Slaveholding examined in the light of the Holy Bible

Front matter

•OR

IN THE LIGHT

OF

Index

Genesis ix.

25-27

Leviticus xxv. 51-55 xiii

. 1..2

Numbers xxxi. 9 ti

Deuteronomv v. 14, 21 ti

xxiii. 6 a

xxiv. 18

" xxiii. 3 xxvii. 37 u t< 7 a

" xxiv. 7 xxix.

" "15 16, 57 63 150

(i

XXX

.43

II

xxxii. 5

Exodus

xii.

43, 44 45 35

Joshua ix 14

XX.

10, 17

" » 23, 27 xxi

2-6

39 55

Judges ii. 14

'43 i<

7-11

42 53

Ruth iv. 10 it

16 61

. 160 187

I Samuel ix. 22

(i

a

20,21

II Samuel xii. 31 t<

ii

26, 27

I Kings ix. 9-12 ll

it

28-30

'« " 20-22

'79

II

ii

II Kings iv. 1 a

xxii

. 3

H

ii

21 64 76 159

" xvii. 17 u

xxiii. 9

Leviticus xix. 20

51 62

I Chronicles ii. 34 35 u

ii

21, 22

II Chronicles viii. 7 8 9 ll l<

xxii

. 10-13

55 62

Nehemiah iv. 16 xxiv. 22 xxv

. 6 u

II

Esther viii. 17

II

II

35 36

Job vii. 2-3

II

39, 40 3

" xii. 5

II

Psalms lxxii. 4

II

II

42, 37 4(

Provurbs xxii. 16

58 67 82

" » 22,23

(c

57 67

Isaiah liii. 3

II

51 87 88

" lviii. 6

II

45, 46,

57 87 88

Jeremiah ii. 14

<c

61 65 71

" xvii. 4

(C

48. 49

II

II

50'

37 51 65

" xxii. 13

VJ11 inde:

Continued.

Jeremiah xxv. 9-14

Luke xvi 13

" xxxiv 17

Lamentations iii. 34-30

Ezekiel xviii. 12, 13

" xxii. 29

John viii. 34-30

« xlv. 9

'• xviii 10

Hosea iii. 2 u u 18

Joel iii. 3-8 24

" " 20

Amos v. 12

Acts ii. 18

119, 140

Habakkuk ii. 6

Matthew iv. 10

" xvii. 20

Romans vi. 10-23

" xiv. 4

1 Corinthians v. 11

" »« 20-24

2 Corinthians iv. 5

" " 25-28

Galatians iv. 1-7

Ephesians vi 5-9

Philippians ii. 7

Colossians iii. 11

" " 22-25

" xxvi. 51

I Thessaloneans iv.

11 147

I Timothy i, 10

132 144

" " 65

Titus ii. 9, 10

Luke iv. 8

Philemon 10-19

" " 18-19

Hebrews xiii. 3

James ii. 9

I Peter ii. 18-20

II Peter ii. 3

Revelation xviii. 13

89 155

IN THE LIGHT

OP

THE HOLY BIBLE,

BY

WILLIAM HENRY BRISBANE,

▲ SERVANT OF JESUS CHRIST.

" Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

PHILADELPHIA:

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847,

BY WILLIAM HENRY BRISBANE,

in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Stereotyped by

S. DOUGLAS WYETH, No. 7 Pear St.

Philadelphia.

Printed at the U. S. JOB PRINTING OFFICE.

Preface

For several years I have been examining the question of slavery with great care and attention. Once a slaveholder myself, born, brought up, and educated in the midst of slaveholders and slaves, I first investigated this subject with all the zeal and energy of the warmest supporters of the so-called "peculiar institution." In time I found myself perplexed with the results of my own arguments. I discovered my error : I became convinced that slaveholding was unrighteous : I abandoned it ; and was conscientiously constrained to give freedom to upwards of thirty slaves. I have had to sacrifice a large portion of my patrimony, to exile myself from my native state, and to be cut off from the enjoyments of home, of friendship, and of brotherhood. I feel, therefore, that I have a claim to be heard.

iii

IV PREFACE.

I know what are the struggles in a conscientious slaveholder's mind. I know his difficulties in an investigation of the subject of slavery, and I know how it is he mistakes the teachings of the Bible. I trust the following pages will serve to open the eyes of some to the sinfulness of slaveholding, and be the means of emancipating many slaves.

Although I do not write this book for the scholar ; but for the plain English reader; yet I have been careful not to violate the rules of a just criticism ; and that I may guard the reader against any mistake, I wish here to make a few critical observations.

