Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

were in error as to all the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines of Christianity, and rotten in morals, like " whited sepulchres."

3. It is admitted by some abolitionists, and even by the gentleman himself, that there are Christians and Christian churches in the slave-holding States; and that they sometimes enjoy seasons of religious reviving from the presence of the Lord. But it is a Scripture truth, that God does not answer the prayers and bless the labors of men living in heinous and scandalous sin. He does hear and bless those involved in slave-holding; therefore, if it is not a heinous sin, as abolitionists affirm.

4. The faith of abolitionists leads them to pursue a course wholly different from that pursued by the apostles of Christ -a course, the tendency of which is to perpetuate slavery, and to aggravate all its evils. 1st, They denounce and vilify slave-holders, thus irritating them to the highest degree. The apostles went amongst men and reasoned with them. 2d, They steal the slaves, and run them off to Canada. The apostles, so far from pursuing such a course, exhorted slaves to honor their masters, and serve them with all fidelity. 3d, The abolitionists, by their course, take from masters the glorious gospel, the only influence by which the condition of the slaves can be ameliorated, and by which it can be peaceably abolished. Thus do they rivet the chains upon the slaves. 4th, Their course takes from the slaves that gospel which they especially need to elevate their character and render them happy, even in bondage, and thus, whilst abolitionists denounce the master, they leave the souls of the slaves to perish in their sins. The apostles of Christ went forth preaching, both to masters and slaves, “ the unsearchable riches of Christ." Since then, the works of abolitionists are so different from, and even opposite to the works of the apostles, under similar circumstances, it is evident that their faith is equally different and opposite.

5th, The golden rule—“ Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"—though it requires us to improve the condition of our fellow-men, so far as we can, without disregarding other paramount duties, does not forbid slave-holding under all circumstances.

On the contrary, there are not a few instances in which it makes men slave-holders; because by becoming such, they can greatly improve the condition of a suffering fellow-creature. To this argument, as to most of the others, the gentleman has attempted no reply.

And here, before I proceed, let me call your attention to one striking fact. Many odious charges, as you know, were brought against the apostles of Christ: and yet, though slavery

existed in its most odious form throughout all parts of the Roman Empire, they never were charged with being abolitionists. Now I ask, and I put it to the candor of the brother opposed to me, and to the common sense of every man that hears me, if they had preached and acted as modern abolitionists do, is it possible that no such charge would have been made by any one of the innumerable slave-holders with whom they came in contact? The apostles, it will not be denied, were as faithful in preaching what they believed to be truth, as our abolition friends, yet not a word of reproach was cast on them by any slave-holder, as if they had preached abolitionism. How is this fact to be accounted for?

But, to the Bible argument.

My first position is this: God did recognize the relation of master and slave among the Patriarchs of the Old Testatament; and did give express permission to the Jewish church to form that relation. But God who is infinitely holy, could not recognize a relation in itself wrong, or give men permission to form such a relation. Therefore the relation of master and slave is not in itself sinful.

I presume the brother will not maintain, that God can ever, under

any circumstances, give men permission to commit sin. The question, then, is whether God did give permission to the Jews to form the relation in question ? If he did, and it is in itself a sinful relation, then he did give

ser

them express permission to commit abominable sin. I affirm that he did give such permission, and will proceed to prove it from the clear and unequivocal declarations of the Bible.

1. God recognized the relation of master and slave among the patriarchs.

My first proof is, that Hagar was the female slave of Abraham and Sarah. The abolitionists tell us that word 66 vantin our English version of the Bible, does not mean slave. This word is derived from the Latin word servus, the literal and proper meaning of which, as every Latin scholar knows, is slave. The Romans had two words which they used to signify slave; one was servus, the other, mancipium. In the

passage, however, where Hagar is first named, Gen. xvi. 1, she is called “ an handmaid”-and in the 2d, 3d, 5th, 6th and 8th verses she is called Sarah's " maid." Sarah calls her “my maid." The Hebrew word shifha translated “maid” signifies a female slave. When the Jews spoke of a female slave, that was the word they generally employed. So it is understood by the best Hebrew scholars and lexicographers. Gessenius defines it by the Latin words famula, ancilla : both of which mean a female slave, a maid-servant, or waiting

Woman.

