1. God recognized the relation of master and slave among the patriarchs.
My first proof is, that Hagar was the female slave of Abraham and Sarah. The Abolitionists tell us that the word "servant" in our English version of the Bible, does not mean slave. This word is derived from the Latin word servus, the literal and proper meaning of which, as every Latin scholar knows, is slave. The Romans had two words which they used to signify slave; one was serous, the other mancipium. In the passage, however, where Hagar is first named, Gen. xvi, I, she is called "an handmaid"-and in the 2d, 3d, 5th, 6th, and 8th, verses she is called Sarah's "maid." The Hebrew word shifha translated "maid" signifies a female slave.
2. The Septuagint version, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language, and which was made by Hebrews, renders the word in the Hebrew by paidiske which, my brother will scarcely deny, means a female slave.
3. But that Hagar was a slave is proved beyond contradiction by the language of the apostle Paul, in Galatians, 4th chapter, and 22d and following verses. "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman...."
My second proof, that God recognized the relation of master and slave among the patriarchs, is drawn from the 17th chapter of Genesis, which contain the institution of circumcision. We read the 12th and 13th verses. "He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generation, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, and he that is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with money, must needs be circumcised." Does not this divine provision prove, that at that time Abraham had servants, who were Bought with his money, as well as such as were born in his house?-and were not servants bought with money slaves? If not, what were they? Who would so describe a hired servant? And can we believe, that, if slave-holding were in itself sinful, God could have entered into a covenant with Abraham, requiring him not to liberate his slaves, but to circumcise them?
The preceding is just a small example of the biblical arguments laid out by Dr. Rice in defense of his position that slavery is not, in itself, a sin. It must be stated once again that Dr. Rice was not a defender of slavery; he was a vocal advocate of gradual abolition of slavery. His biblical defense as given here was merely an effort to point out the groundless accusations made by Radical Abolitionists that slavery in itself is sinful. Let us recur to Dr. Rice's earlier statement as to his views of slavery. "In denying that slave-holding is in itself sinful, I do not defend slavery as an institution that ought to be perpetuated. I am not a pro-slavery man. I am opposed to slavery."9
The same biblical arguments as advanced by Dr. Rice, a Presbyterian minister, were restated in 1863 by John H. Hopkins, D.D., LL.D., the Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. In a letter requesting permission to publish Bishop Hopkins's defense of biblical slavery, Episcopalians from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted, "We believe that false teachings on this subject have had a great deal to do with bringing on the unhappy strife between two sections of our common country, and that a lamentable degree of ignorance prevails in regard to In his response to the request by the gentlemen of Philadelphia, Bishop Hopkins, like Dr. Rice, made it known that he desired to see slavery ended. Nevertheless, he did not approve of the un-biblical methods being employed by the Radical Abolitionists. Bishop Hopkins stated, "I should rejoice in the adoption of any plan of gradual abolition which could be accepted peacefully by general consent, I can not see that we have any right to interfere with the domestic institutions of the South, either by the law or by the Bishop Hopkins spoke out against those who, using extra-biblical sources, would assume the authority of God and proclaim something as sinful that the Bible did not. Hopkins stated: "I shall not oppose the prevalent idea that slavery is an evil in itself. A physical evil it may be, but this does not satisfy the judgement of its more zealous adversaries, since they contend that it is a moral evil-a positive sin to hold a human being in bondage."r'
It is important for the modern reader, imbued with more than 135 years of radical abolitionist propaganda, to remember that the arguments given by ministers of the gospel such as Dr. Rice and Bishop Hopkins were not in defense of slavery. The Radical Abolitionists in the nineteenth century and modern liberal politically correct commentators would condemn anyone opposed to their radical approach for ending slavery as a "defender of slavery." As pointed out numerous times, men such as Dr. Rice and Bishop Hopkins were not defending slavery, which they detested, but were defending the truth about the institution of slavery. Although these ministers were ardent anti-slavery men, the fact that they opposed the Radical Abolitionist view is enough to cause them and their arguments to be anathematized by the modern Church. As will be subsequently