H ;
TP?
iJLD
fen
Oil
1
TED
JE
0
ID)
11
T. 31 E R E D I T II, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
VOL. X. No. !l0.
i dollars
months, three dollars!. -m
rhmmunications, to secure attention, mist be post
six
All communications.
Discontinuances must be ordered before the end of the
5"otherwi3ethe subscriber will be held responsible
M ntbv special agreement to that eflect.
paid, except by speaai s chracter of the p8,
are
paper,
T? . t . . , k. iiartrI rates.
theiSon .f Post Makers, generally fre of pens,
and at the risk of the proprietor.
All orders, not attended to in a reasonable time, should
be repeated; and all remittances not duly .receipted,
should be inquired after-that errors and oversights may
pSsndts'hc tew name, of subscribers with
the mociey lor one year enclosed, shall be entitled to a
' B-vcnth copy for their services. ;
Mittvxes of Associatioris, pamphlets, and books, or all
descriptions, will be printed with neatness, and on ac
commodating terms. I .
. j I Frm the Cjirt$tian Reflector.
TO' THE REV. RICHARD FULLER D. D.
K ' LETTER IV.
My pear BrotTEr,- In my last two letters I
have attempted to shoAV what I mean when I assert
that slavery is a moral evil. I have wished to make
it clear that slavery, oij the holding of men in bon
dage, and "obliging them to labor for out benefit
without: their contract jor consent," is always and
every where, or as you well express it, semper et
xtbiquty i& moral wrong, a violation of the obligation
under which Wu are created to our fellowmen, and
a transgression of the la w of our Creator, liou
shall bee thy neighbor as thyself j that however, while
this is true, it is also true that the guilt of any indi
vidual doing this wron may be modified by his
means pf obtaining a knowledge of his duty, and
also by! the laws of the community of which he
maj chance to be a member.
Thcnbjection to this jview of the subject is found
ed on the precept and example of the Old and New
Testaments. With pleasure I proceed to consid
er the argument on this part of the question. Be
lieving as we both do that the Bible is a Derfect
rule of duty, if we can ascertain what it teaches,
we may reasonably hope that our opinions my yet
coincide. In this letter I propose to examine the
argument derived from the Old Testament alone.
Your view, I think, 1 may be briefly expressed
as follows: Slavery was sanctioned in the Old
Tvslament and, since
. i .
the Old Testament is a
and since He would not
revelation froirr God,
sanction any thing morally evil, therefore slavery
is not a moral evil. . - ;c
BefoeJ however, I proceed to consider this ar-
f gument, permit me to remark, that f do not per
ceive in the views which I have expressed, ; any
'thing at variance with the teachings of the Old
Testament. I will briefly explain my opinions on
tho subject.
v I grant, at once, that the Hebrews held slaves
from the time of the conquest of Canaan, and that
Abraham and the Patriarchs had held them many
centuries before. I ernnt also that Moses enact-
ed laws: with special reference to that relation. Of
the nature of theso laws it may be convenient to
speak, shortly. I wonder that any on-; should
have bad the hardihood to deny so plain a matter
of record. I should almost as soon deny the de
. livery of the ten commandments toIoses. ,
Granting all this, I do not fee that it contradicts
aught that I have said.- I believe slavery then, as
now, to have been wrong, a violation of our obli
gations to man, and at variance with the moral
laws of God. But! bel ieve that God did not see
fit to reveal his will on jthis subject, nor indeed on
.many others, to the ancient Hebrews. He made
known to them just as rriuch of his moral law as
he chose, and the law on this subject belonged to
the part which he did not choose to make known.
Hence, although they did what was in itself wrong,
yet, God not having made known to them his will,
they were not guilty. t r. '
But more than this. God saw fit to institute
Peculiar relations between the Hebrews and the
inhabitants of Canaan,J-relations "such as he has
never instituted between any other portions of the
human family, r When the iniquity of the Canaan
ites was fall, God gave them and their lands and
possessions, by special revelation, to the Hebrews.
