Imágenes de páginas

that he had become an inmate in the Asylum. He answered_“ The world said, I was deranged; and I said, the world was deranged; and they outvoted me.” [A laugh.]

Suppose the question put to vote, how many of the eminently wise and good, in past time and at the present day, would be found with the gentleman? Doubtless, he feels deep commisseration for such men as poor blinded Dr. Scott, the Commentator! for his views concerning Jewish servitude precisely accord with mine. I will read a single extract from his commentary on Levit. xxv, 44,-46. “ The Israelites were permitted to keep SLAVES of other nations; perhaps in order to testify, that none but the true Israel of God participated of that liberty with which Christ hath made his people free. But it was also allowed, in order that in this manner the Gentiles might become acquainted with true religion, (Gen. xvii, 10—13. xviii, 19, and when the Israel. ites copied the example of their pious progenitors, there can be no reasonable doubt, that it was overruled for the eternal salvation of many souls," &c.

Poor ignorant Dr. Scott! how our abolitionist friends must pity him!

Bishop Horne, too, the author of the celebrated “ Intro. duction to the study of the Scriptures," in 4 volumes—one of the most learned men of his day, takes precisely the same view of the subject. He says: (Vol. 3, p. 419.

“Slavery is of very remote antiquity. It existed before the flood, (Gen ix, 25;) and when Moses gave his laws to the Jews, finding it already established, though he could not abolish it, yet he enacted various salutary laws and regulations. The Israelites indeed might have Hebrew servants or slaves, as well as alien-born persons, but these were to be circumcised,” &c. After stating the various ways in which slaves might be acquired, he says: “Slaves received both food and clothing, for the most part of the meanest quality, but whatever property they acquired, belonged to their lords: hence, they are said to be worth double the value of a hired servant. (Deut. xv, 18.) They formed marriages at the will

of the master; but their children were slaves, who, though they could not call him a father, (Gal. iv, 6. Rom. viii, 15,) yet they were attached and faithful to him as to a father, on which account the patriarchs trusted them with arms. If a married Hebrew sold himself, he was to serve for six years, &c., but, if his master had given one of his slaves to him as a wife, she was to remain, with his children, as the property of her master.

The compassionate brother no doubt is all this while pitying blinded Dr. Scott, and blinded Dr. Horne, and poor blinded Dr. Chalmers and poor stone-blind Matthew Poole, (the author of the Synopsis and Annotations) who fell into the same heresy : and while he is weeping, he may as well include, at once, all the best critics on the Old Testament who have enlightened and blessed the church of God. I defy the gentleman to show a single commentator, critic, or theologian of any admitted pretensions to scholarship, who does not give the same exposition which I have given of the passages in relation to servitude among the Jews. That an overwhelming majority of the wisest and best men the church ever saw, agree with me in this view of those scriptures, I am prepared to prove.

The brother wants very much to show that Dr. Cunningham is an abolitionist, and is with him in sentiment. I will therefore quote a little from his testimony, just to show that he is as blind, as stupid, or as corrupt, as I am, and as all other Bible critics and commentators.

“They (slave-holding Christians,] submit to what they cannot help. Slavery is sinful as a system, but not necessarily in those who stand related to it. А very

little consideration of the whole state of things, then, would show, that this is really the case. A man may be a slave-holder innocently. Every man of right feeling, who has true notions of what man is, as made in the image of God, and of man's duties and obligations, would, as much as possible, avoid ever coming into such a relation. *** But then we ought to make distinctions, and enter into the position in which we perceive they are placed. The slave laws are, beyond all question, most infamous. They do treat them as “ brute beasts” or “chattels personal.” On the majority of the community there rests a fearful amount of guilt, which could scarcely be exaggerated, &c. The law makes the slaves chattels personal. The necessary consequence is, that a man becomes, whether he will or not, the possessor of slaves. They are his, and he cannot get rid of them. *** The sum and substance of what is commonly asserted by the church, is just a denial of the abolition principle that slavery is sinful in such a sense, that mere slave-holding in all circumstances is a crime, and an adequate ground for expulsion from the Lord's table: and they have beyond all question, the example of the apostles and apostolic churches to justify them.Again"I have not the slightest hesitation in repudiating Ameri. can abolitionism."

