PROPOSITION IV. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BIBLE CONDEMN,

AND POSITIVELY FORBID SLAVERY.

Having already protracted our remarks far beyond our original intention, we shall forbear any extended comment on the passages adduced under this head. At another time, we may perhaps endeavor to do them more justice.

1. God is the original owner of all that exists. Every thing is his by right of creation. Having created all the other works of his hands, belonging to this earth, last of all Jehovah made man out of the dust, to be the lord of this lower world. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen. i. 26, comp. verse 28-30.) Compare the grant to Noah and his posterity. (ix. 2;) and Ps. viii. 6-8. Here we have the original title deed, by which, only, man can claim a right of property in any thing. The child of God, he has inherited, by will, this noble patrimony. But in this deed,

He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl,
Dominion absolute; that right we hold
By his donation; but man over man

He made not lord: such title to himself
Reserving, human left from human free.

We no where find that God has given the Saxon a right of property in the Indian and African; the white, in the black; the rich and powerful, in the poor and defenceless. God only is the lawful despotes; not a slave-holder, but a Being possessed of unlimited authority over all creatures, animate and inanimate, rational and irrational. The human despotes, the true slave holder,

-to himself assuming Authority usurped from God not given, claims a title and a power which can belong only to the Creator. He is a stronger brother, who dissatisfied with "the portion that falleth to him," seizes his own brethren, and adds not only their portion, but themselves, to his estate. Does the Father approve such conduct?

When the Constitution of the United States gives to Congress certain specified powers, it clearly withholds all other, not

specified. When God gives us a right of property in inanimate and irrational creatures, he evidently declares that we have no right of property in each other.

2. The Bible unequivocally asserts the natural equality of men. It tells us that we are descendants of a common father; placed under the same great law of moral obligation; responsible to the same judge; hastening to be tried at one awful tribunal. In the oldest book of the Bible, Job, who, as our modern Doctors assure us, was a slave-holder, recognises this equality. "If I did despise the cause of my man-servant or of my maid-servant, when they contended with me; what then ' shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?" (xxxi. 15.) "Have we not all one Father," asks Malachi; "hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother," &c. (ii. 10.) And Paul says, "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth." (Ac. xvii. 26.)-Now this principle of the unity, the brotherhood of the race, utterly forbids one man to call another his property.

YE

3. The great law of love, and the golden rule, lay the axe at the root of slavery. "THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF." (Lev. xix. 18.) Compare the Saviour's comment, Lu. x. 25-37.-"THEREFORE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER WOULD THAT MEN SHOULD DO TO YOU, DO YE EVEN SO TO THEM: FOR THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.' (Mat. vii. 12.) The apostle's command, "If thou mayest be made free, use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 21,) implies that freedom is a better a more desirable state, than slavery. It therefore lays the the christian master under obligation to place his slave in that preferable condition. By the way, what a lofty, magnanimous, and truly heroic sentiment is that of Dr. Junkin's, (p. 34.) "American slavery is better than British freedom." Nothing ad captandum, there, reader! It is the eloquent out-pouring of a noble soul, boldly declaring its preference of "hog and homminy," to mere physical, intellectual and moral liberty! Happy the University over whose destiny presides a man capable of uch lofty aspirations! 17

4. The right of servants to wages is repeatedly asserted, both in the Old and New Testament. Compare Jer. xxii. 13, Col. iv. 1, Jas. v. 1-4. But this right necessarily precludes the right of property. Dr. J. and his fellows may quibble as they please; they may cite Prof. Vethake to prove that "just and equal" means food and clothing: but a grain of common sense will explode them and their logic, and convince us that this law of Christ requires every master to give his laborers a fair compensation. Common sense decides that the servant's right to wages is founded upon his right to himself, which cannot co-exist with another's absolute right of property in him. Nor does the amount of wages depend upon the master's pleasure. Common equity tells us that "it takes two to make a bargain."

5. We have already sufficiently shown that the servitude permitted by the Bible, does not interfere with these great principles which annihilate the foundation claim of the slave holder.

APPENDIX.

Just as the preceding pages were prepared for the press, we received the following communication from the venerable Dr. BISHOP, which, with the accompanying letter, we here present to the public.

MY DEAR FRIEND:

I make free to forward you a few of my Christmas thoughts on the Eight hours speech. If it is agreeable to you, and if you shall be convinced that it will be of any service, either to you, or the good cause, you may have them printed and published in the form in which they now stand, at the close of your full and particular reply * * * * Provided we have come to the same result, it may be a benefit to the cause, with some minds, to see that the very same conclusions may be obtained by a somewhat different arrangement, or different mode of reasoning. * * * * **** May the Lord bless and direct and support you.

Sincerely yours,

Oxford, Ohio, Dec. 26th, 1843.

R. H. BISHOP.

SUMMARY REVIEW.

Doctor Junkin's late pamphlet, of 79 pages, demands some attention; for

I. A publication of this kind must be very acceptable to the many, both within and without the visible church, whose consciences are somewhat awakened as to the inconsistency of American slavery with christian character, and christian standing.

II. The form in which the argument is presented, is exceedingly plausible; and yet,

III. The whole argument, from beginning to end, is deceptive:-only fallacy upon fallacy.

SPECIFICATIONS.

I. The title of the pamphlet is a deception. It assumes that all who are in any way opposed to American slavery, are opposed, of course, to the union, and peace, and prosperity, and existence of these United States. This is far from being matter of fact.

II. There is a deception in the use of the terms tolerate and toleration, as used in the title page and elsewhere. These terms, when connected with law and government, must always, when they mean any thing, mean that the persons or things enjoying the benefit of toleration, are more or less under the protection of law and government, as something that is good, and not evil.

III. The facts, as stated in the case of Joseph, furnish a good argument in behalf of American slaveholders. They stand thus: Joseph's brethren stole him, as they had no legal or moral right to dispose of him in the manner they did: but the Ishmaelites, and Potiphar, gave a fair market price for him; therefore their title in him, as their property, was good!

IV. The argument to prove that Abraham was a large slaveholder, is from its very nature, only a shadow. Mere verbal criticism must, in all cases, be very inconclusive reasoning, as to historical matter of fact.

V. No satisfactory proof can be offered that Hagar was a slave, in the modern sense of that term. All that can ever be known from the history, as it stands, is:—that Hagar was for a period of some 14 or 15 years a member of Abraham's family, in a dependent situation; and that on one occasion, and that under very peculiar circumstances, she was, for a few months, very ill-used both by Sarah and Abraham.

VI. It is roundly asserted that Jacob and his family had slaves when they went down into Egypt, and that they were deprived of them by their task-masters, when they themselves were reduced to personal slavery. All the facts upon record, in the history of Jacob, are in direct opposition to this assertion.

1. Laban having hotly pursued Jacob as a runaway, for seven days, and having at last overtaken him, did not, among all