The Hebrews were authorized by divine comm is
on to invade their territory, to take possession of
their houses and fields,! and slay 'without mercy
the inhabitants. The limitation and extent of this
grant were definitely marked out. They were
however, directed to paiise before the work of des!
(ruction was fully completed, lest the land, being
- deserted of its inhabitants, should be overrun by
beasts of prey. Still, the people within these lim.
i remained under the primitive curse. The He
brews were authorized to destroy them, and seize
uPoa their land whenever they .needed it. The
thority to take them as slaves seems to me to
r8 a Pt of this original, peculiar, and, I may per
Hiips say,janomalous grant.. - .
But this .grant was made to one DeoDle. "and tn
no people only, the Hehcws. h kid retpsct to bns-
. Pplt onyt the Cannankes. : It can be of force
lit tin ! . . , . f .1 i r I
T . u mucr te anu toino oiner people, it the
Y mtTs wer? now to return to Palestine, the Old
testament would fumifch mn wnrrant hv whiK
ly would be authorized, were it in their power,
, j j . :,.-- - r-
or laronites of Mount Lebanon, the Arabs of Da-
ri'mB w oesirucuon or 10 enslave tne urusc s
pr the lurks ot Acre. , Much Ivss would
, J authorize American citizens, residing ia Pales
,ne do the same thing ; and much less docs it
juthoriz! Araerican citizens here at home to des
y or to enslave, or to! bold in slavery the peo
P' of another comment. To the Jews it would
4V been unlawful, except by the special direc-
TERMS. Ition of Jehovah.
-n.- Reorder is published every Saturday, and is sent j lawful to do the sen
f"?J 'JaJment be 'delayed j longer than three months, two . general principles which we always apply
DnOTID TO LIOIOKM01iAl.ITTr LITEI ATVt t, ioaiCU
ALEIG
iTtlSL,nd 1 aH mM 8? i$LUn
wnen reasoninp- concerninrr thn r.l.t;n
. .....:
Dy me iviost High to tho Hebrew commonwealth.
xney comprehena the case of slatery : end by
mib wearing upon us of the permission in
question to be determined. - ... j .
The view which yon take of the case, howeTer,
u rnmeriaiiy from this. I will now proceed
A-4"IUC ,u may oe stated briefly thua ;
Slavery was sanctioned by : revelation amono- the
Hebrews; it is therefortj sanctioUd to us. !
Let us reduce this argument to a sylogism. and
it will be expressed thua: I
1. Whatever God sanctioned; among the He-
uicws, tre hucuou ior an men land at all Mmes.
God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews!
Therefor j . i I
3. God sanctions slavery for a
1 men and;
at all
times. t (
I believe that in these words
v j i
express the ar
il is solely be-
gument correctly, il l do notl
causel do not know how to
actly. .
state it more ex
Let us, then, in the first nlaceJArantino tK r.
jor premiss. Whatever God sanctioned amoks the
Hebrews, he sanctians for all men and at all times."
Now this proposition surely is not self-evident.
If it be true, it must be provable by reason, jor by
revelation. Can it be proved by reason 1 The
only argument by which it could be supported is,
i minK, me lowowing: , j ;
1. Whatever God sanctions to. any men a
time he sanctions to all men at all times
2. The Hebrews are men. Therefore,
any
Whatever he ; sanctioned to the Hebrews
sanctbned to all men at all times', i I !
he
Now I think that the major" premiss of this syl
logism is wholly untenable. It appears to me to
be diametrically at vaj-iance with ihe whole theory
of the divine dispensation. Eve-y one I think,
knows that God has seen fit to enlighten ourj race
progressively ; end that, lie has enlightened dif
ferent portions', in different degrees. He has first
given us the light of nature. Millions at the pre
sent day nave no other light We know from re
i :. .. . i . . . i ... ' . . i.. .
r-v w "s". ii;b .uuw uWn re- cept ior wnoreaom, and marrieth another, com
velation that by the truth j alone vhich this light mittetb adultery" &c You perceive I have used
reveals, will they be judged. They will there
fore be held guilty for the transgression, of no
more than this light has discovered to them. The
rest of their transgression of moral law will not be
laid to their account, j ; Thus, in jthis sense of the
word, these transgressions are sanctioned to thera.
