"Why," it is objected, "did not the apostles preach immediate emanc.i.p.ation, instead of indorsing slavery by defining its duties--'Servants, obey your masters,' &c.? and Paul even sent back a slave." 1. The primary object of the apostles was not simply "to preach liberty to the captives;" this was but a branch of the tree planted "for the healing of the nations." Their object was to sow the principles of faith, love, justice, and equality, well knowing that, when these took root and flourished, among the first fruit would be "liberty to all the inhabitants of the land." 2. Had this been their great object, they took the best and speediest plan for its accomplishment. Attacking the system directly, the appearance of the Christian missionary would have been the signal for servile war and untold bloodshed, the slave against the master, the poor against the rich; and the heathen rulers, eager for a pretext to crush them, would have denounced them as lighting the torch of rebellion and war; and the further spread of the gospel would have been drowned in the blood of its founders. But they took the very course which G.o.d adopted among the Israelites in regard to servitude, not directly prohibiting it, but inculcating principles of social equality and progress, restricting the master's power, and protecting the servant's rights, till, master and slave blended in one, the name of slave was lost in that of Christian. 3. The relation and duties of master and servant are defined by the apostles exactly as they might be to-day in England or the free states--as those of men, _never_ as owner and property; on the contrary, all ownership of man by other than G.o.d is expressly denied. 1 Cor. 6:19, 20, "What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost in you, which ye have of G.o.d, and _ye are not your own_? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify G.o.d in your body and your spirit, _which are G.o.d's_." There the ownership is clearly a.s.serted; how can man claim it? "Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar's, _and to G.o.d the things that are G.o.d's_," lest you be found robbing G.o.d himself. Again, 1 Cor. 7:21, 23, "Art thou called, being a servant? care not for it; but, if thou mayst be made free, (d?asa?

?e??s?a?, canst become free,) use it rather." What can be more explicit than this? First, ownership of man is denied even to _himself_, much more to _another_. Next, the exhortation to slaves is, if they _can not_ get free from this great wrong, to bear it as such, but, if they _can_, "use it rather;" and the reason given is followed by a rule of action to be adopted wherever possible. Verse 23, "Ye are bought with a price; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." If this be not express prohibition of chattelism, and command to slaves to free themselves from it, then the language is totally contradictory and unintelligible.

Contrast these laws of Paul with the laws of most of the southern states, forbidding even the master to free his slaves, while states and Congress unite in hounding back to whip and task the poor slave who dares obey that command; nay, offer large rewards for men, even Christian ministers, when attempting to obey it. "But Paul sent back Onesimus to his master, and therefore sanctioned the sending back of fugitives." We answer, there was no sending back at all. Paul, a prisoner, could not send him back: a Jew, he was forbidden by his religion to do so. Deut. 23:15. It was simply a recommendatory letter sent with Onesimus, returning voluntarily to Colosse and his master. Let us look at the letter. Verse 8 begins, "Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet, for love's sake, I rather beseech thee. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, ... _which in time past was to thee unprofitable_, but now profitable to thee and to me; whom I have sent again, ... not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved," &c. Here Onesimus is described as having been, while heathen, an "unprofitable" trouble to his master, and had either run away or been sent away by him. Converted at Rome, Paul heard his story, and in his letter, instead of thinking he is doing Philemon a favor, has to earnestly "beseech," almost command, his reception as a favor to himself. Not one word of _property_ or _right_ in him, save the right of love as one of the brotherhood. "NOT NOW AS A SERVANT, but _above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me_, but how much more to thee!" Onesimus had left the "slave" in his heathenism; in Christ he became the "brother" of Philemon and Paul. Instead of sanctioning chattelism, it positively denies it by affirming voluntary service, the equality of men as brethren, to be loved as Christ himself.

Thus Christ and his apostles, so far from upholding chattelism in their teachings, denounced the ownership of man by any but G.o.d, and inculcated its opposite--love, liberty, equality, and fraternity--by precept and example. And subsequent history showed the result.

Christ said of the teachings of the Pharisees, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Apply this test to the teachings of the apostles and the primitive churches in regard to slavery. When they went forth, "darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people;" slavery sat enthroned in might over Europe; and the cries of the oppressed millions had only had a hearing on the battle or before the throne of G.o.d.

When the Reformation came slavery had disappeared in Europe; and the voice of the people was heard a.s.serting their rights, feebly, indeed, at first, but ever since growing stronger and stronger "as the voice of many waters." What has caused this change?

