The New-Jersey gazette — Burlington [N.J.], 1781-06-27 00:00:00, page 1

To Mr. E.
SIR,
IN the pursuits of truth, arguments ought fairly
to be considered; and therefore the true Rate
of a matter in debate well understood and kept in
view. I have asserted, that a fate of slavery was
not inconsistent with the boly scriptures, but on the con
trary, clearly allowed of. If this be true, there must
be some foundations for it, which are juftfiable, or a
just God would not have permitted it. Permit me,
fir, to offer some further elucidation of the authori
ties I have drawn from scripture, against which you
have objected difficulties; and then some remarks on
your observations refpeding the grounds ox foundations
of slavery.
If slavery is confident with scripture, you know
it then was your province, as the respondent in this
dispute, to have proved it. For where is no law, there
is no transgression. My asserting, that they, on the
contrary, clearly allow of it, demands from me, as
defendant, to prove it : this I have endeavoured to do
from both the old and new testaments, which argu
ments you confute by a bare denial, and demand
proof for what you den,, with which I fliall endea
vour briefly to comply.
That the children born in Abraham's boufe, and the
servants purchased with bis money, was luch as we call
Jlaves, is more than barely probable to me; my rea
sons are, 1. The Hebrew word, gnebbed, is here the
fame which is translated, Lev. xxv. 44, 45, bond
men, and plainly described as servants for life. To
be born in one's boufe, connected with being pur
chased for money, in refpetl of becoming bis, or one's
property, is clearly of the fame import, as slavery for
life is described, Exo. xxi. 4. if his master have
given him a wife, and foe have born bimfons or daugh
ters, the wife and her children /ball be her maker's, Lev.
XXV : of them /ball ye buy bond-men, and bond-maids,
&c. 2. Abraham's government and c^re of them, re
present them as servants for life. He had trained his
servants born in his house, and commanded them in
the pursuit of his enemies, Gen. xiv. 14, 15. None
were to be circumcised but such as belonged to the
family of this Patriarch, among these were exprefly
mentioned, every child born in bis boufe, or bought
with money of any stranger which should not be oj his
feed; Gen. xvii. 12. The reason is offered, chapter
xviii. ig. For I know him, faith God, that be will com
mand bis children, and bis boufbold after him, &c.
Now if these were not his bond-men, what controul
could he have over them? what security that they
Should not leave his service any day, and mix again
with the Pagan nations ?—As to the tenour of their
slavery is not to the purpose. For, if the not proved
assertion, that be could not defeat the title of becoming
bis heirs, but by having issue of bis own body, was
true ; then it would follow, as he badiffue, that they
remained his property, and his sons by heirfhip, for
which I contend. I have never asserted that Abra
ham had no right to manumit his flares by contract or
will'
The proofs from the laws of Moses were too plain
to the purpose for you to deny ; you try however to
evade their force by teciting the examples of Samu
el and David, like your Friend to Justice ; that of Abra
ham facrificing his son. That of David is only record
ed as a faft, to be approved or condemed as its cir
cumstances demand. The other two had special com
mands to individual persons, on particular occasions,
which God assigns as the reasons, and the duration
of these commands were limited by the ads they re
quired. But is it possible that you or any one tlfe
can believe that such special commands are of the
fame nature with laws or rules God prescribed to the
nation at large. Your cavils then insinuate, either
that these laws have only been given to individual
persons on special occasions, and so expired ; or that
they were temporary, and have since ceased. Both,
or either of them, demanded your proving it. For,
NEW-JERSEY GAZETTE.
[Vol. IV.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS
TO THE
National Bank,
FOR THE
United States of America,
Are received by
PHILEMON DICKINSON and
LAMBERT CADWALADER.
Trenton, June 19, 1781.
WEDNESDAY, June 27, 1781.
a law obligates, until in one way or other difannuled.
