Imágenes de páginas

however, is a' poor argument to prove it false; for he will admit, that many parts of even the Bible itself, are acceptable to ungodly men. What thief or drunkard objects to the declaration that “God is love?" or to the truth, that God forgives “iniquity, transgression and sin ?” But shall we reject the scriptures because they contain truths which even the most ungodly men do not object to? The gentleman would condemn my views on the subject of slavery, because, as he affirms, southern slave-holders are pleased with a part of them. Then must he not for the same reason, condemn the

gospel itself?

The gentleman says, he did not object to an appeal to the Greek and Hebrew scriptures to settle this controversy; but he said, that certain men go back to the dark, despotic ages to support slavery. But the audience have not forgotten, that he represented those who insist on going to the original languages, as bats that flutter about the tops of high towers, and as rats that retreat into dark cellars. They remember, too, how he sneered at Dr. Junkin for pursuing this very course, and told us that he “Junkinized” the people who heard him, with his Greek and Hebrew, till they had no

sense left!

[MR. BLANCHARD explained—I said that he Junkinized them, till they had not two substantial ideas left in their heads on the subject he was discussing !]

The gentleman, then, from his own account of the matter, said, the audience had not two ideas on the subject of slavery, because Dr. Junkin appealed, in his discussion of it, to the Greek and Hebrew; and yet he now admits the propriety of doing the very same thing!

He quoted Dr. Adam Clarke's opinion of slavery " for spice.” But all the spice was created by his own mistake: it would have been more poignant, and would have had a better relish, had it been a reply to what I had said. It is true that Dr. Clarke did denounce slavery as my brother says ; yet as a commentator, he was compelled by the force of truth to give the same explanation of slave-holding among

the Jews, which I have given; and his testimony is the more important from the fact that he was a most decided anti-slavery man. He was one of the men who go back into the dark and despotic ages of antiquity, and though he sought nothing there to justify slavery, he found the same proof with me that it was permitted by God himself. The opinion of such a man greatly strengthens my argument.

My friend says, that the “pro-slavery men,” (as he calls those who differ from the abolitionists) do not reason from general principles, but run to isolated texts of the Bible. Now this audience knows better; for they have listened attentively to a long argument I offered from the golden rule -an argument to which, as yet, he has attempted no reply. My brother forgets. We do go to general principles, as well as to Bible texts. And Dr. Cunningham, to whom I have so often referred, does the same. For example:

“ A man may be placed in such a condition as that the only act of humanity he can discharge, is just to buy a man, and make him his slave. He acquires a legal right to him, and may do injury according to the law; but this does not follow. *** A minister who lived in a slave State made it his business not to acquire property in slaves, but to hire them. One woman he hired. Her owner's circumstances became embarrassed. This woman came to her master not her owner, and told him, she had reason to think she would be sold, and besought him to buy her. He replied, that he did not wish to buy slaves. The woman, who was a religious person took it so much to heart that she could not do her work, nor take any meat, lying about her kitchen, crying and howling, till at last he was obliged to borrow money

and buy the woman, as the only way in which he could really perform an act of humanity towards her. * * * It is utter folly and sheer madness to be denouncing every man, simply because he stands in the relation of a master to a slave, as a man-stealer ; &c. * * * What has been the great source of all the evil, is, that the abolitionists, finding they could not answer the scriptural argument, have made it their busi


ness just to slander and calumniate the American churches." This is the writer who my brother says, agrees with him. He makes his appeal to general principles of benevolence, to justify a man's purchasing a slave to better his condition. This case I have presented again and again, but I cannot induce


friend to touch it. The gentleman affects great contempt for German critics, men, as he informs us, of timid and narrow minds, who

can hardly get to bed without a committee ;” and he ridicules verbal criticism as a means of arriving at the truth. I had really supposed, that words were signs of ideas; and that the only method of getting the ideas of an author, was by understanding his words. Will the gentleman be good enough to inform us, how we can get at the ideas presented in the Bible, except by inquiring into the meaning of the words used ? I did quote one, and only one, German lexicographer, viz: Gesenius, whose reputation as a learned man and a standard authority, is too well established to be affected by the ridicule of Mr. Blanchard. He only exposes himself by affecting to laugh at such men. But since he has so little respect for the authorities I have quoted, I challenge him once more to produce one respectable commentator or critic who gives to the scriptures to which I have referred, a different interpretation from that which I have given. He has studied and discussed this subject for years past; and therefore he is just the man to produce such authorities, if they exist.