But I ask, are they sanctioned to
who have the light of the posnel.
us i could we
go back 16 the
morality of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle or Confucius,
for the reason that what the light of nature allow
ed to them is allowable in us1 Yet I see not but 1
this proposition would lead us to precisely this
conclusion. jj. - .... .. f ;
The same principle applies to the other gradual
revelations of moral light which God has at dif
ferent periods made to mankind. He increased
the light of the patriarchs by direct communica
tion of a small part of his will. A large part of
that will, however, he saw fit to withhold. (The
violations of this latter part he did not forbid, but
oh the contriry he allowed them! to remain un
checked, that is, in this sense he sanctioned them.
liut could any of us, in the fear of God, go back to
me patriarchal dispensation, and lake for our mor
ai rule the revelation, and only the
reveation, made
to the patriarchs ' i 1 i ; f
So of the Mosaic dispensation.
By this revela-
.t i- i ' i . . . .
lion the light was more fully discovered, but slil
much of it was withheld i ...I a .
this case, 1 more than in the other that what
ruu.A F.wu ui
permitted without rebuke in a darker: atre is
was
mitted to us to whom greater
per
has been given,
the reverse of
I suppose, therefore, that directl
tne proposition in question is true!
: . . ... - ; . . .1. .i - . m
that God re-
veals his will in different decrees, at diffnt
times, and to different people at
he same time :
that he holds them : accountahl
or precisely as
much light as he has given them
that he allows
,","uui icuuitw ujusc ncuon on tne moral charac
ter of which that light has not shined, and, in this
sense, he sanctions them : but that this Hl!nwknr
can never be. pleaded in behalf of those who eniov
a more penect revelation, that is. on whom a bet-
ter light has shined. i- !
But suppose we take the strongest meaning of
the word sanction that of approvi or commend
the proposition will not; be, j I thinlc, more tenable,
as 1 have before snid. Ci rnmrrinAoA itiailJo
--. -ww.....M UCij
brews to destroy the Amalekites. etc. But
these commands to all men and at all times l! It
is therefore, J think, manifest, that this proposi
tion, on. which the argument from reason must
rest, ij in every sense of the word sanction, with
out foundation. ! ; I ' i I
I hope, my dear brother, you will excuse this
use of formal syllogisms in a familiar letter. It is
not dorje for the sake of formalityj or with thu de
sign of Appearing precise and logical. I have ad
opted this mode of discussion simnlv because T
thought thus I could present the! points at issue
wit!
any
L
g uisnin-vuMj man eeemeu possioie in
y other mode. . !. , . ' . ,
But can the proposition, "whatever , wai snnr.
tioned to the Hebrews is sanctioned to all men at
all times," be proved from revelation V It seems
in fnp flint nvAffettTff lltJ VAVMa.A i- .L e 4 I TT
... ...u. uivwisvijiujw isisiib ja uic iacu AO
j arrive ot the truth in this case, it is only necessary
to inquire where there were anv ncrt annctinnid tn
the Hebrews by Moses, I which were not sanction
ed to all men . 1 - J j " . ? j
Take for instance the whole Mosaic code of civil
law; its severe enactments, its very frequent jcap
ital punishments, its cities of refuge, its tenure of
real estate. Could any; legislator at the present
day enact similar law,1and justly plead as a suf-
H ,;S ATU RDAY, MARCH 8,
I II .: '
ficJe"t reason that God had sancfioned, nay enact-
cut sucn laws for the Jewsl - Would this be a
sufficient reason for abolishing the trial by jury in
a case of accidentia! homicide, (as for instance
when the head of an axe slipped from the helve
and Wounded n mnn to death) and snnrtmr it,.
