Study II.

LESSON I.

As far as men are able to comprehend Jehovah, the wisest, in all ages, have deduced the fact, that God acts; yet, as an essential Being, he is beyond being acted upon.

That which is manifested by the character of his acts is called his attributes; that is, the thing or quality which we attribute to him as a portion or quality of his essence.

Thus among his attributes, are said to be power, wisdom, truth, justice, love, and mercy. His action is always found to be in conformity and accordance to these attributes. This state of conformity, this certainty of unison of action, is called truth. “Thy word is truth.” John xvii. 7.

A system of laws, permanently established for the production of some object, we call an institution.

Law is the history of how things are influenced by one another; yet the mind should never disconnect such influence from the attributes of Jehovah; and hence Burke very properly says, “Law is beneficence acting by rule.” “The law of the Lord is perfect.” Ps. xix. 7. The deduction follows that the laws of God are well adapted, and intended to benefit all those who are suitably related under them.

By relation we mean the connection between things,—what one thing is in regard to the influence of another. And hence it also follows that, in case the relation is in utter want of a conformity to the attributes of Jehovah, the actor in the relation becomes an opponent, and, so far, joins issue with God himself. The laws fitting the case operate, and his position is consumed, as it were, by the breath of the Almighty.

But yet an institution may be a righteous one, may exist in conformity to the laws of God, and particular cases of a relation, seeming to us to emanate from it, be quite the reverse. For example, the institution of marriage may be righteous, may exist in conformity to the laws of God; yet cases of the relation of husband and wife may be a very wicked relation.

Individuals in a relation to each other under an institution are supposed to bear such comparison to each other as will permit the laws of God, influencing the relation, to be beneficial to them; and when such comparative qualities are not the most suitable, or are more or less unsuitable for the relation, the benefits intended by the relation must be proportionably diminished. If wholly unsuitable, then it is found that the conservative influences of the same laws operate in the direction to cause the relation to cease between them.

If a supposed male and female are each distinctly clothed with qualities wholly unsuited to each other in the relation emanating from the institution of marriage, then, in that case, the relation will be sinful between them; and the repulsion, the necessary consequence of a total unsuitableness, will be in constant action in the direction of sweeping it away.

Will it be new in morals to say that it is consistent with the ordinances of Jehovah to bring things into that relation to each other by which they will be mutually benefited?

As an exemplification of the doctrine, we cite the institution of guardianship—guardian and ward; both words derived from the same Saxon root, weardian, which implies one who protects and one who is protected.

The institution itself presupposes power in the one and weakness in the other, a want of equality between the parties. And it may be here remarked, that, the greater the inequality, the greater the prospect of benefit growing out of the relation, especially to the weaker party. But when the weak, ignorant, or wayward youth is the guardian, and the powerful and wise man is the ward, then the relation will be sinful, and the repulsion necessarily emanating from the relation must quickly terminate it. No possible benefit could accrue from such a case—nothing but evil. The conservative influence of God’s providence must, therefore, suddenly bring it to a close.

Will the assertion be odious to the ear of truth, that the laws of God present the same class of conservative influences in the moral world that is every day discovered in the physical?—that the thing manifestly useless, from which no benefit can accrue, but from which a constant injury emanates, shall be cut away, nor longer “cumber the ground?” Or, where a less degree of enormity and sin have centered, it may be placed under influences of guidance, and controlled into the path of regeneration and comparative usefulness? Surely, if we detach from Jehovah these high attributes, we lessen his character.

When we enter into the inquiry, whether an institution, or the relation emanating from it in a particular case, be sinful or not, it seems obvious that the inquiry must reach the object of the institution and its tendencies, and take into consideration how far they, and the relations created by it, coincide with the laws of God.

The relation of master and slave, and the institution of slavery itself, in the inquiry whether such relation or institution is right or wrong, just or unjust, righteous or sinful, must be subjected to a like examination,—applying the same rules applicable to any other relation or institution,—before we can determine whether or not it exists in conformity to the laws of God.

But human reason is truly but of small compass; and the mercy of God has vouchsafed to man the aids of faith and inspiration. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Tim. iii. 16.

These are important aids in the examination of all moral subjects, without which we may be “ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Tim. iii. 7.

LESSON II.

If it be true that slavery is of divine origin, that its design is to prevent so great an accumulation of sin as would, of necessity, force its subjects down to destruction and death, and to restore those who are ignorantly, heedlessly, and habitually rushing on their own moral and physical ruin, by the renovating influence of divine power, to such a state of moral rectitude as may be required of the recipients of divine grace;—then we should expect to find, in the history of this institution, of its effects, both moral and physical, upon its subjects, some manifestations of such tendencies; some general evidences that, through this ordinance, God has ever blessed its subjects and their posterity with an ameliorated condition, progressive in the direction of his great and final purpose. Let us examine that fact.

In the government of the world, God has as unchangeably fixed his laws producing moral influences, as he has those which relate to material objects. When we discover some cause, which, under similar circumstances, always produces a similar result, we need not hesitate to consider such discovery as the revelation of his will, his law touching its action and the effects produced; and by comparing the general tendency of the effect produced with the previously revealed laws and will of God in relation to a particular matter, we are permitted to form some conclusion whether the cause producing the effect exists and acts in conformity with his general providence towards the matter or subject in question. If so, we may readily conclude that such cause is of his appointment, and that it exists and acts agreeably to his will.

But one of the previously revealed laws of God is, that he ever wills the happiness, not the misery, of his creatures. “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked should turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel!” Ezek. xxxiii. 11. And we may form some conclusion of a man, a class of people, or a nation, from their condition produced by the general result of their conduct, whether their conduct has been in general conformity with the laws of God. If the general result of the conduct of the thief, gambler, tippler, and drunkard,—of him who lives by trickery and deception, is an accumulation of weight of character among men, a display of useful industry, independence, and wealth among his associates; if himself and family are thereby made visibly more healthy, happy, and wise,—if by these practices he and his family become patterns of piety and of all noble virtues, he may hope; but if the contrary of all these is the final result, we may safely condemn.

Another of the laws of God is, “Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee.” Jer. ii. 19. When the characters just named become so great a nuisance that the strong arm of the law of the land takes away their liberty, places a master over them, in fact reducing them to slavery; forces and compels them to habits of useful industry, and, in a length of time, makes of them useful and good men,—then this law is exemplified and also the fact is proved, that slavery, thus induced, is attended with and does produce an ameliorated condition as to the morals, and probably as to the intellectual and physical power, of its subjects. This law was also exemplified in the family of Jacob. God, in the order of his providence, had determined and made a covenant with Abraham, to wit: “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the land of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” Gen. xv. 18. This was to be brought about through the family of Jacob. “And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people, and give the blessing of Abraham to thee, and to thy seed with thee, that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.” Gen. xxviii. 3, 4.

There are left us enough traces of the conduct of the family of Jacob, whereby we may know the fact that they, although living in the midst of the promised land, had become incorrigibly wicked and licentious. Judah, who seems to have ranked as the head of the family, notwithstanding the impressive lesson in the case of Esau, took to himself a Canaanitish wife, and his eldest sons became so desperately wicked that, in the language of Scripture, God slew them. Even the salt of slavery could not save them. Of Shelah, we have no further account than that he went into slavery in Egypt. Instead of nurturing up his family with propriety and prudence, Judah seems to have idled away his time with his friend the Adullamite, hunting up the harlots of the country. Reuben committed incest; he went up to his father’s bed. Simeon and Levi, instigated by feelings of revenge in the case of the Hivites, pursued such a course of deception, moral fraud, and murder, leading on the rest of their brethren to such acts of theft and robbery, that Jacob was constrained to say, “Ye have troubled me, to make me stink among the inhabitants of the land.” Gen. xxxiv. 30. Jacob found his children so lost to good morals, so sunken in heathenism and idolatry, that, hoping that a change of abode might also produce a change of conduct, he was impelled to command them, saying, “Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments, and let us arise and go to Bethel, and I will make there an altar unto God.” Gen. xxxv. 2, 3.

