Again; would opening the doors of a lunatic asylum, and letting free the patients thereof, be an act of kindness or friendship towards them? You reply, Certainly not! Yet this would be granting them immediate liberty—this would be pure abolitionism! But, you rejoin, the condition of the persons—their mental inabilities disqualify them for liberty till they are cured—till they can take care of themselves—till there is no danger of their doing violence to others; therefore, keeping them confined till then, is in fact an act
of kindness towards them,—and the opposite course would be most injurious to them! Thank you, kind reader, these are identically the same reasons I give for not advocating the immediate emancipation of the slaves. I give you full credit for the wisdom and propriety of your reasons: be so liberal as to grant me the same indulgence—to give me the same credit for the sincerity of my actions. It is probable the Abolitionist will reply, that the condition of the slaves, and of the inmates of a lunatic asylum, is very different. I answer, without fear of contradiction, that, as far as mental incapability, the vast mass of the slaves are as incapable of taking care of themselves as the great proportion of lunatics; and this we shall fully demonstrate in a subsequent chapter. Again; do you think children ought to be freed from all parental control? You reply, certainly not; and you give the same reasons as you have just adduced for not setting lunatics free. Is not this, then, a case parallel with that of the slaves? And in both, I may as justly accuse you of oppression, of tyranny, of a hatred to liberty, because you will not emancipate lunatics, and all children, as you accuse me, for not advocating the immediate abolition of slavery.
Slavery is derived from slave; as servant comes from service. In the English language the two are distinct from one another; the former term being applied to involuntary, the latter to voluntary, servitude. But this is not the case in either the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin tongues; one and the same word, in each language, signifies both voluntary and involuntary service. Thus "obed," in Hebrew—"δουλος," in Greek—and "servus," in Latin, signify what we mean by the terms, servant and slave. Hence in works written in
any of these languages, we can never tell from the word itself whether the person to whom the term is applied was a slave, or a servant: it is therefore only by concomitant expressions or circumstances that we can come to a conclusion as to the actual nature of his situation. This is the case both in the Old and New Testament.
For instance, when we read of individuals having been sold, having been purchased, having been "bought with money" &c., we cannot doubt for a moment the propriety of applying to such persons the term slave: and that, no matter whether their servitude was temporary, or for ever—whether they had sold themselves, or were sold by others; they were slaves to all intents and purposes—from the moment they were sold they became subject to involuntary servitude.
Again, while it by no means follows that every servant ("obed"—"δουλος"—"servus,") mentioned in the Bible, was a slave, it does follow that every slave was a servant!
Ere I make the next statement, I request it may be distinctly understood, 1st, that I consider the "Slave-trade," and "Slave-holding," two distinct things: 2d, that I do not consider "slave-holding," "cruelty," "oppression," and "tyranny," synonymous. While therefore I pronounce the former, that is the slave-trade, to be barbarous, iniquitous, and unscriptural, I cannot find a single passage in the whole word of God which either denounces slave-holding, or commands the owner to liberate instantaneously his slaves. And I fearlessly defy all the Abolitionists on earth to produce one such passage. If therefore the Bible is to be the umpire, and to its authority alone I ever consent to strike, that sacred book announces that
"WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION;" (Rom. iv. 14): and as there is no law prohibitory of slave-holding, it cannot be considered sin (for sin is the transgression of the law) by any, except those who aim at possessing a higher degree of moral worth and righteousness, than the Lord Jesus Christ himself; and, "who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."
While I thus humbly vindicate the slandered slave-holder, I desire equally to denounce all cruelty—all inhumanity—all oppression—the same law of God which desires the slave to "be obedient to his master, with fear and trembling" (Eph. vi. 5-9) commands the Master, "to FORBEAR THREATENING"—(for "vengeance belongeth unto God") "to give that which is just, and equal to his slave; knowing that there is a Master in Heaven; who will render to every man, without respect of persons, according to his deeds." (Col. iv. 1.)
But so far from the Bible condemning slave-holding, I maintain it recognizes the practice by giving laws, and directions, both for Master and for slave—and so far from encouraging the slave to run away from his master, as the principles of Abolitionism teach, it unequivocally exhorts and commands "every man to ABIDE in the same calling wherein he is called"—"if called, being a slave, care not for it; but if thou mayest (i. e. if thou lawfully) be made (set) free, use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 20, 21.) This is my guide, this is my principle, this would be the foundation of my advice to all.—But how opposite are the principles, the advice, and the conduct of Abolitionists, to the inspired Apostle! Paul says to the slave, "be obedient to your Master—care not for being a slave"—abide in it,