the next of kin might slay an . innocent . person if
u iouna mm out of a city of refuge V I think
everyone must immediately perceive that this
law was a humane limitation to tho spirit of orlen
tal tindictiveness, but that it would be verywrong
to put it in practice at the present day. t -
j But we are not left to our own reasonings on
this subject, We know full well thnt polygamy
and divorce art wrong, that thev violate the chli.
gallons established by God between the stxes,snd
are transgressions of bis positive law. On this
subject presume we can have no difference of
opinion. Yet these sins were not forbidden by
Moses. Nay more, laws wire enacted by theHt
brew legislator in respect to both'of these nraciU
CCS.! VVhen min tV lr?r nnllft ra arL
Wife, and Chose tO take flnnthfr. thm munnor in
"...VM u urai we snouia oe ireateu was pre
scribed. The riff ht of the first-born was in snrk
jhiK ill. ..t .:r , i , i
a case defined. When, again, a Hebrew wished
to diwrce a wife, the manner in which this should
oc aone was a matter of positive enactment. The
discussion of our Saviour with the Jews n thi.
subject is given us in Matth. fi9 i 4iL-Q. T will
quote the whole passage. "The Pharisees , also
came unto hira,: tempting him, and saying unto
mm, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife
for every causel And he answered and said un
to them, Have ye not read that at the beginning,'
when the creator made man. he formed? a male and
a female, and said, For this cause a man shall
leave father and mother
and they two shall be one flesh. Wherefore thev
are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore
God hath conjoined let no man seoarate. Thev
replied, Why then d'd Moses command to rive
her a writing of divorcement and dismiss her 1 He
answered, Moses indeed, because of your untract
eble disposition, permitted you to divorce your wives,
Vvil, i . r . I f : fTl ' m
w f tm vm 5(1 irom me oeginning. i xneretore
,1 ssy unto you, whosoever divorceth his wife ex-
m m
cept ior whoredom, and marrieth another, com-
the translation of Dr.Camnbell who seema ta have
understood the scope of the argument better than
the authors of our version.
Now concerning this decision of our Lord, sev
eral things are to be remarked.
1.1 Our Lord authoritatively lays down the law
of marriage, defining it to be an exclusive engage
ment between two parties for life. .
2. He not only does thibut he declares that
this doctrine was taught from the creation, quel
ing Genesis 2 : 21, in confirmatioa of his asser
tion. 3. Notwithstanding this Moses had sanctioned
divorce, that is, he had not forbidden it, and had
enacted laws for the regulation of it.
4. j And moreover, the reason of this is given j
it was because of the hardness of their hearts j or
their untractable disposition. ;
Here then is an institution sanctioned, that is,
permitted and made a subject of legislation, which
is wrong in itself, and therefore forbidden by our
Saviour to them and to all men. Nay, it had been
thus sanctioned, although a prior revelation had
discountenanced it. It is therefore clear, that a
practice may have been sanctioned to the He
brews, which j is not sanctioned to all mM
' a11 times, nay, which before and after a particular
nines, "y, wnicn oeiore ana alter a nariirnia
Deriod was not ntmn tl k .f
pe.nod V10.1. the Hebrews them
selves. 1 think, therpfori. thnt tK ik:' r
the Scriptures is diametrically at variance withth-
9 j - vvuvii s Jg
proposition on which the whole argument from the
Old . Testament is founded.
I, will, in passing, add a single remark respect
ing the mannr in which the in spired legislator of
the Hebrews dealt with this subject. Polygamy
and divorce at this time were universally practised
among the Jews, and indeed among all other ori
ental nations. Moses did not at once directly for
bid these wrongs. He only permitted them and
modified some of their worst features. I He bow
ever did not leave the subject here. He inculcat
ed such principles as would, by appealing to their
reason and conscience, gradually abolish ahese
abuses. And the result took place as he had inten
ded. ; Hence we observe that the prophets rebuk
ed their countrymen for the practice of these very
wrongs wrongs permitted, or (in the manner
which we heve explained) sanctioned by Moses,
and tbey denounced the wrath of God j in .conse
quence of them. : A most touching expostulation
on this subject Js found in Malachi2: 1319.
