« AnteriorContinuar »
of a tell! Yet he is bere ad good aciere--bfol and belosed" Origit a true te jeter, a man tad be used, good and gentle, to be EXCCIja:ed from ide church?
I have proved, as I think, that the word bris, which signifies literally orner. possesyr, when used in connection with sreants, means a real master. It uniforly convers the idea of one possessing absolute authority; ani in this sense it is used as a name of God. It is also used for the head of a family. But the argument does not depend upon the word kurios; for the apostle spoke of masters as despo tai~a word which, even abolitionists admit, means slareholders.
The abolitionists, howerer, ask us, with an air of triumph, whether, when Christ is called Kurios, Lord, we are to understand that he is a slace-holder, and that all his people are slares? Not so fast, gentlemen; you forget that the word despotes, which, as you admit, means a slave-holder, when used with reference to men, is applied also to God. Good old Simeon, as he held in his arms the infant Saviour, said “ Now Lord (Despote) lettest thou thy servant depart in peace," &c. As applied to God, both kurios and despotes express his ownership of men, and his absolute authority over them. As applied to the master of servants, they mean the owner of slaves—a man who has authority to control them.
I think, I have now proved, that the word doulos, translated servant, means, in the New Testament, what it means in the writings of the ancient Greeks—a slave, and consequently that the servants addressed by the apostles, were slaves ; and that the kurioi and despotai were slave-holders. The conclusion is inevitable, that the apostles of Christ did receive slave-holders into the churches organized by them, as worthy and faithful Christians, and did not require them to liberate their slaves, but to treat them with all kindness. Yet we are called upon to exclude such men from the church, and are denounced because we refuse to do so! Our abolitionist reformers, it seems, are better than the Bible--more holy and faithful than the apostles of Christ! Nay, they are more benevolent, if we are to credit their professions, than the Son of God! A centurion came to Jesus, in Capernaum, told him that his servant, (doulos, slave,) 6 who was dear to him," was very ill, and besought him to heal him. What was the Saviour's reply? Did he denounce him as a man-stealer, a robber? No—he not only complied with his request, but said to those who followed him, “ I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." Ah, our modern abolitionists would denounce such a man as a hypocrite, and have him out of the church without delay! Verily, we have fallen on glorious times! We are likely
have the church so pure, that the very best of men cannot live in it. [A laugh.]
Monday, 4 o'clock, P. M. [MR. BLANCHARD'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow
My argument on the New Testament view of servitude will be the opening speech to-night. I have received a letter from Mr. J. R. Alexander, a respectable man, complaining that I did Dr. Stiles injustice in my remarks of yesterday. I would remark that Mr. Alexander is mistaken as to what I said. If the moderators will give me time after recess, I will show him his mistake, but it does not belong to the present argument.
Dr. Rice has told you that the word “ servant” comes from the Latin “ servus" which originally meant slave, and did so at the time the Bible was translated. This is an entire mistake, as you can all see from the fact that our translators do use the word slave in two places. The first is in Jer. ii, 14, where we read, “ Is Israel a servant ? is he a home born slave ? and the second is in the 18th chapter of Rev. where the word slaves occurs as part of the traffic of the mother of harlots. This shows that when the Bible translators used the word "servant" they meant servant,—and where they used the word “slave," they meant slave. His assertion, therefore, that the word servant meant “ slave" in England in the year 1607, is an entire mistake; as is perhaps two-thirds of all that he has asserted in a similar manner in your hearing, with an assurance to me perfectly unaccountable; using such expressions as, "There is no controversy about it; the abolitionists admit," &c. I said playfully, that I could not hope to compete with a Doctor of Divinity in ability' and talent; but I must candidly acknowledge that of the many whom I have met in conversation upon this subject within the past few years; Dr. Rice's defence of slavery (with the exception of some adroit and somewhat bitter replications which evince talent of a certain description) seems to me, decidedly the weakest I ever met. This much it is perhaps necessary to have said, as I have hitherto made no remark of the kind, while he has asserted so constantly that “ I cannot meet his arguments;" that “ I have not uttered one word on the question;" etc. etc. that I have feared he was in danger of scoffing.
