering of Eastern harems ensues. Hagar leaves the tribe, is
sent back by the angel, Ishmael is born, and this son of a slave (?) is
regarded not only as free, but heir of the house of Abraham. Years pass,
and the wild, reckless Ishmael is seen ridiculing Isaac, his puny
brother and coheir. At the sight, all the mother and the aristocrat
again rise up in Sarah, and she cries out to Abraham, "Cast out this
bondwoman and her son, for he shall not be heir with my son, even
Isaac;" and Abraham, so far from regarding them as chattels personal,
and selling them south, sends off the wild boy to be the wild, free
Arab, "whose hand will be against every man, and every man's hand
against his."

Take the case of Bilhah and Zilpah, given by Laban (Gen. 29:24, 29,) as
handmaids (#AUMAU#) to his daughters Leah and Rachel. Gen. 30:4-14.
They become Jacob's concubines, and bear him four sons--Dan, Naphtali,
Gad, and Asher. Here the case is plain; the mothers are "servants," they
have children, and these, instead of being (as in similar cases daily at
the South) "reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal," are
recognized as free and equal with the other sons, Reuben, Judah, &c.,
and become, like them, heads of tribes in Israel. In these cases,--and
they are all which relate to the point at issue,--either the status of
these servants _did_ or _did not_ decide that of their children. If it
_did_, then, by the laws of chattelism, the children being free prove
the mother (though servant) to be free; if it _did not_, then the mother
was held only by feudal allegiance, while the children were always free.
In either case the conditions of chattelism did not exist; they were not
slaves, but free persons in the same condition as members of wandering
Arab and Tartar tribes to this day.

Did the second fundamental condition of chattelism mentioned above
exist? The slave, being property, can not possess or inherit property.
In Gen. 15:3 we find Abraham complaining to the Lord, "Behold, to me
thou hast given no seed, and lo, _one born in my house_ is my heir!" The
same term is used here as in speaking of Abraham's other servants; and
yet this "servant" is declared by Abraham his acknowledged heir. Here
there is a manifest contradiction of the conditions of a chattel slave.
They can not inherit property; this man could; therefore he was not a
slave. It is an entirely gratuitous assumption to assert that Abraham's
dependents were slaves; for similar cases occur daily in nomadic tribes,
as formerly they did in Scottish clans. If the chief has no child
capable of succeeding him in office, he chooses from his dependents some
tried and trusty warrior, and adopts him as lieutenant or henchman, to
succeed him as heir or chief. Just so Abraham, then nearly eighty years
old, despairing of a son to take his place as chief of the tribe,
adopted some young warrior (perhaps a leader in the battle of Hobah) as
his heir, with the proviso of resigning in favor of a son if any be
born. But in the case of Jacob's four sons the conclusion is
self-evident--children of "servants" or "handmaids," yet recognized as
free like the other sons, sharing the property of the father equally
with them;--the conditions of a state of chattelism did not exist.

These things prove conclusively that the term "servant" never meant
_slave_ in patriarchal families; that the term "bought with money"
referred only to feudal allegiance or service for a time agreed on by
both parties. These servants could possess and inherit property; their
children were free; they were trained to the use of arms; in religious
matters master and servant were alike and equal; and they were always
considered and called _men_, never slaves or chattels,--all which are
directly contrary to the principles and express enactments of American
slave law, and are the characteristics of free persons even at the
South. Add to this the significant fact that not one word is said in the
patriarchal records of _selling_ any of these servants, (the only act
mentioned of selling a human being is that of Joseph by his brethren, so
bitterly reprobated and repented of by them soon after,) though
frequently bought; that no fugitive law existed, in fact could not exist
in a wandering tribe,--and the natural conclusion is, that they were not
slaves, but free men and women; and therefore the records of patriarchal
society conclusively deny the existence of chattel slaves or slavery as
one of its institutions.

Years pass, and we find the Israelites reduced to a servile condition as
the serfs of the Egyptians. God, in his purposes, allowed them to remain
thus for a time, and then, instead of sanctioning even this modified
form of slavery, demanded their instant release; and on refusal, with
terrible judgments on their oppressors, he led forth that army of
fugitive slaves, and drowned their pursuers in the Red Sea.

                        4. _Mosaic Laws._

We come next to the sanction and authority of chattel slavery claimed to
exist in the laws and economy of these people just escaped from bondage,
and framed by him who had shown his displeasure against slavery by
nearly destroying a nation of slaveholders for holding and catching
slaves. The arguments for this claim are--1. That the term "servant" or
"bondman" used in the Mosaic law means chattel slavery; 2. That in
certain cases the Hebrews might hold their brethren as slaves for ever;
3. They might buy slaves from the heathen around, and hold them for
ever. These positions, we admit, have some plausibility, and have
doubtless had great weight in producing the opinion that chattelism is
sanctioned by the Bible. We propose to consider the condition of the
classes of servants referred to in their order.