This fubterfuge I fufpeded, and therefore endea
voured to Blew that the Apostles had acknowledged
the lawfulness : To these you object the fame, as to
the example of Abraham. As to I Cor. vii. 20, 21,
1 think is evident, from every rule to be observed, in
obtaining the meaning of an author, that he intends
servants for life. The connection plainly shews, that
his view was to lay down rules for the profeffors of
Christianity to be guided by, in the difeharge of their
duty under their trials, to the ease and contentment
of their minds. It is beyond contradidon, that the
Roman laws under which they lived, allowed of ab
solute Savery ; and more than probable, that some
of these Raves were converted to chriftianity. Is it
tnen any ways likely that this Apostle Ihould negled
such slaves, and so often Ihew his concern for ser
vants who are at their liberty? Yea, what does he
mean by his faying, art thou called, being a servant,
care not for it ; but if thou mayest be free, use it ra
ther. If they were not Oaves, they were free, parti
cularly among the Romans. If there was any other
fetvitude customary among that people, I desire you
to (hew it. The import of his faying then would
amount to this, you who are free ; if you may be free,
u/e it rather, which would be nonsense. Compare with
this, 1 Pet. ii. 18. Servants be fabjecl to your mas
ters with all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but
also to tbefroward. If these were not slaves, why ex
horted to a willing fubjedtion to masters, foliois, jro
ward, hard, severe? Surely it would be no duty
for a freeman to submit so. If you should suppose
them.to have been indented servants, in such cate I
desire you to prove, that any such servitude was com
mon among the Romans at that time. If you can
not, what colour of reafop can you have for such a
supposition? as for the common custom of slavery,
not' only among the Greeks, but the Romans, at the
time the Apostles lived under their government; I
appeal to antient hitlory; to the several laws and
rilles of that nation, refpetting their slaves ; and the
different ways and means by which a Have might be
manumitted. Let him who pleases conhder with the
foregoing texts, Eze. vi. 5; Colos. iii. 22: Tit. ii. 9.
I fay again, to fappofe the Apostles to have so often
addrefied servants, and only intend indented ser
vants, of which there might have been a few, if any
at all, and intirely neglect those for life, of which,
without doubt, there was a great number, is an un
rcafonable fuppolition.
You teem to be Rarticd at, and make light of, my
remarks on Paul's epistle to Philemon. And I con
feb your manner of aniwering them, is matter of aJlo
niJbment to me. I suppose Onefimus a slave for life,
o. fpr-ever (which the fcriptures,life as of the fame
import :) this I conceive to be undeniably evident.
I. From the Icope of the whole epistle, which was
manifeftly the reconciliation of Philemon, to his run
away servant, Onefimus. In this all commentators
I have ever read, fully agree. 2. From the manner
in which the Apostle manages this matter, verfejiß,
be befeecbed him for Onefimus. If he was no slave,
what need v s this? then his going away needed no
intercession. —What end for reconciliation could it
aufwer to fay, verse ir, in time pas he bad been un
profitable to him, but now profitable ; if he was to re
ceive no profit at all by him—if he was not his pro
perty, what sense was theie in his fending him back ?
verse 12. If he was not his, what right had he to
fend him again? He declares, verse 13, that OneJi
mus bed ministered unto him; Paul, an old man, a
prisoner in Philemon's feud. But if he was not Phi
lemon's property, then he had done this for himfelf,
not in Philemon's Read. Ile would not retain him,
however ufeful, without Philemon's mind, verse 14.
But what reason for this, if he was not his maker's
property ?—He asserts, that be bad departed for a sea
son, that be Jhould receive him forever. A good rea
son for reconciliation, put as you would have it, it
runs thus: your servants running away, bus proved
an occafton for bis becoming a chriftian, and though as
a Roman, you bad a right to bis services, but now as
,Qurfellow cbrij?ian,you have none, youfall never have
him again. Can you suppose Padi writing by divine
inspiration, capable of such jargot ) ? I desist from
more particulars. If you duly confider the forego
ing, well may you cordially grant he was a slave for
life, which I shall believe until I fee any other kind
of servitude more common at that time, proved,
which the Apostle might more probably have in view.
I have farther supposed, that it was manifeft, the
Apostle had not commanded Philemon, nor even in
sinuated it to him as a duty, to manumit his servant.
