How much more fearless than poor Matthew ful he was! But he has a general reply, which sets aside forever the authority of critics and commentators. He says, they are generally men of timid minds. And, pray, what causes exist to make them more timid than others? It is the busisiness of lexicographers and commentators not to engage in any exciting controversies, but to define words, and expound the Word of God. Moreover, their reputation depends upon their accuracy and ability in their work. What, then, should cause them, more than others, to depart from known truth! The reply is simply nonsensical. The gentleman feels the difficulty in which he and his cause are involved, from the fact that all learned men, commentators, critics, and lexicographers give to the language of the Bible, on the subject before us, an interpretation widely different from his; and he would fain destroy their influence by simply saying"O, they are timid-minded men-they do'nt know every thing-they are mere babes-can't go to bed without a committee!" Such an attempt cannot succeed with intelligent men. He quoted the opinion of "the clear headed" Grotius, concerning slavery. Now will he please inform us whether Grotius gave to the scriptures I have quoted an interpretation different from that which I have given? The opinion of John Wesley has also been quoted. Did Wesley speak of the injustice of slavery as a system, or of the sin of individuals involved in the evil? Did he denounce and excommunicate men, simply because they were slave-holders? If he did, why have not his followers done the same? Does the Methodist Church in these United States make slave-holding a bar to Christian fellowship? It does not: Dr. Engles has also been quoted. Now I happen to know something of the views of that gentleman on the subject of slavery; and I know, that, though opposed to slavery, he is no less opposed to abolitionism, in theory and in prac. tice. It is by quoting isolated passages from the writings of men, without regard to the connection, they are made to utter sentiments they never held. For example, what they say of slavery as a system, or of traffic in slaves for gain, is applied to individuals involved in slave-holding. The gentleman has quoted Dr. R. J. Breckenridge. He is indeed one of the last men whom I should have expected to hear quoted in favor of modern abolitionism. He is well known as an anti-slavery man; but it is equally well known, that he engaged in a public debate of several days' continuance, with Thompson, a rampant abolitionist of Scotland, and it is said, that he effectually used him up. We have also been treated to the opinions of George Washington, and Patrick Henry, both of whom held just about as much abolitionism as your humble servant. Thus far has the gentleman got on, and no Bible. All he has done, or tried to do, is to defend himself against the Bible. In attempting to do this, he says: 1. The bondmen of the Jews, were not slaves, because their servitude was not perpetual. We are not discussing the question whether perpetual slave-holding is sinful— whether the relation of master and slave is sinful, if it continue perpetually. If the gentleman desired to discuss this question; why did he not say so? We are discussing the question, whether the relation of master and slave is in itself sinful; for if it is, it is sinful to have it continue one hour. Then, if we admit, that Jewish servitude was not perpetual, but ceased at the fiftieth year-the jubilee; what does it prove in favor of my opponent? It is certain, that they were bought with money; that they were declared to be their master's money; that the master claimed their services, and might enforce obedience by severe chastisement. It is certain that those purchased immediately after the jubilee, might be held in bondage forty-nine years, and that to a large portion of them, bondage would be perpetual; for they would not live till the year of release. And to many who would live to see the time, their freedom would be a poor boon; for their advanced age and infirmities would disqualify them for the enjoyment of it. But the duration of the servitude, does not affect the principle. If I may hold a man in servitude forty-nine years, I may hold him longer, if there be no express law against it? 2. But the law concerning returning property, Mr. B. tells us, did not apply to the Jewish bond-servants, and, hence he infers that they were not slaves. I answer, that the law which forbade the Jews to return a slave who had escaped from his master, and required them to allow him to dwell where he pleased amongst them, related not to Jewish bondmen, but to the slaves of cruel heathen masters, who had escaped into the land of Judea, and who, if forced back, would not only be forced into pagan darkness, but might meet a cruel death on their return. The law was, indeed, a merciful one. If I were to see a child escaping from a cruel father, who was accustomed to treat him unmercifully, I would not think of forcing him back. But does this law prove, that the bond-servants of the Jews, bought with their money, liable to be chastised, if they disobeyed their masters, were not slaves? Surely, we have singular logic from the gentleman. The brother urges again his crowning argument, that if the Hebrew word meant slave, our English translators would have rendered it slave. I have asked him, in reply, what was the meaning of the English word servant in England, at the time our translation was made, under James I? I have reminded him that servus is the Latin word for slave, and mancipium for a man caught and enslaved. Servant is but servus, with an English termination. Besides did they not render the word by the word bondman? What, I ask, does the word bondman mean? Does it mean a free man? How does the gentleman understand those passages of scripture, where the bond and the free are placed in contrast with each other? For example, God calls the fowls of the heaven to come, "That they may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, &c., and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." Rev. ix, 12. Again, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, &c., Gal. iii, 26. Away with such quibbling. Everybody knows, that a bondman is a slave. When, therefore, our translators rendered the word eved by the English word bondman, they employed as strong a term as the word slave. Still, the gentleman insists that eved does not mean slave. I have asked him, when the Hebrews talked about a slave, what word they used? It is a fair question: I have put it to him again and again. He has not answered. I ask him once more, when the Jews wished to speak of slaves, did they use the word eved, or not? If not, will he please to tell us what word they did use. I hope he will give us some light upon this subject. I must insist upon his answering the question. I have paid due attention to the gentleman's replies, and now, according to promise, I enter upon the argument from the New Testament. And here I cannot but express my regret that the discussion of the whole of the remaining scripture evidence, is confined to so short a time as the remaining hours of this day. Late as it is, in the afternoon of the last day of the debate, we have heard no Bible argument from our friend. Mark that. 1. In the commencement of this argument I state it as a fact, admitted by the abolitionists, as well as all others conversant with history, that in the days of Christ and his apostles, not only did slavery exist every where, but the slaves were as numerous throughout the Roman empire, as the freemen. My brother will not deny this. [MR. BLANCHARD. I admit that they were as numerous, and more so.] Very well. In some instances from one hundred to ten thousand slaves were owned by a single man. 2. And I state it as a second fact, that the piety of a man was never called in question by the apostles because he was a slave-holder, but slave-holders were freely admitted to membership in the primitive church; and though professing Christians were required to treat their slaves with all kindness, they never were called upon to set them free; as they certainly would have been, had slave-holding been in itself sinful. This is our ground; and if it is true, we are forced to the conclusion, that either the doctrine of abolitionists is untrue, or the apostles of Jesus Christ did admit to the communion of his church, and that without reproof, or requiring them to quit their sin, the most heinous and scandalous offenders, men (according to our brother) chargeable with the greatest abomination of heathenism. The proof of this fact rests on a few passages of the New Testament, familiar, as I presume, to most of those who hear me. I will read, in the first place, from Ephesians, VI, 5: "Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye service, 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 unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Again Colossians, iii, 22: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service as, men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, 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 which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." |