2^ I LlBRiRY OF CONGUffiS. ? I UNITED STATUS Of AMERICA, | Iz-; C /Yt" IS SLAVERY SINFUL? BEING PARTIAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE PROPOSITION, SLAVERY IS SINFUL, BETWEEN O^HD BUTLER, ESQ., A BISHOP OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AT INDIAN- APOLIS, IND., AND JEREMIAH SMITH, ESQ., LATE JUDGE OF THE IITH AND 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUITS, IND.; AND BETWEEN ELDER THOMAS WILEY, LATE PASTOR OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AT UNION CITY, IND., AND JEREMIAH SMITH, LATE JUDGE OF THE IITH AND 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUITS, INDLiNA ; WITH AN INTRODUCTION, EPISODE, AND CONCLUSION OF THE DISCUSSION. BY JEREMIAH "smith. INDIANAPOLIS: H. H. DODD & CO., PEINTERS AND BOOK BINDERS, 1863. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1863, BY JEREMIAH SMITH, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Indiana. DEDICATION. To all who love the truth; to all who are willing to "obey the truth;" to all who are willing to "do nothing against the truth, but for the truth;" to all who love their country, their fellow-citizens, their neighbors, themselves, and their posterity, this work is respectfully dedicated, BY THE AUTHOR. ERRATA Page 68, line 12 from bottom, for given read giving. Page 113, line 18 from bottom, insert the hef ore fanaticisjti. Page 154, line 10 from top, insert the before servant. Page 168, line 17 from bottom, insert that he before gave. Page 171, line 15 from bottom, for had read has. Page 177, line 13 from top, for ausioer read answers. Page 258, line 10 from bottom, insert shall before have produced. Page 268, line 6 from top, for inventors read inventor. Page 338, line 18 from top, for set read sit. There are other errors merely oi'thographical, Tvhich do not affect the sense, and hence are not noted. PREFACE. Our country is in a terrible condition. There is a cause, or causes, for its being so. All who love their country themselves and their posterity, should endeavor to ascertain the cause or causes of our present unhappy condition as a people, that by removing the cause of our troubles, we may restore the public health, vigor and prosperity. It is alleged by the dominant party, that the sin of sla- very is the cause of our calamities. If, however, slavery is not sinful, this is a false allegation. Hence, it behoves us all to examine the proposition, and ascertain correctly and satisfactorily^ whether it is true or false, that slavery is sin- ful. For, if the proposition is false, as the powers that be, the men who control the destinies of this great people, base their action upon the assumed truth of the proposition, they are shedding rivers of blood, and wasting millions of treas- ure, and making thousands of widows and orphans, carry- ing devastation, fire and sword throughout the land, and sweeping with the besom of destruction the fairest and hitherto the most blest and prosperous portion of God's foot-stool, upon a falsehood. If this is the true state of affairs, how great and how dreadful is the responsibility upon us as a nation and people ! andhow incumbent it is upon us to drop the falsehood, seek the truth, and pursue it ! ^ I am clearly satisfied that the proposition is false. The b PREFACE. object of this book is to show that it is false. It is my duty not only to ascertain the truth upon the subject to govern my ov/n action by, but it is my duty to lend my humble aid to my fellow-citizens in ascertaining the trutli also, that they may govern their conduct by it. And this is the more so, inasmuch as it is so persistently iterated and reiterated that the proposition is true, by '• the power behind the throne greater than the throne," that now un- fortunately controls the public affairs of this people. They, forsooth, will hardly brook the thought that the truth of the proposition should be doubted, denied, or controverted. But all who love the truth for truth's sake, are willing to examine and re-examine propositions, particularly when they are cardinal ones as this one is, to see if they are true or not. Truth never fears fair, candid investigation. And although clamor and detraction may decry her out of coun- tenance for a time, yet eventually she will rise again, and shine the brighter for the ill-treatment flhe has received. " Truth crushed to earth will rise again, The eternal years of God are her.? : While error wounded writhes in pain, And dies among her worshippers." All that I ask of the reader is a careful, faithful, honest reading of the book; and a re-reading of it, if necessary to a full understanding and comprehension of the proofs adduced in it. If, after he shall have so read it, he still thinks the proposition true, let him do so. That is with him, and between him and his God and his country. We all have to answer for ourselves, and not for others. I have written the book, or rather my portion of it, un- PREFACE. 7 der great disadvantages, growing out of pressure of busi- ness and other affairs, including a protracted sickness which I had whilst it was being written. In the writing and prep- aration of it for the press, my thoughts were bestowed upon the matter — upon the proofs adduced — and not upon the manner, except to try to state the proofs so that they could be understood b}^ all. Diction, style, and fine rounding of periods, I paid no attention to. My thoughts were other- wise engaged. So the critics need not trouble themselves as to those matters. Should the public demand a second edition, I may, in the preparation of that, devote some at- tention to style and diction. But the fact, the truth of my position, and the proofs adduced, I am ready for the critics to go to work at, if they really want to come to the knowl- edge of the truth. If they do not, and want only to throw dust in the eyes of the public to prevent the people from reading the book, or considering the proofs, they will be unworthy of consideration or regard by me, or of answer from me. All of which is respectfully submitted : and I now give the book to the public, for its examination and considera- tion. Jer. Smith. Winchester, Ind., Oct. 1st., 1863. INTRODUCTION Unfortunately for our country and people, slavery has been used as a subject of agitation and declamation, for a long series of years. Agitate! agitate!! agitate!!! was the exclamation pub- licly made to his followers, by Mr. John Q. Adams, many years ago. Alas ! they too faithfully followed his advice. Agitation is not a means of acquiring either truth or knowledge. Examination, investigation, comparison, in- duction, &c., are the means of ascertaining truth, and there- by storing the mind with knowledge. This is true in all departments of truth and knowledge, whether moral, men- tal, physical, scientific, or historical. Agitation is only a perturbation, a disturbance of the thoughts; it excites the passions and prevents reason, reflection, and comparison. The agitator infuriates a nation, and makes it cry, even of the Lord of Life, crucify him ! crucify him ! ! or pours millions of infatuated Europeans into Asia, as did Peter the hermit. Hence, nought else could be expected from the continued agitation of the subject of slavery, but the terrible calami- ties with which our beloved country is now overwhelmed. The great Jefferson, saw the danger at the beginning. " This momentuous question," said he in his letter of April 22d, 1820, to John Holmes, of Missouri, " like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I consider- ed it at once as the knell of the Union. '^ -'"^ -^ ^^ * I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless , sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 177G, to acquire self-government and happiness, to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it."^ (1) Jefferson's Works, vol. vii, pp. 159-60. 10 INTRODUCTION. The National Intelligencer, then the leading political pa- per of the Union, in its issue of August 16th, 1825, said: "We will inform the editor of the Boston Sentinel that we are neither the champions nor the apologists of slavery ; and that we lament its existence v/ith as much sincerity as any of those humane gentlemen who daily fulminate their anathemas against it, and the only effect of whose writings, if they have any, on the foul blot which they rail at, is to- excite insurrection and consequent hlood-shed." Even Mr. Horace Greelj, who for twent}^ years last past, has been so great an agitator of the subject of slavery, some twenty-seven or twenty-eight years ago, in his Neiv Yorkev, the first paper, I believe, that he ever edited and published, said : "To a philosophical observer, the existance of domestic servitude in one portion of the Union, while it is forbidden and condemned in another, would seem, indeed, to afford 110 plausible pretext for variance or alienation. The Union was formed with a perfect knowledge on the one hand that slavery existed at the South, and on the other that it was utterly disapproved and discountenanced at the North. But the framers of the Constitution &aw no reason for distrust and dissension in this circumstance. Wisely avoiding all dis- cussion of a subject so delicate and exciting, they proceeded to the formation of a more perfect Union, which, leaving each section the possession of its undoubted right of regula- ting its own internal Government and enjoying its own speculative opinions, provided only for the common benefit and mutual well being of the whole. And why should not this arrangement.be satisfactory and perfect? Why should not even the existing evils of one section be left to the correction of its own wisdom and virtue, when pointed out by the fin- ger of experience ? " Had a prophet of God then met Mr. Greely and told him that he would do the evil to the government and people of the United States that he has since done and is still do- ing, would Mr. Greely have replied to him as Hazael did to Elisha, " But what ! is thy servant a dog that he should do this great thing? "' Mr. Jefferson, the National Intelligencer^ and Mr. Greely^ looked on it, and spoke of it, in its political aspect, as a political question. That is what it is. Slavery is an insti- tution of civil society, or civil government. Its adoption or rejection in any State or nation, is a political question ; a question to be decided by the kingdoms ©f this world, which all civil governments are, as contra-distinguished from the kingdom or government of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Hence its consideration, as an institution to be adopted or rejected originally where it does not exist, or to be con- tinued or abolished where it does exist, is purely and truly, a political question, to be determined by the laws of politi- cal economy. In our form of civil government in the United States, it (1) 2 Kings, viif, 11>13. INTRODUCTION. 