1. _Hebrew servants._ These were of four kinds--servants under contract
or indenture for six years, probably from one sabbatic year to another:
servants held till the year of jubilee, or "for ever:" children born in
the house, or hired out by their parents: convicted thieves; and
afterward, though sanctioned by no law, debtors.

In respect to the first of these classes, the law is found in Ex.
21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18. "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall
he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out _free_, for nothing." Here
the term "buy" can only be applied to the _service_, sold by the servant
for six years, (or perhaps to the sabbatic seventh year, as daily or
weekly service ended with the Sabbath,) for it is applied to a state
which no ingenuity whatever can construe as chattelism.

The second class of Hebrew servants is mentioned Ex. 21:5, 6. "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 to the judges: he
shall also bring him to the door or to the door-post, and he shall bore
his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever." Deut.
15:17, the same law adds, "And also to thy maid-servant shalt thou do
likewise." But in Lev. 25:39, 40, 53, it is expressly enacted that one
who served longer than six years was not to be treated or considered as
an #EVEDH#, _evedh_, one contracting for a term of years, but as a
#SAUKIR#, _saukir_, a hired servant, to be well treated and compensated
for his services. "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." The
servant must plainly say, "_I will not_ go out;" it must be _voluntary_
service; but chattelism is involuntary, forced, and directly contrary to
the case before us. "He shall serve _him_ for ever," not his sons after
him, not giving the right of transfer or sale of service to a third
person, "_He_ shall serve," not his wife or children, but himself, till
death, or his master's death, or the jubilee. This, then, was not
chattelism, for it was _voluntary_, _without purchase_ or sale, _ending
with the life of the servant, the master, or the year of release--the
jubilee_.

The third class of servants--children--appear during minority to have
been, as now in all Eastern countries, entirely at the service or
control of their parents, and might by them be hired out, Neh. 5:2-6,
but, when of age, were of course independent of parental acts and
control. John 9:21. That the offspring of servants in patriarchal times
were free we have already proved; that they were so among the Israelites
is shown by the case of Abimelech, the son of a maid-servant, Judg.
9:18, yet free as his brethren, and afterward king of Israel; also of
Sheshan. 1 Chr. 2:34, 35. No service, indeed, could be recognized or
demanded, in Jewish law, of grown persons, except as the result of
contract or crime.

In respect to the fourth class, it is plain from the language used that
only sufficient service could be required of them to cancel the
obligation of restitution. Ex. 22:3. "He should make full restitution;
if he have nothing, then he shall be _sold_ for his theft;" in case of
debt, Matt. 18:34, "till he should pay all that was due to him."

2. _Servants obtained from the heathen._ These were, first, captives.
From the account of the first taking of captives by the Israelites, Num.
31:7-47, we learn, verse 7, that they marched into Midian, slew all the
males, and seized the women, children, flocks, and herds. On their
return Moses reprimanded them for disobeying God's command by preserving
the grown women; and thereupon they killed all but the virgins and
children, reserving them for adoption into the families of the nation.
In Deut. 20:14 and 21:10-14, we have these commands and regulations
given, with an express prohibition of the enslavement of these captives,
in case of repudiation by the captors. "It shall be, if thou have no
delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou
shalt not sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make merchandise of
her, because thou hast humbled her." Now, all slaveholding tribes and
nations, when they seize captives for slaves, aim to obtain as many
strong and vigorous men as possible; must it not, therefore, fairly be
inferred from this regulation that God, by prohibiting instead of
sanctioning the most productive mode of slave-making,--the enslavement
of prisoners of war,--did not intend, but positively prohibited, the
Israelites from becoming a slaveholding nation?

Secondly, "bought with money." The law referring to these is Lev. 25:44,
46. "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be
of the heathen round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bondmaids.... And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
for ever." As we have already stated, the Hebrews had but two terms for
"servant"--the generic term _evedh_, one under contract for a term of
years, and _saukir_, one hired by the day, week, or year. Now, the term
here translated "bondman" is the generic #EVEDH#, _evedh_, elsewhere
translated "servant," and therefore should have been thus translated
here, unless a different rendering is required by the context. The more
literal reading of the Hebrew is, "And thy men-servants and thy
maid-servants which shall be to thee from the nations around you, of
them shall ye procure the man-servant and maid-servant." What, then, was
the difference between the Hebrew and heathen _evedh_?

