Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1861-11-01
bishop Hopkins Bible views Oh
Southern slavery.


Mn. EplroR:-I find in the Bellows
Falls A,gs of May 23l, a letter from
Bishop IIo pkins of Vermont, giving his
= views on the scriptural authority for negro
slavery in The Southern States" The let
ter is so peculiar in lis logic, and wonderful
in It's co, clusions, that | hsve thought It
might be interesting to your readers to no.
tiee Il. | am led to this the more because
of the high position from which the letter
comes. For the writer does not fail to IN
form his r4aders that he writes with
franki.ess which becomes his office IN the
defence of the truth" We have been wont
TO ass ci,te with the Episcopal sound
head aud pure heart. We will not be
unclar table towards the heart that appears
in the letter. but we hope to be pardoned
if We attempt an analysis Of the mental
processes developed in it.
The object of the letter, as stated by the
writer, is to give " his opinion on the scrip
tural authority for negro slavery in the
Southern States"
The first proof Of his position is, slavery
is not moral evil. This he infers from
the fact that il is mentioned so frequently
in the Bible. But granting this fact as
proved, how does it prove the scriptural au-
,horiiy for negro slavery in the Southern
States. Slavery answering to supposed
definition may not be morally wrong, but
buying and selling human beings as prop
eriy, subject TO all the contingencies of 9th
er property, may he. The writer's defni-
! ton of slavery IL, q servants for life de-
scending to otfspri' g" Now = servant is
one thing. and negro slavery in the South
ern States may be another. 1t is won
derful leap of logic to infer that, because it
is not morally wrong for one man TO sus-
tain the relation of servant to another,
we have scriptural authority for man TO
hold his fellow as chattel, subject to the
same contingency in law as a borse, or
sheep. The definition in no way touches
negro slavery in the Southern States. A
negro is thing in southern slavery, so
construed by their courts, an so practical
Iy. lie may be attached, and advertised
and sold with, aud by the same law as 9th
err property. The reasoning of the writer
then is just this Because system OF servi-
tude answering TO Il given definition is not
morally wrong, therefore something that
does not come within the definition is scrip
tural.
further proof Of his position. Abraham
had servants, therefore We have scriptural
authority for negro slavery in the Southern
States" We have no doubt that Abraham
had seryants,--perhaps 5ond-scrvanis bu
has the writer of the letter any eyidenc,
that they were negroes, or if negroes tina
they were held as chatiels, 10 be bought a,,c
sold under the hammer, aud parents parted
from their offspring at pleasure Such i
negro slavery. Until the similarity of til,
two is shown, the reasoning of the letter il
this: Because one fact is mentioned in th,
Bible, ii is scriptural authority for any 9th
er fact, whether there is or not any re
semblance between them. But admi,tin,
that Abraham's slavery was identical will
negro slavery in the Southern Stairs, it
not quite clear how il meets the gentleman
position. II is given simply as histories
fact. There is no approving comment
much less a command authorizing it. |
y the writer Of the letter wont, in his defens
of the truth, TO claim scripiural authority 70
: every practice that is mentioned in the SCRIP
y ture history? Take the history of Abra
hams conduct with Hagar. Now will til
z writer be so consistent with himself IA to il
fer that we have seriptural authority fc
the practice of masters in raising chiIdre
: from their negro slaves? There Is just Q
= much evidence in history that this fact hs
" the Divine approval, as the other, and ma
: be quoted as scriptural authority for The rel
: etition OF the fact in 1861, as well as III
: fact Of his slavery, for slavery now. B,
: let us look at this fact of history. Abri
} ham had servants born in his house." l.
: the history be its own commentator. and "
= cannot have any doubt how these servan
y were regarded. They were to be und,
the same law, in the covenant of God.
= his own children; Gen. xvii: h. The
I inherited property unless prevented by
nearer heir; Gen. XIV: 2, 4. This serv
. tude did not descend to the offspring, as
negro slavery. Ishmael, according to sout
ern slavery, and his posterity, must ha,
= been slaves. But the sacred history speal
=, OF bin as becoming "a great nation, al
" twelve princes are begotten of him. No
:. look at the logic of The letter. The Bib
speaks of a serviiude that secured to II
servants the privileges of the home Dor
he IN the covenant of God, and the right of i
al heriiance; therefore we have scriptural a
b. thoiiiy for slavery of the negro that 70
cd bids all instruction, and denies him any
r. the rights Of man.