And let us take occasion here to notice the long-suffering and loving-kindness of the Lord; for, no sooner had they taken this resolution, than Jehovah, to encourage and make them steadfast in this new attempt in the paths of virtue, again appeared to Jacob:

“And God said unto him, I am God Almighty; a nation, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins. And the land which I gave to Abraham and to Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.” Gen. xxxv. 11, 12.

“But the sow that was washed has returned to her wallowing in the mire.” 2 Pet. ii. 22.

And what is the next prominent state of moral standing in which we find this family? The young and unsuspecting Joseph brought unto his father their evil report, and hence their revenge. “And when they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him. * * * And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver.” Gen. xxxvii. 2, and xviii. 28. And against the deed of fratricide there was but one dissenting voice and he, whose voice it was, dared not boldly to oppose them. He had not the moral courage to contend. Sometimes, in the conduct of men, there may be a single act that gives stronger proof of deep, condemning depravity, than a whole life otherwise spent in wanton, wilful wickedness and sensual sin. Their betrayal of the confidence of an innocent and confiding brother, who neither had the will nor the power to injure them, whose only wish was their welfare, bespeaks a degradation of guilt, a deep and abiding hypocrisy of soul before God and man, and a general readiness to the commission of crimes of so dark a dye, that, it would seem to moral view, no oblations of the good, nor even the prayers of the just, could wash and wipe away the stain. During the history of all time, has God ever chosen such wretches to become the founders of an empire—his own peculiar, chosen people? On the contrary, has not his will, as expressed by revelation, and by the acts of his providence, for ever been the reverse of such a supposition? The laws of God are unchangeable: at all times and among all people, the premises being the same, their operation has been and will ever be the same.

LESSON III.

“Let favour be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord.” Isa. xxvi. 10.

“His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden by the cords of his sins.” Prov. v. 22.

“But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

“Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field; cursed shalt thou be in thy basket and thy store; cursed shall be the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy land; the increase of thy loins, and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in; and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and rebuke in all thou settest thy hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, the way whereof I spake unto thee. Thou shalt see it no more again; and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen (לְעָבְדָֽיםlĕʿobdāym la ebedim, for slaves) and bondwomen (וְלִשְׁפָה֭וֹתwĕlišpāhôt ve lisheppahoth, and for female slaves), and no man shall buy you.” (That is, they should be worthless.) Deut. xxviii. 15–68.

Such, then, are the unchangeable laws of God touching man’s disobedience and non-conformity; and, in this instance of their application, have been seen fulfilled, with wonder and astonishment, by the whole world.

Consistent with the laws of God and the providence of Jehovah, there was no other way to make any thing out of the wicked family of Jacob; no other means to fulfil his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, except to prepare them in the school of adversity; to reduce them under the severe hand of a master; to place them in slavery, until, by its compulsive operation tending to their mental, moral, and physical improvement, they would become fitted to enjoy the blessing promised their fathers. “Compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.” Luke xiv.

“And when the sun was going down a deep sleep fell upon Abraham, and a horror of great darkness fell upon him; and He (the Lord) said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a strange land that is not theirs, and shall serve (וַֽעֲבָד֭וּםwaʿăbādûm va ebadum, shall be slaves to) them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.” Gen. xv. 12, 13.

God foresaw what condition the wicked family of Jacob would force themselves into; nor is it a matter of surprise that it filled the mind of Abram with horror.

God never acts contrary to his own laws. The Israelites, in slavery four hundred years under hard and cruel masters, kept closely bound to severe labour, and all the attendants of slavery, had no time to run into deeper sins. The humility of their condition and distinction of race would be some preventive to amalgamation, and a preservative to their purity of blood; and would lead them also to contemplate and worship the God of Abraham. And let it ever be remembered that the worship of God is the very highway to intellectual, moral, and physical improvement, however slow, under the circumstances, was their progress.

Let us take the family of Jacob, at the time of the selling of Joseph, and, from what their conduct had been and then was, form some conjecture of what would have been the providence of God, touching their race, at the close of the then coming four hundred years, had not the Divine Mind seen fit to send them into slavery. Does it require much intellectual labour to set forth their ultimate condition? Would not the result have been their total annihilation by the action of the surrounding tribes; or their equally certain national extinction by their amalgamation with them? If, by the providence of God, as manifested among men through all time, one of these conditions must have attached to them, then will it follow that, to them, slavery was their salvation,—under the circumstances of the case, the only thing that could preserve them from death and extinction on earth.

Under such view of the facts, and the salvatory influence of the institution, slavery will be hailed by the good, pious, and godly-minded, as an emanation from the Divine Mind, portraying a fatherly care, and a watchful mercy to a fallen world, on a parallel with the general benevolence of that Deity who comprehended his own work, and the welfare of his creatures.

The slavery of the Israelites in Egypt for the term of four hundred years was a sentence pronounced against them by Jehovah himself, who had previously promised them great worldly blessings, preceded by the promise of his own spiritual forbearance, of his own holy mercy, as the ultimate design of his providence towards them. And we now ask him, who denies that the design of this term of slavery was to ameliorate and suitably prepare that wicked race for the reception and enjoyment of the promises made, to extricate himself from the difficulties in which such denial will involve the subject. We are aware that there are a class of men so holy in their own sight, that, from what they say, one might judge they felt capable of dictating to Jehovah rules for his conduct, and that they spurn in him all that which their view does not comprehend. Do such forget, when they stretch forth their hand, imagining God to be that which suits them, but which he is not, that they make an idol, and are as much idolaters as they would be had they substituted wood and stone? Such, God will judge. We have no hope our feeble voice will be heard where the mind is thus established upon the presumption of moral purity—we might say divine foresight. But, by a more humble class, we claim to be heard, that, as mortal men, reasoning by the light it hath pleased God to give, we may take counsel together in the review of his providences, as vouchsafed to man, and, by his blessing be enabled to see enough to justify the ways of the Almighty against the slanders of his and our enemy.

The theological student will notice the fact of the holy books abounding with the doctrine that the chastenings of the Lord operate the moral, mental, and physical improvement of the chastised; and that such chastenings are ever administered for that purpose, and upon those whose sins call it down upon them. “My son, despise not the chastenings of the Lord; neither be weary of correction: for those whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” Prov. iii. 11, 12. “Thus saith the Lord, where is the bill of thy mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.” Isa. l. 1.

The garden of the sluggard produces weeds and want. We know a man of whom it may be said, he is inoffensive; but he is thriftless, indolent, and therefore miserable. He has never learned those virtues that would make him respectable or happy.

LESSON IV.

“Barnes on Slavery. An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery.” By Albert Barnes. Philadelphia, 1846.

In his fourth chapter, on the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt, Rev. Mr. Barnes says—

“The will of God may often be learned from the events of his providence. From his dealings with an individual, a class of men or a nation, we may ascertain whether the course which has been pursued was agreeable to his will. It is not, indeed, always safe to argue that, because calamities come upon an individual, they are sent as a punishment on account of any peculiarly aggravated sin, or that these calamities prove that he is a greater sinner than others;—but when a certain course of conduct always tends to certain results—when there are laws in operation in the moral world as fixed as in the natural world—and when there are, uniformly, either direct or indirect interpositions of Providence in regard to any existing institutions, it is not unsafe to infer from these what is the Divine will. It is not unsafe, for illustration, to argue, from the uniform effects of intemperance, in regard to the will of God. These effects occur in every age of the world, in reference to every class of men. There are no exceptions in favour of kings or philosophers; of the inhabitants of any particular climate or region of country; of either sex, or of any age. The poverty and babbling, and redness of eyes, and disease, engendered by intemperance, may be regarded without danger of error, as expressive of the will of God in reference to that habit. They show that there has been a violation of a great law of our nature, ordained for our good, and that such a violation must always incur the frown of the great Governor of the world. The revelation of the mind of God, in such a case, is not less clear than were the annunciations of his will on Sinai.