This. The Hebrew could only be an _evedh_, a servant by contract, for
six years, Ex. 21:2--"Six years shall he serve, but in the seventh _he
shall go out free_;" (longer service could not be contracted for, but
_must be_ voluntary, Ex. 21:5;) or as a hired servant or sojourner till
the jubilee, but _never_ beyond. Lev. 25:10, 39-41. But a heathen could
bind himself as an _evedh_ for longer than six years; and thus his
service, unlike the Hebrew, could be "bought" as "an inheritance for
your children after you," but, like the Hebrew voluntary "for ever"
servants, they were bondmen for the longest time known by the law--till
death or the jubilee.

Is it objected that the terms "buy," "possession," "for ever," are used,
and indicate chattelism? We answer, All admit the Hebrew was not a
chattel; for his service expired at the seventh year, the death of
himself or his master. "_He_ shall serve _him_ for ever;" but, if both
lived on, this service, though voluntary, as has been shown, expired
with all such claims at the jubilee. Since the same terms, and, as we
shall show directly, the jubilee, applied equally to both, if it does
not prove the one a chattel, it does not the other; therefore both are
equally voluntary contractors. The service, and not the bodies, were
bought; and both were equally free at the jubilee.

Two objects were accomplished by this law. 1st. To permit the Hebrews to
obtain that assistance in tilling the land, which otherwise they would
not have been allowed to do. 2d. To increase the numbers of the
commonwealth, since the Hebrews, in obedience to the Abrahamic covenant,
Gen. 17:10-14; Ex. 12:44-49, were bound to circumcise these indented
servants "bought with money," thus making them part of the household
during their period of service, and also naturalized citizens of the
state, members of the congregation, partakers of all the rites and
privileges common to the mass of the people. Ex. 12:44-9. Num. 15:15-30,
"One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for
the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your
generations; _as ye are, so shall the stranger be_ before the Lord."
Lev. 19:34, "The stranger that dwelleth among you shall be as one born
among you, and _thou shalt love him as thyself_." In accordance with the
frequently-repeated injunction of this law of equality, they were
invariably recognized as citizens, and alike with Hebrew servants, were
amenable to, and received protection from, the laws of the state.

In further proof of this, and in direct opposition to chattelism, is the
fact, that the laws regulating the relation of master and servant are
each and all enacted for the benefit and protection of the servant, and
not one for that of the master. Again, when property is spoken of, oxen,
sheep, &c., the term _owner_ is always used, _master_ never; when
servants and masters are spoken of, _master_ is always used, _owner_
never. Ex. 21:29, "The ox shall be stoned, and his _owner_ also shall be
put to death," Ex. 21:34, If an ox or ass fall into a pit left
uncovered, "the _owner_ of the pit shall make it good, and give money to
the _owner_ of them." But, Deut. 25:15, "Thou shall not deliver to his
_master_ the servant which is escaped from his _master_ unto thee."

The inference from all this is plain. No such thing as property in man
is recognized in the Mosaic law; but God, finding polygamy and the law
of serfdom existing among the Israelites, did not see fit to abolish
them at once, but so hampered and hedged them about by restrictive
statutes as gradually and finally to abolish them altogether.

                    5. _Restrictive Laws._

But lest oppression should trample upon the rights of the laboring
classes, and aim at their enslavement,--which actually happened
afterward, and was one of the principal items of God's indictment (Jer.
22:3; 34:8-22) against the Jews prior to their destruction by
Nebuchadnezzar,--three special enactments were made to prevent such
iniquity, and break up any attempt at chattel slavery in the nation.

_First. The law against kidnaping._--Ex. 21:16, "He that stealeth a man
and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put
to death." Thus the one great means of obtaining slaves is forbidden. He
who (no matter where) seizes a human being, (no matter whom,) and
reduces him to involuntary servitude, shall die; for he seeks to take
away the rights and privileges of freedom, all that goes to make up
life; seeks to make property of man, to extinguish the man in the
chattel.

"But," it is said, "this only refers to stealing slaves." Mark the
logic: a man could seize and enslave another with impunity; but if,
afterward, the father, brother, or friend of the enslaved should attempt
to rescue him, he must die! Glorious argument for slaveholders and
slave-catchers! It is also said this refers to Hebrews, not strangers.
Let God answer. Lev. 24:22, "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well
for the stranger as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your
God." This is his interpretation of the breadth of the law given in the
preceding verse, "He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." The
law, therefore, is unrestricted and universal; Hebrew or heathen, he
that killeth a _man_ and he that stealeth a _man_ shall alike die; thus
putting slavery and murder on the same footing, as equally criminal.
Now, if God sanctioned slavery, why did he make such an inconsistent law
as this forbidding it?

