examine and see if the teaching of the Holy Scriptures warrant such a conclusion. It will be remembered that in the preceding pages we have admitted that they recognize the relation, and inculcate the duties naturally arising therefrom. But the question arises here, Is the subject so presented in the oracles of God as to justify, beyond reasonable doubt, the inference that it is of special Divine appointment, and, as such, to take rank among the positive duties of society?

This query, at first sight, may be regarded as more curious than useful; tending to perplexity and embarrassment, rather than as affording light to aid us in the elicitation and ascertainment of truth.

We, however, entertain a different opinion, believing it to lie deep at the foundation of this controversy, and of infinite importance to its thorough investigation. For if as we conceive, and have intimated, it is the a, b, c, of the whole question; or, in other words, the true point at which to commence our inquiries ; inasmuch as a fair start is of singular advantage, and essential to success in any enterprise, we must in this, as in all other matters of inquiry, be saved from confusion and darkness, and arrive at more satisfactory conclusions, by commencing at the beginning.

Therefore, at this stage of our investigation, it may be useful to inquire, Are the Holy Scriptures, so far as is discoverable by the light, or indicated by the law of nature, a republication of the social duties of man? or do they intrinsically, absolutely, and permanently change those duties, so as to make that right-in all cases and under all circumstances, in our social relationswhich the first constitution of things, or the law of nature, condemned as wrong? Or, in other words, was slavery forbidden by the law of nature, and is it

2

now established by the special appointment of God, as a law of revelation? Mark! the question is not, Do the Scriptures recognize the relation as established by civil law, and prescribe the duties growing out of the relation thus established? but, Do the Scriptures teach us that it was primarily, or, if you please, at the time of its origin, appointed by God, and intended as an essential and permanent rule or principle of his moral government? If we admit this supposition, does it not amount to an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of the Creator, in the order of things first established, and thus involve in contradiction and darkness His character and administration, of whom it is said in the Scriptures, "that He is without variableness or shadow of turning," and that "he is light, and in him is no darkness at all?"-a sacrifice too great for the sake of a principle, at best doubtful in theory, and in its general consequences, physical, mental, moral, social, and religious, to both master and slave, of confessedly injurious practical tendency. To give up the lovely character of God, and the confidence we have in the stability and rectitude of his government, as equal in its operations to secure the present and eternal welfare of all his intelligent and accountable creatures, for the sake of sustaining it, is, in the language of poor Richard, "paying too dear for the whistle."

But it is claimed that the Bible recognizes the principle, and adapts its instructions suitably to the relation. Granted. But does it necessarily follow that God, as the moral Governor of the world, has, by so doing, so stamped it with the seal of his approbation, as to vindicate its claims to be an institution of his own appointment? That the Divine tolera

་

tion, in view of principles and circumstances which will be subsequently pointed out, is lent to the practice, is not denied. But that He has ever appointed it, we demand the proof. It is confidently believed that not a single passage of Scripture can be found in its favour, that will entitle it to the character of an institution of God. And for the all-sufficient reason, that by fair implication they teach the reverse: noț in those Scriptures which denounce oppression in general, and the oppression of the poor in particular, &c. An inference from these, because of their general application to all sorts of oppression, seems to us to be too far-fetched, though often quoted by preachers, lecturers, and debaters, and relied on as decisive of the question of the Bible against slavery. We have always thought, because of that generality, they were irrelevant, and for that reason, to intelligent and well-informed minds, inconclusive. But we have a passage, which is admitted both by pro-slavery and anti-slavery men generally, if not universally, to relate to slavery, that speaks directly to the point in hand: "If thou mayest be made free, use it rather." 1 Cor. vii, 21. Now if the apostle, in the use of this language, spoke by Divine inspiration, a state of freedom is, according to God the Holy Ghost, preferable to a state of slavery, and as such, by this high and holy authority, we are commanded to prefer, to seek it. Now in the absence of a single passage in all the Bible to designate slavery as an institution of God; while, on the other hand, we have a passage relating exclusively to slavery, which, by the most natural and direct implication, is a negation of the doctrine; and when the whole spirit and general principles of the book of God, together with the law of nature, lift up

their united voice against it, as of Divine right, are we not fairly entitled to the conclusion, that the claim has been hastily made, without sufficient examination? And should not those Scriptures which are thought to favour its pretensions be re-examined, and see if they are not capable of a different interpretation? Such is the view we have taken of their import, which we shall now proceed to show.

First: Is it so presented as to involve the same principles of right, fitness, and moral obligation, which stand out with such prominence in the other relative duties inculcated in the Holy Scriptures; and supported in its pretensions with the same weight of authority? This seems to us to be a consideration of some importance, and entitled to our sober regard in this investigation. For if, in the Divine administration, it is to take rank with the other relative duties of society, it ought to be ascertained and authenticated by considerations of equal weight. Not that the injunction, "Servants, obey your masters," is not of obligation, while the relation providentially continues, and, as such, involving a principle of conscience, on the simple authority of Him who made it, and to whom it is "well-pleasing." But has it the same character of permanency, especially in view of the fact, that the same God who said, "Servants, obey your masters," has also said to servants, "If thou mayest be made free, use it rather." If the same loose principle should be applied to the other relative duties of societysuch as civil government, the conjugal relation, parents and children, &c.,-we repeat, if a similar passage of Scripture could be found, virtually dissolving, without any fault alleged against the parties, the civil, conjugal, parental, and filial relations, would it

not be fraught with tremendous consequences in its practical bearings; and impair, if not totally destroy, the credibility of the Bible as a revelation from God? But who, on the other hand, can or does, for a moment, question its divinity, or practical utility, because it commands the Christian servant or slave, or any other, to prefer liberty to slavery-freedom to bondage?

Lest, however, it should be thought we are taking for granted that which requires proof, let us look into the Scriptures, and see if the discrimination above alluded to, namely, that the relation of slavery is not backed up by the same reasons of right, fitness, &c., which lend their sanction to the other relative duties of life, is sustained by their testimony. And if, on examination, it shall be found that there is a very important difference as to the manner in which these relative duties are enforced, it will be of great weight in sustaining the doctrine of these pages; which, like the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism, is to avoid the extremes on either hand. And, notwithstanding the confident and boisterous claims of the South to the contrary, that is, to the rightfulness of the relation,— and which, it is to be deplored, was, in a qualified sense, conceded by the late lamented Dr. Fisk, in the following language, contained in his "Counter Appeal:"-" The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obligation due to a present rightful authority," let us see if a candid and careful examination of the Holy Scriptures will not vindicate and sustain the discrimination above made; namely, that the obligation of the slave to obedience is not, as the other relative duties of life, placed upon the ground of right, but of moral goodness.