CHAPTER IV. THE ERRORS OF THE QUARTERLY ANTI-SLAVERY MAGAZINE, FOR APRIL, 1837, RESPECTING THE SCRIPTURAL WORDS " Servant "--" Property "--" Buy ," and C., BRIEFLY NOTICED.
There is no argument more frequently used by Abolitionists than that the Scriptures prohibit the purchase, or sale of men, or holding any man as property—and as the above Magazine has no doubt contributed much, by the talent, learning, and ingenuity, (I don't like to say sophistry) of its editor (Mr. Elizur Wright, jun.,) to build up this most preposterous assertion, I shall take leave to investigate a few of the arguments adopted therein.
There is a great difference between a man going to the Bible to find sanction for an opinion which he has already formed, and a man going to the Bible, for its opinion. The one first forms his own ideas of things, of what is, and what is not, right or wrong, and then goes to the Scriptures to sanction or corroborate those ideas; the other forms no opinion whatever, until he searches the sacred oracles of truth to ascertain what they say on the subject.
Now it appears to me evident that the editor of this periodical acted on the former principle—he first came to the conclusion, that "to own," "to buy," or "to sell," a human being, was wrong and unscriptural; and then went to the Bible to make it prove that his opinions were correct. And so far has he been carried away with his preconceived opinions, and so much did he labour under the "spell" of Abolitionism, that he frequently confounds the act of purchasing a man, with the act of stealing a man! using synonymously the terms "purchasing" and "stealing!" Thus when he attempts to prove that purchasing a man is unscriptural, and that all slave-holders ought to be put to death, he refers to the twenty-first chapter of Exodus and sixteenth verse! (See said Magazine, page 247-249). But how does this read, "He that STEALETH a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." It does not read, "he that stealeth, OR selleth:" no, no! the whole and only crime condemned here was, "STEALING the man;" but retaining or not retaining him, or selling him, did not exculpate the thief!
This is one of the most unhappy passages in the whole Bible, the Abolitionists could have selected: for while it incontrovertibly sanctions "selling men," by making "the selling" no excuse for "the stealing," it condemns to death the African traders, for their conduct, and the American Abolitionists, for theirs.[45:A]
The editor builds nearly the whole of his arguments, which occupy 126 pages, on TWO ERRONEOUS PRINCIPLES—which principles, if I prove to be really erroneous, I need not wade through his numerous conclusions to show the fallacy of each and every one of them; "for every argument built upon a false position necessarily ends in an absurd conclusion."
The two principles or pillars of his edifice are, 1st. That as the same word (both in Hebrew and in Greek) signifies both slave and servant, and as every slave is a servant, therefore, every servant, is a slave! This species of logic reminds me of the syllogism, that, "as, every man is an animal, and a horse is an animal, therefore, every man is a horse!" Is it necessary to spend time in exhibiting the folly and fallaciousness of this first principle? A child would laugh at it; yet this work is held up by Abolitionists, as of almost equal authority with the Bible itself!
One or two conclusions drawn from this first principle will, no doubt, be gratifying to the reader. In page 220, the editor proceeds thus:
"To keep the South in good spirits, we must believe not only that Abraham kept slaves, but that our blessed Saviour was a slave-holder! Of course heaven must be, on a larger scale, like one of those establishments which line the shores of the Mississippi. When they find a text which recognises masters or servants, they consider it triumphant.
"First. It will prove that every country in Christendom is a slave region. On every farm in Great Britain there are servants. Every statute and every instrument of writing which obliges tenants, and keepers of cattle, &c., calls them servants, and their landlord or employer master. Is Great Britain a slave region? And in our own country every white apprentice is, in his indenture, called a servant. Is he a slave?
"Second. It will prove that slavery is the only kind of servitude which the Scriptures approve. At one "fell swoop," it would unchurch the professors at Princeton, and every master and servant in our free states. If the term servant, of itself, and necessarily, signifies a slave, it follows not only that the kingdom of God has always been like the kingdom of the devil, in regard to servitude and personal rights, but that voluntary and requited servitude is a modern innovation, for which there is neither precedent nor example in Holy Writ; and therefore it is at least doubtful whether a voluntary servant, and the master who pays him wages, ought to be received into the Church! For if inspired men always passed them by unnoticed—if those whom they instruct and recognise as believers were slaves and slavemasters exclusively, where shall we find example for admitting the voluntary servant and his master, till they qualify themselves by slavery? Thus the assumption in question leads to the conclusion, not that God tolerated slavery, but that he tolerated nothing else."!!!
