xviii, 13, where the Greek is "somaton" or bodies. If ebedh is the very word for slave, the translators have not in the Old Testament once translated “ebedh" by the word by which it should have been translated! What must become of people's confidence in our English Bible if such statements are to be believed! Gentlemen; there are other words than these used to express slavery. It takes a " Doulos hupo zugon;” "servant under the yoke" to mean a slave. When the sacred writers wished to speak of a slave, they had no difficulty in describing one. But the ordinary meaning of these a words is not slave. His error in stating this, is the same as that of a man who should affirm that "bird" is "the very word" for “ owl ;” “ bird” may mean "owl;" and so doulos may mean slave; but these are not their ordinary meanings. If one were telling a fable of the owl and spoke of it as "the bird;" the connection would show that the owl, was the bird meant. So the connection must show that "ebedh" and "doulos" mean "slave" or they always mean “servant.” They are generic words like "bird," while "owl" and "slave" are specific words, having a specific meaning. "Servant" is the "ordinary and literal" meaning of both "ebedh" and "doulos." I was therefore amazed at my friend's assurance when, declaring "slave" to be the ordinary meaning of these words, he could add: "There is no controversy upon this point!" What! No controversy whether "ebedh,” and “doulos ordinarily mean "slave" when that meaning is not once given to them by the translators in the whole word of God! Old Testament and New! But I said I would give you a plain, easy rule, by which you can try his interpretation of these words, and see if it be true. The way to try it, is, to put his definition in place of the word itself, and see how it will read. "The 'literal and ordinary meaning' of 'cbedh' and 'doulos' is slave," says Dr. Rice. Now take this definition and go through the Bible, putting his definition in place of the word, and if his definition be true it will not change the sense. Take Psalms cxvi, 16, "O Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant and the son of thy hand-maid." According to Dr. Rice, this will read-"O Lord, truly I am thy SLAVE; I AM THY SLAVE, and the son of thy female SLAVE!" The Hebrew word for hand-maid here, is not, however, as I have seen it stated in some abolition writings, "abdah," but another word. Again, in Romans i, 1, Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ," would read, "Paul, a 'SLAVE' of Jesus Christ." Thus, my brother not only makes the Eternal God the Father, but Jesus Christ himself, a slave-holder; and all the apostles, who are called the "douloi" of Jesus Christ, his slaves! In Col. i, 7, and iv, 7, Epaphras and Tychicus are called "sun-douloi" of Paul, which Dr. Rice would call fellow-slaves of the apostle. I pause to say, also, that in the solemn address of the Judge at the last day" Well done, good and faithful servants"—must be read, "Well done, good and faithful SLAVES!" Thus God and Christ are made slave-holders, and the apostles and ministers of his church, slaves! Not only so, but the angel who said to John, in Revelation, "I am thy sun-doulos," was a fellowslave of God with John the Divine. Thus his definition, carried through the whole Bible, makes a horrid havoc of its meaning, and turns the whole book into a Newgate calendar, where God is chief superintendent, and angels and apostles the turn-keys and slaves of his will. So in Luke xvi, the case of the steward who had wasted his master's goods, and went to one and said, how much owest thou my lord? &c., that was a "doulos;" and these servants, or "douloi," are represented as owing, having running accounts, with their lord; that is, they were propertyholders, having houses and accounts of their own. Does not this simple fact stultify and cast into utter error the doctrine founded upon the false assumption, that "doulos" is a slave? Remember, the steward says, "how much owest 1 thou to my lord." Thus does his false definition make havoc of the meaning of the scripture, and prove itself false by clouding and confounding God's truth. But the "New England divines!" the "New England clergy!" my brother is evermore backing and sustaining his sentiments and interpretations with opinions of the New England clergy. It becomes necessary that I should say something of these divines; and, to prevent misconstruction, and charges of abuse, I wish to say, in the outset, that the mass of New England ministers, wherever found, East or West, in my deliberate judgment, for broadness of views and singleness and integrity of heart, will compare with any other class of men on earth of equal number; and that they will do more things in the course of a year for the sake of duty and conscience, without reference to their interest. Yet they are not all of this stamp; nor, unfortunately, the majority of those whom Dr. Rice has quoted in favor of his