“The same is true in regard to cities and nations. We need be in as little danger, in general, in arguing from what occurs to them, as in the case of an individual. There is now no doubt among men why the old world was destroyed by a flood; why Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed; why Tyre, Nineveh, Babylon, and Jerusalem were overthrown. If a certain course of conduct, long pursued and in a great variety of circumstances, leads uniformly to health, happiness, and property, we are in little danger of inferring that it is in accordance with the will of God. If it lead to poverty and tears, we are in as little danger of error in inferring that it is a violation of some great law which God has ordained for the good of man. If an institution among men is always followed by certain results; if we find them in all climes, and under all forms of government, and in every stage of society, it is not unsafe to draw an inference from these facts on the question whether God regards the institution as a good one, and one which he designs shall be perpetuated for the good of society.

“It would be easy to make an application of these undeniable principles to the subject of slavery. The inquiry would be, whether, in certain results, always found to accompany slavery, and now developing themselves in our own country, there are no clear indications of what is the will of God.”

We subscribe to the doctrine that God often reveals his will concerning a thing by the acts of his providence affecting it. But we contend that God has extended the field of Christian vision by a more direct revelation, and by the gift of faith; and that the mind which can neither hear the revelation, nor feel the faith, is merely the mind of a philosopher, not of a Christian: he may be a believer in a God, but not in the Saviour of the world.

The direction contained in the foregoing quotation, by which we are to discriminate what are the will and law of God, may be considered, when presented by the mere teacher of abolition, among the most artful, because among the most insidious, specimens of abolition logic. It is artful, because, to the unschooled, it presents all that may seem necessary in the foundation of a sound system of theology; and, further, because every bias of the human heart is predisposed to receive it as an entire platform of doctrine. It is insidious and dangerous, because, although the mind acquiesces in its truth, yet it is false when proposed as the lone and full foundation of religious belief. On such secret and hidden rocks, infidelity has ever established her lights, her beacons to the benighted voyager; and, in their surrounding seas, the shallops of hell have for ever been the most successful wreckers, in gathering up multitudes of the lost, to be established as faithful subjects of the kingdom of darkness.

The religious fanatical theorists of this order of abolition writers have further only to establish their doctrine about the “conscience,” “inward light,” or “moral sense,”—that it is a distinct mental power, infallibly teaching what is right, intuitively spreading all truth before them,—and they will then succeed to qualify man, a being fit to govern the universe, and successfully carry on a war against God!

The man thus prepared, if an abolitionist, reasons: “My conscience or moral sense teaches me infallible truth; therefore, my conscience is above all law, or is a ‘higher law’ than the law of the land. My conscience, feelings, and sympathies all teach me that slavery is wrong. Thus I have been educated. My conscience or moral sense teaches me what are the laws of God, without possible mistake; and according to their teaching, slavery is forbidden.”

In short, he thinks so; and, therefore, it is so. He “is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.”

But we proceed to notice how the doctrine of the author most distinctly agrees with the precepts of infidelity.

“The deist derives his religion by inference from what he supposes discoverable of the will and attributes of God, from nature, and the course of the Divine government.”Watson’s Theo. Inst. vol. ii. p. 542. This learned theologian differs widely from Mr. Barnes. When treating of slavery, Watson frankly admits that we are indebted to direct revelation for our knowledge on the subject.

In page 556, he says—

“Government in masters, as well as in fathers, is an appointment of God, though differing in circumstances; and it is therefore to be honoured. ‘Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honour;’ a direction which enjoins both respectful thoughts and humility and propriety of external demeanour towards them. Obedience to their commands in all things lawful is next enforced; which obedience is to be grounded on principle, on ‘singleness of heart as unto Christ;’ thus serving a master with the same sincerity, the same desire to do the appointed work well, as is required of us by Christ. This service is also to be cheerful, and not wrung out merely by a sense of duty; ‘not with eye-service as men-pleasers;’ not having respect simply to the approbation of the master, but ‘as the servant of Christ,’ making profession of his religion, ‘doing the will of God,’ in this branch of duty, ‘from the heart,’ with alacrity and good feeling. The duties of servants, stated in these brief precepts, might easily be shown to comprehend every particular which can be justly required of persons in this station; and the whole is enforced by a sanction which could have no place but in a revelation from God,—‘Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.’ Eph. vi. 5. In other words, even the common duties of servants, when faithfully, cheerfully, and piously performed, are by Christianity made rewardable actions: ‘Of the Lord ye shall receive a reward.’

“The duties of servants and masters are, however, strictly reciprocal. Hence, the apostle continues his injunctions as to the right discharge of these relations, by saying, immediately after he had prescribed the conduct of servants, ‘And ye masters, do the same things unto them;’ that is, act towards them upon the same equitable, conscientious, and benevolent principles as you exact from them. He then grounds his rules, as to masters, upon the great and influential principle, ‘knowing that your Master is in heaven;’ that you are under authority, and are accountable to him for your conduct to your servants. Thus masters are put under the eye of God, who not only maintains their authority, when properly exercised, by making their servants accountable for any contempt of it, and for every other failure of duty, but holds the master also himself responsible for its just and mild exercise. A solemn and religious aspect is thus at once given to a relation which by many is considered as one merely of interest.”

“All the distinctions of good and evil refer to some principle above ourselves; for, were there no Supreme Governor and Judge to reward and punish, the very notions of good and evil would vanish away.” Ellis on Divine Things.

The qualities good and evil can only exist in the mind as they are measured by a supreme law. “If we deny the existence of a Divine law obligatory on men, we must deny that the world is under Divine government, for a government without rule or law is a solecism.” Watson’s Theo. Inst. vol. i. p. 8.

Divine laws must be the subject of revelation. The law of a visible power cannot be known without some indications, much less the will of an invisible power, and that, too, of an order of existence so far above our own that even its mode is beyond our comprehension. Very true, the providence of God towards any particular course of conduct may be taken as the revelation of his will thus far, but, by no means, preclude the necessity of a more direct revelation, until man shall be able to boast that he comprehends the entire works of Jehovah.

The difference between the Christian and the mere theist is, while the latter admits that a revelation of the will of God is or has been made by significant actions, he contends that is a sufficient revelation of the laws of God for the guidance of man. “They who never heard of any external revelation, yet if they knew from the nature of things what is fit for them to do, they know all that God can or will require of them.” Christianity as Old as Creation, p. 233.

“By employing our reason to collect the will of God from the fund of our nature, physical and moral, we may acquire not only a particular knowledge of those laws, which are deducible from them, but a general knowledge of the manner in which God is pleased to exercise his supreme powers in this system.” Bolingbroke’s Works, vol. v. p. 100.

“But they who believe the holy Scriptures contain a revelation of God’s will, do not deny that indications of his will have been made by actions; but they contend that they are in themselves imperfect and insufficient, and that they were not designed to supersede a direct revelation. They also hold, that a direct communication of the Divine will was made to the progenitors of the human race, which received additions at subsequent periods, and that the whole was at length embraced in the book called, by way of eminence, the Bible.” Watson’s Theo. Inst. vol. i. p. 10.

Faith “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. xi. 1.

As an instance of revelation, we present Lev. xxv. 1, and 44, 45, 46.

“And the Lord spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai, saying: Both thy bondmen and bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.”

“Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.”

“And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour.”

Here is direct revelation, and faith gives us evidence of the truth of its being of Divine origin.

Mr. Barnes proposes, by human reason, without the aid of revelation and faith, to determine what is the will of God on the subject of slavery; and it suggests the inquiry, How extensive must be the intellectual power of him who can reason with God? “For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment; neither is any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.” Job ix. 32, 33.

We frankly acknowledge, that, in the investigation of this subject, we shall consider the Divine authority of those writings, which are received by Christians as a revelation of infallible truth, as so established; and, with all simplicity of mind, examine their contents, and collect from them the information they profess to contain, and concerning which information it had become necessary that the world should be experimentally instructed.

But the passage quoted from Mr. Barnes gives us a stronger suspicion of his want of orthodoxy and Christian principle from its connection with what he says, page 310:

“If the religion of Christ allows such a license” (to hold slaves) “from such precepts as these, the New Testament would be the greatest curse ever inflicted on our race.”

The fact is, little can be known of God or his law except by faith and revelation. Beings whose mental powers are not infinite can never arrive at a knowledge of all things, nor can we know any thing fully, only in proportion as we comprehend the laws influencing it. In conformity to the present limited state of our knowledge, we can only say, that we arrive at some little, by three distinct means: the senses open the door to a superficial perception of things; the mental powers to their further examination; while faith gives us a view of the superintending control of One Almighty God.