_Second. The law concerning fugitives._--Deut. 23:15, 16, "Thou shalt
not deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from his master
unto thee; he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which
he shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt
not oppress him."

There is no equivocation here; "_thou shalt not deliver_ unto his
master." It is imperative; they were to receive him among them as a
citizen, and, if need be, protect him from his master; mark, not a
"heathen" or "Hebrew," servant, but the "servant," heathen or Hebrew,
whoever should fly from the ill treatment or injustice of a hard master.
Compare for a moment the Hebrew and American fugitive laws. The Hebrew
says, "Thou _shalt not_ deliver to his master the servant that is
escaped." The American says, "Thou _shalt_ deliver him up to his master,
or be fined one thousand dollars, and suffer six months' imprisonment."
The Hebrew says, "He shall _dwell_ with thee ... thou shalt _not
oppress_ him." The American law says, "The commissioner who tries the
case shall get five dollars if he fails, and ten if he succeeds in
'delivering to his master' the fugitive, on the simple affidavit of the
former that he is his slave."

What are the deductions from this law of Moses? The return of stray
_property_ is expressly commanded in Deut. 22:1-3; the return of
_servants_ is expressly forbidden here; the servant could leave a hard
master at any time, and the state could not compel him to return: it did
not recognize the condition of forced, but only voluntary servitude, and
thus rendered the existence of chattelism impossible.

_The third great protective law was that of the Jubilee._--Lev.
25:10-55, "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim LIBERTY
throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a
jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and
ye shall return every man to his family." ... Here the expression is
emphatic, no reservations are made, no restrictions allowed. As the
sound of #YOVAL, YOVAL#, Yov[=a]l, Yov[=a]l, sounded through the land,
and was echoed back from hill and village, from hamlet and town, the cry
was taken up, and borne along by the laboring thousands of Israel, many
of whom had been toiling under contract for years, by the unfortunate
debtor, and those whom poverty had compelled to part with "the old house
at home," all returned, all were free. "Liberty, liberty!"

It is vain to assume that the benefits of the Jubilee were restricted to
a particular class. To what class? Not the six years' servants; they
were freed in the seventh. Not to debtors; there _was no law_ compelling
them to serve at all; therefore they could only serve voluntarily to pay
their debts. Not to thieves; they could only be compelled to make
restitution of the thing stolen, or its value; that paid, they were
free. The only other classes to whom the law could apply were "all the
inhabitants of the land" who served the longest time, the Hebrew "for
ever" servants, and the heathen servants, thus preventing the
possibility of the rise and growth of a servile class, the curse of any
country. In this way only can we account for the fact that Jewish
history never mentions the existence of a large servile class, or a
servile insurrection in Israel, so common and disastrous an occurrence
in the history of ancient slaveholding communities.

Some object here, that the term "inhabitants" implies "all the Hebrews,"
and excludes the strangers, Canaanites, &c.; but by admitting that "all
the Hebrews" were freed at the Jubilee, they admit that those who, in
Ex. 21:6, are servants "for ever," are also freed, and thus to serve
"for ever" only implies till the Jubilee. If, then, "for ever" means
only till the Jubilee in one case, it means no more in the other. And if
we show that the strangers and Canaanites _were_ considered "inhabitants
of the land," then the Jubilee referred to Hebrew and stranger alike,
and both were free. In Ex. 34:12, 15, "Take heed to thyself, lest thou
make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest;"
and Lev. 18:25; Num. 33:52-55, Moses calls the heathen "the inhabitants
of the land;" and as he was likely to understand the meaning of the term
pretty well, he either refers in the Jubilee law to Hebrews, Canaanites,
and all, or he meant Canaanites and heathen alone, which is still more
decisive. Again, in 2 Sam. 11:2-27; 23:39, we find one of these
strangers, Uriah the _Hittite_, not only an "inhabitant" of Jerusalem,
but one of David's best officers, and his wife becoming queen of Israel
and mother of Solomon; and in 2 Sam. 24:18-25, another, Araunah the
Jebusite is a householder, and more, is praised as acting like a king
toward king David, who bought property of him whereon to build an altar;
and yet, forsooth, they were not inhabitants!