And this have ye done again, covering the altnr
of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with
crying out, in so much that he regardeth not the
offering any more, or receiveth it with good-will
at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore 1 Because
the ) Lord hath been witness between thee and
the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast
dealt treacherously: "yet js she thy companion,
and the wife of.thy covenant. And did not he
make one 1 Yet had he the residue of the Spirit.
And wherefore one 1 That he might seek a good
ly seed. . Therefore take heed to your spirit, nnd
let none deal treacherously against the wife of his
youth.' For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith,
that he hatcth putting away : for one covereth vi
olence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts:
therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not
treacherously.' . It was in consequence of these
very fundamental truths inculcated by Moses,
truths diam-trically opposed to polygamy and di
vorce, that these evils had to a great degrea ceas
ed, as you have remarked, at the time of the com
ing of Christ.- ' ... , !
. But to return.' Suppose this proposition, that
iihi oiniu jnituatH
1845.
whatever was sanctioned to the Hebrews ?. tanc -
tioned to nH men at all limes, be nran, T da not
see in what manner it roi.M " ' .u
see in what manner it could justify slavery in the
w..,.u . Preu, conceded, that
a permission of this kind is to beundertood, ac
cording to the utmost strictness of sipp! ication! If
slavery be justified by the tow of Moses, it U of
course, only justified in the manner and triththe
restrictions under which it was placed by that !aW
Let us look at some of the provisions reipecting
it, which Moses established.
; 1. Adistinction u as made between their brethren
and the Canaanites. The former could be held in
slavery only for six years, but strangers might be
ueiu ior it i e. , . ,
i 2. The slaves of the stranger wra rirrnmMcsw!
and admitted to the ordinary privileges of the He-
www cuurcn anu commonwealth.
3. If a master in anv manner maimed mv.tt
servant, even to the. breaking of rftrih ' ha w
obliged to manumit him. - ....
1 4. The Hebrews were nositivalv fnrhMr? i
deliver up a slave who had escaped from his mas
ter, but were commanded to allow him to dwid!
in the place which he choose, in any of the gates
where it liked him best. Deut. 23: 15, 16. It
is not necessary that I attempt to contrast these
laws with the laws of the Southern States, respect
ing slavery. Every one must, I think, perceive
the unreasonableness of plesding the Jewish laws
as authority for an institution so entiiely dissimi
lar, and so forgetful of the limitations by which
that practice was originally guarded. If it be said
that the Jewish commonwealth was so peculiar
that it is impossible for us to confor m ourselves to
their laws in this respect, this I think establishes
the very point in dispute ; namely, that the Jew
ish law was made exclusively for that people, and
can be pleaded in justification by no other people
whatever.
And again, this last precept, I think, clearly
shows that Moses intended to abolish slavery.
Horv could slavery long continue in a country
where every one was forbidden to deliver up a
fugitive slave How different would be the con
dition of slaves, and how soon would slavery it
self cease, were this the law of cumpuJsory bon
among us!
1 1 have already been so long detained upon the
first proposition. of the argument derived from the
Old Testament, that 1 have room for but few words
to; devottto the second. The remr.rks above will
however render extended discussion unnecessary.
The second proposition is as follows : -God sanc
tioned slavery among the Hebrews."
j If by the word sanctioned it is meant that ClnA
in any manner testified his approbation of slavery,
I am obliged to sav that the
sanction no where exists, to my knowledge in the
viu lesiament. rrecisely as in the case of di
vorce, me institution was permuted and regulated j
absolutely nothing more. In the meantime prin
ciples were inculcated and laws were enacted
which must naturally, in the end, undermine and
uicriuruw ii. aiaverv. SO lar as I ran rurrir
is no more sanctioned in the Old Testament than
polygamy and divorce, and these institutions were,
in precisely the same manner as slavery, tolerated
unu reguiaieo, while they were, both before and
afterwards, declared to be totally at variance with
the whole will of God. From the fact of tn!..
tion and regulation of these practices, therefore,
we can no more infer approbation of God in the
une case man in tne otner.
