A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution of Slavery

http://empireandamericanreligion.net

A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the

Institution of Slavery

Thornton Stringfellow (1841)

Thornton Stringfellow was a white Baptist minister, and a wealthy slaveholder, in Virginia. He

became a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, a pro-slavery denomination created in the mid-

1840s. During the two decades between 1840 and 1860, Stringfellow published three different

works defending slavery on biblical grounds, each of which went through multiple editions. A Brief

Examination of Scripture Testimony was his first such work. It began as a lengthy article in a Baptist

periodical and was quickly reprinted as a tract; a revised edition of the tract was issued in 1850, and

Stringfellow republished the material yet again as part of his next book. Having written the initial

article while he was in his 50s, Stringfellow lived long enough to see the 60-70 individuals he held in

slavery emancipated by Union troops during the Civil War.

With men from the North, I have observed for many years a palpable ignorance of the divine will

in reference to the institution of slavery. I have seen but a few, who made the Bible their study,

who had obtained a knowledge of what it did reveal on this subject. Of late, their denunciation of

slavery as a sin is loud and long.

I propose, therefore, to examine the sacred volume briefly, and, if I am not greatly mistaken, I

shall be able to make it appear (1) that the institution of slavery has received, in the first place,

the sanction of the Almighty in the patriarchal age; (2) that it was incorporated into the only

national constitution which ever emanated from God; (3) that its legality was recognized, and its

relative duties regulated, by Jesus Christ in his kingdom; and (4) that it is full of mercy. [...]

[The patriarchal age]

The sacred records [...] bring to our notice a man who is held up as a model in all that adorns

human nature and as one whom God delighted to honor. This man is Abraham, honored in the

sacred records with the appellation “father of the faithful.” [...] Abraham is constantly held up in

the sacred story as the subject of great distinction among the princes and sovereigns of the

countries in which he sojourned. This distinction was on account of his great wealth. [...] In

Genesis 12:15-16, we have the honor that was shown to him mentioned, with a list of his

property, which is given in these words in the 16th verse: “He had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses,

and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels.” The amount of his flocks may

be inferred from the number of slaves employed in tending them. [...] After the destruction of

Sodom, we see him sojourning in the kingdom of Gerar. Here [...] Abimelech, the king, [...]

made Abraham a large present. Reason will tell us that, in selecting the items of this present,

Abimelech [...] would present him with nothing which Abraham’s sense of moral obligation

would not allow him to own. Abimelech’s present is thus described: “And Abimelech took

sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and women-servants, and a thousand pieces of silver, and

gave them unto Abraham” (Gen. 20:14-16).

[...] God had promised Abraham’s seed the land of Canaan and that, in his seed, all the nations of

the earth should be blessed. He reached the age of 85, and his wife the age of 75, while as yet

Stringfellow, A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on [...] Slavery 2

http://empireandamericanreligion.net

they had no child. At this period, Sarah’s anxiety for the promised seed, in connection with her

age, induced her to propose a female slave of the Egyptian stock as a secondary wife (which was

a practice winked at among good men),

from which to obtain the promised seed. This alliance

soon puffed the slave with pride, and she became insolent to her mistress; the mistress

complained to Abraham, the master. Abraham ordered Sarah to exercise her authority. Sarah did

so and pushed it to severity, and the slave absconded. The divine oracles inform us that the angel

of God found this runaway bondwoman in the wilderness; and if God had commissioned this

angel to improve this opportunity of teaching the world how much he abhorred slavery, he took a

bad plan to accomplish it. For instead of repeating a homily upon doing to others as we “would

they should do unto us,” and heaping reproach upon Sarah as a hypocrite and Abraham as a

tyrant, and giving Hagar direction how she might get into Egypt, from whence (according to

abolitionism) she had been unrighteously sold into bondage, the angel addressed her as “Hagar,

Sarah’s maid” (thereby recognizing the relation of master and slave) and asked her, “Whither

wilt thou go?” And she said, “I flee from the face of my mistress” (Gen. 16:1-9). Quite a wonder

she honored Sarah so much as to call her mistress; but she knew nothing of abolition, and God

by his angel did not become her teacher.

We have now arrived at what may be called an abuse of the institution, in which one person is

the property of another, and under their control, and subject to their authority without their

consent; and if the Bible be the book which proposes to furnish the case which leaves it without

doubt that God abhors the institution, here we are to look for it. What, therefore, is the doctrine

in relation to slavery, in a case in which a rigid exercise of its arbitrary authority is called forth

upon a helpless female; [...] which is hedged around with aggravations, as if God designed by it

to awaken all the sympathy and all the abhorrence of that portion of mankind who claim to have

more mercy than God himself—but, I say, in view of this strong case, what is the doctrine

taught? Is it that God abhors the institution of slavery; that it is a reproach to good men; that the

evils of the institution can no longer be winked at among saints; that Abraham’s character must

not be transmitted to posterity, with this stain upon it; that Sarah must no longer be allowed to

live a stranger to the abhorrence God has for such conduct as she has been guilty of to this poor

helpless female? [...Or] does God teach that she is a bondwoman or slave, and that she is to

recognize Sarah as her mistress and not her equal—that she must return and submit herself

unreservedly to Sarah’s authority? Judge for yourself, reader, by the angel’s answer: “And the

angel of the Lord said unto her, Return unto thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands”

(Gen. 16:9). [...]

