NOTE 47. Council of Berghamstead. NOTE 48. Council of Aix-la-Chapelle. NOTE 49. Capitulary of Emperor Louis. NOTES 50 and 51. Council of Worms. NOTE 52. Council of London. Mistake of Bishop of Oxford. NOTE 53. Letter of Archbishop Anselm. INTRODUCTION FOR THE GENERAL READER. IN the month of December, 1860, I was requested formally, by several gentlemen of New-York, to state in writing my opinion of the Biblical argument on the subject of negro slavery in the Southern States, and also on the constitutional position of the contending parties. I considered it my duty to comply with that request, and the pamphlet was published at their expense in the following month of January. No compensation, pecuniary or otherwise, was offered or expected for my labor. It was asked and given purely as a service to what I deemed to be the truth, at a time when the secession of the Southern States had invested that truth with the highest importance to the peace and safety of our country. Some gentlemen of Philadelphia, having read this pamphlet, addressed a similar request to me on the fifteenth of April, 1863, with reference to the topic of slavery, and I replied by consenting to the republication of the same Biblical argument on that subject, including the popular objections commonly urged against it. As in the former case, so it was in this—that no pecuniary or other inducement of a personal nature was contemplated. I did not know, and cared not to inquire into the political standing of those gentlemen. The question, in my mind, was above all party considerations, because it involved the authority of the Scriptures, the consistency of the Church, and the morality of the American Constitution. I was sufficiently acquainted with the subscribers of the letter to recognize them as Episcopa lians of high character, who had a right to know the sentiments of every bishop in the Church, in answer to any respectful application. And I should have deemed myself not only unworthy of my office, but unworthy of the name of a Christian freeman, if I could have shrunk from avowing my convictions of the truth, through the love of popular praise or the fear of popular censure. The letter of request, together with my reply, is here recorded, in order that my readers may have the whole case fully and fairly before them. THE LETTER OF REQUEST. PHILADELPHIA, April 15, 1863. RIGHT REVEREND SIR: Your views on the Scriptural aspect of Slavery, contained in a letter addressed by you to some gentlemen in New-York, shortly before the breaking. out of the war, have come to our notice, and been perused with much satisfaction and profit. 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 it. It is of the deepest importance to the public welfare that a sound public opinion should exist on this topic. Believing that the communication of your views as a Christian Bishop on the Scriptural aspect of Slavery may contribute to this desirable result, we respectfully venture to beg that you will favor us with them, and permit us to make them public. We are with great respect your obedient servants, G. M. WHARTON, A. BROWNING, JOHN STOCKTON LITTELL, SAMUEL JACKSON, M.D., P. MCCALL. To the Rt. Rev. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, Burlington, Vt. THE ANSWER. BURLINGTON, VT., May 2, 1863. MY DEAR SIRS: The pamphlet published in January, 1861, to which you have so kindly referred, is at your service, in its original form; as I have not found, in the numerous answers which it has drawn forth, any reason for changing my opinion. On the contrary, those answers have only strengthened my conviction as to the sanction which the Scriptures give to the principle of negro slavery, so long as it is administered in accordance with the precepts laid down by the Apostles. Such was the universal doctrine of Christian ministers, Christian lawyers, and Christian statesmen one hundred years ago, with a few exceptions which only proved the rule. The Constitution of the United States, as I firmly believe, made no concessions on the subject which were not warranted by the Bible. And therefore, while 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 Gospel. With this brief introduction, I proceed to the very serious question which your friendly application has submitted for discussion. Your faithful servant in Christ, JOHN H. HOPKINS, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY. THE word "slave" occurs but twice in our English Bible, but the term "servant," commonly employed by our translators, has the meaning of slave in the Hebrew and the Greek originals, as a general rule, where it stands alone. We read, however, in many places, of "hired servants," |