In the proportion our senses are defective, our mental powers deficient, and our faith inactive or awry,—our knowledge will be scanty. The result of all knowledge is the perception of truth. Under the head of the mental powers, philosophers tell us our knowledge is acquired by three methods: intuition, demonstration, and analogy. By intuition they mean when the mind perceives a certainty in a proposition where the relation is obvious, as it is obvious that the whole is greater than a part; and such propositions they call axioms.

When the relation of things is not thus obvious, that is, when the proposition involves the determination of the relation between two or more things whose relations are not intuitively perceived, the mind may sometimes come to a certainty, concerning the relation, by the interposition of a chain of axioms; that is, of propositions where the relations are intuitively perceived. This is called demonstration.

In all such cases, the mind would perceive the relation, and come to a certainty intuitively, if adequately cultivated and enlarged; or, in other words, all propositions that now, to us, require demonstration, would, to such a cultivation, become mere axioms: consequently, now, where one man sees a mere axiom, another requires demonstration.

But the great mass of our ideas are too imperfect or too complicated to admit of intuitive conclusions; consequently, as to them, we can never arrive at demonstration. Here we substitute facts; and reason, that, as heretofore one certain fact has accompanied another certain fact, so it will be hereafter. This is what the philosophers call analogy. Analogy is thus founded on experience, and is, therefore, far less perfect than intuition or demonstration. That gravitation will always continue is analogical; we do not know it intuitively; nor can we demonstrate it. Analogical propositions are, therefore, to us mere probabilities.

But our knowledge has cognizance of ideas only. These ideas we substitute for the things they represent, in which there is a liability to err. Thus a compound idea is an assemblage of the properties of a thing, and may be incomplete and inadequate; wholly different from any quality in the thing itself. What is our idea of spirit, colour, joy? Yet we may conceive an intelligence so extended as to admit that even analogical problems should become intuitive: with God every thing is intuitively known. But even intuitive propositions sometimes reach beyond our comprehension. Example—a line of infinite length can have no end: therefore, the half of an infinite line would be a line also of infinite length. But all lines of infinite length are of equal length; therefore, the half of an infinite line is equal to the whole. Such fallacies prove that human reason is quite limited and liable to err: and hence the importance of faith in God, in the steadfastness of his laws, and the certainty of their operations. “And Jesus answering said unto them, have faith in God.” Mark xi. 22. “And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.” Acts xiv. 27. “So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans x. 17. That is, by revelation. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. xi. 1. “But without faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Heb. xi. 6. “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead.” James ii. 17. “And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be; for they are a very froward generation, children in whom there is no faith.” Deut. xxxii. 20. To which add Romans xii. 3.

These passages seem to imply an unchangeable reliance on faith and revelation for all knowledge of God, his laws, and our peace hereafter; and we do feel the most heartfelt regret to see those who claim to be religious teachers, laying the foundation for the most gross infidelity.

LESSON V.

On page 6, Mr. Barnes says—

“The work” (his own) “which is now submitted to the public, is limited to an examination of the Scripture argument on the subject of slavery.”

Now, if it shall appear that his exertion has universally been to gloss over the Scripture, or strain it into some meaning favourable to abolition, and adverse to its rational and obvious interpretation, the mind will be forced to the conclusion, that his real object has been to hide the “Scripture argument,” and to limit his researches by what he may deem to be sound reason and philosophy; and let it be remembered that such has been the constant practice or every infidel writer, who has ever attempted to reconcile his own peculiar theories to the teachings of the holy books.

“And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.” Gen. xii. 5.

“And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and he-asses, and men-servants (וַֽעַבָדִיםwaʿabādîm va abadim, male slaves), and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹתûšĕpāḥōt vu shephahoth, female slaves), and she-asses and camels.” xii. 16. “But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid (שִׁפְחָהֵךְšipḥāhēk shiphhathek, female slave) is in thy hand; do unto her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly by her, she fled from her face. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid (שִׁפְחַ֥תšipḥat shiphhath, female slave), whence camest thou and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai; and the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress and submit thyself unto her hands.” Gen. xvi. 6–9.

“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant.” * * * “This is my covenant.” * * * “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” Gen. xvii. 9, 10, 12, 13. “And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.” Ver. 27.

“And Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men-servants (וַ֥עֲבָדִיםwaʿăbādîm va abadim, male slaves), and women-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹ֔תûšĕpāḥōt vu shephhahoth, female slaves), and gave them unto Abraham.” Gen. xx. 14.

“Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out the bond-woman, and her son. For the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And God said unto Abraham, let it not be grievous in thy sight, because of the lad, and because of thy bond-woman.” * * * “And also of the son of the bond-woman I will make a nation, because he is of thy seed.” Gen. xxi. 10, 12, 13.

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was after the flesh, but he of the free-woman was by promise; nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman.” Gal. iv. 22, 23, 30.

“And he said, I am Abraham’s servant (עֶ֥בֶדʿebed ebed, male slave), and the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and man-servants (וַֽעֲבָד֭יִִםwaʿăbādyiim va abadim, and male slaves), and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹ֔תûšĕpāḥōt vu shephahoth, and female slaves), and camels and asses.” Gen. xxiv. 34, 35.

“And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants (וַֽעֲבֻדָּ֖הּwaʿăbuddāh va abudda, of slaves), and the Philistines envied him.” Gen. xxvi. 13, 14.

“And the man (Jacob) increased exceedingly, and he had much cattle, and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחוֹתûšĕpāḥôt vu shephahoth, and female slaves,) and men-servants (וַֽעֲבָדִיםwaʿăbādîm va abadim, and male slaves), and camels and asses.” Gen. xxx. 43.

“And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and men-servants (וְעֶ֣בֶדwĕʿebed ve ebed, and male slaves), and women-servants (וְשִׁפְחָ֑הwĕšipḥâ ve shiphha, and female slaves). And I have sent to tell my lord that I may find grace in thy sight.” Gen. xxxii. 5.

Let us now notice how Mr. Barnes treats the records here quoted. He says, page 70—

“Some of the servants held by the patriarchs were ‘bought with money.’ Much reliance is laid on this by the advocates of slavery, in justifying the purchase, and consequently, as they seem to reason, the sale of slaves now; and it is, therefore, of importance, to inquire, how far the fact stated is a justification of slavery as it exists at present. But one instance occurs, in the case of the patriarchs, where it is said that servants were ‘bought with money.’ This is the case of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 12, 13. ‘And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed; he that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.’ Compare verses 23, 27. This is the only instance in which there is mention of the fact that any one of the patriarchs had persons in their employment who were bought with money. The only other case which occurs at that period of the world is that of the sale of Joseph, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to the Egyptians—a case which, it is believed, has too close a resemblance to slavery as it exists in our own country, ever to be referred to with much satisfaction by the advocates of the system. In the case, moreover, of Abraham, it should be remembered that it is the record of a mere fact. There is no command to buy servants or to sell them, or to hold them as property—any more than there was a command to the brethren of Joseph to enter in to a negotiation for the sale of their brother. Nor is there any approbation expressed of the fact that they were bought; unless the command given to Abraham to affix to them the seal of the covenant, and to recognise them as brethren in the faith which he held, should be construed as such evidence of approval.