demonstrated, this narrow-minded view about ending slavery is just as prevalent in the modern Church as it was in the mid-nineteenth century. Yet, the Radical Abolitionist view was not the view of Christianity for more than nineteen hundred years. In the defense of his view that slavery was not sinful in itself, Bishop Hopkins stated, "I stand upon the ground which the Church of God has occupied from the beginning.""3 Here then is an important theological point. If the word of God (i.e., the Bible) is the exclusive rule for righteous living, how can one tolerate the use of extra-biblical arguments to create a sin where it has not existed for more than nineteen hundred years? Even pro-slavery men took note of this error in Radical Abolitionism. "If ever the abolitionists succeed in thoroughly imbuing the world with their doctrines and opinions, all religion, all government, all order, will be slowly but surely subverted and destroyed."14
It may be shocking for modern readers to learn, but Joseph R. Wilson, the father of President Woodrow Wilson, spoke in defense of the biblical view of slavery and in opposition to the Radical Abolitionists' views. In a letter to men inquiring to obtain permission to publish a sermon preached by Dr. Wilson titled Mutual Relation of Master and Slaves as Taught in the Bible, Dr. Wilson stated: "It is surely high time that the Bible view of slavery should be examined, and that we should begin to meet the infidel fanaticism of our infatuated enemies upon the elevated ground of a divine warrant for the institution [slavery].... My sermon is, therefore, placed at your
Returning to the great slavery debate in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1845, we will now look at Dr. Rice's final points which summarized his position that slaveholding in itself is not a sin.
The gentleman, by way of proving that the Jews had no slaves, refers us to the law of Moses against man-stealing. But who denies that stealing men was made a capital offence under the Jewish law? No man, surely, who reads his Bible; but that law never forbade the purchase of a bond-servant from a heathen master. On the contrary, as I have proved, the law gave express permission to do so....
Mr. Blanchard attempts to prove, that there were no slaveholders in the Christian church, because in the constitution of Christianity "there is neither barbarian, Scythian, bond or free." And, strangely enough, the gentleman seems to understand this language literally! Just as if it would not prove as conclusively, that there were no females in the early church, as that there were no slaves there! Who denies (what that text imports) that in the privileges of the Christian church and in the blessed hopes of the gospel, there are no distinctionsthat at the table of the Lord the richest man takes his seat by the poorest of the poor? But a king is a king still, though his meanest subject is on a par with himself in the things of religion. The equality of all men on the great platform of Christian privilege and hope, does not prevent great inequalities in their civil condition. I go for both-for defending their equality in Christian privileges, whilst I would not interfere with the order of society in things touching this life. The equality of a Jew and his slave in their right to the Passover, did in no wise destroy their relation to each other as master and slave.
The gentleman has repeatedly asserted the sinfulness of slave-holding in itself, on the ground, that the master takes the labor of the slave without wages. Now, on this sub
ject, what says God's law, That law, as I have proved, expressly required that the wages of a hired servant (sakir) should be promptly paid; but it says not a word about the wages of the bond-servant (eyed) bought from the heathen. How shall we account for this fact.-, The reason is obvious, if the doctrine for which I contend is true; but the thing is wholly unaccountable, if Mr. B.'s principles are correct. The law did not require wages to be paid to the bond-servant, because the master had already paid for his labor what, tinder the circumstances, it was worth, and because the master was bound to provide his slave food and raiment, and shelter, in sickness and health, until death. This support was the servant's wages-quite as much, by the way, as most men obtain for their labor.
The gentleman asserts, that the word doulos does not mean slave. This is merely assertion; but we call for evidence. I called upon him to tell its what word in the Greek language does mean slave, if this word does not. He has not given us the information. A similar question was asked concerning the Hebrew rued; but the gentleman could find no other word signifying slave. Indeed he told us, virtually, that there is no word either in the Hebrew or Greek language, which does definitely signify slave! A statement contradicted by every Greek Lexicon, by classic usage, by Bible usage, and by all Greek and Hebrew scholars. Stuart, McNight, Barnes, and a host of others, co►nmentators, critics and theologians, say unhesitatingly, that the literal and proper meaning of doulos, is slave.
