« AnteriorContinuar »
stantly reminds me of a certain mechanic whose sign over his door was in these words : “ALL SORTS OF TWISTING AND TURNING DONE HERE!” [Great laughter.]
But he condemns me for saying, that if I buy a man, he is mine, so far as his services are concerned. Yet the Bible says, that the servant is his master's “money;" and is not a man's money his own ? Did you ever hear a man say-I have bought an apprentice? Or “I have bought a hired servant?” Would one of your mechanics in Cincinnati say, “ I have bought five apprentices, and they are my money?" The gentleman has seemed particularly fond of telling us about the fists of emigrant Germans and Irish. I think I might say, the apprentices of Ohio would show him their fists, if he were to speak of them as servants, as the money of their purchasers ! [A laugh.]
But, if the Hebrew bond-servants were apprentices, how long did their indenture continue? Only six years, I think he said. It is true, that Hebrews who became poor and sold themselves, or were sold, went free at the end of six years. But we are speaking of the bond men and bondmaids, bought from the heathen, from whom the Hebrew servant is expressly distinguished. The scriptures teach, that the Jews might buy them, hold them for a possession, and transmit them as an inheritance to their children. I should like to inquire of the gentleman, whether apprentices are bequeathed as an inheritance to the children of the man to whom they are bound? Is this the law of apprenticeship in Ohio? The ridiculous absurdity of the idea, shows how sorely abolitionism is pressed to support its claims, and how glaringly it is obliged to pervert God's word, that it may turn the edge of the sword of the Spirit.
As a further evidence of the truth of this remark, observe the course pursued by the gentleman in his reply. In attempting to prove, that there were no slaves among the Jews, he confined his remarks to the case of the Hebrew sold for six years, in consequence of poverty, and said nothing of the bond-servants bought of the heathen, who were
LT 1993 izzi IT tes je via 75K. 19. Bu u 15. 111 siat Wome m D Br. 44 WASS: Timi I THI. DI SI WELCI 158, a. 2. TIE TITEL
iz 17 23 ITES. TIL 1 1 NL ne za s ESTI iz suhen 21. wwa 6 VASI"
finns en 2 TA 20 ET24 SIS 187, L, XL, 5. , BITE 2 a bize se 11 İR SUL
4 9X1 TESTI ze tie 5 new wine, ha ez ma mi re banii . 1.- Snart the Harry!
W'ry A MA, *2ts pia 2s of i= T2 m burnt irma z brez. Ser, be i za a possessic. ani ze
4. 3: 23. Ta đa ? - arirans Fa” Lyra tiks saugonge man a “short exprentisest Caixerasies teil us, that forecer does not mean izera, it only a limitesi time, but I never beard before, that it go fusi no sbort a grid as five years! (A laugh] The . angloyed is the strongest word in the Hebrew large; yu it means fire years! This is on a par with his axeraca that the wrvants of the Hebrews were clansmen to Hebrew shrike! Who ever heard of a sheik whipping the families under him? and buying them? and holding them as a ponion and bequeathing them as an inheritance ?
If the gentleman can get over the difficulty placed in his way by the plain letter of the Bible, he must have far more talents, and learning too, than I can pretend to.
[MR. BLANCHARD.-I did not say five years--I said six years.) Oh! yes-six years :-“forever" does not mean only five mit mcans six years.
I stand corrected! [Loud
laughter.] If the Hebrew servant is bought one year before the jubilee, then “forever" means one year! If it was only three months, then three months was forever! Verily, if abolitionism continues much longer, I should not wonder if “forever" should come to mean nothing at all. [Laughter.]
But he tells us, that Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, had servants of his own. The probability is, that before having servants of his own, he had obtained his freedom. On this subject, however, we have no information; and, therefore, the fact stated is a poor offset to the plain declarations of the Bible I have produced.
Servants among the Jews, the gentleman tells us, owned property, and therefore were not slaves. And what evidence does he produce, that they held property? Why, the servant who accompanied Saul in searching for his father's asses, had “the fourth part of a shekel of silver," of which Saul had no knowledge!