But, as if to prevent equivocation, Moses defines the phrase "all the
inhabitants;" "Ye shall return _every man_ to his possession, and ye
shall return _every man_ to his family." Not every Hebrew, but every
_man_, the same generic term as in the law against killing or stealing
"a man;" it is unqualified and universal. Thus with one blow this noble
law strikes down the two principal sources of social oppression--monopoly
of land and monopoly of labor. All who had by poverty been compelled
to part with the old farm and homestead received it back; all claims of
service against any person, however mean and humble, were canceled; and
the land and its inhabitants were again free as God had made them.

These accumulated arguments, each separately weighty and forcible, but
collectively insurmountable, we think prove conclusively that the form
of servitude among the Israelites was not chattel slavery, and that
there is no sanction or authority for it in the Mosaic laws and
regulations.

Thus in Jewish history we see the Israelites groaning under Egyptian
bondage, and God's arm outstretched to rescue them when fugitives, and
punish their pursuers--a warning to all such thereafter; we see laws
enacted to prevent the existence of chattelism among them, by
restricting the master's power, and securing the servant's freedom at
regular intervals, and the opposite doctrine of equality among men
asserted; we see the Israelites disobeying these commands, and adopting,
with the idolatry of their neighbors, their slavery also, and God's
fiery wrath denounced on them for it by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel,
and fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar in the destruction and captivity of the
state.


                        NEW TESTAMENT.

                    _Teachings of Christ._

Ages pass, the Jews are restored to their land, but the Roman eagle
overshadows it and all the civilized world. Despotism is enthroned; and
the idea that the world and its people are the property of Rome and its
citizens is questioned only in murmuring whispers. All the relations of
Roman life partake of this idea of absolutism; slavery is every where,
liberty nowhere. Then the glad tidings of Messiah's coming is announced
to an expectant world. Whom will he side with--the crushed and
despairing millions, or the aristocratic and haughty few? Will he adopt
and develop the idea of equality found in Jewish law, or the principle
now ascendant,--"Might makes right,"--the Roman slave law? Let him
answer.

Standing in the synagogue at Nazareth, the home of his boyhood, amid his
expectant friends and relations, he reads (Luke 4:16-21) from Isaiah,
"The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to
_preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach
the acceptable year of the Lord_. And he closed the book and sat down,
... and began to say to them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in
your ears." There is his commission and the constitution of his kingdom.
Can any thing be more explicit?

Christ himself comes with glad tidings for the poor, to destroy slavery
and oppression, and establish liberty. Rejoice, ye poor, taught hitherto
that ye were made only for the service of the rich; there is glad
tidings for you. Rejoice, captives and slaves, "bruised" with the lash
and fetter; _God_ comes "to preach deliverance to the captives, liberty
to them that are bruised, and the acceptable year (the Jubilee) of the
Lord."

How did he fulfill this commission and pledge? No code of laws and
dogmas, terse and dry, were issued by him for the government of his
kingdom; but the great principle was proclaimed of a common brotherhood
as children of God our Father, and of love to him as such. In his sermon
on the mount, the parables of the lost sheep and silver piece, the good
Samaritan, the prodigal son, the Pharisee and the publican; in his
private teachings to his disciples; and, above all, by his daily example
he taught and illustrated, as the leading characteristics of his
kingdom, love to God, the brotherhood of man, the rights of all, however
poor, degraded, or despised. More, he makes this idea of brotherhood
and equality even with himself, the great test in the judgment. Matt.
25:40, 45: "And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say
unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me." What will those who now boast of
their large churches, composed almost entirely of slaves, Christian
ministers, and church members, bought, sold, lashed, and treated like
cattle, answer the King in that great day?

But to return: the result of such teachings was soon evident. "The
common people heard him gladly," hung on his steps and words by
thousands, and hailed him as deliverer; while Scribes and Pharisees,
priests and rulers, denounced him as "a friend of publicans and
sinners," only seeking popularity among the masses, to disturb the
public peace, and revolutionize the government. Mark, it was not simply
religious, but _political_ interference and teaching they charged him
with, and on this charge they finally compassed his death.

In his private teachings to his disciples he strongly inculcated this
truth. Striving among themselves for the supremacy, he charges them,
Matt. 20:26-28, and many other places, "It shall not be so among you;
but whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as
the Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to
give his life a ransom for many." The law thus explicitly laid down, and
in John 13 enforced by his example, is the very opposite of chattelism.
In his church, none were to claim supremacy over others, much less
_enslave_ them; none to despise labor and the laborer, much less condemn
others to it while themselves lived in idleness.

Thus Christ, so far from sanctioning chattelism or property in man in
any shape or form, by precept and example taught the opposite, the
dignity of labor and the laborer, the common brotherhood of man, and
consequent equality, political and religious. Did his apostles indorse
this doctrine, or, fearing the result, did they side with the all
prevalent system of class legislation and slavery?