[The Mosaic dispensation]

By common consent, that portion of time stretching from Noah until the law was given to

Abraham’s posterity at Mount Sinai is called the patriarchal age; this is the period we have

reviewed in relation to this subject. From the giving of the law until the coming of Christ is

called the Mosaic or legal dispensation. From the coming of Christ to the end of time is called

the gospel dispensation. The legal dispensation is the period of time we propose now to examine

in reference to the institution of involuntary and hereditary slavery [...] This dispensation is

called the legal dispensation because it was the pleasure of God to take Abraham’s posterity by

The remark in parentheses was omitted in the 1850 edition of this tract.

Stringfellow, A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on [...] Slavery 3

http://empireandamericanreligion.net

miraculous power, then numbering near three millions of souls, and give them a written

constitution of government, a country to dwell in, and a covenant of special protection and favor

for their obedience to his law until the coming of Christ.

[...W]e may safely conclude that the institution of slavery, [...] if it be morally wrong, [...] will, if

noticed at all in the law, be noticed for the purpose of being condemned as sinful. [...] What,

then, is true? Has God engrafted hereditary slavery upon the constitution of the government he

condescended to give to his chosen people—that people among whom he promised to dwell and

that he required to be holy? I answer, he has. It is clear and explicit. He enacts, first, that his

chosen people may take their money, go into the slave markets of the surrounding nations, [...]

and purchase men-servants and women-servants, and give them and their increase to their

children and their children’s children forever [...S]ee Leviticus 25:44-46: “Thy bondmen and thy

bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall

ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn

among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in

your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your

children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever.” I ask

any candid man if the words of this institution could be more explicit? It is from God himself [...]

Second, in the criminal code, that conduct is punished with death when done to a freeman, which

is not punishable at all when done by a master to a slave, for the express reason that the slave is

the master’s money. “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death” (Ex.

21:12). “If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be

surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is

his money” (Ex. 21:20-21). Here is precisely the same crime: [...] but if it be a servant, and the

master continued the rod (mind that) until the servant died under his hand, then it must be

evident that such a chastisement could not be necessary for any purpose of wholesome or

reasonable authority; and therefore he may be punished, but not with death. But if the death did

not take place for a day or two, then it is to be presumed that the master only aimed to use the

rod so far as was necessary to produce subordination; and for this, the law, which allowed him to

lay out his money in the slave, would protect him against all punishment. This is the common-

sense principle which has been adopted, substantially, in civilized countries where involuntary

slavery has been instituted from that day until this.

Now, here are laws that authorize the holding of men and women in bondage and chastising

them with the rod with a severity that terminates in death. And he who believes the Bible to be of

divine authority believes these laws were given by the Holy Ghost to Moses. I understand

modern abolition sentiments to be sentiments of marked hatred against such laws—to be

sentiments which would hold God himself in abhorrence if he were to give such laws his

sanction. But he has given them his sanction; therefore, they must be in harmony with his moral

character. [...]

[The gospel dispensation]

Having shown from the scriptures that slavery existed with Abraham and the patriarchs, with

divine approbation, and having shown, from the same source, that the Almighty incorporated it

in the law as an institution among Abraham’s seed until the coming of Christ, our precise object

Stringfellow, A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on [...] Slavery 4

http://empireandamericanreligion.net

now is to ascertain whether Jesus Christ has abolished it, or [whether he has] recognized it as a

lawful relation existing among men and [has] prescribed duties which belong to it, as he has

other relative duties, such as those between husband and wife, parent and child, magistrate and

subject.

[...] I may take it for granted, without proof, that he has not abolished it by commandment, for

none pretend to this. This, by the way, is a singular circumstance, that [...] Jesus should fail to

prohibit its further existence if it was his intention to abolish it. Such an omission or oversight

cannot be charged upon any other legislator the world has ever seen. But, says the abolitionist, he

has introduced new moral principles which will extinguish it as an unavoidable consequence,

without a direct prohibitory command. What are they? “Do to others as you would they should to

you.” [...But] if “do to others as ye would they should do to you” is to abolish slavery, it will, for

the same reason, level all inequalities in human condition. [...] Why a master cannot do to a

servant, or a servant to a master, as he would have them do to him, as soon a wife to a husband

or a husband to a wife, I am utterly at a loss to know. The wife is “subject to her husband in all

things” by divine precept. He is her “head,” and God “suffers her not to usurp authority over

him.”

Now, why, in such a relation as this, we can do to others as we would they should do to

us any sooner than in a relation securing to us what is just and equal as servants, and due respect

and faithful service rendered with good will to us as masters, I am at a loss to conceive.

[...] I affirm that in all the Roman provinces where churches were planted by the apostles,

hereditary slavery existed, as it did among the Jews and as it does now among us, [...] and that in

instructing such churches, the Holy Ghost, by the apostles, has recognized the institution as one

legally existing among them, to be perpetuated in the church, and that its duties are prescribed.