11 belongs exclusively to each State to determine, for herself, whether or not she will have the institution. The right to interfere with her in her choice to adopt or reject the insti- tution, or to inter-meddle with it, or with her in her manage- ment and enjoyment of it if she adopts or has it, is not granted by her in the Constitution of the United States,, to the Federal Government, nor to the people of other States, but is expressly reserved, by her, in that instru- ment, to herself and her people.^ Viewed in that, its true aspect, there have been and are differences of opinion among the States and people of this Union. Some States and their people choose to have the institution; some because according to their views of politi- cal economy, as to their soil, climate, production, and social and domestic habits, think it proper for them; and some because the institution existed among them when they be- came independent States, and when the present generation was born and came into existence, and they can see no^ proper and safe mode, consistent with humanity, of getting rid of it. On the other hand, some States and their people,, now constituting a majority of the States and people of the Union, choose not to have the institution. Some of the States that were originally slave States, have by systems of emancipation devised and carried out by themselves, each; within herself, rid themselves of the" institution. They dis- approve of it politically as a domestic institution, and hence have decided and still decide not to have it. My own views, I believe, concur with those of the mass- of the people of the free States. I am satisfied that they do with the mass of the people of ISTorthAvestern States, where I reside. I think it proper, in the out-set, to prevent misapprehension and misrepresentation, to state my views as to the institution. I am opposed to the institution, and prefer to live in a community where it does not exist, for various reasons,, some of which are: 1st. I prefer not to live in a commu- nity where negroes are, either slave or free. God, by his fiat, has placed a broad and marked line of distinction be- tween that race and ours, and I prefer, in my political and social relations, to regard that distinction, and not to mingle (I) Art. X, Amendments to the ConstitutioQi 12 INTRODUCTION. with them in political and social relations, either of equality, or of servility on their part, and mastery on mine; and much more, of servility on my part and mastery on theirs. 2d. My political principles being democratic, I prefer to live in a community where all can have equal political privileges ; and as negroes can not enjoy those privileges among the American people, either as slaves or free, I separated my- ♦ self from them thirty six years ago, as Abram did from Lot, by coming from a slave State to wooden, wet, cold Indiana, and want myself and my posterity to remain separate and apart from them for all time to come. 8d. As a question of political economy, I am of opinion that the institution of slavery is injurious both to the country and people where it exists. For these reasons, I am opposed both to the institution of slavery, and to living in contact with the negro race. And in coming to this conclusion, it is not necessary for me 'to settle the captious question sprung by abolitionists, whether it is because 1 am better or w^orse than the negroes, that I decline to stand in political and social contact with them. God has placed a broad and palpable line of de- markation between the races; and that is enough for me to know or answer, in determining whether as a political ques- tion, it is proper to keep the races separated, or to com- mingle them, without determining the question whether the races are equal, or the one is superior to the other. I have however, my views, and am well established in them, as to the question of equality of the two races, and of the infe- riority or superiority of one race to the other. The two races are here,*and were here when this govern- ment was formed. It was formed by the white race, and not by the negroes. They did not participate in, nor have any hand whatever, in forming the Constitution and the Union. The Constitution Avas formed by the white race, to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their POSTERITY,^ and not to secure those blessings to the negroes.' The status of the negroes was left as it was, subject to the action of each State within herself and for hferseU. And, (1) Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. They had a pftrfect legal and moral right to confine the objects of the Constitution to those stated. They were as mnch legally and morally bound to undertake, by the Constitution, to secure the blessings of liberty to the down-trodden of Europe and Asia, as they were to secure them to the servile race in the several States And even abolitionists do not contend that the object of the Con- stitution was to secure liberty to the subjects of despotical or monarchical governtuents. INTRODUCTION. 13: as Mr. Greely pertinently asked in the extract above given, Why should net this arrangement he satisfactory and perfect ? It Avas satisfactory to all who were willing to obey the Con- stitution in its letter and spirit, and while so obeyed, the system was perfect. Its failure has been brought about by a failure to live up to the rule, and not because the system was imperfect. The system of Christianity is a perfect sys- tem to unite all the human family in harmony and brotherly kindness. It has hitherto failed to do so, not because of the imperfection of the S3^stem, but because its requirements are not lived up to. So of the federal system aevised by the Constitution; its failure is not because of its imperfec- tion, but because its letter and spirit have not been lived up to — because the people have barkened to, and acted upon the false theory of an "irrepressible conflict." Mr. Jefferson, with the political sagacity that he pos- sessed so thoroughly, gave the true reason why the arrange- ment made by the founders of the government, was not satisfactory, lie said that the slavery agitation was a mere party trick. That " the leaders of federalism, defeated in the schemes of obtaining power by rallying partisans to the principles of raonarcbisra, a principal of personal not of local division, have changed their tack, and thrown out an- other barrel to the whale. They are taking advantage of the virtuous feelings of the people to effect a division of par- ties by a geographical line; they expect that this will insure them, on local principles, the majority they could never ob- tain on principles of federalism;" but he thought that they would fail in the effort.' He was right in that; for they failed as long as they agitated the question on mere politi- cal grounds. The rights and duties of the people of the several States on that subject, were too clearly laid down in the Constitution, and the patriotic hearts of the people too firmly fixed in the determination to observe and respect all its rights and guaranties, to be drawn off by this federal trick, so long as the effort was made to operate upon them merely on political grounds. This made it necessary for the " leaders of federalism " to devise another and more deeply laid " party trick." As religious feeling is the strongest sentiment of the human' (1) Jefferson'B Works, voK vii, p. 180, letter to Mr. Pinckney, of Sept. 30th, 1820.. 14 INTRODUCTION. heart, their trick was to attack the institution of slavery on moral grounds, declare it a sin, and get up a religious phrenzy and furor against it, and induce political action upon a " higher law " than the Constitution, with a total disregard of its injunctions as to the rights and duties of the several States and the people thereof. This they did after Mr. Jefferson had gone the way of all the earth. And after years of incessant " agitation," they have succeeded in " obtaining power," but at the fearful cost of a dissolu- tion of the Union, and of a gigantic civil war ! In their denunciation of slavery as a sin, they had peculiar advantages in misleading the public mind, and working it up to religious phrenzy. They operated in the free States, and in them alone. In those States, the politicians and politi- cal press opposed to abolitionism, confined their discussion of the question, to constitutional and political duty and obliga- tion, and did not touch the moral phaze of the question, be- couse that was a question of tlieology, and hence not legiti- mately within the pale of political discussion. For a cardi- nal maxim of our theory and form of government, is, that church and State should be kept distinct and separate. Whether slavery was sinful or not, they did not inquire into nor discuss, because we, in the free States, did not have the institution, and were all agreed not to have it; and, whether sinful or not, we had to discharge our constitutional duties and obligations to the States and people that had the insti- tution'. This and this only, was urged by the political press and orators opposed to abolitionism. The clergy of the free States who were not abolitionized, did not enter into the discussion of the question in their pulpits, for the very good and sufhcient reason, that slavery was a political institution, and questions relating to it were political questions, and hence improper themes for the pul- pit. The same reason operated upon the religious press not abolitionized, and kept it from the discussion of the question. Those not politicians in the free States, being opposed to slavery as a political institution of their civil society or government, did not care to examine the question Avhether the institution was sinful or not, and felt wholly indifferent to it, as they and their States did not have the institution. While those that had examined the question and ascertained INTRODUCTION. 