“The inquiry then presents itself, whether the fact that they were bought determines any thing with certainty in regard to the nature of the servitude, or to the propriety of slavery as practised now. The Hebrew, in the passages referred to in Genesis, is ‘the born in thy house, and the purchase of silver,’ מִקְנַה־כֶּסֶףmiqna-kesep— mi knath keseph—not incorrectly rendered, ‘those bought with money.’ The verb קָנָהqānâ kânâ, from which the noun here is derived, and which is commonly used in the Scriptures when the purchase of slaves is referred to, means to set upright or erect, to found or create. Gen. xiv. 19, 22. Deut. xxxii. 6; to get for oneself, to gain or acquire. Prov. iv. 7, xv. 32; to obtain, Gen. iv. 1; and to buy, or purchase, Gen. xxv. 10; xlvii. 22. In this latter sense it is often used, and with the same latitude of signification as the word buy or purchase is with us. It is most commonly rendered by the words buy and purchase in the Scriptures. See Gen. xxv. 10; xlvii. 22; xlix. 30; 1. 13; Josh. xxiv. 32; 2 Sam. xii. 3; Ps. lxxviii. 54; Deut. xxxii. 6; Lev. xxvii. 24, and very often elsewhere. It is applied to the purchase of fields, of cattle, of men, and of every thing which was or could be regarded as property. As there is express mention of silver or money in the passage before us respecting the servants of Abraham, there is no doubt that the expression means that he paid a price for a part of his servants. A part of them were ‘born in his house;’ a part had been ‘bought with money’ from ‘strangers,’ or were foreigners.

“But still, this use of the word in itself determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which they were held, or the nature of the servitude to which they were subjected. It does not prove that they were regarded as property in the sense in which a slave is now regarded as a chattel; nor does it demonstrate that the one who was bought ceased to be regarded altogether as a man; or that it was regarded as right to sell him again. The fact that he was to be circumcised as one of the family of Abraham, certainly does not look as if he ceased to be regarded as a man.

“The word rendered buy or purchase in the Scriptures, is applied to so many kinds of purchases, that no safe argument can be founded on its use in regard to the kind of servitude which existed in the time of Abraham. A reference to a few cases where this word is used, will show that nothing is determined by it respecting the tenure by which the thing purchased was held. (1.) It is used in the common sense of the word purchase as applied to inanimate things, where the property would be absolute. Gen. xlii. 2, 7; xliii. 20; xlvii. 19; xxx. 19. (2.) It is applied to the purchase of cattle, where the property may be supposed to be as absolute. See Gen. xlvi. 22, 24; iv. 20; Job xxxvi. 33; Deut. iii. 19; and often, (3.) God is represented as having bought his people; that is, as having ransomed them with a price, or purchased them to himself. Deut. xxxii. 6: ‘Is he not thy Father that hath bought thee?’ קָּנֶךָqānekā—kânĕkhâ, thy purchaser. Exod. xv. 16: ‘By the greatness of thine arm they shall be still as a stone, till thy people pass over; till the people pass over which thou hast purchased,’ קָנִיהָqānîhā,kânithâ. See Ps. lxxiv. 2. Compare Isa. xliii. 3: ‘I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.’ But though the word purchase is used in relation to the redemption of the people of God, the very word which is used respecting the servants of Abraham, no one will maintain that they were held as slaves, or regarded as property. Who can tell but what Abraham purchased his servants in some such way, by redeeming them from galling captivity? May they not have been prisoners in war, to whom he did an inestimable service in rescuing them from a condition of grievous and hopeless bondage? May they not have been slaves in the strict and proper sense, and may not his act of purchasing them have been, in fact, a species of emancipation in a way similar to that in which God emancipates his people from the galling servitude of sin? The mere act of paying a price for them no more implies that he continued to hold them as slaves, than it does now when a man purchases his wife or child who have been held as slaves, or than the fact that God has redeemed his people by a price, implies that he regards them as slaves. (4.) Among the Hebrews a man might sell himself, and this transaction on the part of him to whom he sold himself would be represented by the word bought. Thus, in Lev. xxv. 47, 48: ‘And if a sojourner or a stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family, after that he is sold, he may be redeemed again.’ This transaction is represented as a purchase. Ver. 50: ‘And he shall reckon with him that bought him, (Heb. his purchaser, קֹנֵהוּqōnēhû konaihū), from the year that he was sold unto the year of jubilee,’ &c. This was a mere purchase of time or service. It gave no right to sell the man again, or to retain him in any event beyond a certain period, or to retain him at all, if his friends chose to interpose and redeem him. It gave no right of property in the man, any more than the purchase of the unexpired time of an apprentice, or the ‘purchase’ of the poor in the State of Connecticut does. In no proper sense of the word could this be called slavery. (5.) The word buy or purchase was sometimes applied to the manner in which a wife was procured. Thus Boaz is represented as saying that he had bought Ruth. ‘Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased (קָנִיהִיqānîhî kânithi) to be my wife.’ Here the word applied to the manner in which Abraham became possessed of his servants, is applied to the manner in which a wife was procured. So Hosea says, (ch. iii. 2,) ‘So I bought her to me (another word, however, being used in the Hebrew, כָּרָהkārâ kârâ) for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley.’ Jacob purchased his wives, Leah and Rachel, not indeed by the payment of money, but by labour. Gen. xxix. 15–23. That the practice of purchasing a wife, or paying a dowry for her, was common, is apparent from Exod. xxii. 17; 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Compare Judg. i. 12, 13. Yet it will not be maintained that the wife among the Hebrews, was in any proper sense a slave, or that she was regarded as subject to the laws which regulate property, or that the husband had a right to sell her again. In a large sense, indeed, she was regarded, as the conductors of the Princeton Repertory (1836, p. 293) allege, as the wife is now, as the property of her husband; that is, she was his to the exclusion of the claim of any other man; but she was his as his wife, not as his slave. (6.) The word ‘bought’ occurs in a transaction between Joseph and the people of Egypt in such a way as farther to explain its meaning. When, during the famine, the money of the Egyptians had failed, and Joseph had purchased all the land, the people proposed to become his servants. When the contract was closed, Joseph said to them, ‘Behold, I have bought you —קָנִ֨יהִיqānîhî— and your land for Pharaoh.’ Gen. xlvii. 23. The nature of this contract is immediately specified. They were to be regarded as labouring for Pharaoh. The land belonged to him, and Joseph furnished the people seed, or ‘stocked the land,’ and they were to cultivate it on shares for Pharaoh. The fifth part was to be his, and the other four parts were to be theirs. There was a claim on them for labour, but it does not appear that the claim extended farther. No farmers who now work land on shares would be willing to have their condition described as one of slavery.

“The conclusion which we reach from this examination of the words buy and bought as applied to the case of Abraham is, that the use of the word determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which his servants were held. They may have been purchased from those who had taken them as captives in war, and the purchase may have been regarded by themselves as a species of redemption, or a most desirable rescue from the fate which usually attends such captives—perchance from death. The property which it was understood that he had in them may have been merely property in their time, and not in their persons; or the purchase may have amounted in fact to every thing that is desirable in emancipation; and, from any thing implied in the word, their subsequent service in the family of Abraham may have been entirely voluntary. It is a very material circumstance, also, that there is not the slightest evidence that either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob ever sold a slave, or offered one for sale, or regarded them as liable to be sold. There is no evidence that their servants even descended as a part of an inheritance from father to son. So far, indeed, as the accounts in the Scriptures go, it would be impossible to prove that they would not have been at liberty at any time to leave their masters, if they had chosen to do so. The passage, therefore, which says that Abraham had ‘servants bought with money,’ cannot be adduced to justify slavery as it exists now—even if this were all that we know about it. But (4.) servitude in the days of Abraham must have existed in a very mild form, and have had features which slavery by no means has now. Almost the only transaction which is mentioned in regard to the servants of Abraham, is one which could never occur in the slave-holding parts of our country. A marauding expedition of petty kings came from the north and east, and laid waste the country around the vale of Siddim, near to which Abraham lived, and, among other spoils of battle, they carried away Lot and his possessions. Abraham, it is said, then ‘armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan,’ and rescued the family of Lot and his goods. Gen. xiv. This narrative is one that must for ever show that servitude, as it existed in the family of Abraham, was a very different thing from what it is in the United States. The number was large, and it does not appear that any persons but his servants accompanied Abraham. They all were armed. They were led off on a distant expedition, where there could have been no power in Abraham to preserve his life, if they had chosen to rise up against him, and no power to recover them, if they had chosen to set themselves free. Yet he felt himself entirely safe when accompanied with this band of armed men, and when far away from his family and his home. What must have been the nature of servitude, where the master was willing to arm such a company, to put himself entirely at their disposal, and lead them off to a distant land?