                    _Teachings of the Apostles._

The result of their teaching in Judea is given in Acts 4:32-35--"And the
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul; neither
said any of them _that aught of the things he possessed was his own_;
but they had all things common. Neither was there any among them that
lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and
brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at
the apostles' feet, and distribution was made to every man according as
he had need." They not only believed in "liberty, equality, and
fraternity," but practised its extreme--not only equality of rights, but
equality of property, among the brotherhood.

But this was comparatively easy in Judea, where the principle of
equality was already partly recognized, and the existence of chattelism
prevented by the action of the Mosaic code. The apostles only fairly
came in conflict with the spirit of caste and slavery when, filled with
love and the Spirit, they entered heathen countries, "preaching the glad
tidings of the kingdom," and establishing every where the glorious
brotherhood of humanity, whose primary law is, "A new commandment I give
unto you, That ye love one another as I have loved you. By this shall
men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John
13:34-5. And Paul expounds it to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12:13--"For by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink
into one Spirit." Gal. 3:26-28: "Ye are all the children of God by faith
in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, _there is neither
bond nor free_, there is neither male nor female; _for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus_." Again, Col. 3:11, "There is neither Greek nor Jew,
circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free;
but Christ is all and in all."

Can language be more express and conclusive than this? The distinctions
here dissolved by the waters of baptism, and blended into "one in Christ
Jesus," are not, as our southern brethren assert, simply religious, but
NATIONAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL--slavery, and the spirit of caste and
clan which upholds it, alike forbidden, and liberty, equality, and
fraternity, social, political, and religious, proclaimed as the rule of
Christ's kingdom.

Principles like these came upon the world like the morning sunlight,
scattering the mists of superstitious ignorance, melting the icy pride
and selfishness of the mighty, permeating all classes and relations of
society with their secret influence, and blending all into one
harmonious brotherhood of love and peace. Apparently they were subject
as others to the laws of the state, but in secret were bound by stronger
ties, and governed by higher, nobler laws, than the world outside
dreamed of.

Instead of the Roman law of marriage, regarding the wife as the
husband's slave, he must love her as himself; more, as Christ loved the
church. Instead of the tyranny on one side, and the retaliating
disobedience on the other, of the Roman parental relation, it became the
image of our heavenly Father's love, and our trusting obedience to him.
The relation of slave, "pro nullo, pro quadrupedo, pro mortuo," (as a
nobody, a quadruped, a dead man,) to his master, became the relation of
brethren, the one to render true and faithful service, Eph. 6:5, the
other never to threaten, Eph. 6:9, much less punish; not to regard them
as chattels, as under the Roman law, but to give them _just_ and _equal_
compensation for their service, Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1, "knowing that ye
also have a Master in heaven," "neither is there respect of persons with
him." The legal deed of manumission was unnecessary; for as, when master
and slave land in England, they may remain connected as master and free
servant, _never_ as master and slave, so, on admission into the
brotherhood of the church, the waters of baptism, as shown above,
dissolved the relation of slavery, and substituted that of freemen and
brethren.

Again, believers were members of Christ's body. He dwelt in them; and
therefore every indignity and injury done to them was done to him in
their person. To enslave, buy, and sell them was to enslave, buy, and
sell Christ himself. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of
these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Who, then, would dare hold
a brother Christian as a slave? What! make merchandise of the person of
Christ? Never! the cry of Judas would ring around them as they were
driven ignominiously from the church.