15 that the institution was not sinful, were deterred from com- batting; the abolition rant upon the subject, lest they should be placed in the fiilse position before the community of be- ing advocates of the institution, when they really were op- posed to it as an institution of civil society, on political grounds. I was of this class for some years. Some ten years ago, I investigated the subject for myself, and became satisfied that slavery v.as not sinful, and that the abolition denunciation of it as a sin, was all false clamor. But I was, and had been for thirty years, opposed to the institution, and still continue to be, and expect to remain so. Had I combatted the abolition dogma that slavery is sinful, the whole brood would have poured their denunciations upon my devoted head, that I was the advocate of slaver^^ — a pro- slavery man — a slave-holder in sentiment, &c. A principal means of operation used by abolitionists, is, and has been for years, to overwhelm with misrepresentation, vitupera- tion, and slang, all who attempted any opposition to their wikl vagaries. Hence I, in common with thousands of others, who desire " to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,"^ refrained from combatting the abo- lition dogma that slavery is sinful. But when I saw the fearfid calamities that were being brought upon our other- wise happy country and people, by the uncontradicted as- sertion and re-assertion of the dogma, I felt that duty to myself and my children, required that I should no longer refrain. Friends whose opinions were entitled to my most profound respect, advised me still to desist. The most, prominent among our Christian brotherhood, wrote to me — ■ " Still in the present state of affairs, I would let the matter rest, at least, for the present. They will put you in a false issue continally, and make you the advocate of slavtry.^^ Yet I have yielded to what I felt it to be my duty to do, and have entered the arena to cast in my humble mite to disabuse the public mind upon the subject, and roll back the torrent of misrepresentation, declamation, and sophistry, that abolitionists have been surfeiting the public mind with, for years. And for this I have already received a consider- able amount of vituperation and slander, and shall doubtless receive much more hereafter. But having put my hand to (1) 1 Tim., ii, 2. 16 INTRODUCTION. the plow, I shall fearlessly advocate THE TRUTH, and leave the event with God. As the abolition dogma that slavery is sinful, is the cardinal tenet of their theory, and the main lever with which they have wrought the present great mischief to our country and people, it is absolutely necessary that its fallacy be shown, to restore to our un- happy and distracted country, the blessings of which she has been bereft by the belief of the dogma. This restora- tion I earnestly desire to see before I am called hence; for I can not bear the thought that the political blessings I in- herited from my ancestors, I can not transmit to my poster- ity, because they perished in my keeping. And this is the reason why I have engaged in this work. The reason why the people of the slave States did not combat this abolition dogma, was correctly stated by a pres- byterian gentleman, a citizen of Kentucky, in a conversa- tion I had with him last fall. He said: " That is a question I will not debate Avith them, [the abolitionists]; for if it is a sin it is my sin, and not theirs, and they are not account- able for it." This, I have no doubt, is the sentiment of the entire southern people, and is the reason why they did not enter into the discussion of the question with the abolition- ists. Hence, the abolitionists had a clear field. The politicians did not combat their dogma that slavery is a sin, because that was a theological question; the clergy of the free States not abolitionized, did not combat it, because slavery was a political institution, and not a proper subject for pul- pit discussion ; the citizens of the free States not politicians, did not discuss it, because they were indifferent to the ques- tion, as they had not the institution ; and the citizens of the slave States did not discuss it with the abolitionists, because they were satisfied it was not a sin, but if it was a sin, it was not the sin of the abolitionists, and hence their inter- meddling with it was sheer impertinence. In addition to these advantages that the abolitionists had to mislead the public mind, the religious periodicals that first took the ground that slavery was sinful, closed their columns against those who wished to meet and refute their dogma. ^ (1> Pulpit Politics, pp» T5 and 78, and proofs there cited. INTRODUCTION. 17 How they proceeded in the various churches and ecclesi- astical bodies to effect their objects, is well and fully shown by Professor Christie in his Pulpit Politics, a work that all should read who desire to ascertain the facts bearing on the subject. I shall oniit giving here, even a summary of their action. They severed the churches one after another with their dogma that slavery is a sin. All sound-thinking men saw that these were but steps foreshadowing and lead- ing to the final severance of the Union. I shall close this branch of the subject by copying the views of the great statesman and patriot, Henry Clay, as reported by Dr. Hill, editor of The Freshyferian Herald^ of Louisville, Ky. He says : "Concprning the greatest source of danger to the country. A fewM'eeks prior to the death of Hon. Ilonry Clay, when he passed through our city on his way to Washington, at the request of a Methodist minister from oiie of the Northern States, who had never seen the great statesman, we called with him to see him. He was quite feeble, and spoke of his death as a probable event within a few months. He said that nothing but a deep and abid- ing conviction that the Union of the States was in imnunent peril, could have induced him, in his state of health, to leave the quiet of his own home, and go back to the Senate, the seat of so many of his struggles and great achievements. The opinion was expressed by one or both of us, that the danger of disunion was greatly overestimated ; that if it ever came to the test, it would be found that there were very few who would be mad enough to rush into disunion, either North or South. He shook his head ominously, and replied: ' Gentlemen, if I have studied anything, it is tlic ucnius and s])iritofthe American people, both in the North and in the South: find I tell ycu, tiinr is d;ui,mT. There is a spirit rising up in both sections of this republic, which, if not spi"( dily ijmll( il, will bring about a severance of the Uuion of these States, not into two, but into half a dozen little petty repuVdics, or despotisms, as the case may be.' It was replied that on several lormer occasions, the North and the South had been arrayed against each other in bitter hostility, but that the hostility had died away, and the parties restored to nioif tlian their former ftriendly relations. 'Ah!' said he, ^ tJiat wan before the r/Kc of modiin Ahnlitionixm. Faiiaticism. can not be con- trolled, and especially rcligioux jtiiKiticiKni. TJie churches of the country then stood together, and. in t?uir great )iati(>)irofess to be goverried by the great principles of loiie. If all the churches divide on the subject of slavery, there will be nothing left to bind the people together but trade and commerce. That ' said he, ' is a very jiowerful bond, I admit ; but when the people of these States become thoroughly alienated from eaah other, and get their passions aroused, they are not apt to stop to consider what is to their interest. It is against the interest of both parties in every contest, to go to war, but nations constantly do it, notwithstanding the fact. It is against the inter- tcrest of men to fight duels, but they often do it, when they know that ruin, both to them- selves and families, stares them full in the face. S<),' said he, 'men will fight, if they con- sider their rights trampled upon, even if you show them that ruin to themselves and fami- lies will be the probable result. Besides, in times of high i)arty excitement, the violent men on both sides get the control of matters, and moderate men are thrown into the back- ground, and their councils go unheeded.' Finding that the venerable statesman had ex- hausted his strength in talking, we arosq,to bid him adieu, as we thought, for the last time on earth. He shook the hands of both of us, and said, ' If you preachers will only keep the churches from running into excesses atid fanaticism, I think the politicians can control the masses. But,'' added he, ^ yours is the hardest task, a>id if you do not perform it, we v:ill not be able to do our part. That I consider the greatest source of danger to our country. ' " The preachers did not perform their task of keeping the churches from running into excesses and fanaticism, and 18 INTRODUCTION. hence the politicians were not able to do their part ; and demagogues