The faith of the abolitionists induces them to pursue a course widely different from that pursued by the apostles of Christ, in regard to prevailing sins, particularly in regard to slaver'. Abolitionists stand at a distance, and denounce and 61lify all slaveholders; the apostles never did so. On the contrary, they preached the gospel both to masters and slaves, enjoining on each the faithful discharge of their respective duties. Abolitionists seek to render the slaves discontented, and to induce them to leave the service of their masters; the apostles pursued an opposite course. In a word-the apostles, though assailed with many odious charges, were never represented as abolitionists, or as seeking to interfere with the relation of master and slave. They, in their epistles and discourses, so far as they are recorded in the Bible, never denounced the relation itself as sinful. They sought to reform men, not by abusing and denouncing them in papers, pamphlets and public meetings, but by going amongst them, and kindly reasoning with them. The course of the abolitionists is precisely opposite to this. Now if it be true, as the apostle James teaches, that men show their faith by their works-it follows, that since the works of abolitionists are widely different from those of the apostles, and opposed to them, their faith is equally different from the faith of the apostles.
I have not asked you to depend upon my assertions, touching these important points, but have referred you to a number of the best commentators, critics, and theologians, such as Poole, Henry, Horne, Bush, Barnes, Stuart, McNight, Doddridge, and others; and I have challenged the gentleman to produce one respectable commentator, critic, or theologian, who agrees with him in his views of the scriptures quoted, or who gives a different exposition of them, from that which I have given. He has not done it, because he cannot [emphasis added].
You have heard his replies, so far as he has attempted to reply to these arguments; and you have observed how carefully he, from the very commencement of this debate, shunned the Bible [emphasis added], because he knew, if he went into a scriptural argument, we should be troubled with eyed and doulos, lexicons, commentators and critics; and he very much feared I would confuse the minds of the people in this way!!!
[Mr. Blanchard rose to explain. I said I did so because if you took the brother from the slaveholders' texts in the Bible, you put him out of his tract.]
The gentleman is right. It is true, that I cannot discuss great moral and religious questions, without the Bible-the only infallible rule of right. On such subjects my "tract" takes me directly to the "Blessed Book, " the fountain of truth [emphasis added].
I repeat, I did not ask you to depend on my assertions concerning the meaning of that book, I gave the gentleman standard authorities in great abundance. Poole, Henry, Scott, Gill, and many other eminently, wise and good men, who, if they were here now, would be denounced and excommunicated, because they were not abolitionists! But the gentleman, though bold in his assertions concerning the Bible, has not one sound scholar to agree with him.
If Poole, and Henry, and Scott, and Gill, and Horne, and Dick, and Chalmers, and Cunningham, and Woods, and Stuart, and Tyler, and Spring, and Wayland, and Bacon, and the whole Church of Scotland, are ignorant of the Bible, and all in error concerning the facts there recorded about slavery and slaveholders; I a►n quite content to he denounced in such company; and I am clearly of opinion, that if they, and such as they have failed to understand the Bible on this subject, we cannot expect much light from the gentleman and his coadjutors.