This servant could not be a slave, because he had in his pocket the quarter of a silver shekel (worth about five cents). Indeed! Why, there is scarcely a slave in Kentucky, but has as much as that, and more. Some of them can show you laid
up in a chest in their quarters, a hundred dollars, besides a horse and saddle of their own, purchased out of their little savings. They sometimes buy themselves and their wives too. Yet because this servant of Saul had a little bit of silver, unknown to his master, he was protected in the sacred right of property," which is the mark of a free man, and he could therefore be no slave! Why the gentleman is proving, very fast, that there is no slavery in the United States, nor in the whole world.
Aye, but they enjoyed liberty! liberty! Yes; and so do the slaves in our country, about to the same extent. What liberty did they enjoy? What does the brother mean by the term ? If he means, that the servant could go where he pleased, serve whom he pleased, and obey or not, as he pleased—then, I say, he had not his liberty. If a man can
buy me—if I am his possession—if he can bequeath me to his children—if he can beat me with a rod, only so that I do not die under his hand—will the gentleman say I am free?
He says that the Jewish servant labored under no disabilities—he was a man. The truth, however, is, that the servants among the Jews were bought from the heathen—that they were held as a possession—that they could be bequeathed, and be inherited—that they could be personally chastised-and that they are designated by a word which uniformly means slave. Whether, in view of these facts, they were apprentices, hired servants, or slaves, I leave you to judge.
The gentleman has been threatening us all along with his two speeches of an hour-and-a-half, on the Bible argument; and when they come, he tells me, all my Hebrew and Greek will be called into requisition. Well: I have not had much use for the Hebrew and Greek as yet; but I shall wait calmly and patiently for those powerful speeches.
He has repeatedly insisted, that the word evcd does not mean slave; because the translators of our English Bible did not so render it. He says, they did use the word slave twice. But does he not know, that the word servant, derived from the Latin-servus-a slave, originally, and at the time our translation was made, signified a slave? True, the translators use the word slave twice; but what does this prove? Does not the word they have translated slave, occur more than twice? And did they not, in translating this word, as in many others, render it by different words having the same meaning? But the abolitionists admit, that doulos is translated servant, when it means a slave; as in 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2. “ Let as many servants (doulous) as are under the yoke," &c. "Art thou called being a servant (doulos), care not for it." Now let me turn the gentleman's question against himself, by asking,—is, as abolitionists admit, the word doulos, in these passages, means slave, why was it not so translated ? It does mean slave in these passages, abolitionists themselves being judges; the translators render it “servant,” which, according to the gentleman, they never could have done, if it meant slave! Again, I am irresistably reminded of the sign" all sorts of twisting and turning done here." And is this the best that can be done to show that there was no such thing as slavery among the Jews ?
In reply to Mr. B.'s denial, that the Hebrew word eved means slave, I asked him a plain question; he has not answered it; and I fear he won't. When the Hebrews mcant to speak of a slave, what word did they use? I must insist upon an answer. I hope he will not refuse; yet, I do confess, I greatly fear he will forget it. I am really in earnest, and shall be truly gratified to hear his answer.
And now, let me urge my last argument from the scripture, to show, that the “servants" spoken of in the New Testament were slaves; and it is drawn from the directions which the apostles of Christ addressed to those persons. I say, they are directions suitable only to slaves: “Obey your own masters with fear and trembling." "Be subject to your masters with all fear ;” and that not only "to the good and gentle, but to the froward.” And it is added—“for this is thankworthy, if a man, for conscience toward God, endure grief, suffering wrongfully." Would the brother address exhortations like these to the hired servants in Ohio? Does he, as a minister, read to them these directions, as defining their duty ? Would not any hired servant in the State, or in this country, deem it an insult to have such exhortations addressed to him? They are as free as their masters; they render quid pro quo for all they receive. Are they to obey “with all fear?”—to serve with fear and trembling?” Are they bound to submit themselves to the froward, “ enduring grief, suffering wrongfully?" If the gentleman's assertions be true, (for he says, these passages must apply fully and fairly to hired servants,) the apostles 80 exhorted such. Let this be known throughout free Ohio, as the abolitionist doctrine. I suspect, it will not be very