Now for the proof:

To the churches planted at Ephesus, the capital of the lesser Asia, Paul ordains, by letter,

subordination in the fear of God—first, between wife and husband; second, child and parent;

third, servant and master; all as states or conditions existing among the members. The relative

duties of each state are pointed out, those between the servant and master in these words:

“Servants, be obedient to them who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and

trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but

as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to

the Lord and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he

receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things to them,

forbearing threatening; knowing that your Master is also in heaven, neither is there respect of

persons with him” [Eph. 6:5-9]. Here, by the Roman law, the servant was property, and the

control of the master unlimited [...]

To the church at Colosse, a city of Phrygia in the lesser Asia, Paul in his letter to them

recognizes the three relations of wives and husbands, parents and children, servants and masters,

as relations existing among the members (here the Roman law was the same); and to the servants

and masters, he thus writes: “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not

with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God; and whatsoever you do,

Stringfellow is imprecisely quoting language from Ephesians 5:23-24 and 1 Timothy 2:12.

Stringfellow, A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on [...] Slavery 5

http://empireandamericanreligion.net

do it heartily, as to the Lord and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the

reward of the inheritance, for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for

the wrong he has done; and there is no respect of persons with God. Masters, give unto your

servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven” [Col.

3:22‒4:1].

[...] We will remark, in closing under this head, that we have [...] shown, from the New

Testament, that all the churches are recognized as composed of masters and servants, and that

they are instructed by Christ how to discharge their relative duties; and finally, that in reference

to the question [...] whether Christianity did not abolish the institution or the right of one

Christian to hold another Christian in bondage, we have shown that [...] so far from this being the

case, it adds to the obligation of the servant to render service with good will to his master [...]

[An institution full of mercy]

I propose, in the fourth place, to show that the institution of slavery is full of mercy. I shall say

but a few words on this subject. Authentic history warrants this conclusion: that for a long period

of time, it was this institution alone which furnished a motive for sparing the prisoner’s life. The

chances of war, when the earth was filled with small tribes of men who had a passion for it,

brought to decision, almost daily, conflicts where nothing but this institution interposed an

inducement to save the vanquished. [...] The same is true in the history of Africa, as far back as

we can trace it. It is only sober truth to say that the institution of slavery has saved from the

sword more lives, including their increase, than all the souls who now inhabit this globe.

The souls thus conquered and subjected to masters who feared not God nor regarded men, in the

days of Abraham [...] and the patriarchs, were surely brought under great obligations to the

mercy of God in allowing such men as these to purchase them and keep them in their families.

The institution, when engrafted on the Jewish constitution, was designed principally not to

enlarge the number but to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in the neighboring nations.

Under the gospel, it has brought within the range of gospel influence millions of Ham’s

descendants among ourselves, who, but for this institution, would have sunk down to eternal

ruin, knowing not God and strangers to the gospel. In their bondage here on earth, they have

been much better provided for, and great multitudes of them have been made the freemen of the

Lord Jesus Christ and left this world rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. The elements of an

empire, which I hope will lead Ethiopia very soon to stretch out her hands to God, is the fruit of

the institution here.

Stringfellow, A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on [...] Slavery 6

http://empireandamericanreligion.net

Source: Thornton Stringfellow, A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution of Slavery [...]

(Richmond, VA: Office of the Religious Herald, 1841), 5-28, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/emu.000011274300.

Public domain.

Some emendations for readability incorporated from the tract’s 1850 edition: Thornton Stringfellow, A Brief

Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution of Slavery [...] , rev. ed. (Washington DC: Congressional

Globe Office, 1850), 1-17, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nc01.ark:/13960/t42r51n8s. Public domain.

Excerpts edited and annotated by John-Charles Duffy. Italicized section headings added by Duffy. Paragraph breaks

adjusted. A numbered list reformatted for improved parallelism. Two erroneous biblical citations corrected (without

the use of square brackets, to avoid textual clutter); two missing biblical citations inserted (in square brackets

instead of parentheses). An erroneous singular noun converted to plural. A verb tense emended for consistency.

Some instances of that emended to who or whom for clarity. Capitalization, punctuation, and the formatting and

placement of biblical citations emended in line with modern conventions. Italics for emphasis used less frequently

here than in the source publication.

For the sake of modernization, several terms capitalized in the 1841 edition have been converted here to lowercase:

scriptures, patriarchal, father (in father of the faithful), apostles, and abolitionist; also slavery, which is regularly

capitalized in the 1841 edition but regularly lowercase in the 1850 edition. Master is capitalized here when used in

biblical quotations to refer to God, although it is lowercase in Stringfellow’s tract.

These edited excerpts from Stringfellow’s tract are intended for teaching purposes only. For research purposes, you

should consult, quote, and cite one of the source publications listed above.

the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommerical–ShareAlike 4.0 International License,

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.

All rights are reserved for the flag-shaped “Empire and American Religion” logo; if you alter this work, you may not

reproduce the logo. Use of the Creative Commons license icon is subject to the Creative Commons Trademark Policy.