The above paragraph furnishes an admirable specimen of the species of reasoning by which Abolitionists are deluded!
The second principle, upon which the Editor builds his arguments, is that as the original word which signifies "to buy" sometimes signifies something else, therefore it never signifies what we mean by buying or purchasing! I am really astonished at this gentleman's forgetfulness, for to nothing else do I wish to attribute his reasoning on this subject. He will therefore pardon me in reminding him that just in proportion to the poverty of any language, does each word in that language represent numerous ideas; in which case the real meaning intended by the writer can be ascertained, to a certainty, only by the concomitant circumstances, or adjoining expressions. If in our own language, which is so rich, we have numerous words, each representing many distinct ideas, is it at all surprising that such should be the case in ancient tongues? This, the Editor knows far better, in all probability, than myself; and is also aware that preconceived theories not only put new ideas into our heads, but oftentimes eliminate correct ones! Now when we hear of an article being bought "with money," these two last words put, beyond all possibility of doubt, and beyond all the possibility of sophistry, the nature of the meaning of the word "bought"—viz. "To acquire the property, right, or title, to any thing, by paying a consideration, or an equivalent—to purchase; to acquire by paying a price," &c. [See Webster's American Dictionary]. The various passages of Scripture quoted by the Editor in page 259, in no way whatever militate against the meaning of the word "buy."
Now the following simple questions may be put: 1st. Did God in any one passage in the whole Bible forbid or prohibit the purchase of men? Not in a single instance! 2d. Did God ever give directions respecting the purchase of men, and the treatment of men so purchased? He unquestionably did. [See Gen. xvii. 13, 27. Exodus xxi. 2-7, 26, 27.] 3d. Did God recognize such as were thus purchased with money, as the property of their masters? Most undoubtedly. [See Exod. xx. 17. xxi. 20, 21, where the servant is actually denominated, "HIS MONEY!"]
Having now proved the erroneousness of the two principles upon which the Editor of this Magazine built his arguments; and having demolished the two pillars which supported his whole edifice, the arguments and the edifice necessarily coming to naught, I shall end this chapter with a few remarks on a text of Scripture which Abolitionists adduce as a justification for encouraging, sheltering, and retaining, those who run away from their legal masters. This text is to be found in Deut. xxiii. 15, and reads thus, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." Did this verse stand totally unconnected with any other portion of the Scriptures; were it even completely isolated, I could not dare, in common justice, give it that interpretation which would render it in direct opposition to the whole tenor of Scripture; and which Abolitionists do, in order to shelter themselves from the condemnation justly attached to their principles. No marvel that there are thousands of men in the land who consider the Bible a mass of contradictions, when those who profess to believe in its Divine origin thus make it, to promote their own views, contradict itself. Compare the meaning attached to this passage by Abolitionists, with the first column on page 33 in this treatise, and then see if such meaning is not as directly opposed to the spirit and letter of the passages of Scripture contained in that column, as any two things possibly can be!
But we need only look at the passage alluded to, as it stands in the Bible, to see at once the true meaning of it; and that it, no more sanctions or authorises the conduct of Abolitionists, than the command of God to the Jews to extirpate the inhabitants of Canaan, authorises the Abolitionists to extirpate our Southern brethren! Much of this chapter (Deut. xxiii.) is taken up with directions to the Jews respecting their future conduct towards their heathen neighbours, the Ammonite, Moabite, &c., from whom, ("THINE ENEMIES,") if a servant escape, thou shalt not deliver him back. This command, be it observed, is not to individuals, but to the Jewish nation, which the sixteenth verse fully proves: for therein we find directions given, that the servant escaped from those heathen nations, may be permitted to dwell among the Jews, and in whatever place he chooses. This could not, in the nature of things, be a command to one Jewish master, in respect to the treatment of a slave that had escaped from another Jewish master: the one expression "he may dwell among you" (v. 16.) ends all dispute on this subject. The Abolitionists must now for ever more search for some other passage of Scripture, to contradict that which directs us to "do unto others as we would he done by!"
