Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

156 Bible View of the Slavery Question. (In answer to inquiries from a coz-respondent, Eld. ■Hilbert Beebe, editor of the Signs of the Times , (an Old School Baptist paper, having a large circulation throughout the Union,) publishes the folloAving very interesting and instructive commentary upon the re ligious bearings of the relationship between master and slave.] Three very important questions are involved in the subject on which we are requested to write.— First: Is slavery an institution of God, existing by Ilis appointment, under Ilis direction, rpid having His expressed approval ? If so, second, What is the ■duty of the slave to his master? And third, What is the duty of the master to his slave ? Before prosecuting our investigation of this sub ject, we will attempt to define the meaning of the word slave. We are not aware of the occurence of the term but twice in the Scriptures, namely in Jer. ii. 14, and Rev. xviii. 13. In the first it is placed in italics , and used as equivalent to the term servant, but in a sense implying degradation. “Is Israel a servant ? Is he a home born slave ? Why is he spoiled ?” In Rev. xviii. 13, slaves are mentioned among the commodities of anti-christian merchandise. Such as cinnamon, odors, ointments, frank-incense, wine, oil, fine flour, wheat, beasts, sheep, horses, chariots and slaves , and souls of men, and this word slaves is rendered in the margin bo dies, and so connected with the souls of men.— Webster defines a slave to be first, “ A person who is wholly subject to the will of another.” Second, One who has lost the power of resistance, or one who surrenders himself to any power whatever.”— Third, “ A mean person, one in the lowest state of life.” Fourth, “ A drudge ; one who labors like a slave. Accoiding to Webster’s definition, we see no propriety in confounding the terras slave and servant. But in a scriptural sense the two words mean the same thing ; and mean a person who is in a subordinate capacity, having a master whom he is bound to obey. Servants in the Scriptures are variously classified. Some as hired servants, bound by a voluntary covenant to obev their mas ters for hire | as Paul says, “ Ilis servants ye are, to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey,” &c. Another class of servants are presented in the case of those insolvent Israelites which were sold into bondage to satisfy the legal demands of their cred itors. This class of servants were regarded as the property of those who bought them, but their right of property in them did not hold beyond an appoint ed day of Jubilee, when they were invariably to be released from personal bondage and reinstated in their families, and real estate, and during the lim ited period of their bondage, their owners were for bidden to rule them with rigor, as they were allow ed to rule those servants which were bought of the heathen nations. The third class which we will mention, is probably that to which our correspon dent alludes. Bought of the heathen nations, as the African servants were. In this class of ser vants, the owners had a bona fide right of proper ty, to rule them with rigor, or to transmit them as an inheritance to their posterity forever. There were still other classes of servants, mentioned in SOUTHERN BAPTIST MESSENGER. the Scriptures, such as minor children, who differ ed not from servants until the time appointed of the father, &e. But as the class which exist in our country and which are improperly called slaves are those concerning which our coriespondent enquires, we will pass to the proposed investigation. Question 1. Is Slavery thus defined an institution of God, existing by his appointment, under his di rection, and having his approval ? Before proceeding further, we will ask, is this sub ject a proper one for discussion in a religious journ al ? Our own impression is that whatever the Bi ble teaches, belongs legitimately to the subject of religion, and that it is not only our privilege but our duty as the children of God, and disciples of Chirst, prayerfudy, to investigate, and therefore a f roper subject for discussion in the columns of the Signs of the Times. With the political clamor and confusion which now agitates our beloved coun try and shakes the foundation of our national union, we do not design to meddle ; at least any farther than an exhibition of what God has revealed in his word may conflict with the fanatical theories which have been profanely dragged into the politics of the day. But to the question. That human bondage of a portion of the human family, is an institution of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, we think is fully proved in the circu lar of the Corresponding Association of Old Scl|pol Baptists, published in our last number. The pro phetic assignation of the respective destinies of the three sons of Noah, very clearly indicated the pur pose of God in making the descendants of Ham the servants of servants forever. That Noah spoke by inspiration when thrice declared, (Gen. ix. 25, 2G and 27,) that Canaan should be a servant to his brethren, including both the other divisions of the human family from the date of the flood, the sub sequent history of the world has demonstrated be yond all successful contradiction, —thus proving that the institution was of God, for Noah, as a man had no power to control the matter beyond his own day. Yet we are not left to infer that what is now called slavery is an institution of God from the pro phetic declarations of Noah concerning Ham or Canaan, but turn to the record of the Levitical in stitutions, and among other precepts from the mouth of God, we have his law upon this subject in so many words. Thus, after the institution of laws for the Jubilee release of the Israelitish bond men and bondwomen, at the end of every sixth year, God says, “ Both thy bond-men and thy bond maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall YE BUY BOND MEN AND BOND-MAIDS. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, or them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall ’ TAKE THEM AS AN INHERITANCE FOR YOUR CIIIL ! DREN AFTER YOU, TO INHERIT THEM FOR A TOSSES ■ SION ; TnEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER, ! but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye ; shall not rule one over another with rigor.” Levit icus xxv. 44—40. If this is not an institution and command of God, where in the whole range of the Levitical code shall we find one ? We could mul tiply our quotations on the subject, but we are sure that any who are not convinced by the foregoing have no fear of God bofore their eyes. Having proved beyond all cavil that it is an in stitution of God, it must follow that it exists by his appointment. Do we believe that Jehovah is a God of providence —that he doeth his pleasure in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, —that he raises monarohs to their thrones from the dunghill, and brings them down to the dust as seemelh him good ? —then how can we doubt that the institution of what is this day call ed slavery exists by the appointment of God? That God has appointed and commanded its existence we have clearly proved, and that it does now exist, and that it always has existed from the days of the flood, is too obvious to need any further proof.— No man of intelligence and candor will read the Bible and deny it. But does God approve of it f Will any man so far outrage his own common sense as to believe that God has made laws and enjoined their observance, of which he does not approve? He must either approve or disapprove. How has he indicated his approbation or disapprobation of the institution ? Did he rebuke Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, or any of the patriarchs or prophets, any of the Old Testament or New Testament saints for holding bondmen or bondwomen as property, to be bought and sold, and to be transmitted as an in* heritance to their children, the same as any kind of property? If so, the inspired writers have utter ly failed to record it. But instead of any expres sion of divine disapprobation, God has expressly recognized it as existing by his authority in the covenant of circumcision, including all who were born in Abraham’s house or bought with his mon ey in the rights and privileges of that covenant. — Also in two precepts of the decalogue, he has re cognized its lawful existence. And in the signal blessings bestowed upon the patriarchs, of flocks and herds, of men servants and maid servants, to gether with the corn, wine and oil in great abun dance. We pass to the second enquiry. What is the duty of the servant to his master. In the Old Tes tament, the absolute authority of the master over the servant, clearly implies the duty of the servant to obey implicitly all the commands of his master, to honoi, fear, reverence and love his master ; such appears to have been the case with Abiaham’s ser vants, especially his eldest servant who could be en trusted with a large amount of treasure, and with business of the greatest importance. But we come to examine the New Testament for instruction on the subject of the relative duties of servants and masters. For although the former covenant has waxed old, and with all its types and shadows, ba passed away, the relationship of ser vants and masters, liko those of husbands and wives, children and parents, magistrates and peo ple, have not passed away, nor are they at all an nulled by the setting up of the Redeemer’s kingdom and bringing in of the better covenant. The King of Zion has issued his proclamation that his king-