It is often insisted upon, and with much pertinacity, that the Hebrew " ebedh" and the Greek "doulos" mean generally "slave," and that "servant" also, in the New Testament and elsewhere, frequently means slave. Without pretending to be much of a linguist myself, I cannot but express, nevertheless, great surprise, that learned critics have suffered themselves to fall into this error. I unhesitatingly say, that neither ebedh, doulos, nor servant, ever means slave. The word servant pre-

PREFACE. V

cisely expresses the meaning of the words ebedh* and doulos ; and it is always impossible to judge from either word of itself, independently of other circumstances, whether a slave be spoken of or not. It does not mean a slave, a hireling, or a bondman ; but it means one who serves. Such a one may be a slave, a bondman, a hireling, or neither. The word of itself never determines the condition of the servant, or the relation he holds to the one he serves. This must be determined by the context or the occasion.

The ancients had no word in common use to signify slave. This is a word of comparatively modern origin. Formerly that condition, now called slavery, was signified by the connection in which the word servant was employed, or by some word that specified a particular people, whose condition was well known ; as the Helots of Sparta ; — so the condition of involuntary or forced servitude is now expressed either by the connection and circumstances in which the word servant

* The Hebrew ebedh signifies laborer and thence servant.

1*

VI PREFACE.

is employed, or by the word slave, which is a corruption of the word Sclavonian — the name of a people whom the Venitians conquered and sold, and of whom the serfs of Russia are now the regular descendants.

So of the word master in English, and the Greek word despotes — they do not necessarily mean the owner of slaves. God is addressed as a despot by good old Simeon, in Luke ii. 29; and by the worshippers in Acts iv. 24 ; and in Jude 4, and Rev. vi. 10. But God's government is that of a father over his children. And Jesus Christ is called a despot by Peter. (2 Pet. ii. 1.) But Jesus Christ's yoke is easy and his burden is light. His servants serve him from choice ; they are not slaves. The servants in our Northern states are during their term of service under despots; i. e. they are under the entire management of the proprietor of the premises, who employs them in his service : they are voluntarily under his absolute authority. But a despotic government is not necessarily an oppressive one ; when, therefore, the government of

PREFACE. Vll

the master or despot becomes oppressive, the contract is no longer binding.

In England, the servants call their employers master. But those servants have their civil rights and their means of redress when wronged. They are not slaves.

In the following pages I do not discuss the relation of the despot or master to the doulos, or servant. I only argue the question of the relation of the despot or master to the slave. And I hope the reader will hear this in mind throughout. Whether any despotic government is ever right in itself, except that of the Almighty and the Holy God over his creatures, or of the father over his children in their early years, I design neither to affirm nor to deny. It is a question separate from the one discussed in this book, and so far as my argument goes it does not touch it. Whether the Bible sanctions, justifies, tolerates, or merely on account of the peculiar condition of the world suffers the relation of the despot and subject, the master and servant, I am not disposed to meddle with in these pages. But to the naked question of the relation of master and slave, I wish

Vlll PREFACE.

to limit the attention of the reader ; and I hope every Christian who commences the perusal of this little book, will go through it determined to deal fairly with the writer, and not by making other issues, wander off from the direct question.

And may He who looks into all hearts, dispose every one who examines this subject, to deal honestly with his own conscience, and give him grace to follow out his convictions of truth without the fear of man, or the love of worldly ease.

Respectfully,

THE AUTHOR.

CHAPTER VII. Acts of the Apostles - - 118

CHAPTER VHI.

The Epistles 121

CHAPTER EX.

The Incompatibility of Slavery with the Laws

and Principles of the Old Testament - 156

CHAPTER X.

The Incompatibility of Slavery with the Principles and Precepts of the New Testament ----- 166

CHAPTER XI.

Slavery as existing in the United States - 190

CHAPTER Xn.

Reminiscences of Slavery - 202

SLAVEHOLDER EXAMINED

IN THE LIGHT OP

THE HOLY BIBLE.

Chapter I. Slavery Defined

What is slavery ? This question has frequently been asked, and many writers have attempted to reply to it, without giving a clear and satisfactory definition. And hence very much of the difficulty in making a Southern slaveholder comprehend an argument to prove that the Bible condemns slavery. Having myself experienced this difficulty when I was the owner of slaves in South Carolina, I have learned in the process of my investigations that I was labouring under an erroneous definition of the term itself; nor was it until I had observed what I had considered the abuses of slavery were the very essence of the thing itself, that I was persuaded to believe that slavery was condemned by the Bible. The amount of it is just this — nothing is slavery into which the idea of oppression does not enter. One may have a servant for life and that servant may fall as a part of the inheritance to his heirs, but if the bondman have the legal means of redress and the capability of shielding himself from imposition and wrong, he is no slave. The mere fact of being a servant or even a bondman does not make him a slave ; — an apprentice is not only a servant, but in fact he is a bondman — he is bound to a master, but his bondage is for his own benefit. If it turn out that he has no resource from imposition and wrong inflicted by his master, then that apprentice is not only a bondman but a slave.