devoid of statesmanship, taking advantage of the excitement of the times, violent men on both sides got control of matters, and moderate men possessed of states- manship and patriotism, were thrown into the back-ground, and their counsels went unheeded. And the result is a dis- solution of the Union and civil war, as foreseen by Mr. Clay. The various religious denominations that were severed, liad in their polity, ecclesiastical bodies called General As- semblies, Sj'nods, General Conferences, &c., which had power to prescribe rules, ordinances, tenets, and tests of membership, for their sev^eral denominations, and through them the abolitionists operated by procuring the adoption of rules, ordinances, tenets, and tests of membership upon the subject of slavery. But the body called Disciples of Christ, or Christians, or Campellites, have no such authori- tative ecclesiastical body. They acknowledge no creed, or rule of faith and practice, or test of membership, but the New Testament. They do not acknowledge the authority of any ecclesiastical body or court of judicature, to adjudi- cate for, speak for, or bind the whole body of theii- brother- hood. They acknowledge only the Lord Jesus Christ as their King and Law-giver, and the Apostles as his only Judges, who were set by Him on twelve thrones to judge or give laws to the church, the body of Christ; and that their judgments and laws are written out in the New Testament, to govern the church or body of Christ, for all time to come ; and that they did their work fully and completely, and have no successors to add to or subtract from their adjudications there written out and left for us. And that each congrega- tion of christians, through their presbytery, or eldership of bishops and deacons, have simply to administer or apply the adjudications and laws, so written out and left in the New Testament, to their respective congregations and the members thereof. Or in other words, that the Head of their body is the Lord himself, and., their General Assembly, Synod or Conference, is the College of Apostles, which fully did its work and left recorded in the New Testament, all ad- judications and laws necessary and proper for the body of Christ. Hence the few abolitionists among them could not work schism and division amono; them in the manner that INTRODUCTION. ' 19 abolitionists did among other bodies of professed christians. But tlie abolitionists among them were seized and pos- sessed of the same restless and contentious spirit (peculiar to all abolitionists) that had wrou,ci;ht schism and division among the other denominations. But as there was no au- thoritative ecclesiastical body to resort to now on earth, tlie Apostles having long since left it, they resorted to the press to effect their work. When they found that they could not divert tlie standard periodicals of the brotherhood, from their proper vocation of being christian periodicals, and convert them into organs of abolition agitation, they got -up periodicals to advocate and disseminate their views. They thus started a Weekly paper in Cincinnati, called Tite Christian Luminarij^ notwithstanding The AMEiacA]^ Christian Review vy-as then published in that city, and ably conducted by Elder Benjamin Franklin, to the satisfaction of the entire brotherhood except the few infected with abo- litionism. The Luminary was edited by brother John Boggs, and efforts were made to scatter it broadcast among the brotherhood of the North-West. Specimen papers were sent to me with a request that I should aid in its circulation and dessemination. I was anxious that our brotherhood should not be divided and dissolved as the other religious denominations had been, and that our dissolving civil gov- ernment, should be saved if possible. Hence I wrote to the editor, vvhich led to a correspondence, part of which was published in his paper, but all of which I think proper to insert here ; it will speak for itself. Winchester, Ind., Jan. 26th, 1861. Bro, Jolut Boggs, editor Christian Lumijiary: Dear Sir: — [ have received your paper of the 10th and 17th instant, with a special notice enclosed, requesting me to become a subscriber, and ask my neighbors to do likev/ise. I can not become a subscriber for two reasons. 1st. I am tnking as many of our religious periodicals, as I think it proper to expend money for. This is sufficient, and I might stop here ; but I think it proper to give the other reason. 2d. A principal, if not the principal subject treat- ed of by the paper, is the institution of slavery ; an insti- 20 INTRODUCTION. tution of civil Rociefy existing in a portion of the States of this Uniofi. Now though that institution existed in a worse form in all the society that the Lord and the Apostles labor- ed in during their ministry, than it does in any State of this Union, yet they never discussed the rightfulness or propri- ety of it,, nor denounced it as sinful, buc gave explicit direc- tions to both masters and slaves, as to their conduct towards each other, without directing or even reccommending a scA'crance of the relation existing between them. There- fore the discussion of the rightfulness or propriety of that institution, or the denunciation of it as sinful, is no part of Christianity, nor of the work of a christian. Hence the Luminary^ s course is outside of Christianity, and in the politi- cal field. Professing to be christian when it is political, it IS, for that reason, anti-christian. Making schisms and divisions among christians about matters not pertaining to Christianity, it is heretical — making a sect — and is therefore denounced by the divine law. In violation of the divine law, it is, under a pretence of being free, '* using its liberty for a cloak of maliciousness " against the brethren in Christ who are slaveholders, as well as against fellow-citizen^ of the best civil government ever given by God to man, insteiid of using its liberty "as the servants of God; honoring all men; loving the brotherhood ; fearing God; honoring the king/' or the ci-vil authority and its institutions existing in our nation and States.^ The course of the Luminary^ as well as that of those brethren v;ho think and act with it on this subject, is sinful, and is doing the cause of Christ much harm. I can not therefore, take the paper, nor encourage others to do it ; and I should be much gratified if you, and those who act with you as to that subject, c<:^uld see the er- ror of your ways, and abandon them. Your opinions on that subject, no one would object to your having and enter- taining, so long as you kept them as private property, or mere political opinions as they are ; but when you teach and insist on them, 3'ou become heretical, schismatical, anti- christian. ! that we all would come to the kuoiiMge of the Lord, that is, come to the knowledge that the Lord has imparted to our fallen race in the scriptures given by inspiration. (1) 1 Pet., ii, Ifl, 17. • INTRODUCTION. Zl The divine injunction to us is, to " grow in favor and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesns Christ."^ If we continue in, or keep, or observe his word, we shall know the truth, 2 that is, come to the knowledge of the Lord ; but if we set up our own vain philosophizings, and continue in, or keep them, we become " proud, knowing nothing," t^.c.^ xVffectionately your?, JER. SMITH. [From the Christian Luminary, of Feb. Tth, ISGl.] NO NEUTRAL GROUND. There \?> philosophy^ as well as divine wisdom, in the as- sertion of the Savior, recorded by Matthev/, " He that is not with me is against me; and he that garhereth not with me, scatereth." No christian man can occupy • neutral ground on an}^ of the great moral questions of the day. If we do not take a stand against sin, we will before we are aware, be apologizing for it, and then there is only one step left to make us its open advocates. Practically every pro- fessor of Christianity is either for or against every moral question. If v/e are careful a1)out our words, our injiuence will all the time be telling for weal or for woe, in the com- munity having cognizance of our lives. A short time ago we sent a specimen copy of the Lumi- nary to a prominent member of the Cliristian Church, liv- ing in Indiana — sl miin who j^oUticallg ink os strong Republi- 'can ground. Appended was a note politel}?- requesting him to become a subscriber, and to use his influence to induce others to do likewise. 'J'o show the reader v/here some of our brethren, even in the non- slave-holding States, stand on the slavery question, tveji where they are identified with the Republican party, w(; make the following extract from a letter we have just received from him : " A principal, if not the principal subject treated of hy the paper, is the institution of slavery ; an institution of civil society, existing in a portion of the States of this Union. Now, though that institution existed in a worse form in all the society that the Lord and (1) 2 Pet., ill, IS. Ci) John, viii, 31, 32. (3) 1 Tim., vi, 4. 