I repeat what I have said before, that I oppose abolitionism, not because it tends to abolish slavery, and improve the condition of the slave, but because it tends to perpetuate it, and aggravate all its evils. Never as I firmly believe, will slavery be abolished by your abolition lectures, your newspaper and pamphlet denunciations of slaveholders, without regard to the character or circumstances; or by attempting to exclude them from the Christian church. In New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, it has been abolished, but not by the principles of abolitionists. So long as the system continued, masters and slaves were members of the same churches, and sat at the same table of the Lord. Ministers of the Gospel, faithful to their high commission, such men as many who are now denounced by abolitionists as pro-slavery, proclaimed the Gospel both to masters and slaves; and through its elevating and purifying influence upon the public mind, slavery was gradually abolished. And thus it must be abolished, if abolished at all, in the present slave-holding States)'6
With more than twenty-four hours of debate, and including no less that sixteen different speeches by each contender, this subject was well discussed. More to the point, it should be obvious that both sides in this debate had good points to make and were sincere in their beliefs. Unfortunately, in today's politically correct environment, only one side of this great debate is allowed a hearing. In academia, in the media, and in the churches and the synagogues throughout America, anyone who dares to question the Radical Abolitionists' view of slavery as a "sin" will reap more abuse and odium than those who take the name of the Lord in vain. As a matter of fact, a minister could be caught in the arms of a harlot and not receive the condemnation one would receive who dares to preach a sermon such as the one preached by President Woodrow Wilson's father in If this scenario had been true for the entire history of Christianity, no one would have reason to question it. For almost two thousand years, the Church had not responded to the subject of slavery as a sin, as has been done for the last 150 years. The question is, why? Were the Puritan and Pilgrim clerics of New England, who countenanced both slavery and the slave trade, blinded by sinful passions? Were there no biblical scholars worthy of the subject until the advent of the Radical Abolitionists? Were Southerners, living in the Bible Belt of the antebellum South, so tainted by the odious "sin" of slavery as to make their profession of Christianity null and void?
More than just a theological oddity, this subject strikes at the heart of Radical Abolitionism and, therefore, at the political consequences of the Radical Abolitionists' efforts. Modern American political theory places the Radical Abolitionists at the pinnacle of the defenders of the downtrodden. Yet, as Dr. Rice, Bishop Hopkins, and many others have pointed out, rather than being a friend of the slave, Radical Abolitionism damaged the efforts of ending slavery on equitable grounds.
If the only damage done to America by the Radical Abolitionists was that of prolonging slavery or making its abolition impossible outside of an armed conflict, that in itself would be tragic enough. But, the loathsome influence of these radicals extends, through history, to us today. As Dr. Rice pointed out, the Radical Aboliti
onists did not allow the Bible to stand in their way when defining a subject as sinful. If no Bible verse could be found to make slavery a "sin," then man's feelings were called upon to elicit the needed approval to label slavery as sinful. Thus, the use of extra-biblical authorities has been introduced into the modern Church. This influence is seen even in some of the most "conservative" churches in America today. As an example of the radicals' influence in a "conservative" church, let us consider the 150th Annual Southern Baptist Convention.
RADICAL INFLUENCE IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
In the life of humanity 150 years is but a mere "drop in the bucket." But what a "drop" the last 150 years has been for the Southern Baptist Convention. Now let it be known from the outset, that at the time of the writing of this book, the author was a Southern Baptist. He was nurtured in a Southern Baptist home, his father was a Baptist deacon for more than forty years, and his grandparents were also good Southern Baptists. Instilled from an early age in the most fundamental and orthodox Christian doctrines by many good Baptists, the author was totally unprepared for the action of the One Hundred and Fifty Year Assembly of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1995. The passing of the so-called Racial Reconciliation Resolution by the assembled delegates defamed and otherwise slandered the good name of Southern Baptists of the past 150 years. The resolution is nothing more than liberal double-speak for an act of cultural genocide against the South.
Today, in this most "enlightened" age, no people in America can be hated with complete impunity except Southerners. Southerners are the only people in America without "official" status and therefore no history worthy of remembrance, no heritage suitable for sharing, and no symbols deserving protection; putting it bluntly, Southerners "ain't got no rights." Southerners can thank the conquering Yankee, the liberal establishment, and Southern scalawags for their plight.
The infamous Baptist resolution makes no less than four errors: two historical errors, one political error, and one major biblical error. The historical errors stem from the wholehearted attachment that the Baptist delegates gave to the "Yankee myth of history." The duped delegates regurgitated on cue the abolitionist (i.e., liberal) propaganda about the institution of African servitude and life in the Old South.
Myths of American Slavery Page 10