“Compare this with the condition of things in the United States. Here, it is regarded as essential to the security of the life of the master that slaves shall never be intrusted with arms. ‘A slave is not allowed to keep or carry a weapon.’^[A] ‘He cannot go from the tenement of his master, or other person with whom he lives, without a pass, or something to show that he is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer.’^[B] ‘For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or shot, or club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave incurs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice of the peace;’^[C] and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, without a conviction by the justice.^[D] Here, there is every precaution from laws, and from the dread of the most fearful kind of punishment, against the escape of slaves. Here, there is a constant apprehension that they may rise against their masters, and every security is taken against their organization and combination. Here, there is probably not a single master who would, if he owned three hundred slaves, dare to put arms in their hands, and lead them off on an expedition against a foe. If the uniform precautions and care at the South against arming the slaves, or allowing them to become acquainted with their own strength, be any expression of the nature of the system, slavery in the United States is a very different thing from servitude in the time of Abraham; and it does not prove that in the species of servitude existing here it is right to refer to the case of Abraham, and to say that it is ‘a good patriarchal system.’ Let the cases be made parallel before the names of the patriarchs are called in to justify the system. But—

“(5.) What real support would it furnish to the system, even if it were true that the cases were wholly parallel? How far would it go to demonstrate that God regards it as a good system, and one that is to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach its highest possible elevation? Who would undertake to vindicate all the conduct of the patriarchs, or to maintain that all which they practised was in accordance with the will of God? They practised concubinage and polygamy. Is it therefore certain that this was the highest and purest state of society, and that it was a state which God designed should be perpetuated? Abraham and Isaac were guilty of falsehood and deception, (Gen. xx. 2, seq.; xxvi. 7;) Jacob secured the birthright by a collusive fraud between him and his mother, (Gen. xxvii.) and obtained no small part of his property by cunning, (Gen. xxx. 36–43,) and Noah was drunk with wine, (Gen. ix. 21;) and these things are recorded merely as facts, without any decided expression of disapprobation; but is it therefore to be inferred that they had the approbation of God, and that they are to be practised still, in order to secure the highest condition of society?

“Take the single case of polygamy. Admitting that the patriarchs held slaves, the argument in favour of polygamy, from their conduct, would be, in all its main features, the same as that which I suggested, in the commencement of this chapter, as employed in favour of slavery. The argument would be this:—That they were good men, the ‘friends of God,’ and that what such men practised freely cannot be wrong; that God permitted this; that he nowhere forbade it; that he did not record his disapprobation of the practice; and that whatever God permitted in such circumstances, without expressing his disapprobation, must be regarded as in itself a good thing, and as desirable to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach the highest point of elevation. It is perfectly clear that, so far as the conduct of the patriarchs goes, it would be just as easy to construct an argument in favour of polygamy as in favour of slavery—even on the supposition that slavery existed then essentially as it does now. But it is not probable that polygamy would be defended now as a good institution, and as one that has the approbation of God, even by those who defend the domestic institutions of the South.' The truth is, that the patriarchs were good men in their generation, and, considering their circumstances, were men eminent for piety. But they were imperfect men; they lived in the infancy of the world; they had comparatively little light on the subjects of morals and religion; and it is a very feeble argument which maintains that a thing is right, because any one or all of the patriarchs practised it.

“But after all, what real sanction did God ever give either to polygamy or to servitude, as it was practised in the time of the patriarchs? Did he command either? Did he ever express approbation of either? Is there an instance in which either is mentioned with a sentiment of approval? The mere record of actual occurrences, even if there is no declared disapprobation of them, proves nothing as to the Divine estimate of what is recorded. There is a record of the ‘sale’ of Joseph into servitude, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to Potiphar. There is no expression of disapprobation. There is no exclamation of surprise or astonishment, as if a deed of enormous wickedness were done, when brothers sold their own brother into hopeless captivity. This was done also by those who were subsequently reckoned among the ‘patriarchs,’ and some of whom at the time were probably pious men. Will it be inferred that God approved this transaction; that he meant to smile on the act, when brothers sell their own brothers into hopeless bondage? Will this record be adduced to justify kidnapping, or the acts of parents in barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws of their nature, sell their own children? Will the record that the Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, or buy them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold into hopeless bondage! Why then should the fact that there is a record that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any expressed disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of society? The truth is, that the mere record of a fact, even without any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a record? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of future ages? Are we to maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good of mankind? Shall the biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and Alexander VI., and Cæsar Borgia be held responsible for approving of all that these men did, or of commending their example to the imitation of mankind? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus judged. Why then shall we infer that God approved of all that the patriarchs did, even when there is no formal approbation expressed; or infer, because such transactions have been recorded, that therefore they are right in his sight?”

Does the mind hesitate as to the design of this laboured and lengthy argument? That its object is to do away, to destroy the scriptural force of the facts stated in these records? Does not this argument substantially deny that Abraham had slaves bought with money? And even if he did have them, then that it was just as wicked at that time as he thinks it to be now? Or, if he shall thus far fail, then to bring down the characters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a level with Nero, Caligula, Richard III., and Cæsar Borgia? And the holy books themselves to the standard of Herodotus, Tacitus, and Livy; and inure our mind to compare them with the writings of Hume and Gibbon?

The writer who lessens our veneration for the characters of the ancient worshippers of Jehovah; who, as by a system of special pleading, attempts to overspread the simple announcements of the holy books with doubt and uncertainty, however conscientious he may be in these labours of his hand, while he assumes a most awful responsibility to God, must ever call down upon himself the universal and determined opposition of the intelligent and good among men.

The more secret, the more adroit the application of the poison, the more intensely wicked is the hand that presents it.

LESSON VI.

Mr. Barnes has devoted twenty-four pages of his book to the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt, wherein we find no instance that his test is applied with either fairness of deduction or logical accuracy. Indeed, so far as our limited capacity can trace his application to the test, he has made but two points:

I. After repeated judgments upon the Egyptians, for hesitating to set the Hebrews free, God, in his providence, effected their deliverance from slavery. Therefore, we are to infer the indignation of God against the institution of slavery. What were the facts of the case? On account of their sins rendering them unfit for the blessings promised their fathers, God imposed on them slavery four hundred years,—at the expiration of which time he delivered them from it. When a free negro becomes a public nuisance, the court will give judgment that he shall be sold to be a slave five years. The term having expired, if the purchaser holds on, and refuses to let him go, the same court will interfere, set him free, and impose heavy penalties on the master. Does the case show that the court feels indignation against the institution of slavery? We think it proves exactly the opposite!

If the four hundred years of slavery operated to fit the Hebrews for the reception of the blessing; if the five years of slavery re-fitted the negro for the rational enjoyment of liberty, we think the providence of God places the institution of slavery in a valuable point of light.

II. In this review of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt, Mr. Barnes has noticed the fact of their rapid increase, to the extent of their becoming dangerous to the Egyptian government; and he has compared it with the more rapid increase of the slaves over the whites in the Slave States; and suggests a similar danger to the government of the United States,—adding, that such increase “can be arrested by nothing but emancipation.” Now all this may be true; but in what light does it show forth the institution of slavery? Does Mr. Barnes really mean to say, what is the fact, that the condition of slavery is so well adapted to the negro race, that, by it, their comforts, peace of mind, and general happiness are made so certain and well-secured to them, that they increase rapidly? And that, as they are a race of people whom we do not desire to bear rule over us, or become more numerous than they now are, it would be good policy, and he desires, to set them free, in order that they may be deprived of their present comforts, peace of mind, and happiness, with the view to lessen their increase, and waste them away? If such really be his view, we may regard it as an extraordinary instance of his Christian counsel, and form some idea of what he would be as a slave-holder. But the same increase of the slaves happened in Egypt in a different age, and in reference to a different class of men; nor could any exertion correct it. We may apply the test, and safely infer, that God smiles on the institution of slavery.

There is, in this chapter on the slavery of the Hebrews, an allusion made to the States of Ohio and Kentucky, (see page 102;) the one represented as “adorned with smiling villages, and cottages, and churches, and the aspect of neatness, thrift, and order;” and that the other wears “the aspect of ignorance, irreligion, neglect, and desolation;” and that the reason of the difference is, because “God smiles upon the free State, and frowns upon the one where slavery exists.”