You observe, when speaking of abolitionists, he speaks of them as on the other side." Is he one of them? Or does he not hold my principles precisely? I told you that the slave laws were many of them infamous. Dr. Cunningham says the same. He

says, the law makes them chattels personal; but, he also says, concerning many masters, their slaves are theirs, and he cannot get rid of them.

[Time expired.

Friday Evening, 9 o'clock. [MR. BLANCHARD'S TWELFTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow

Citizens :

My whole speech, fortunately, will be in reply to the one just fallen from my brother, without departing from my prescribed course. It will be, throughout, upon the scripture argument, after about five minutes' reply to what he said before he himself came to the scriptures.

[ocr errors]

! When he said that the Sixth Presbyterian Church, of which I am pastor, "was preached almost to deaih," I felt sorry that such a remark should have escaped him, first, because my success as a pastor has nothing to do with the truth of my arguments here, and therefore the charge was entirely gratuitous; and secondly, I do not like to say a word in my own case, in reply to such a remark, nor would I (for my work, as a pastor, is with God,) but for the sake of a beloved church, which has been faithful to me: and for the sake of those theological students in the audience, who might be misled, by his remark, to suppose that opposing slave-holding is against pastoral success.

When I took charge of the church, seven years ago last March, I was inexperienced and unpopular with those who hate all religion, except that which, like the piety of Mr. By-ends in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, “ always jumps with the times.” We had then but, one hundred and twenty members, and have since been bereaved of several leading members by death. We have, through the mercy of God, enjoyed frequent revivals, and as the fruits of about seven years' labor, have received more than four hundred members. Through the rapid multiplication of new churches of the same order to which colonies we have largely contributed, the number of dismissions have been large, so that our present number is about two hundred and fifty, or about double that with which we commenced. A debt of five thousand dollars, incurred in the purchase of a house of worship, during the times of pecuniary pressure, was, on the first day of January last, entirely cancelled, being paid down, or assumed by responsible men, and the church and congregation were never more united, prosperous and happy, than at present. I shall not bring my brother's want of pastoral ability to refute his arguments in this debate, nor go into Kentucky to enquire whether he has preached his former churches into death or into life.

My brother thinks me guilty of an inconsistency in saying that his doctrine was acceptable to slave-holders; and saying,

also, that it was unacceptable to them. I did utter both those remarks, and both are true, and both consistent. The explanation is simply this, that like all defenders of error, his arguments are inconsistent with, and destroy each other, one part being acceptable to slave-holders, the other, not. What he said, declaring that “slave-holders have no right to hold their slaves, as property, for gain,” they will not thank him for saying; but the vilest of them will own him as their champion, while contending that "slave-holding is not sin.” So that, as I said, what he teaches is unacceptable to slave-holders, and what he teaches is acceptable to them.

Again: He says that I, in the figure of the rats, represented, that to go to Hebrew and Greek is to go into darkness. But he is mistaken. I said no such thing. This is what I said. That there is a class of men who seek to climb by sectarian services to the top of old ecclesiastical establishments founded by the piety of past generations :—that these men are slaves to authorities, weighing men's opinions against plain justice :—that they dive into the lumber-room of antiquity to fetch out what instances they can find of the curtailment of human freedom in dark and despotic ages, before the empire of force had yielded to that of reason; and twist them into a coil of precedents, to bind American Christianity to the toleration of American despotism in an age of liberty and light. That is what I said ; and not that Hebrew and Greek, the original tongues of the scriptures, were a source of darkness. Much good may his Hebrew and Greek do him; I apprehend he will have need of all he is master of, before he gets through this debate. He further remarked that there could not be found one respectable commentator who did not hold that slave-holding is not sinful, “ he will confess that he could find none. I have an argument upon commentators which I will introduce in its place. Meantime I observe that Dr. Adam Clarke, whom Methodists at least will respect, in commenting upon the Ephesians vi, 5, says, that; - In heathen countries slavery had some sort of excuse.

« AnteriorContinuar »