The passage from Liviticus 25 : 44 46, is not
whirl, I have uken on tl,i, .ubjecl. r "Both thy
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about
you ; of them shall ye buy bond-men nnd bond
maids. Moreover, of the children nf th tinntt
- - - v m mw mwm
possession. And ye shall take them as an inher-
nance ior your children after you, to inherit them
forj a possession ; they shall be your bond-men for
ever j but over your brethren the children of Isra
el, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."
If any one will take the trouble to turn to the
chapter and read from the beginning, he will per
ceive that its general intention , is to inculcate the
duty of kindness to their Jewish brethren as dis
tinguished from the heathen. The verses above
quoted are a particular exemplification of a gene
ral law. " They really say no more than that the
Hebrews might hold slaves for life of the Canaan
ites, but not of the Hebrews. I .know that the
word "siair is used when epvaking 0f this sub
jectbut it is clearly used as prophetic and not as
mandatory j it' tells what xcotdd or what might be,
and not what should or must be. No one can for
a moment confound this use of it with the use in
the ten commandments j nor can any one suppose
it to render it obligitory on the Hebrews to hold
slaves, either of their own brethren or of strangers.
As this is the strongest passsge in the Old Tes
tament in favor of the views which we are exsm
ining, I do not know that it is necessary to extend
thi, part of the discussion any farther.' ,
Let us now review the ground which we have
passed over. I have supposed that the argument
by which slavery is justified from the Old Tests
mcnt is properly expressed by the following syllo-
6 ism. ' 5
1. iVhatever God sanctioned among the .He
brews he sanctioned for all men and at all times.
f 2. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews.
Therefore, ' ,
j 3. God sanctioned slavery among all men and
at all times. i
1 suppose myself to have shown that the first
of these propositions is at variance with reason
and the Scriptures, whether 'the word sanction
gers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ve
buy, and of their families that are with von' whlrh 1 .
they begat in your land: and they shall be your themselves iW a L. :2
ct ,' ' ' ' ''"' ' v " i j
WIOLKNo. -157.
'mean tdcrctevr a4hat a 1
1 ..... ' Z"? h lht wond
' ora aanclmn mea,, fiIlV
.. . ? . w.cnc, ana ss ur.U thy nieari.
ing it can at the present day .ford ,k jwslcaiioo
. ATrj.'" lhcrcfore the conclusion ihm God m
ine via aesiament aanctKms slavery to a!l men.
that m, to us, is without foiindatkin. ! '
I merely use this technical frtrtr.f;t . J t t.--
wid before, because I wUh to expose my ;,
in the clesrest light, so that if I err, I msy the
more easily be corrected. There is no oke, my
Gear brother, who is more cspalle of detect ing n.y
rror jf h istf than yourself and there iY no
man hvmg Ufore whom I would more' wildly
stand corrected. ". . '
menfnf rK7 ' bt4?hCr: J'00" Mllh er4
mentof Christian affection, t 1
The Aumoa or tux MozaL Sarvcx: !
. ; - I
From the Christian Rc:or ' i
My DEAR Brothph TT .1.:. ' J. .
to show that, hke other socbl organizations, slave- -ry
is not necessarily a crime? ik-. .i
power of the Roman master. ihouh nerfrr.l..
potic, was not itself a sin. Ti .rvt;.u tt
the more important, because good men are justly ,
shocked, when they understand slavery to be a
7-7 7 V ' i u,,a PcoPieltcmptingfb shel
ter tiicmsclres under thm su .,. o, ,
r, . , , -""-wu vi me i-Mj:e.