doctrine in this debate. One, whom he has often quoted, is a natural born high churchman, the president of a high church seminary, and a fit representative of his class of New England clergy. By high churchman, I mean those men with whom the gospel is grown weak, and who are evermore bringing in church power, and the power of a technical orthodoxy to eke out the power of truth: and high churchism, being in its nature spiritual despotism, is perpetually bringing in the principles of other despotisms to justify and strengthen itself. Hence the leaning of this class of ecclesiastics to the doctrines of slavery. Next to the high churchmen, are a class of men like Dr. Bacon of New Haven, who have some noble sentiments, and generous hearts, and who sincerely love the truth. Hence, like Dr. Bacon, when they freely utter themselves, they put forth sentiments which make a clean sweep of the whole doctrine of slavery. These men have a strong sense of justice, and a deep abhorrence of oppression, but stag gered by the overbearing influence of the high church party, and dreading to be deemed "ultra," by those who make this party their standard of orthodoxy, and discretion; deterred, moreover, by the natural respect for established errors of interpretation; and disgusted by the faults and deficiencies of some leading abolitionists; this class seldom say a smart thing against slavery, but they utter something of another sort to balance it. They make progress, but they move one step this way and one step that way: and when, at length, the disturbing causes shall be removed, they will be out-and-out abolitionists. Next to these are the abolitionists themselves; honest, simple-hearted, and clear-sighted; but few of them dwellers in high places; who take up the truth, and the cross with it, to bear both after Christ. These give slavery no quarter, but in principle and in fact, in doctrine and in practice, they hold it doomed, and act accordingly. The next large class of ministers are men who have the minds of followers, and in their several locations do the best they can. The prevailing element in the whole body of the clergy of New England is decidedly abolitionist, when it can be fairly brought out. The General Conference of Maine Congregational churches, have unanimously condemned slavery, and Dr. Rice's report on the subject to his last General Assembly. The Massachusetts General Association have done likewise, but with less specification and point; and others will follow in a little while. Having spoken of the propensity of the high churchmen, to walk softly beside, and look lovingly on civil despotism, it is proper that I should not leave the subject without saying that there is one New England minister, who, I believe, my brother has not yet quoted, and, who, through wariness, is seldom quoted to his disadvantage, who, yet influences the policy of the eastern churches towards slavery, at this time, more, perhaps, than all others put together. Concerning this man, I will say nothing but that, if Talleyrand had been a Congregational minister, Talleyrand's history would have answered for his. I shall not name him, nor need I, for, whenever you meet an intelligent New England minister, give him this description, and he will tell you the man. But how long shall such men bear rule in the church of Christ? How long will intelligent and enlightened Christians for the seductive boon of sectarian quietude and temporary exoneration from self-denial in opposing slavery, endure the leadership of those who are resolved to keep them in church fellowship with those who deem no interest or relation of time or eternity sacred, which stands in the way of slavery ?-men in whose hands the gospel itself becomes a yoke, and its blessed precepts fetters; before whom marriage, parentage and wages fade away as they are driving, in their car of slavery, rough shod, over the hearth and hearts of mankind! Why do they do this? Gracious and compassionate God! What folly blinds them! What have they done with our free Bible? Surely this is that blindness of a land which precedes and presages destruction. "Quem Deus vult per dere prius demental." They have turned our Bible into a smith shop whence consecrated hands bring fetters for the feet and manacles for the mind. They make the Old and New Testament a pair of hand cuffs; and the whole book a straight jacket for the soul! They have transformed the Eternal Jehovah into a slave-holder, and his holy inspired apostles into overseers under him, and the ministers of Jesus Christ into bookkeepers, and drivers, set over separate gangs of men! "Just God! O what must be thy look, "Unblushing with thy sacred book, "Turning its leaves with haughty hands, "To wring from out its text sublime, "This creed of blood and hate and crime!" But shall they prosper who do this? No, never! The light which beams from that burning page like the eyeflash of God, piercing and dispersing the mists which they |