PERSONAL in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER. The Louisiana code says, "A slave is one who is in the power of the master to whom he belongs; the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labour; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master." So the Hon. J. K. Paulding, in his work on slavery, says, "Being property, slaves may be bought and sold by persons capable of buying and selling other property. They are held to be personal estate, and as such may be levied upon and sold for the debts of the owner."§

This claim of property is not only asserted in all the books that treat of slavery, and in all the laws that regulate the system, but enters into the every-day view of the subject, and the practical working of the system. As a matter of fact slaves are regarded and treated as property, or as "chattels." They are bought or are inherited as such. They are advertised for sale by auction, or otherwise, as such. They are disposed of by will as such; they may be seized as such, by a sheriff, and sold for the payment of debts. And when a slave is so disposed of, it is in the same way as any other property. There are no reserved rights to him as a man. There is no specification in the advertisement or the instrument of sale, that he differs from any other property; there is no recognition of the fact that in any respect he is a human being, or is to be treated as such. There is no condition in the sale that any of his rights as a man, as a father, a brother, or a citizen, shall be regarded. It is not specified or implied that he shall exercise any of the privileges of a freeman; that he may himself ever hold property; that he shall be taught to read; that the cultivation

* Brev. Dig. 229.

+ Rev. Code, vol. i, p. 431, s. 47.

† Civ. Code, art. 35.

SP. 141. See also, p. 145.

of his intellect shall be regarded; that he shall have the liberty of worshipping God. None of his rights or feelings as a son, a husband, or a father are consulted in the conditions of the sale, but his new master, like his old one, may sunder any one of these relations as soon as he pleases, and for any cause that he chooses.

THE TRUE QUESTION STATED.

The true question now is, whether this is a good institution, and one which God designed to commend and perpetuate. Is it an institution for the maintenance of which He has made arrangements in his word, and which has his sanction? Is it a system in accordance with the spirit of the religion which he has revealed, and which that religion is intended to keep up in the world? Is it such an arrangement in society that the fair influence of that religion will tend to perpetuate it, as it will the relations of husband and wife, and of parent and child? Or is it an institution which God regards as undesirable and evil in its nature and tendency, and which he intends to have removed from the world? Would the fair application of the principles of his religion perpetuate it on the earth, or remove it as an evil thing? This is the fair question now before us. According to the references made to the Scriptures, by most of the writers already alluded to, they would regard the former of these opinions as the true one- -that slavery has the sanction of God; that he has from the beginning fostered and patronised the institution; that he legislates for its continuance, as he does for the relation of parent and child; and that the principles of his religion do not conflict with its perpetuity on the earth. Is this the true position to be taken on the subject?

In this view of the real question, it is not necessary to agitate the inquiry whether slavery is a malum in se. That question is one that has usually given rise only to perplexing logomachies, and that has contributed little to determine the

true issue in the inquiry. If it shall appear, in the course of this discussion, that slavery is an institution which God has never originated by positive enactment; that his legislation has tended from the beginning to mitigate its evils; that he has by his Providential dealings frowned upon it; that he has asserted great principles in his word, which cannot be carried out without destroying the system; that he has enjoined on man, in the various relations of life, certain duties, of which slavery prevents the performance; that slavery engenders inevitably certain bad passions, which are wholly contrary to religion; and that it is the tendency and the design of the Christian religion, when fairly applied, to abolish the system, it will be apparent that slavery is a moral wrong. God does not legislate against any thing that is good. His own Providential dealings are not against that which is desirable in society. His Gospel is not designed to abolish any good institution; and if it shall appear that Christianity has such provisions as are designed to remove slavery, the divine view in relation to it will be clear. To show what is that view, is the sole design of this discussion.

CHAPTER III.

Slavery in the time of the Patriarchs.

IN entering directly upon the question whether slavery, as before defined, is in accordance with the will of God, and is an institution which he designs should be perpetuated for the good of society, like the other relations of life contributing to the perfection of a community, it is natural to inquire whether any thing can be determined on this question from the practice of the patriarchs. The true inquiry here is, whether the patriarchs were holders of slaves in such a sense that it can be properly inferred that God regards slavery as a good and desirable institution.

The support which the advocates of slavery derive from the conduct of the patriarchs, has already been referred to. The reader will recall the quotations from the Presbyteries of Hopewell, Harmony, Charleston Union, and Tombecbee; from the Biblical Repertory, and Paulding's work on slavery. The example of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is adduced as decisive on the point. Thus, as an instance, the Presbytery of Tombecbee, in their correspondence with the General Conference of Maine,* say, "On the subject of slavery we are willing to be guided by the Bible, the unerring word of truth.” "In the Bible the state of slavery is clearly recognised-Abraham, the friend of God, had slaves born in his house, and bought with his money. sessed slaves, as is evident from Gen. xxvi. 14. slaves, without the least remorse of conscience." Fullert appeals with the utmost confidence to the fact that God indulged Abraham in the practice of slavery, in proof that

* Pp. 12, 13.

Isaac posJacob held

So also Dr.

Letters to Dr. Wayland, pp. 175, 176.

it is not wrong. "He was the friend of God,' and walked with God in the closest and most endearing intercourse; nor can any thing be more exquisitely touching than those words, 'Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?' It is the language of a friend, who feels that concealment would wrong the confidential intimacy existing. The love of this venerable servant of God, in his promptness to immolate his son, has been the theme of apostles and preachers for ages; and such was his faith, that all who believe are called the children of faithful Abraham.' This Abraham, you admit, held slaves. Who is surprised that Whitefield, with this single fact before him, could not believe slavery to be a sin? Yet, if your definition of slavery be correct, holy Abraham lived all his life in the commission of one of the most aggravated crimes against God and man which can be conceived. His life was spent in outraging the rights of hundreds of human beings, as moral, intellectual, immortal, fallen creatures; and in violating their relations as parents and children, and husbands and wives. And God not only connived at this appalling iniquity, but, in the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, expressly mentions it, and confirms the patriarch in it; speaking of those bought with his money,' and requiring him to circumcise them. Why, at the very first blush, every Christian will cry out against this statement. To this, however, you must come, or yield your position; and this is only the first utterly incredible and monstrous corollary involved in the assertion that slavery is essentially and always 'a sin of appalling magnitude.'"

The question now is, whether the facts stated in the Bible, in reference to the conduct of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, furnish an evidence that God means to sanction slavery, and regards it as an institution which he intends should be perpetuated. It is whether one who is a slaveholder in the United States, in the manner in which slavery exists here, is justified in it by the example of the patriarchs.

Now those who make their appeal to the patriarchs, have