I will now pay my respects to his answer to my arguments, so far as he has attempted to answer them. He says, in the first place, admitting the bondmen of the Jews to have been slaves, this fact does not authorize American slavery. We are not discussing the question, whether American slavery is right. The question proposed by the friends of the gentleman, relates simply to the morality of the relation between master and slave. Let us settle the principle, and we can then apply it. But he attempts to escape the difficulty in which he is involved by the clear declarations of the Bible by bringing forward a particular kind of slavery, of which the question before us, says nothing.

But why would not the fact, that the Jews were permitted to hold slaves, justify others in doing the same? Because, as Mr. B. says—those whom the Jews were permitted to purchase, were under the curse of God. Admit this statement to be strictly true; will he maintain, that the Jews were at liberty to form a relation in itself sinful, because the person sustaining the relation of slaves, were under the curse of God? If so, he goes very far toward fully justifying American slavery; for Canaan, from whom the Africans descended, was not only cursed of God, but expressly doomed, to be “servant of servants.” Does this fact justify men in making slaves of the Africans? If so, surely the question must be given up. If not, how can the fact that the Canaanites were cursed, justify the Jews in holding them as slaves ? To say in one breath, that slave-holding is in itself sinful, and consequently sinful under all circumstances; and in the next, that in cases where nations are under the curse of God, men may be justified in reducing them to slavery, is to be chargeable with a flat contradiction.

The gentleman's second answer is, that God may permit that which is in itself sinful, and that he did so in granting to the Jews permission to divorce their wives, “because of the hardness of their hearts.” I answer, God did not give such permission for the sake of hard-hearted men, but for the sake of their wives, whom their wickedness lead them to treat cruelly. The husband might greatly sin in making a divorce desired; but it was not in itself wrong that the oppressed wife should be released from her obligations to a cruel husband. The doctrine, that God may give men permission to do that which is in itself sinful, appears to me near of kin to blasphemy. I find nothing in the Bible to countenance such an idea; nor have I ever before heard it advanced.

But he tells us that God permitted slavery in the sense of not hindering it. But was that my argument? Did I contend that God only permitted the Jews to form the relation

of master and slave by not hindering it? I said, and I proced, that He gave express permission to form the relation; and therefore it could not be sinful. Has he replied to this argument, and proved that such permission was not given? He has not, and he cannot. The argument, therefore, remains unanswered.

But if, as the gentlemen contends, God may permit a relation in itself sinful, why cannot abolitionists do the same? Are they holier than God? Do they feel themselves in conscience bound to oppose and denounce what He permitted, and to purify the church from that which He permitted to remain in it?

But the brother says that buying slaves is slave trading, which "Dr. Rice" himself denounces; and if God permitted it, he sanctioned the slave trade! Not at all: to buy a slave, with a view to improve his condition, is not slave trading. Speculating in slaves, for the sake of gain, is slave trading. Can the brother's discriminating mind discover no difference between them? The difference is as obvious as between light and darkness. Those purchased by the Jews, as I said, were generally already in slaveryin cruel bondage; and God, as I suppose, permitted the Jews to buy them in order that their condition might be mitigated, and that they might come to the knowledge of the true religion.

Again, he says, my argument fails, because the Africans were all originally stolen; and, if we buy them, we are guilty of the sin of man-stealing. I reply, that if this principle is sound, there is not a man in Ohio who can, honestly and innocently, hold the farm he owns: for the land was, most of it, originally taken by force or fraud from the Indians. Besides, did not the heathen masters of whom the Israelites were permitted to buy, obtain their slaves by war and violence? And if so, where is the difference between their case and that of our negroes? Abolitionists labor hard when they get near the Bible. Again, if the relation be in itself

wrong, the manner of forming it can never make it

« AnteriorContinuar »