"Why," it is objected, "did not the apostles preach immediate
emancipation, instead of indorsing slavery by defining its
duties--'Servants, obey your masters,' &c.? and Paul even sent back a
slave." 1. The primary object of the apostles was not simply "to preach
liberty to the captives;" this was but a branch of the tree planted "for
the healing of the nations." Their object was to sow the principles of
faith, love, justice, and equality, well knowing that, when these took
root and flourished, among the first fruit would be "liberty to all the
inhabitants of the land." 2. Had this been their great object, they took
the best and speediest plan for its accomplishment. Attacking the system
directly, the appearance of the Christian missionary would have been the
signal for servile war and untold bloodshed, the slave against the
master, the poor against the rich; and the heathen rulers, eager for a
pretext to crush them, would have denounced them as lighting the torch
of rebellion and war; and the further spread of the gospel would have
been drowned in the blood of its founders. But they took the very course
which God adopted among the Israelites in regard to servitude, not
directly prohibiting it, but inculcating principles of social equality
and progress, restricting the master's power, and protecting the
servant's rights, till, master and slave blended in one, the name of
slave was lost in that of Christian. 3. The relation and duties of
master and servant are defined by the apostles exactly as they might be
to-day in England or the free states--as those of men, _never_ as owner
and property; on the contrary, all ownership of man by other than God is
expressly denied. 1 Cor. 6:19, 20, "What! know ye not that your body is
the temple of the Holy Ghost in you, which ye have of God, and _ye are
not your own_? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in
your body and your spirit, _which are God's_." There the ownership is
clearly asserted; how can man claim it? "Render to Cesar the things that
are Cesar's, _and to God the things that are God's_," lest you be found
robbing God himself. Again, 1 Cor. 7:21, 23, "Art thou called, being a
servant? care not for it; but, if thou mayst be made free, (+dynasai
genesthai+, canst become free,) use it rather." What can be more
explicit than this? First, ownership of man is denied even to _himself_,
much more to _another_. Next, the exhortation to slaves is, if they
_can not_ get free from this great wrong, to bear it as such, but, if
they _can_, "use it rather;" and the reason given is followed by a rule
of action to be adopted wherever possible. Verse 23, "Ye are bought with
a price; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." If this be not express
prohibition of chattelism, and command to slaves to free themselves from
it, then the language is totally contradictory and unintelligible.

Contrast these laws of Paul with the laws of most of the southern
states, forbidding even the master to free his slaves, while states and
Congress unite in hounding back to whip and task the poor slave who
dares obey that command; nay, offer large rewards for men, even
Christian ministers, when attempting to obey it. "But Paul sent back
Onesimus to his master, and therefore sanctioned the sending back of
fugitives." We answer, there was no sending back at all. Paul, a
prisoner, could not send him back: a Jew, he was forbidden by his
religion to do so. Deut. 23:15. It was simply a recommendatory letter
sent with Onesimus, returning voluntarily to Colosse and his master. Let
us look at the letter. Verse 8 begins, "Wherefore, though I might be
much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet, for
love's sake, I rather beseech thee. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus,
... _which in time past was to thee unprofitable_, but now profitable to
thee and to me; whom I have sent again, ... not now as a servant, but
above a servant, a brother beloved," &c. Here Onesimus is described as
having been, while heathen, an "unprofitable" trouble to his master, and
had either run away or been sent away by him. Converted at Rome, Paul
heard his story, and in his letter, instead of thinking he is doing
Philemon a favor, has to earnestly "beseech," almost command, his
reception as a favor to himself. Not one word of _property_ or _right_
in him, save the right of love as one of the brotherhood. "NOT NOW AS A
SERVANT, but _above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me_, but
how much more to thee!" Onesimus had left the "slave" in his heathenism;
in Christ he became the "brother" of Philemon and Paul. Instead of
sanctioning chattelism, it positively denies it by affirming voluntary
service, the equality of men as brethren, to be loved as Christ
himself.

Thus Christ and his apostles, so far from upholding chattelism in their
teachings, denounced the ownership of man by any but God, and inculcated
its opposite--love, liberty, equality, and fraternity--by precept and
example. And subsequent history showed the result.

Christ said of the teachings of the Pharisees, "By their fruits ye shall
know them." Apply this test to the teachings of the apostles and the
primitive churches in regard to slavery. When they went forth, "darkness
covered the earth, and gross darkness the people;" slavery sat enthroned
in might over Europe; and the cries of the oppressed millions had only
had a hearing on the battle or before the throne of God.

When the Reformation came slavery had disappeared in Europe; and the
voice of the people was heard asserting their rights, feebly, indeed, at
first, but ever since growing stronger and stronger "as the voice of
many waters." What has caused this change?

Historians, Protestant and Catholic, ascribe it to the influence of the
church, not by direct emancipatory decrees, but, following the example
of God through Moses, by gradually restricting the master's power, and
protecting the slave; by girdling the poison tree till it withered and
fell, though, sad to say, the ruins still disfigure too much field, of
the fair fields of Europe and America.

No fact is more patent in history than the truth expressed by Paul to
the Corinthians: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY."
The whole tendency of the Bible and true Christianity, direct and
indirect, is to the liberty and advancement, never the slavery and
degradation, of man; and those who have attempted to shield the monster
curse of our country and age with the garb of the gospel may find too
late, when that awful voice shall ring in their ears, "Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it
unto me," that Christ came not only "to preach deliverance to the
captives" and "to set at liberty them that are bruised," but also "the
day of vengeance of our God."

                   *       *       *       *       *

                        AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY,
                         28 Cornhill, Boston.