We do not deem it necessary to question or even examine the correctness of the view of Kentucky, as presented to us by Mr. Barnes: so far as the argument is concerned, we will take it as established. If the institution of slavery is of Divine origin, or if we are to form a notion of the will of God respecting it from his providences affecting the institution, we must keep our eye upon the subject of slavery, not upon those otherwise conditioned. We must look to the slave in Kentucky, and compare his conditions there with his conditions in a state of freedom; and Mr. Barnes has furnished us with data, proving that in Kentucky the slaves are in a rapid state of propagation and increase.

Page 95, he says—“The whites were to the slaves—

In 1790. In 1840.

North Carolina, 2.80 to 1 1.97 to 1

South Carolina, 1.31 ” 1 79 ” 1

Georgia, 1.76 ” 1 1.44 ” 1

Tennessee, 13.35 ” 1 3.49 ” 1

Kentucky, 5.16 ” 1 3.23 ” 1

“From this it is apparent that, in spite of all the oppressions and cruelties of slavery, of all the sales that are effected, of all the removals to Liberia, and of all the removals by the escape of the slaves, there is a regular gain of the slave population over the free in the slave-holding States. No oppression prevents it here more than it did in Egypt, and there can be no doubt whatever that, unless slavery shall be arrested in some way, the increase is so certain that the period is not far distant when, in all the Slave States, the free whites will be far in the minority. At the first census, taken in 1790, in every Slave State there was a very large majority of whites. At the last census, in 1840, the slaves out-numbered the whites in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The tendency of this, from causes which it would be easy to state, can be arrested by nothing but emancipation.”

But Mr. Barnes does not state what those causes are; and will he acknowledge that they really are what we have before stated? So far as these facts teach any thing, it is that God smiles on the institution of slavery. Let it be true, as Mr. Barnes says it is, that Ohio exhibits a state of prosperity, and Kentucky a state of “desolation,”—the legitimate deduction is, that those, having the direction and government of affairs in Ohio are wiser and more intelligent than those of the same class in Kentucky. We shall leave all further view of the matter to Mr. Barnes and the people of Kentucky.

The four hundred years of slavery in Egypt were not a sentence on the Hebrews for the especial benefit of the Egyptians, but for that of the Hebrews themselves. The court did not sentence the free negro, who had become a nuisance, to five years of slavery, for the especial benefit of the purchaser, but for the prospect of amelioration in the negro himself. The races of Ham were not made subject to slavery for the especial benefit of Shem and Japheth; but because, in such slavery, their condition would be more elevated, and better, than in a state of freedom. The slave-owner may be very wicked, and God may destroy him for his wickedness, and yet his merciful designs, by the institution of slavery, not be affected thereby. An eastern monarch, determined to destroy his minister, sent him a present of a thousand slaves and a hundred elephants. The minister dared not refuse the present; but not being able profitably to employ them, was ruined. But the condition of the slave and the elephant was not injured. The poor-house was not made for the especial benefit of its keeper, but for its subjects.

LESSON VII.

The benefit of the slave-owner depends on a different principle, upon the wisdom, propriety, and prudence with which he governs and manages his slaves. If he neglect their morals, suffering them to become idle, runaways, dissolute, thieves, robbers, and committers of crime, he is made, to some extent, responsible; or if he neglect to supply suitable clothing, food, and medicine, attention in sickness, and all other necessary protection, he is liable to great loss; his profit may be greatly diminished; or, if he abuse his slave with untoward cruelty, he may render him less fit for labour,—may destroy him altogether; or the law may set in, and compel the slave to be sold to a less cruel master. The interest of the master has become protection to the slave; and this principle holds good in all countries, in all ages, and among all men. But it is yet said, that there are men who most outrageously abuse, and sometimes kill their slaves. Very true and because some men do the same to their wives, is it any argument against marriage? It proves that there are men who are not fit to be slave-owners. And what is the providence of God, as generally manifested, in these cases? That such husband does not enjoy the full blessing designed by the institution of marriage; or such marriage is, in some way, shortly set aside. That such slave-owner does not enjoy the full benefit a different course would insure to him; or, in some way, he is made to cease being a slave-owner. Such instances are most direct and powerful manifestations against the abuses,—not of the institution itself.

But God has not left his displeasure of the abuses of slavery to be found out by our poor, dim, mortal eyes; by our weak view of his manifestations. He made direct laws on the subject.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkā abeddeka, male slave,) nor thy maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָֽתֶךָwaʾămātekā va amatheka, nor thy female slave), nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” Exod. xx. 10.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant (וְעַבְדְּךָׄwĕʿabdĕkā ve abeddeka, male slave), nor thy maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָחֶךָwaʾămāḥekā va amatheka, female slave), nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkā abeddeka, male slave) and thy maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָֽתֶךָwaʾămātekā va amatheka, female slave) may rest as well as thou.” Deut. v. 14.

But we find laws correcting abuses of quite a different nature; abuses that grow out of the perverse nature of man towards his fellow-man of equal grade, touching their mutual rights in property:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man-servant (וְעַבְדּ֤וֹwĕʿabdô ve abeddo, male slave), nor his maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָתוֹwaʾămāhô va amatho, female slave), nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Exod. xx. 17.

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant (וְעַבְדּ֤וֹwĕʿabdô ve abeddo, male slave), or his maid-servant: (וַאֲמָתוֹwaʾămātô va amatho, female slave), his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Deut. v. 21—the 18th of the Hebrew text.

It does appear to us that these statutes speak volumes—portraying the providences of God, and his design in regard to the institutions of slavery. The word covet, as here used, as well as its original, implies that action of the mind which reaches to the possession of the thing ourselves, and to the depriving of our neighbour, without a glimpse at the idea of payment, reciprocity, or compromise; consequently, it is the exact action of mind, which, when cultivated into physical display, makes a man a thief. The command forbids that the mind shall be thus exercised, for the command only reaches to the exercise of the mind; an exercise, which, from the very nature of it, must for ever draw us deeper into crime. It is a command that well comes to us from Jehovah direct, because it is a command that man could never enforce: the individual, and Jehovah alone, can only and surely tell when it is broken. But it may be broken in various ways; it may be broken by writing books persuading others that it is no crime, that it is even praiseworthy, by any other course of conduct, to weaken the tenure of the proprietor in the property named.

“But fools do sometimes fearless tread,

Where angels dare not even look!”

We hold the doctrine good that, whenever we find that the providence of God frowns upon the abuse of a thing, such abuse is contrary to his law. So, also, the doctrine is indisputably true that all laws, all providences against the abuse of a thing, necessarily become laws and providences for the protection of the thing itself; consequently, it always follows that they contemplate protection.

Mr. Barnes compares the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt to the condition of slavery in the United States, and complains of the harsh treatment of the slaves in the latter country. See p. 92:

“Preventing the slaves from being taught to read and write; prohibiting, as far as possible, all knowledge among themselves of their own numbers and strength; forbidding all assemblages, even for worship, where there might be danger of their becoming acquainted with their own strength, and of forming plans for freedom; enacting laws of excessive severity against those who run away from their masters; appointing severe and disgraceful punishments, either with or without the process of law, for those who are suspected of a design to inform the slaves that they are men and that they have the rights of human beings; and solemnly prohibiting the use of arms among the slaves, designed to prevent their rising upon their masters, or ‘joining themselves to an enemy to fight against their masters,’ and ‘getting up out of the land.’”