There is one point more in his remarks that requires notice. He said he wished to know whether the Methodists excluded any body from their church for holding slaves. I am informed that the early Methodists did exclude slave-holders; (a voice: “ they did.") A brother whose hairs are white, with years, and, though unknown to me, I trust venerable for righteousness, answers, “ they did.” I hold here the discipline of the “ UNITED BRETHREN in Christ," whose origin and ways were the same with the early Methodists.
This denomination, eight years ago, had nine yearly Conferences, and the Pennsylvania conference with which I was most acquainted, had ninety preachers; many of them apparently (and I have attended their camp-meetings) very sin. cere, and pious Christians. OTTERBEIN, their founder, was ordained by Dr. Coke, the first Methodist Bishop sent out by Mr. Wesley to this country. Here is their discipline, which declares: “ All slavery shall be excluded from our church. If any of our preachers or members are found holding slaves, they shall be excluded from the church, unless they do personally manumit such slave or slaves within six months.” — ART. SLAVERY.
Here is a large and respectable denomination of Christians, not, it is true, commonly, among the most educated classes, yet a laborious and God-serving people, who have acted from their origin upon the principle of John Wesley, respecting slavery. I saw a little short man, a bishop or presiding elder, among this sort of people in Pennsylvania, with whom I had much pleasant intercourse. He talked about half Dutch and half English, and rejoiced in the rise and progress of abolitionism, saying; “Ven I vas in Virginia, I did think to get my pones out of a schlave schtate to die."
I have now informed my brother of one large class of Christians who, upon abolition principles, reject slave-holders from communion.
I will now refer him to another, viz: the American Pres. byterian churches, which are of Scotch origin, "Covenanters, Secedors," and " Associate Reformed." Two of their ministers are in this house and one, the President moderator, (Rev. Mr. Prestly) now fills the chair.
Their preachers number about 300; and their united membership some 40,000 to 50,000 persons. As a people, they are remarkable for two things, adherence to their Bibles and their Catechism, studying the scriptures, probably more than
any other denomination. This scripturally educated class of Christians, as my brother now in the chair will tell you, totally excludes slaveholders both from their pulpits and communion tables. Dr. Claybaugh, the amiable and efficient President of their Theological Seminary at Oxford, Ohio, was the man who offered the excluding resolutions in his Synod.
Seventy years ago, the “ FRIENDS" made it an article of their society to exclude slave-holders. I have seen some. thing of the Quakers and have as good evidence of the personal piety of many of them, as I have of Christians in my own denomination, and have spent pleasant evenings with them in religious conversation.
Seventy years ago they decided that slave-holding was not a Christian practice, and when they freed their slaves in Maryland, I was informed by Mr. Russell, that they lost but one single member, who refused to obey the rule to free his slaves, and was read out of society. Many were offered as high as $700 each for their slaves, when they came to record their deeds of emancipation, BUT NONE SOLD: but paid, instead, from 5 to 7 dollars for making out the papers.
“ THE HEBREW BONDMEN WERE NOT SLAVES.” This is my position. I now proceed to prove it, by reference to the patriarchical character of Jewish Society. Their servants were clansmen, not slaves. Few comparatively, of all the ancient Jews were land-holders; they existed in tribes and sub-tribes, and the head man was a kind of sheik, like an Arabian satrap, uniting in his person the character of prince and priest. The bondmen were his clansmen, owing a sort of leige service to their chief.
Again; It is evident that those Hebrew bondmen were not slaves because there is no trace of a system of legislative appliances necessary for keeping up a slave system, like the American; where patrols are provided, informers and prosecutors paid, punishments by stripes ascertained ; rewards provided for arresting fugitives; and sheriffs fined for not keeping slaves from all access to types and letters, as in South Carolina, and other States where the law whips the father upon the “bare back," for teaching his child to read the name of Christ. In the Mosaic code, there is no trace of all this. The whole spirit and letter of the laws were entirely different, by which Moses regulated the lowest classes of labor. When a land-holder gathered in his grain, a few handfuls were to be left for the poor to glean. And their servants were their poor, not excepted from the poor as our slaves are. They were not to deliver up to his master a ser