master himself is liable to be overwhelmed by the floods of temptation. And in some instances the father and his sons are involved in one common ruin; nor do the daughters always escape this impetuous fountain of pollution.Were it necessary, I could refer you to several instances of slaves actually seducing the daughters of their masters! Such seductions sometimes happen even in the most respectable slave holding families!"

66

Testimony of S. A. Forral, Esq.

Negresses, when young and likely, are often employed as wet nurses by white people; as also, by either the planter or his friends, to administer to their sensual desires. This frequently is a matter of speculation; for if the offspring, a mulatto, be a handsome female, 800 or 1000 dollars may be obtained for her in the N. Orleans market. It is an occurrence of no uncommon nature, to see a Christian father sell his own daughter, and the brother his own sister, by the same father.

"During my stay (at New Orleans), Doctor came down the river with thirty slaves, among whom were an old negro and negress, each between sixty and seventy years of age. This unfortunate old woman had borne twenty-one children, all of whom had been at different times sold in the Orleans market, and carried into other States, and into distant parts of Louisiana. The Doctor said, in order to induce her to leave home quietly, that he was bringing her into Louisiana for the purpose of placing her with some of her children. 'And now,' said the old negress, ⚫ Aldo I suckle my massa at dis breast,

6

yet now he sell me to sugar planter, after he sell all my children from me.' The gentleman was a strict Methodist, or saint,' and is, as I was informed, much esteemed by the preachers of that persuasion, because of his liberal contributions to their support.

“Kidnapping free negroes is very common. It requires collusion between the seller and the buyer, as, in the regular trade, the dealer carries a certificate from the public authorities where the slave was purchased, and shows it when a purchaser presents himself."

CHAPTER VI.

BIBLE ARGUMENTS, IN FAVOR OF AMERICAN SLAVERY, ANSWERED.

Example of the Jews.

1. The examples of the Jews, it is said, may be quoted in favor of American slavery.

But if so, why not quote the same authority, to justify exterminating wars, and poligamy? Why not quote the Jewish example to compel every man to marry his brother's widow, in case his brother dies without children? Why not quote the same authority to prove that every man has a right to kill the murderer of his nearest relative, without any judicial process? Why not quote Jewish examples for putting a disobedient child to death?

Servants held as property.

2. Servants among the Jews, it is supposed, are spoken of as property, Ex. 21: 21. For he is his money. The meaning is, the servant's labor was to the master for the time being, the same as money. Servants among the Hebrews were not claimed, held, and treated as property, as we shall elsewhere show.

Christ did not condemn slavery.

3. Again we are told, that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery, by name. We answer, neither did he condemn offensive wars, gambling, lotteries, rum-making, and theatres, by name.

Servants mentioned in the New Testament not slaves.

4. It is supposed, by some, that the words rendered servant in the New Testament, signify, invariably, such as were claimed, held, and treated as absolute property.

But this is by no means, the fact! The word generally rendered servant, in the New Testament, is douλos. According to Parkhurst, it comes from the Hebrew dol, which signifies, weak, powerless, poor, exhausted. Hence, the first signification given to douλos by the best Greek Lexicographers, is, one in a servile state, a servant. This is the first

definition affixed to this word, by Parkhurst, Ewing, Grove, and Greenfield, Editor of Bagster's Comprehensive Bible. Donnegan says it means a slave, a

servant.

This word occurs in the New Testament, one hundred and twenty-one times. It is applied to Christ,

to Moses, and the Prophets. Phil. 2: 7. Rev. 10: 7.-15: 3. In twelve instances it is applied to the Apostles; fourteen times it is applied to Christians; and six times to sinners. And in about seventy places it is used to designate one in a state of secular servitude, a servant.

That this word was not generally used by the Apostles to designate one who was claimed, held and treated as property, is farther evident from the following considerations. (1.) In the Greek language this word corresponds with our word servant; it does not necessarily signify one who was held and treated as property; but it was used to designate one in a servile state, most generally a slave.

(2.) In Athens, however, this word was not used to signify a slave properly so called. See Robinson's Antiq. of Greece, p. 30, and Potter's Gr. An. vol. 1. page 68, and the number of the Bib. Repository for Jan. 1835.

From these authorities we will learn, that among the Athenians, slaves, or those who were the entire property of another, were called, oikerai, but after their freedom was granted them, they were named Souλo, not being then, like the former, a part of the master's estate, though they were held in a kind of servitude, being required to render some rude service, such as was required of the μeroika [resident strangers] to whom, in some respects, they were inferior.

Now when we consider that the Attic Greek is substantially the language in which the New Testa. ment was written, it seems quite probable, that its

writers did not, in using this word, depart from the sense above given.

(3.) This word was used sometimes by St. Paul, to designate a kind of servitude which he himself condemned, 1 Cor. 7: 21, 23, Philemon,16.

(4.) The other word, rendered servant, in the New Testament is okεng from o¡koç, a house; a domestic, a servant, a house servant or slave. This word occurs but four times in the New Testament. Acts, 10: 7. Rom. 14: 4. 1 Pet. 2: 18, and Luke, 16: 13.

In the last passage here given, the reader will see at once, that it could not have been used to signify one who was the entire property of another.

But, admitting that this word is used in one place (1 Pet. ii. 18) to signify those servants who were held as slaves, it by no means follows from this fact, that the Apostle meant by using it, to justify the claim of the slaveholder in that case. He directs those servants or slaves, how to suffer the injuries which might be inflicted upon them, but he does not direct the slaveholder how to inflict them. When he addresses masters, he commands them to render unto their servants that which is JUST and EQUAL, and which command is a direct condemnation of slavery.

Were the masters mentioned in the New

Testament slaveholders?

5. But we are told again, that the words used by the Apostle, in speaking of masters, necessarily imply such as held slaves.

1. The word xugios lord or master, is used in the