• Slavery, therefore, I define to be that condition in which one is in the power of another, whom he is compelled to serve, without the means of redress when wronged.

Will it be objected to this definition that wives and children are oftentimes in this condition ? I reply that if it be so, then such wives and such children are in a state of slavery. A wife who may be wronged by her husband without any way of deliverance from his power, or any means of redress, is to all intents and purposes a slave ; and the husband or father that possesses such power is a slaveholder, and he who voluntarily retains such authority is voluntarily an oppressor. But in our country, among the white population, wives, children, and apprentices have the legal means of securing themselves against the oppressive authority of husbands, parents and masters : they are therefore not slaves.

I repeat : A slave is one who is in the power of another, whom he is compelled to serve, without the power of redress when wronged.

That this definition is correct is evident from the fact, that the term slave is every where employed to represent an oppressed condition. If a nation be forced to pay an unjust tribute to another government, it is spoken of as a nation of slaves. Orators invariably represent that people to be slaves who are compelled to submit to oppressive laws. Demagogues, in their addresses to the populace, arouse their passions by appeals to them whether they are willing to be slaves, as they endeavour to enforce upon their minds the importance of a change in the legislative or executive offices of the State, because those in power have been exercising that power oppressively upon the people. In fact, if the lowest, most degrading forms of oppression are intended to be represented by one word, that word is " slavery." When a man is so low as to be called a slave, there is no one word that language can afford to signify a more oppressive state into which he might be placed than that very word slave. There may be terms significant of lower and more debased character, but none that would represent a greater degree of oppression. All nations employ the word which in their language signifies the condition of a slave, to express that sort of degradation which is either the occasion or the effect of oppression. But the idea of an oppressed condition always enters more or less into the signification of the term whether it be used in a literal or a figurative sense. If there be, therefore, a synonym of the word slavery, it must be the word oppression, for in the common use of language these two words are made to be almost convertible terms. A people oppressed without being able to throw off their oppressions are an enslaved people — and no one speaks of an enslaved people without feeling that they are an oppressed people.

If slavery be, then, a condition of oppression, and that nothing is slavery which does not involve the idea of oppression, it would seem to be almost unnecessary to attempt to prove that the Bible does not justify nor even tolerate slavery. But that it may be seen what the Bible does teach on this subject, I shall take up the examination of those passages in the Scriptures which are generally supposed to favour the institution of slavery, and I think I shall prove to every candid mind, that such a construction does injustice to the God of the Bible, and is a perversion of the language employed by the inspired writers.

There is a difficulty in the mind of every slaveholder in the way of a correct interpretation of the Scriptures, arising from the use of the word servant. When he reads any thing in the Bible about servants he is very apt to have in his mind just such servants as he is accustomed to have about him ; and hence he readily arrives at the conclusion that God sanctions slavery. So also as to the words bondmen and bondmaids, even a Northerner is liable to be wrongly biased in his construction, in consequence of his habit of thinking of the Southern slaves as bondmen and bondmaids. Were it not, however, for the existence of slavery within the field of our common observation, we would have other classes than slaves to recognize as servants and as bondmen. Neither servant nor bondman necessarily implies slavery. A slave is both a servant and a bondman, because the master requires the slave to be a servant, and because the law binds him to obedience. But others than slaves may be either servants or bondmen. If I serve you, I am your servant. If I bind myself to serve you for certain considerations I am your bondman. In either case I may have redress when you violate your obligations, and therefore I am not a slave.

Now I beg the reader to bear in mind this distinction, and remember that throughout, I am not arguing against the relation of master and servant, nor master and bondman ; but against the relation of master and slave. He must not allow himself to evade the true issue, by making that specific which is generic. The specific thing is slavery, and this I have already clearly defined. It is a condition of servitude in which there is oppression without the means of redress or deliverance. If it be said such a condition is to be found elsewhere than in so-called slave States, I admit it, and candidly allow that slavery, if not to the same extent of oppression as in our Southern States, nevertheless to a very guilty extent, whether under that name or not, exists both in England and in the Northern States of this Union. But this fact does not extenuate or palliate a yet greater degree of slavery, such as we wit- 2* '

ness among the blacks of the South. The oppressive laws of the North, are no justification of greater oppressions at the South. Nevertheless, what I am about to prove is that slavery whether in the less cruel form in which it exists in a free state, or in the more cruel form in which it is to be found in Georgia or Carolina, has no sanction, no justification in the Bible.