22 ■ INTRODUCTION. the apostles labored in during their ministry, than it does in any State of this Union, yet they never discussed the rightful;iess or propriety of it, nor denounced it as sinful, but gave explicit directions to both masters and slaves, as to their conduct towards each other, with- out directing, or even reccommending a severance of the relation existing between them. Therefore the discussion of the rightfulness or propriety of that institution, or the denun- ciation of it as sinful, is no part of Christianity, or of the work of a Christian. Hence the Lumhiarifs course is outside of Christianity, and in the political field. Professing to be Christian when it is political, it is for that reason anti-christian. Making schisms and di- visons among Christians about matters not pertaining to Christianity, it is heretical— mak- ing a sect— and is therefore denounced by the divine law. In violation of the divine law, it Is under pretence of being free, " using its liberty for a cloak of maliciousness " against brethren in Christ who are slave-holders, as well as against fellow-citizens of the best civil government ever given by God to man, instead of using its liberty " as the servants of God ; honoring all men; loving the brotherhood ; fearing God ; honoring the king " or the civil authority and its institutions existing in our nation and States. (1 ) The course of the Lumi- nary, as well as that of those brethren who think and act with it on this subject, is sintul, and "is doing the cause of Christ much harm. I can not therefore take the paper, nor en- courage others to do so; and I should be much gratified if you, and those who act with you as to that subject, could see the error of your waya and abandon them." The foregoing is, the reader will observe, written in a kind spirit, and is only hard because the writer actually feels that he is doing God service in opposing the Luminary^ and all the brethren who are in any way laboring to divorce the church of Christ from the sin of slavery. He does not manifest any dislike to any of us as men or brethren, but looks upon us as engaged in a heretical work. He occupies about the same position to the anti-slavery movement i:*. the church, that Saul of Tarsus, did to the church, when ho " ver- ily thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." We have no doubt but the writer of the aforesaid letter is just as micere in his opposi- tion to the Luminary, as was Saul vdien he consented to the death of Stephen, and held the tunics of those who stoned him. We award to him then, the credit of sincerity. There is just one question to settle on the whole question of slav- ery, morally considered, and that is, tvhether it is a sin in the sight of God. That question once satisfactorily settledi there must be an end of the controvesy so far as ChriHians are concerned. If slave-holding is a violation of the great law of love, under which all the disciples of Jesus are brought, then those wlio are laboring to abolish it, as fiir at least, as the church is concerned, are not " heretical,^' as our correspondent is pleased to style us. Purity is a law of heaven, and also a law of the church. " First j??ir(?, then, peaceable," is the apostolic order. If, therefore, there is any impurity about the institution of slavery, it is the duty of all Christians to labor for its removal from the church. With the [IJ 1 Pet., ii. 3G, 17. CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 23 stereotyped sophism that, " Christ and his apostles never dis- eussed the rightfulness of slavery," we shall not at present stop to hold any argument. It has been exploded time and again, and could be used with just as much propriety in justi- fication of gambling, horse-racing, d^xncing, poll/ gamy, and many other immoralities as slavery. The question covering the whole ground is : " Is American slavery sinful ? " We take the affiirmative, and our correspondent and all others who occupy his ground, must, to be consistent, take the neg- ative. We are not going to elaborate our affirmation at this time, but stand pledged to do so whenever the writer of the foregoing extract, .or any other rcspcctahh m^mhQY of the Christian church, is ready to take the other side. Suffice it to say at this writing, that the very act of chattelizing a man is a sin, and everj^ thing connected with slaverv, from the beginning to the end of it is evil, onl}^ evil, and that continually. American slavery can not exist without oppres- sion, cruelty, covetousness and the total violation of all the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, and the systematic exclusion of all education from the slave. Is it " heretical " then, to oppose such an in- s-titution ? Wo hold that Christians are bound to oppose it. It is seen by the foregoing, that Mr. Boggs stated what is the truth; that the \)YO]io?^\i\on Slavery is sivful, \^ the gist of abolitionism. Hence if it is nntrue, abolitionism lalls. [From the Luminary, of March, *li\i, 1861.] PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. Bro. John Boggs. — Editor Christian Luminary : I see from your paper of the 7th instant, which you were so kind as to send me, that you published a part of my letter of the 26th ult., declining to subscribe for your paper, and giving two reasons why I declined. As I understand your remarks upon it, you are willing " to elaborate " your position on the slavery question, and 24 INTRODUCTION. '^ stand pledged to do so, whenever " I " or any other rz- spectahle member of the Christian church, is ready to take the other side.'*' I am much engaged in other business, and am not certain that I can find time to investigate the subject properly ; yet, believing as I do, and as I stated in my former letter to you, that the course of the Litminary, as well as that of those brethren who think and act with it in the slavery agi- tation, now pervading our whole community, both religious and political, " is sinful, and is doing the cause of Christ much harm," I do not feel myself at liberty to decline the investigation wi'th you, but feel constrained to contribute my humble mite, to enable us all to -'grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,"' and to come to the knowledge of the truth, as it is in Jesus," so " that we all speak the same things, and that there be no divisions amono; us; but that we be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment,"^ and " live in peace."'* Hence, I now propose to investigate the subject with you in the columns of the Luminary^ not for a mere polemic victory on either side, but that we may aH ascertain where the truth is, and having ascertained it, to do as all lovers of truth do, follow it, let it lead where it may, not- withstanding our previous opinions, and our previous con- duct resulting from those opinions. You seem to think, that the question covering the whole ground, is, " Is American slavery sinful?" I -respectfully submit, that that is a principal question, rather than one "' covering the whole ground." I frankly admit that it is ilie principal one, in your theory, or view of the premises ; but to fully canvass and understand the law of the Lord, and our duty as Christians in the premises, I respectfully submit that there are three other questions proper to be considered. Hence I propose the following, as the ques- tions for consideration : I. Slavery is an institution of civil society, or civil gov- ernment. Jer. Smith affirms. II. Slavery is sinful. J. Boggs affirms ; Jer. Smith denies. III. Christian preachers should preach against slavery, (1) 2 Pet., iii. 18. (2) Eph., iv. 21. (3) 1 Cor. i. 10. (4) 2 Cor. xiii. 11. CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 25 both orally and in Christian periodicals. J. Boggs affirms ; Jer. Smith denies. IV. When Christian preachers preach against slavery, either in the pulpit, or through the press, and insist that Christians should free themselves of it, and that those Christ- ians that refuse to do so, should be disowned or dis-fellow- shipped, they, that far are heretical, schismatical and anti- Christian. Jer. Smith affirms ; J. Boggs denies. The parties shall have equal space (say two columns to each number) in the Luminary^ and the numbers to follow consecutively, one after another. The propositions to be discussed in their order, as numbered. The first proposi- tion (if the parties differ upon it) to have three numbers on each side, if the parties desire so many; the second propo- sition to have six numbers on each side, if the parties de- sire so many; the third proposition to have four numbers on each side, if the parties desire so many ; and the fourth proposition to have five numbers on each side, if the parties desire so many. The party who has the affirmative, to open the discussion on the propositions respectively, and to have a short number, say half a column, extra, in reply to the last number on the other side, but to introduce no new argu- ment or authority in it. Either party to have the privilege of publishing the dis- cussion in book form after'it is closed, if the opposite party shall decline to participate in the publication of it. If this meets your approbation, you may publish this as introductory ; and, if you take the negative of the first proposition, I will proceed to open the discussion of it. If, however, you admit the first proposition, you can say so, and proceed to open the discussion of the second. My part of the discussion will necessarily be furnished irregularly ; but I will be as prompt as I can. If the dis- cussion goes on, I shall want two copies of the papers C(>n- taining it, sent to me regularly, as they are issued. Fraternally yours, Jeremiah Smith. Winchester, Incl, Feb. 9th, 1861. P. S. — You are in error, in supposing me " identified with the Republican party." 3 26 * INTRODUCTION. Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Esq., Winchester, Ind. Dear Sir : — Your favor of 9th inst. came duly to hand, and would have been answered sooner, had not a short absence from home, and other matters, prevented. I am truly gratified to find one man in our brotherhood, who is willing to defend his pro-slavery principles — principles en- tertained by a majority of our whole membership. I also rejoice that I am likely to have so respectable an opponent, as I understand you to be — never having had, I believe, the pleasure of meeting you personally. From the circum- stance of your being an old practitioner at the bar, and be- ing at this time, (if I am not mistaken) District Judge in the circuit in which you reside, I h*ve no reason to doubt your entire ability to discuss the subject in the most credit- able manner. I would suggest a few changes, and verbal alterations, in your propositions, which I hope you will accede to. If so, I shall be happy to engage with you in a friendly discussion of the slavery question. The first proposition is, as far as it goes, true, and it is so interwoven with the whole subject, that its discission, as a seperate proposition, seems to me entirely unnecessary. I suggest, therefore, that it be strick- en from your list of propositions. Your second, I accept, with simply one qualifying word. 1 want to affirm, that '' American slavery is sinful." I sug- gest this amendment, simply to confine the discission within proper limits. The only slavery with which we have much to do in this country, is American slavery, and I am ready to affirm its sinfulness. Your third proposition, is virtually involved in your fourth, and may, therefore, be included in it. Your propositions will then be reduced from four to two. But before accept- ing your last proposition, I wish to offer an amendment. It is to strike out the words, " and that those Christians that refuse to do so, should be disowned, or dis-fellowshipped." The proposition would then read thus, " When Christian preachers preach against slavery, either in the pulpit, or through the press, and insist that Christians should free themselves of it, they, that far, are heretical, schismatica and anti Christian." On the first, I affirm, and you deny. On the second, you CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 27 affirm, and I deny. I agree with you in the suggestion that " each party shall have equal space (say two columns to each number) in the Luminary, and the numbers to follow consecu- tively." As the propositions will be two instead of four, I suggest that the time be lengthened, so as to allow eight numbers each, on each proposition. I object to the "extra" half column to the affirmant, inasmuch as it is contrary to general usage. To your stipulations in reference to publishing the dis- cussion in book form, should it be thought necessary, I agree, with the single addition, that if published conjointly, the work shall be done wherever the best terms can be obtain- ed. Now, if you accept my amendments, I will open the discussion upon the proposition, that " American slavery is sinful," at my earliest convenience, after hearing from you. I am, with kindest regards, Fraternally yours, John Boggs. Hopewell Home, near Cin., 0., Feb. 29, 1861. [From the Luminary of March 14th, 1861.] LETTERS THIRD AND FOURTH. Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary. Dear Sir: — Your letter dated Feb. 29th, was re- ceived to-day, but after my note of to-day had gone off in the mail. I haste to reply, that one letter from you may answer both. I did not suppose that a discussion of the first proposi- tion would be necessary, but was willing to affirm it, if you denied it. As you do not deny it, but admit it, we set it down at the head of our propositions as admitted by both. I prefer to retain it as one of the series. I disapprove of the qualifying word you propose to in- sert in the second proposition. Slavery, as an institution, is, the relation of master and slave existing between two or more persons. ]S"ow, if this 28 INTRODUCTION. relation is sinful, it is immaterial whetlier tlie parties bear- ing it to one another, are in America, Europe or Asia. A man and woman not lawfully married together, but one or both of whom are married, that live together as husband and wife, are living in adultry, and bear the relation of adulterer and adultress to each other. Were it proposed to discuss the proposition, Living in adultery is sinful, would it be pertinent or proper, to insist on having the proposition modiiied by placing the adjective Amcricayi, at the commencement of it? Would it aid the inqniry into the sinfulness of it to call it American, European or Asiatic, living in adultry? I apprehend not. If slavery is sinful, it is so without regard to the place where it exists; and in an inquiry as to its sinfulness, it is entirely unnecessary to take into the account the place of its location. For these reasons, I object to the modification of the sec- ond proposition that you propose. But if you must have the word American inserted into it, to enable you to con- template an institution that is either sinful or not sinful, in- dependant of its locality, why, I will not be strenuous about it, but let you insert the word. I can not agree to have the third proposition dropped. If one of the two has to be dropped, let the fourth be the one. The third affirms that the practice pursued by you, and by those brethren who think and act with you, is proper and right. I think it is not. It is for you to sustain your iiction, in the face of the reasons I shall urge against it. I am willing, and oiler, after that is done, to affirm the fourth proposition; but not to become the attacking party until you have made the effort to sustain your conduct over my objections. The third proposition must be discussed if the discussion goes on. I am willing to drop the fourth, but think that it is necessary to retain it to cover the whole ground that should be examined in the discussion. I am not willing, however, to modify it as you propose. If I affirm the proposition, I shall affu-m it in the language in which I framed it ; which, in my opinion, describes the evil as it exists among us. I agree that there may be eight numbers on each side of each proposition, if desired, whether there be two or three propositions discussed, and will not insist on the extra frac- CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGB. 29 tional number, though the affirmative having to preponder- ate the scale, has the close in courts for that reason. If we publish conjointly, we will have equal voice in arranging details, as a matter of course, and can make no agreement beyond that now. When the preliminaries are arranged, and before the dis- cussion opens, I wish all the correspondence, commencing with my letter of January 26th, to be laid before the read- ers of the Luminary^ as introductory to the discussion. Fraternally yours, Jer. Smith. Winchester, hid., March 4th, 1861. Bro.. Jeremiah Smith, WincJiester, Ind. Bear Sir: — Your favor of the 4th inst., is before me, to which I hasten to respond. I am greatly surprised that ^ you object to the modifications suggested in my last, as I certainly think they greatly simplify the propositions, while they cover the whole ground of controversy between us. In reference to the third of your series, which you indicate in your last, to be the " sine qua non'' of the discussion, is, to my mind, wholly included in your fourth, and in precisely the form in which it should come up. You affirm that preachers, and others who preach and write against slavery, are guilty of heresy, schism, faction, etc., and of course I deny the indictment. As a lawyer, you certainly are aware that the accused party is not under obligations to prove him- self 7iot guilty. But on the contrary, the '' omts 'prohandi,'^ rests entirely upon the accuser. It is not my business to prove myself innocent of murder, or theft, or arson, or drunkenness, or schism, or heresy, or anything else that I might be charged with. You affirm that my course is schis- matical, heretical, and anti-christian. I deny, and call for the proof. I affirm that it is anti-christian, and contrary to the morality of the Bible, for the disciples of Christ to hold their fellow human beings as propert}^ You deny. I am ready to adduce the testimony to establish my proposition. I think, therefore, that the two propositions made up of 30 INTRODUCTION. your second and fourth, entirely cover the points in contro- versy. As to leaving jour first proposition as one to which we both assent, I object. It would be an unheard of thing to insert in a list of proposition for discussion, one that was assented to by both parties. Besides the proposition can be so worded that I would be willing to take its negative, and should be if retained at all. You object to the striking out amendment I proposed to your fourth proposition. But you should not, for the prop- osition without that sentence, expresses the sentiment taught by me, and by the regular contributors to the Lumi- nary. I have not yet defined the exact point of forbearance there should be exercised towards slaveholding church members. ^ The right and duty of preachers and editors, to enlighten the whole brotherhood in reference to the sinfulness of slave- holding, is the point of distinction between the Luminary and our other periodicals. We affirm, and they deny. I think our slaveholding brethren are many of them greatly in the dark on the subject, and that it is our duty to give them light. I trust you will see, Bro. Smith, that your ob- jections are not valid, and that your second and fourth propositions as amended by me, cover the true ground of controversy. I am very anxious to have a friendly, candid discussion with you, and in case you refuse the two propositions as above stated, I will present the four following, as a substi- tute for the four first proposed by you: 1st. American slavery is wholly a civil institution, and one that no wise concerns the disciples of Christ. You affirm, I deny. 2d. Slaveholding, as legalized and practiced in fifteen of the United States, is sinful in the sight of a just God, and in the light of the Bible. I affirm, you deny. 4th. It is the duty of the church to bear its testimony against the sin of slaveholding, through the press, the pul- pit, and every other means legitimately, within its power. I affirm, you deny. 3d. When Christian preachers preach against slavery, either in the pulpit, or through the press, and insist that Christians should free themselves of it, and that those who presistently refuse to do so, should be dis-fellowshipped. CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 31 they are heretical, schismatical, and anti- christian. You aflfirm, I deny. If you must have four propositions instead of two, I think you can have no reasonable objection to the forego- ing, inasmuch as I have incorporated in the third the very expression I wished stricken out of your fourth, in the series presented by you. But, as I said before, I do not want to lose the the opportunity to discuss the whole sub- ject with a christian gentleman, so well qualified to do jus- tice to the cause, as you are reported to be. I remain with kindest regards, Fraternally yours, John Boggs. Hofewell Heme, near Cin,, 0., March 9th, 1861. [From the Luminary of March 21st, 1861.] LETTERS FIVE AND SIX. Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary : — I have not yet received an answer to my notes of the 4th instant. You were so kind as to send me the Luminary of the 7th, in which I found my letter of the 9th of February, and your reply, dated the 29th of February, (printed different in some respects however, from the letter received by me,) and to which my last of the 4th of March was a reply» I have just received the Luminary of the 14th instant, in which I find my note of the 4th, with a reply from you. If you sent a reply in manuscript, it has miscarried. Having stated in my last that when the preliminaries were arranged, and before the discussion opened, I wished the correspondence commencing with my letter of January 26th, to be laid before the readers of the Luminary, as preliminary to the discussion, when I received the Luminary of the 7th instant, with my letter of the 9th and yours of the 29th of February, in it, without receiving any reply to mine of the 4th of March, I could but presume that you had accepted the terms, stated in that letter, and that the 32 INTRODtJCTION. preliminaries were arranged, and you had commenced the publication of the correspondence, not wishing to give space in one paper for it all. I was disappointed, however, in not finding that the publication of the correspendence com- menced with my letter of the 26th of January, as requested. From yours of the 9th of March, it seems that the prelimi- naries are not yet arranged. This, therefore, is in reply to that. I respectfully submit and insist, that the first and second propositions have been agreed upon. The first you admitted, but deemed it unnecessary. The second I accepted in your own form, giving reasons however, why you should not in- sist upon the modification you proposed to it. That accept- ance stands, and I will not agree to modify it as you propose in your last. The first proposition should remain though we both afiirm it. It is not necessary that we should take opposite sides upon it, to make it one of our series. For, the institution of slavery and the duty of Christians in relation to it, being the subject we desire to investigate, in order that we may not " strive about the words to no profit, but to the subvert- ing of the hearers,"^ we should know what the institution of slavery is. Hence I afiirm that it is an institution of civil government. If you deny it, say so, and I will under- take to prove it. If you do not, it stands admitted. It must be an institution of civil government, or an institution of the Lord's kingdom; for there are but two ; the kingdoms of this world, and the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You have admitted it to be an institution of civil government, (kingdoms of this world); hence we agree as to what it is, but still it is an essential proposition to be kept in our series, and used in our further investigations, that we may contemplate and talk about the same thing. Many of the unfortunate dissensions that have existed in the human family have grown up because the persons who got into them, contemplated difi"erent things in their dissen- sions. Clear ideas are essential to correct reasoning and just judgment. Hence we keep the first proposition in the series as a truth admitted by both. I could not afiirm the proposition you framed in yours of the 9th of March, be- (1^ 2 Tim.ii. 14. CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 33 cause the institution does concern both Christian masters and Christian slaves, and places them under the necessitjr of obeying that part of the law of Christ addressed to them as masters and slaves, and imposes that much more respon- sibility upon them. The third proposition I will accept as you have it framed in your last; but I respectfully and earnestly solicit you to amend it by substituting the word Christians for the words the church; and to strike out the words the sin of. These amendments, I think, are eminent- ly proper ; but if you will not agree to them, let the propo- sition stand as you have framed it. Three propositions are now agreed to; one admitted by both to be true, and the other two to be discussed. The fourth proposition, as framed by me, will be retained or stricken out as you may say. I think it should be re- tained for the reasons given in my last, but I will not insist upon it. You are the accuser, brother Bo2[C!;s. You are accusino- Christian brethren and sisters who are slaveholders, and Christians who are not, that differ with your views on that subject, and, by your action, you affirm that your conduct is right. I deny it; and as a Christian brother, as I have a right to do, I call upon you to justify your course by the law of the Lord. So far, 1 am no accuser. I am willing however, and offer, after you shall have answered my call upon you, not to accuse any one, but, to attack such con- duct as is described in my fourth proposition. If you are willinn; to investio-ate it with me, I will en2;ao;e in it with you ; if you are not, I shall not press it. We have now two propositions to discuss, and a third if you say so. I promise that the discussion on my part, shall be *' friendly and candid." As you are " very anxious to have" it, you will go on with it; and as you "do not want to lose the opportunity to discuss the whole subject," 3'Ou will consent to have the fourth proposition retained. In the same paper in which you print this, print the propositions as agreed upon, including the fourth or not as you may elect; and in the following paper, the discussion will be opened — by me, if you deny the first proposition, and by you, if you do not. I enclose §2,00 to pay for two copies of the Luminary, 34 INTRODUCTION. for eight months; if the discussion shall not be concluded within that time, I will send an additional amount. Fraternally yours. Jer. Smith. WmehesteVy hid.^ March 15th, 1861. Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Winchester^ Inch Dear Sir: — Your kind favor of 15th instant, came duly to hand this morning, to which I hasten to respond. My last reply was written just in time, to have it set up for last week's 4)aper, and I had not leisure to copy it at the time, but intended to send you a proof-slip in advance of the paper. It was, however, overlooked in the press of business bearing upon my mind. For the failure to do so, I feel that I owe you an apology. Through a mistake of the person making up the form, I see we do not understand each other in reference to the order in which the propositions are to stand. The proposi- tion you call the " third,'' is really the fourth of the series, as I have them numbered, although awkwardly placed im- mediately after the second. I will agree to the amendments you suggested in reference to it, prooided you agree to the order as numbered by me, and will accept the first, still fur- ther amended as hereinafter specified. We will then have four propositions, and the affirmatives and the negatives will be both alternate and equal. As amended then, tlie propositions will read and st(tnd as follows: I'irst — American slavery is wholly a civil institution, and one that in no wise concerns Christians residing in the non- slaveholding States. You affirm, 1 deny. Second — Slavery is sinful. I affirm, you deny. Third — When Oliristian preachers preach sgainst shivery, either in the pulpit or through the press, and insist that Christians should free themselves of it; and that those who persistently refuse to do so, should be dispelled ; they are heretical, schismatical, and anti-Christian. You affirm, I deny. Fourth — It is the duty of Christians to bear testimony CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOUGS. 35 against slaveholding through the press, the pulpit, and every other lawful means within their reach. I affirm, you deny. The foregoing propositions, I think concede every thing that you can reasonably demand, and I trust will be entirely satisfactory to you. In the first proposition, both your objection and mine are removed. I do not want an unde- batable proposition in the series, and indeed can not consent to any such arrangement. As now worded, it leaves out the classes of church members to which you alluded in your last. To give you all the ground you possibly ask, I accept the second according to your original draft, notwithstand- ing you had partially agreed to accept my amendment. The third as it stands, you have accepted, and the fourth is now amended as you suggest in your last. If you accept the series as amended, we will then decide definitely in refer- ence to number of articles allowed on each proposition, and the greatest amount of space to be assigned to each article. As the present volume of the Luminary is so nearly ex- pired, I would prefer commencing the discussion with the first number of the next volume. I am with kindest regard. Fraternally yours, John Boggs. Ilopeimll Home, near Gin., 0., March 18th, 1861. [From the Luminary of April 6th, 1861.] LETTERS SEVEN AND EIGHT. Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary: — Yours of the 18th of March is just received. Slavery is the subject that we, as christians, wish to investigate. The natural and logical order of considering the subject is this: 1st. What is it? 2d. Is it sinful? 