                   *       *       *       *       *




                  EXTRACT FROM MR. O'CONOR'S ARGUMENT

          _Before the New York Court of Appeals, on the "Lemmon
                             Slave Case."_


"I submit most respectfully that the only desire I have manifested here
or elsewhere, in reference to the question, has been to draw the mind of
the court and the intelligent mind of the American people, to the true
question which underlies the whole conflict, and that is the question to
which my friend (W. W. Evarts, Esq.) has addressed the best, and, in my
judgment, the finest part of his very able argument. * * * My friend
denounces the institution of slavery as a monstrous injustice, as a sin,
as a violation of the law of God and of the law of man, of natural law
or natural justice; and in his argument in another place, he called your
attention to the enormity of the result claimed in this case, that these
eight persons--and not only they, but their posterity to the remotest
time--were, by your Honors' judgment, to be consigned to this shocking
condition of abject bondage and slavery. Why, how very small and minute
was that presentation of the subject! My friend must certainly have used
the microscope or reversed the telescope, when, in seeking to present
this question in a striking manner to your Honors' minds, he called your
attention to these _few_ persons and their posterity. Why, if your
Honors please, our territory embraces at the least estimate _three
millions of these human beings_, who, by our laws and institutions, as
now existing in these states, * * * are not only consigned to hopeless
bondage throughout their whole lives, but to a like condition is their
posterity consigned to the remotest times. * * * It is a question of the
mightiest magnitude. But the reason why I call your Honors' attention to
its magnitude is this: that you may contemplate it in the connection in
which my learned friend has presented it; that it is a SIN--a violation
of natural justice and the law of God; that it is a monstrous scheme of
iniquity for defrauding the laborer of his wages--one of those sins that
crieth aloud to heaven for vengeance; that it is a course of unbridled
rapine, fraud, and plunder, by which three millions and their posterity
are to be oppressed throughout all time. Now, is it a sin? Is this an
outrage against divine law and natural justice? _If it be_ such an
outrage, then I say it is a sin of the greatest magnitude, of the most
enormous and flagitious character that was ever presented to the human
mind. The man who does not shrink from it with horror is utterly
unworthy the name of a man. It is no trivial offence, that may be
tolerated with limitations and qualifications; that we can excuse
ourselves for supporting because we have made some kind of a bargain to
support it. The tongue of no human being is capable of depicting its
enormity; it is not in the power of the human heart to form a just
conception of its wickedness and cruelty. And what, I ask, is the
rational and necessary consequence, if we regard it to be thus sinful,
thus unjust, thus outrageous?"

                         *       *       *

Dr. Hopkins, of Newport, being much engaged in urging the sinfulness of
slavery, called one day at the house of Dr. Bellamy in Bethlem,
Connecticut, and while there pressed upon him the duty of liberating his
only slave. Dr. B., who was an acute and ingenious reasoner, defended
slaveholding by a variety of arguments, to which Dr. H. as ably replied.
At length Dr. Hopkins proposed to Dr. Bellamy practical obedience to the
golden rule. "Will you give your slave his freedom if he desires it?"
Dr. B. replied that the slave was faithful, judicious, trusted with
every thing, and would not accept freedom if offered. "Will you free him
if _he_ desires it?" repeated Dr. H. "Yes," answered Dr. Bellamy, "I
will." "Call him then." The man appeared. "Have you a good, kind
master?" asked Dr. Hopkins. "Oh! yes, very, very good." "And are you
happy?" "Yes, master, _very_ happy." "Would you be more happy if you
were free?" His face brightened. "Oh! yes, master, a great deal more
happy." "_From this moment_," said Dr. Bellamy, "_you are free_."




[Transcriber's Note, Continued.--The following minor errors have been
corrected: the word "in" missing before "spite" on p. 1 ("and spite of
all compromises ..."), a superfluous quotation mark on p. 5 (""That he
had men-servants ..."), a missing "d" in "praised" on p. 17 ("is praise
as acting"), "is" used for "in" on p. 25 ("now existing is these states
..."), and on p. 6, where the first two characters of #NAAR# were
transposed. Also note that the author used Ashkenazic pronunciation for
his transliteration, and that it would not be considered accurate by
modern standards. Alternative transliterations are:

  1. auvadh--avad
  2. evedh--eved
  3. saukir--sakhir
  4. aumau--ama
  5. shiphechau--shifcha
  6. kaunau--kana
  7. naar--na'ar
  8. Yov[=a]l--Yovel]





End of Project Gutenberg's Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible?, by Isaac Allen

*** 