This you deny, and assert that by i6th.and 17th verses,
Philemon was prohibited to keep him so ; and defy
me to disbelieve your aflertion. The text is, to re-
TH£
ceive him on Paul's fending him again, not now as a
servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, fpe
dally to me, but bow much more unto thee, both in
the flefb, and in the Lord. If thou count me therefore
a partner, receive him as myfelf. I candidly declare,
that if I was to attempt believing from these words,
in their scope and connexions, a prohibition of One
fimus's slavery, I must put scripture upon the rack,
and offer violence to my rational faculties.—You, fir,
must found your opinion on the cxpreffion, receive
him not as a servant, but above a servant, a brother
beloved. This phrase is firnilar to that, 1 Tim. vi. 7.
And they that have believing masters, let them not de
foife them, because they are brethren; but rather do
them service because they are faithful and beloved par
takers of the benefit, These things teach and escort.
These things were to be taught servants under the
yoke, who were to count their masters worthy of all
honour, that the name of God and his doftrine be not
blasphemed, fee verse 1. Believing masters and ser
vants were partakers of the fame religious privileges ;
but this did not dissolve their civil relation, as Paul
here positively declares ; but rather increases the ob
ligations of a proper difeharge of their mutual du
ties. See further, Ephef. vi. 5 —9. C< 1. iii. 22, and
iv. I. Tit. ii. 9. Yea, can you believe that Paul should
charge Timothy to teach and exort things, which hr
himfelf prohibited ? If he intended in 16th and 171!
verses, a prohibition of servitude, then the mill
contents of his epistle was mere nonfence, an inter
ceffian was altogether improper, a severe reprehen
bon (somewhat like that of a friend of justice to hi
antagonist) would have suited his purpose much bet
ter. I therefore juflly conclude, that I have taker
the true sense of the Apostle, and am truly juflifi
able in the use I have made of it,
I submit it, fir, to all who understand the art c
reasoning, whether I have, in my former essays, beg
ged the quefion f and whether the proposition whid
1 there assumed to prove the matter I contended for,
is not founded in truth ?
As to your remarks on the foundations of slavery
was I disposed to prosecute that fubjeQ, you have of
sered me several opportunities to cxpofc the futility
of your reasonings, but my view is not th plead fo|
the continuance of slavery. I have expressed myicU
in this refptft, that he who runs ma, read it- I hav:
asserted, that qualified slavery is not repugnant t<
scripture, but plainly allowed of, andetherefore is fa
fin, and deserves no judgments of God. This I thin!
I have now fully proved. If God allows of it, I al
low you, fir, to find out other reasons, on the
grounds of which he may be juftified. But the pro
priety of your condemning the German DoXor, and
approving Justinian, Where their opinions perfectly
harmonize, I cannot fee.
Your observations on my calculations of the e<-
pences and troubles appear to me ridiculous: yoz
know inftahces of persons who will find children fron
their birth, until 14 years of age, food and raimenl
at somewhat more than thirty shillings per yet Ar
I have known an instance of a gentleman who by h
last will manumitted all his slaves, and bequeathe
his whole estate to them. But was this a rule for 11
community ? However, as every citizen is more <
less capable to judge of the trouble and expencest
children from their birth to nine years of age, an
from tlpat to eighteen or twenty, I am willing to tub
mit it to their judgment : And in case our Legiffa
ture fuould enad a law liiailar to that of Pepufyi
vania, I will be glad to fee many come to offer feci,
rity, to keep them at your calculation, which w
secure the different townships from poor taxes, und<
which I fear they otherwise will groan.
Do you, Sir, suppose the comparison between tl
children of Paupers and slaves well founded? T'
support of. poor children of freemen is founded ;
civil compact. I assist others, in being civily affur#
that my posterity or relations who may come in fia?
lar circumstances, shall enjoy similar benefits ; and
the ancestors of such poor children in the communi
have probably done to others, which is not the c
of slaves. But if my reasons cannot fatisfy you'
difeX you to the civil laws of Moses, or rather t
Supreme Lawgiver himfelf; Exod. xxi. Lev. x;
Deut. xv.
You conclude, Sir, with an address to the paffior
I hope you will not have this considered as an. ar^
ment to convince. I ask you seriously, if you h
been pleading for levelling principles or all poffeffic.
in common, whether you could not have framed f
as pathetick an address in favour of the poor ? W 1
then not as well for the one as for the other?
A Lover of true Justice?
March 21, 1781.
[Numb. ißg.j