66

2. The Septuagint version, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language, and which was made by Hebrews, renders the word in the Hebrew by paidiske which, my brother will scarcely deny, means a female slave.

3. Dat that Hagar was a slave is proved beyond contradiction by the language of the apostle Paul, in Galatians, 4th chapter, and 22d and following verses. For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman—which things are an allegory : for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem wl" ! inhove is free, which is the mother of us all. Nev

ertheless what saith the Scripture ? Cast out the bondwoman and her son ; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free.” Several things are worthy of remark in this portion of Scripture. Ist. The two mothers are here placed in contrast; the one called a free woman, the other a bondwoman. Now if Hagar was a hired servant, if she was not a slave, she was as truly free, as Sarah, who is called her “mistress,” and with whose condition in this respect hers is contrasted. 2d. The great truth the apostle designed to illustrate, requires, that we should understand Hagar to have been a slave. These things, he says, are an allegory; the condition of Hagar the bondwoman illustrating the condition of the Jews who had rejected Christ, and were in spiritual bondage or slavery ; the condition of Sarah the free woman illustrating the happy condition of true Christians, whom Christ made free. 3d. The Greek word in this passage, translated bondwoman, is paidiske—the same word used by the Septuagint in translating the Hebrew word shifha; and as it here stands in contrast with the word elenthera, free, it must be understood to mean a female slave. It is impossible, without the grossest perversion of language, so to interpret this passage, as to make it consist with Hagar's being a hired servant, or any thing but a slave. The man whom I hire to labor for me, is as free as I am. Every hireling is a free man. He gives his labor for his wages, and receives, as a free man, quid pro quo.

Common sense is all that is requisite to enable us to understand the

passage under consideration.

4. Hagar was punished by Sarah for contemptuous behavior. “When she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes." Sarah remonstrating with her husband, “Abraham said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid is in thy hand,—do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.” Does this language suit the condition of a free hired servant? Is a hired servant at the absolute disposal of the party hiring, so that he may do as he pleases to him? Is such the

1

condition of hired servants in Chio? tad to hiredi servants rin away from their employers? Ajurentices, I admit, sometimes do, but they are inder indentures for a time set by aw. and they are nerer spckan Ji is serrants in contrast with free persons, as Hagır is with Saran. Wien Hagar had fed as far as to a fountain in the wilderness, the angel of the Lord found her; and what advice tid ne give her? * Flee, Hagar, as fast as you can. or Irinam will be after you?" Vo, nothing of the end. "Ini the angel of the Lord said unto her. return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." It is pain, the grou angel was no abolitionist. What abortionist, now on earth, would have given her such advice? But the angel was not then in the light of the nineteenth century.

He was still in the - darkness of remote ages of despotism," of which the brother toid us. Had he lived in the nineteenth century, te would doubtless have known better! So we are očliged to suppose, if the doctrines of the abolitionists are true.

My second proof, that God recognized the relation of master and slave among the patriarchs, is drawn from the 17th chapter of Genesis, which contains the institution of circumcision. We read the 12th and 13th verses. - He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generation, he that is born in the house, or bonight vith money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with money, must needs be circumcised." Does not this divine provision prove, that at that time Abraham had servants, who were bought with his money, as well as such as were born in his house ?—and were not servants bought with money slaves? If not, what were they? Who would so describe a hired servant? And can we believe, that, if slaveholding were in itself sinful, God could have entered into a covenant with Abraham, requiring him not to liberate his slaves, but to circumcise them?

2. Again, in the 20th chapter of Genesis and 14th verse, it is said: "and Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and

« AnteriorContinuar »