We did suppose from this passage that Mr. Barnes might desire us to lie down, and let the slaves kill or make slaves of us. But he has presented us with his cure for all these wrongs on pages 383, 384. He says—

“Now here, I am persuaded, is a wise model for all other denominations of Christian men, and the true idea of all successful efforts for the removal of this great evil from the land. Let all the evangelical denominations but follow the simple example of the Quakers in this country, and slavery would soon come to an end. There is not power of numbers and influence out of the church to sustain it. Let every denomination in the land detach itself from all connection with slavery, without saying a word against others; let the time come when, in all the mighty denominations of Christians, it can be assured that the evil has ceased with them FOR EVER; and let the voice, from each denomination, be lifted up in kind, but firm and solemn, testimony against the system; with no ‘mealy’ words; with no attempt at apology; with no wish to blink it; with no effort to throw the sacred shield of religion over so great an evil; and the work is done. There is no public sentiment in this land, there could be none created, that would resist the power of such testimony. There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it. Not a blow need be struck. Not an unkind word need be uttered. No man’s motive need be impugned. No man’s proper rights invaded. All that is needful is for each Christian man, and every Christian church, to stand up in the sacred majesty of such a solemn testimony; to free themselves from all connection with the evil, and utter a calm and deliberate voice to the world; and THE WORK WILL BE DONE!”

This looks very much like converting the church into an instrument of political power. We might indulge in severe remarks. We might quote some very cogent and rebuking passages of Scripture; but, since we believe that where the spirit of Christ is, he will be there also, we do not deem it necessary.

From the very considerable labour evidently bestowed in the preparation of the test, apparently to be applied in his reasoning on this subject, a feeling of disappointment rests upon the mind when we discover how little use Mr. Barnes has made of it.

We have given a view of Mr. Barnes’s peroration; his complaints; the wrongs that excite his sympathy; and his final conclusion of the whole matter. We have attempted to reason by the same rule he has adopted, and, so far as he has chosen to apply it, leave it to others to judge whether it is not most fatal to the cause he advocates.

LESSON VIII.

We are told that book-making, among some, has become a trade. That some men write books to order, to suit the market; that there is no knowing what may be an author’s principles, or whether he has any at all, by what may be in his book.

The principal object of such a writer must be his money—his pay: if in great haste to get it in possession, he may be expected sometimes to be careless; and unless very talented and experienced in the subject on which he writes, to record contradictions.

Page 83, Mr. Barnes says—“The Hebrews were not essentially distinguished from the Egyptians, as the Africans are from their masters in this land, by colour.” But he continues, pages 86 and 87—“They (the Hebrews) were a foreign race, as the African race is with us. They were not Egyptians, any more than the nations of Congo are Americans. They were not of the children of Ham. They were of another family; they differed from the Egyptians, by whom they were held in bondage, as certainly as the African does from the Caucasian or the Malay divisions of the great family of man.”

In page 228, on another subject, he says—“If, therefore, it be true that slavery did not prevail in Judea; that there is no evidence that the Hebrews engaged in the traffic, and that the prophets felt themselves at liberty to denounce the system as contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, these FACTS will furnish an important explanation of some things in regard to the subject in the New Testament, and will prepare us to enter on the inquiry how it was regarded by the Saviour; for if slavery did not exist in Palestine in his time: if he never came in contact with it, it will not be fair to infer that he was not opposed to it, because he did not often refer to it, and expressly denounce it.”

This is in strict conformity with the following:

Page 242. “There is no conclusive evidence that he ever came in contact with slavery at all. * * * There is no proof which I have seen referred to from any contemporary writer, that it existed in Judea in his time at all; and there is no evidence from the New Testament that he ever came in contact with it.”

Also, page 244. “There is not the slightest proof that the Saviour ever came in contact with slavery at all, either in public or in private life.”

Also, page 249. “We have seen above, that there is no evidence that when the Saviour appeared, slavery in any form existed in Judea, and consequently there is no proof that he ever encountered it.”

Permit us to compare these statements with Matt. viii. 5–14:

“And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, (verse 6,) and saying, Lord, my servant, &c. (Verse 9,) For I am a man of authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my SERVANT (δουλῳ, slave), Do this, and he doeth it,” &c.

Also, Luke vii. 2–10. “And a certain centurion’s servant (δοῦλος, slave) was sick,” &c. * * * “beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant (δοῦλον, slave.)” (Verse 10,) “And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant (δοῦλον, slave) whole that had been sick.”

So also, Luke xix. 12–16. (Verse 13,) “And he called his ten servants (δοῦλους, slaves),” &c. Also John viii. 33–36: “And they answered him, we be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage (δεδουλεύκαμεν, in slavery) to any man; how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (Verse 34,) “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος, slave) of sin.” (Verse 35,) “And the servant (δοῦλος, slave) abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore make you free, you shall be free indeed.”

Permit us also to compare them with the following, Mr. Barnes’s own statements. See page 250: “All that the argument does require, whatever conclusion we may reach as to the manner in which the apostles treated the subject, is, the admission of the fact, that slavery everywhere abounded; that it existed in forms of great severity and cruelty; that it involved all the essential claims that are now made by masters to the services or persons of slaves; that it was protected by civil laws; that the master had the right of transferring his slaves by sale, donation, or testament; that in general he had every right which was supposed to be necessary to perpetuate the system; and that it was impossible that the early preachers of Christianity should not encounter this system, and be constrained to adopt principles in regard to the proper treatment of it.”

And, again, page 251: “It is fair that the advocates of the system should have all the advantage which can be derived from the fact, that the apostles found it in its most odious forms, and in such circumstances as to make it proper that they should regard, and treat it as an evil, if Christianity regards it as such at all.”

And, again, pages 259, 260: “I am persuaded that nothing can be gained to the cause of anti-slavery by attempting to deny that the apostles found slavery in existence in the regions where they founded churches, and that those sustaining the relation of master and slave were admitted to the churches, if they gave real evidence of regeneration, and were regarded by the apostles as entitled to the common participation of the privileges of Christianity.”

But there are other errors in this “Scriptural View of Slavery,” page 245:

“He (the Saviour) never uttered a word in favour of slavery, * * * not even a hint can be found, in all he said, on which a man * * * who meant to keep one already in his possession, could rely to sustain his course.”

We ask that this assertion of Mr. Barnes shall be compared with Luke xvii. 7–11:

“But which of you having a servant (δοῦλον, slave) ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him, by and by, when he has come from the field, Go, sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken, and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant (δούλῳ, slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.” “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.”

And, again, Mr. Barnes says: “The nations of Palestine were devoted to destruction, not to servitude.” See page 118.

Compare this with the following, from page 156: “There were particular reasons operating for subjecting the nations around Palestine to servitude, which do not exist now. They were doomed to servitude for sins.”

LESSON IX.

Deut. xxiii. 9. “When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing”—directions what to do, or what not to do, in time of war, being continued, the 15th and 16th verses read thus:

“Thou shalt not deliver up to his master the servant (slave) which is escaped 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.”

This passage is quoted by Mr. Barnes, upon which he says, page 140—

“I am willing to admit that the command probably relates only to the slaves which escaped to the country of the Hebrews from surrounding nations; and that in form it did not contemplate the runaway slaves of the Hebrews in their own land.”

Pray, then, for what purpose does he speak as follows?

“A seventh essential and fundamental feature of the Hebrew slavery was, that the runaway slave was not to be restored to his master; on this point the law was absolute.”

And to sustain this assertion, he quotes this same passage from Deuteronomy, and, commenting thereon, says, pages 140, 141—“This solemn and fundamental enactment would involve the following results or effects. (1.) No laws could ever be enacted in the Hebrew commonwealth by which a runaway slave could be restored to his master. No revolution of the government, and no change of policy, could ever modify this principle of the constitution. (2.) No magistrate could on any pretence deliver up a runaway slave.”

Then, again, page 190:

“Slaves of the United States are to be restored to their masters, if they endeavour to escape. We find among the fundamental principles of the Mosaic laws a provision that the slave was never to be restored, if he attempted to do thus. He was to find in the land of Judea an asylum. The power and authority of the commonwealth were pledged for his protection.”

And yet, again, page 226:

“As one of the results of this inquiry, it is apparent that the Hebrews were not a nation of slaveholders.”

We present these passages to shows Mr. Barnes’s mode of argument. But let us examine, for a moment, the indications of the holy books on the subject of runaway slaves. When David had protected the flocks of Nabal, upon the mountains of Carmel, on a holiday, he sent his young men, to ask a present, as some compensation for the same.

“And Nabal answered David’s servants, and said, Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants (עֲבָדֵ֔ים abadim, slaves) nowadays that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be?” 1 Sam. xxv. 10, 11.