And now what does the Bible say about slaves ? Is the reader aware that the word "slave " does not occur either in the Old or New Testament from beginning to end ? In King James' translation it is introduced once in the Old Testament, but it is in italics, which indicates that it is merely supplied by the translators, but is not in the original text. It also occurs in the same translation only once in the New Testament ; but in the original text it is "bodies" and not "slaves." We have therefore no word either in the Old or New Testament which in the original Hebrew and Greek means slavery. If therefore such a condition be alluded to in the Bible, it must be comprehended in some other term or terms, of which the context will be the exponent. Hence we must inquire at every step of this Biblical examination, Does the sacred writer mean slavery or not ? Wheresoever it is intended, I shall candidly and honestly admit it ; and I presume the reader will be as candid when it cannot be proved that slavery is not necessarily involved in the text.

Chapter II

canaan's curse.

I am now to examine those passages in the Bible, which are supposed to favour slavery.

The first passage coming before us is one upon which great emphasis is laid by those who argue in defence of slavery. It is the curse upon Canaan. And now I will, for the sake of the argument, assume that Noah prophesied a condition of slavery, and I ask the reader to look at this passage carefully, and say, Was it God or was it man that uttered that curse ? Is there any thing about it that implies that Noah spake as moved by the Spirit of God ? Is it any thing more than an historical fact in the life of Noah ? It will perhaps be said, the fulfilment of the prophecy is proof of Noah's inspiration. Now let us look into this a little.

Remember that although Ham was the offender, the curse was not upon all of Ham's posterity, but only upon the descendants of his fourth son, Canaan. The very first man mentioned as a mighty one in the earth was Nimrod, a descendant from Ham. In the same lineal descent from Ham was Asshur, who built Nineveh. The posterity of Abraham who descended from Shem were carried captive into Assyria of which Nineveh was the capital. They also were servants to the Babylonians. They were also slaves in Egypt to Ham's posterity. On the other hand, the Canaanites were servants to the sons of Shem only to an inconsiderable extent, but were for the most part extirpated by the sword of the Israelites, and finally exterminated. Again ; the sons of Japheth have been captives and servants to the sons of

Ham. Thus we see that if Noah had prophesied respecting the personal servitude of the posterity of either of his sons, the prophecy would have been fulfilled, for the plain reason that the posterity of each of them have been in servitude. And so far as it respected Canaan, upon whom the curse was pronounced, the servitude predicted was as little applicable to his posterity as it was to the sons of Shem or Japheth. The fulfilment of the prophecy therefore would be no proof that Noah spake by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It would amount to a mere historical fact that Noah thus conducted himself and thus spake.

But for the sake of meeting all points, suppose I concede that either as a prophecy or a curse, the language of Noah was the language of God. Does it therefore follow that they who enforce the curse are not themselves acting wickedly in so doing ? Let us see how this works in reference to another prophecy and curse that were distinctly said to have been pronounced by God himself. In 2 Samuel xii. 11, the language is, — "Thus saith the

Lord, Behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun." Again " Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her," Deut. xxviii. 30. What will be said to this ? If the prophecy that Canaan shall be a servant of servants to his brethren justifies slavery, is it not an equally legitimate inference that the prophecies just quoted justify adultery ?

But we have something still more directly to the point. The Lord said to the Jewish people, " Ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you," (Deut. xxviii. 68.) "Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people : thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway : thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them, for they shall go into captivity," (Deut. xxviii. 32 — 43.) " I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not," (Jer. xvii. 4.) Of Hezekiah's sons it was said,

" They shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon/' (2 Kings xx. 18.) And of the families of the North, " Behold, I will send and take all the families of the North, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof: and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord. For many nations shall serve themselves of them also/' (Jer. xxv. 4 — 14.) " Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents — And I will punish all that oppress them," (Jer. xxx. 18 — 20.) " All thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity : and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all that prey upon thee will I give for a prey," (Jer. xxx. 16.) "And they have cast lots for my people, and have given a boy for a harlot, and sold a girlifor wine, that they might drink. The children also of Judah, and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. Behold I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompense upon your own head : And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it," (Joel iii. 3—8.)