Perish the thought they exclaim, nnd Tcordi-'
al.y join with them. To charge thi, impiety upon
e r ri0vvevcf. to do them
great injustice. Such an accusal tIr. f.
granted the very thing we deny. t We believe
that all juu moral institutes ere only an expsn
swn of those golden maiim. tvu.. J T. '
tvould that men should do unto you, 'do ye slso
to them and 'Tbou gha,. ,ove lh
byself c believe these precept;, pply to mas- ;
ter. and scrvmt just as to masters nnd appren
tices, or parents and children, or Lin. mn f -k '
jects. We believe that thev rparh .k....
of slavery; and condemn all intellectual, inorsL
and domestic injustice. But we do; not believe
wai tney makeUie relation itself sinful or require. -as
they must do if it be a crime, it, prompt dis
section. Such disruntiori ml.
cases would, subvert society itself, and be real
ucu.Tr w me masters nor the slam. It .
wdl not do, then, for you to conduct the cause a.
u we had been proved guilty, and were pui upon .
our defence. Thi, b the ground slw.y, ukerV.t
theorth . and because Southern Christiao, reply
,Uod Politically, and ethically, I have proved
that despotism itself is not necessarily a ,in. U
appealing to the word of God, we are not required
to prove a negative, and justify ourselves ; but you
must, to make out your case, and prove us guilty.
Sin is a transgression of the law and you are
bound to show the law we transgress. AH will
acknowledge this to be the fair positba of the ac
cuser and accused. Whereas I wbmit to" you
that your Bible argument entirely overlooks oar
forensic right and is an examination of the ques
I ion whether the Bible justifies slavery. Supposa
t'l u ; jurtU h 5 li.uI coodetno
ed by the B.blc, slavery msy remain among ihing.
indiHerent, and be classed with-tk.t f -
of actions whose moral character depends on the
r vi.wu.,Wqcct oi earn case. Nor am I
offi Uli du. AI. r I? 0a- ,rf 0
i, r.v 7 . 11x11 and a,way
"" wim wnat nppenrs to plain men
as the unequivocal teaching of the Scriptures j and.
. , tJ m U1C oullct that much expla-
pensatjie; otherwise,
, but the prosecutors
. p-vuMlluv, ..'
loe assertion lust menfinnr1 i ., ti. .
. . iu iub luucrcn
guilt of tbrery, is the distinctive article wilb no
dern abolitwoists. But afti-r i(,.;n. ,1. ' ...u
ject in all iti (bearings, they have clwlyVrceived,
thin .T I. - tfl t v
M1C irurcw ana urecic terms rendered ser.
vant in our Bibles really signify ,Uve, there is an
end either of their dogma or of submission to the
Scriptures. Hence after trying in rain the whole
apparatus of exegetical-torture, they have with,
1 believe, much unanimity set sil philology and
history at defiance, and resolutely deny that such
is the import of tlwse words. When Paul says,
e are ml baptized iotoone body, whether we
be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bund or free
the terms Jcw and Gentile1 mean sometbioff':
but bond' and . f rce imply do distinction tt all I
And to get rid of the Old Testament, various in
terpretation, have been contrived, of which the
latest is quite curious. While moving earth and
heaven about tbe thraldom of the negro, the abo
litionists deny to the white man even liberty of
speech, and ivish to erect an inquisition over the
mirtd. A very pious Presbyterian pastor has late
ly been arraigned by then, n for holJin- slaves,
but for daring even to utter hi, honest convinbns
on tbesulflect, of slavey. And at that iri.l it was
declared (if the newsnarra did n-,
orators) that slavery wssnot known in Abrshsm's
uay except among Uie heathen; that the patriarch
riu,auu ma, persons bought with his
money were subjects, whom he purchased to im
prove their condition. So that, after all, the ob
jection is entirely to the name, and will at once
be withdrawn if the Southern masters only call
themselves princes, and their slaves sul-'fcts for
assuredly, ( we ocr!n , had purcJused the Afr..
sin captives frcm the r native master ue mi2fct
plead that their condign has been i.nmeaara&7
improvcd. 3
(Cuxtinved on favrth pct.) i .