Historians, Protestant and Catholic, ascribe it to the influence of the church, not by direct emanc.i.p.atory decrees, but, following the example of G.o.d through Moses, by gradually restricting the master's power, and protecting the slave; by girdling the poison tree till it withered and fell, though, sad to say, the ruins still disfigure too much field, of the fair fields of Europe and America.

No fact is more patent in history than the truth expressed by Paul to the Corinthians: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY."

The whole tendency of the Bible and true Christianity, direct and indirect, is to the liberty and advancement, never the slavery and degradation, of man; and those who have attempted to shield the monster curse of our country and age with the garb of the gospel may find too late, when that awful voice shall ring in their ears, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me," that Christ came not only "to preach deliverance to the captives" and "to set at liberty them that are bruised," but also "the day of vengeance of our G.o.d."

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 28 Cornhill, Boston.

EXTRACT FROM MR. O'CONOR'S ARGUMENT

_Before the New York Court of Appeals, on the "Lemmon Slave Case."_

"I submit most respectfully that the only desire I have manifested here or elsewhere, in reference to the question, has been to draw the mind of the court and the intelligent mind of the American people, to the true question which underlies the whole conflict, and that is the question to which my friend (W. W. Evarts, Esq.) has addressed the best, and, in my judgment, the finest part of his very able argument. * * * My friend denounces the inst.i.tution of slavery as a monstrous injustice, as a sin, as a violation of the law of G.o.d and of the law of man, of natural law or natural justice; and in his argument in another place, he called your attention to the enormity of the result claimed in this case, that these eight persons--and not only they, but their posterity to the remotest time--were, by your Honors' judgment, to be consigned to this shocking condition of abject bondage and slavery. Why, how very small and minute was that presentation of the subject! My friend must certainly have used the microscope or reversed the telescope, when, in seeking to present this question in a striking manner to your Honors' minds, he called your attention to these _few_ persons and their posterity. Why, if your Honors please, our territory embraces at the least estimate _three millions of these human beings_, who, by our laws and inst.i.tutions, as now existing in these states, * * * are not only consigned to hopeless bondage throughout their whole lives, but to a like condition is their posterity consigned to the remotest times. * * * It is a question of the mightiest magnitude. But the reason why I call your Honors' attention to its magnitude is this: that you may contemplate it in the connection in which my learned friend has presented it; that it is a SIN--a violation of natural justice and the law of G.o.d; that it is a monstrous scheme of iniquity for defrauding the laborer of his wages--one of those sins that crieth aloud to heaven for vengeance; that it is a course of unbridled rapine, fraud, and plunder, by which three millions and their posterity are to be oppressed throughout all time. Now, is it a sin? Is this an outrage against divine law and natural justice? _If it be_ such an outrage, then I say it is a sin of the greatest magnitude, of the most enormous and flagitious character that was ever presented to the human mind. The man who does not shrink from it with horror is utterly unworthy the name of a man. It is no trivial offence, that may be tolerated with limitations and qualifications; that we can excuse ourselves for supporting because we have made some kind of a bargain to support it. The tongue of no human being is capable of depicting its enormity; it is not in the power of the human heart to form a just conception of its wickedness and cruelty. And what, I ask, is the rational and necessary consequence, if we regard it to be thus sinful, thus unjust, thus outrageous?"

Dr. Hopkins, of Newport, being much engaged in urging the sinfulness of slavery, called one day at the house of Dr. Bellamy in Bethlem, Connecticut, and while there pressed upon him the duty of liberating his only slave. Dr. B., who was an acute and ingenious reasoner, defended slaveholding by a variety of arguments, to which Dr. H. as ably replied.

At length Dr. Hopkins proposed to Dr. Bellamy practical obedience to the golden rule. "Will you give your slave his freedom if he desires it?"

Dr. B. replied that the slave was faithful, judicious, trusted with every thing, and would not accept freedom if offered. "Will you free him if _he_ desires it?" repeated Dr. H. "Yes," answered Dr. Bellamy, "I will." "Call him then." The man appeared. "Have you a good, kind master?" asked Dr. Hopkins. "Oh! yes, very, very good." "And are you happy?" "Yes, master, _very_ happy." "Would you be more happy if you were free?" His face brightened. "Oh! yes, master, a great deal more happy." "_From this moment_," said Dr. Bellamy, "_you are free_."