In these prophecies, we have it distinctly set forth that the Jews were to be servants in Babylon, that is, the sons of Shem were to serve the sons of Ham, and they were to be sold among the Grecians also. But did these prophecies justify their masters ? Nay ; for they too, for thus enslaving the Jews, should themselves, as a punishment, be enslaved. Thus in God's providence the wicked are made to punish the wicked, and successive generations produce revolutions in character as there are changes of condition. Thus it is evident that a mere prophecy of what will be, is no justification of its fulfilment ; and it is not safe to deduce moral conclusions and consequent rules of action from mere prophetic annunciations. If we do, we may educe that falsehood, robbery and adultery are all right ; and that it was perfectly right on the part of the Jews to crucify Jesus Christ, for such crucifixion was clearly foretold.

But still we have not come to the direct point at issue. Did Noah prophesy any thing at all respecting slavery ? Did he utter one word about it ? Suppose I deny. Will any one affirm ? Upon him rests the weight of proof. Can he find any testimony in the case to warrant the conclusion that slavery was the thing intended ? Remember what slavery is ; that it is something specific; that it cannot be slavery unless it involves the idea of oppression, and consequently an oppressor. But do we find this in the language of Noah ? Certainly he does not employ the word slave ; this is neither in the translation nor in the original Hebrew. How then do any get at slavery in the passage ? Canaan was to be a servant, but it does not follow he was to be a slave ; nay, the inference is otherwise, for he was to be a servant of servants. We can readily understand how one may be the servant of a servant ; but how one can be the slave of a slave is not so readily perceived ; for a slave according to the statute of South Carolina, and according to all judicial decision, is himself a chattel, and can possess nothing but what is his master's ; consequently he cannot own a slave and cannot be a master. It may therefore be inferred that Noah did not have personal slavery in view, but only national subjection. Canaan nationally would be subject to Shem ; but Shem himself would be nationally subject to Japheth; and thus would Canaan be the servant of servants. The term servant is very frequently employed in the Old Testament to signify both the officers and the subjects of a national sovereignty. Give it this signification in the prophecy of Noah, and the whole is easily understood. I have myself no doubt that Noah designed a national and not an individual appropriation of the curse, a national subjection (which need not however imply an oppressive government) and not domestic slavery.

If this has been historically fulfilled, then it may be some evidence that Noah spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. But I myself do not find in any history, either that Canaan ever served Japheth or that Shem and Japheth never served Canaan. I should be glad to be informed on this point. But I know no method of ascertaining it.

I think I have now clearly shown that this passage is by no means evidence of the rightfulness of slavery or of slaveholding. And I cannot but think that when the reader again hears this prophecy adduced as a demonstration of God's approval or even toleration of slavery, he will pronounce it, as the lawyers say, a no7i sequitur.

Chapter III. Servants Op The Patriarchs

The next argument in order generally adduced by the advocate of slavery is that Abraham possessed slaves, and that he was not censured for it. And if he who is called the father of the faithful could own slaves, it cannot be a sin in itself to be a slaveholder. The inference, however, in this case is not a legitimate one, even supposing that Abraham was a slaveholder. If it be good logic, then both lying and adultery are also justifiable, for Abraham was guilty of virtually denying that Sarah was his wife, and also had Hagar for his concubine, without in either case having it recorded that God rebuked him for it.

But were Abraham's servants and bondmen and women slaves? To prove that they were slaves, it must be shewn that they were oppressed without the power of redress. Was that their case ? I think this cannot be inferred from the History. In the case of Hagar who was a bondwoman, her mistress to punish her and her son, insisted that Abraham should cast them out, i. e. set them free. In our Southern states the mistress would have her slave sold, not set free. The inference therefore is that Hagar was not a slave, but was in that sort of bondage which did not amount to a condition of oppression. And so although it be said that Abraham and Lot had "souls that they had gotten in Haran ;" and " men servants and maid servants" are named as among the things Abraham had in Egypt ; and again that Abimelech, king of Gerar, gave him " men servants and women servants ;" and finally, that Abraham had servants that were " born in his own house," and he had others that were " bought with money of any stranger." Yet, although all this be true, the inference is that whether home-born, or purchased, or a gift, these were not slaves. I say the inference is that these servants were not slaves. I infer it from incidental passages. Suppose I should say of some Northern man residing at the South, he is very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold, would it not be asked, What ! has he no slaves ? Now just so it is said of Abraham (Gen. xiii. 1). "And Abram went out of Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had, and Lot with him into the South. And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." Now if the hundred or thousand or more servants he had about him were slaves, how does it 3* happen that these are not named as a part of his riches ? But again, suppose I were to say of some one residing at the North, He is very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold. Would any one infer that he had no servants ? On the contrary, would not the inference be that he must have many servants ; and would it not be likely that some of them would be indentured, or bound (bond) servants ; and would it not be further likely that some would be born upon his estate, grow up thereon and be his labourers or servants ? But if this can be under such a government as ours, how much more likely to be so under a Patriarchal government ?