3d. What should chris- tians do in relation to it? Then, after these matters are as- certained, an inquiry whether any particular action by a christian, or christians, is wrong, schismatical, or anti-chris- tian, is proper, if any such inquiry is desired; for in BQ INTRODUCTION. making any such inq'jiry, the three previous ones must be taken into the account, and shouhl be settled before this one is entered upon. To take them up, and consider them in any other order wouhl bo illogical. Wc should ascertain what shivery is, without coupling with that inquiry any predicate or affirmation of, or con- cerning it. Yet you insist that to a proposition defining it, shall be added an affirmance of a thing relating to it. We agree to the proposition defining it; and hence there is no need of debate upon it; and because of that, you will not agree to let it stand in our series of propositions. You say " I do not want an undebatable proposition in the series, and indeed, can not consent to any such arrangement." Would it not look strange for a mathematician to say that he could not consent to have either definition, postulate or axiom placed at the head of a series of geometrical propositions that were to be demonstrated? tlujt though he admitted the definition to be correct, was willing to grant the postulate, and that the axiom was self-evident; yet as they wore "un- debatable," they should not occupy a position in the series? The propositions were placed by me in their logical or- der^ There is no propriety in breaking that order, merely to have affirmatives and negatives to come alternately. In my letter of the 4th of March, speaking of my fourth proposition, which you number ildrd, I said that I was not willing to modify it as you proposed; that if I aliirmed the proposition, I should " affirm it in the languacje in which I framed it f' and, in my next and last letter, 1 said : " The fourth proposition, an framed hy one, will be retained or stricken out, as you may say ;" and yet you say in your last, " The third (my fourth) as it stands, (in your series just above,) you (I) have accepted T How you could have fallen into such an error, I am at a loss to conjecture. As you will not let the first proposition stand at the head of the series, either as a definition, postulate, or axiom, I now here strike it out. I now place the series as the propositions stand agreed to ; the words in brackets I desire left out; but you can re- tain them if you insist on doing so. I. [American] Slavery is sinful. J. Boggs affirms; J. Smith denies. II. It is the duty of christians to bear testimony against CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 37 [the sin of] slavery through the press, the pulpit, and every other means legitimately -within their power. J. Boggs af- firms ; J. Smith denies. III. When christian preachers preach against slavery, either in the pulpit or through the press, and insist that christians should free themselves of it, and that those christians that refuse to do so, should be disowned, or dis- fellowshipped; they that far, are heretical, schismatical and anti-christian. J. Smith affirms; J. Boggs denies. The last above proposition you can strike out if you de- sire it done ; if not, it stands as above — not as you modified it. The first and second propositions above will stand as there, unless the words in brackets are left out with your consent; I desire them out. There is no need now of any more convassing and dis- cussing this branch of the preliminaries. If you intend to discuss, say so; say what and how much of the above you will discuss. The other preliminaries, I think, are agreed upon as follows: The parties to have equal space in the Luminari/, to-wit: two columns to each number. To be eight numbers on each side of each proposition, if either of the parties desires so many. The numbers to fol- low consecutively one after another. The propositions to be discussed in the order in v;hich they stand; the one having the affirmative of a proposition, to open the discussion of it; the other to reply; and so on alternately. Either party to have the privilege of publishing the dis- cussion in book form, after it is closed, if the opposite party shall decline to participate in the publication of it. If the parties publish conjointly, they are to have equal voice in settling and arranging the details. I think that your reply to this ought to close the prelim- inary correspondence. If you w^ant to delay the opening of the discussion until the commencement of the next vol- ume of the Luminarf/, you may do so; but that is no rea- son wdiy the preliminary correspondence should be protrac- ted till then. Fraternally yours, Jeremiah Smith. Winchester, Ind., March 22d, 'iJl. 38 INTRODUCTION. Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Winchester, Ind. Dear Sir: — Your favor of the 22d inst. is before me, and contents noted. I agree with you that ^'slavery is the sub- ject that we, as christians, wish to investigate." But I dif- fer with you in your opinion that your series of propositions is the most '* natural and logical" that can be framed. Your affirmation that "slavery is a civil institution," is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. There- fore, as you have it worded, I can neither affirm nor deny, without doing violence to what I conceive to be the true definition of slavery. But with my amendment, I can deny your affirmation, while you retain only what I suppose you intended by your first affirmation. I am pleased, however, to find that you are willing to dispense with the whole proposition, inasmuch as a full definition of slavery is en- joined upon me, by accepting the affirmative of your second proposition, which I am ready and anxious to do. Your allusion to the solution of mathematical problems I consider altogether foreign to the subject under consideration, and, hence, in no wise a parallel case. You say, "If you intend to discuss, say so." I answer, that I intend not to let the present opportunity to discuss the whole slavery question slip, if I can bring you to what I consider fair and honora- ble terms. But I am not anxious enough for a discussion, to give you any very decided advantage, in the arrangement of the propositions. If they must all be just in your language, and stand in your order, there will be no discussion. If your last two propositions are to be discussed, their order must be transposed. I am ready and willing to affirm that "slavery is a sin," whether in or out of America. But I am not willing to affirm a negative, or what amounts to the same thing, undertake to prove myself and others innocent of the charges you have so gravely made. I insist upon it, that your third proposition should be the second, and your second^ if discussed at all, should be the third. If you accept of the transpositions, we are then ready for the diecussion, for I agree to take the three propositions as worded by you, rather than have you decline the discus- sion. The propositions will then stand as follows : I. Slavery is sinful. I affirm, you deny. II. When christian preachers preach against slavery in CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 39 the pulpit, or through the press, and insist that christians should free themselves of it, and that those christians who refuse to do so, should be disowned or disfellowshipped, they that far, are heretical, schismatical anti-christian. You affirm, I deny. III. It is the duty of christians to bear testimony against slavery through the press, the pulpit, and every other means legitimately within their power. I affirm, you deny. To all your other preliminaries, as detailed in your last, I agree. I confess I do not admire the wording of the sec- ond proposition. It is too long and too complicated, or," in other words, it is too laivyer-like; but I will take it as it is, provided that will obvate any further preliminary discus- sion. If you consent to the propositions, as hereinbefore stated, I will publish the propositions and other specifica- tions in consecutive order, and then the way will be clear for the discussion proper. Fraternally yours, John Boggs. Ropeioell Home, near Gin., 0., March 27th, '61. LETTER NINE. Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary. Dear Sir: — Yours of the 27th of March is just received. To affirm that it is the duty of christians to bear testi- mony against slavery through the press, the pulpit, &c., is not "to affirm a negative, or what amounts to the same thing;" and I am at a loss to conceive why you should say so. This whole correspondence, and particularly my last letter, dis- proves the charge that I have claimed or desired, that the propositions "must be all just in my language, and stand in my order." The propositions, as put down in your last, are not as worded by me; and yet you say that you agree to take them that way rather than have me decline the discus- 40 INTRODUCTION. The first and second propositions, as set out in my last, are agreed upo7i, you having the right to retain the words in brackets, or to let them be left out, as I desire them to be. And if you do not want to discuss the third, after the other two are discussed^ you were directed in my last to say so, and it would be stricken out; if not, it was retained. So we had two propositions to discuss, and a third if you were willing to discuss it; but I have twice expressly said I would not press the discussion of it. It now so stands, and I now, a third time, say, that you can have the. third discussed after the other two are discussed, or not, just as you elect and say. I think it should be discussed, but will not press it. In looking over my letters of the 15th and 22d of March, and your replies to them, I begin to apprehend that we shall not have a discussion. I hope otherwise. The first and second propositions, as set out in my last, are agreed upon, and ready for discussion; and the other preliminaries are agreed upon; the third proposition will be retained where it is, or stricken out entirely, as you may say. Why not, then, proceed at once with the discussion':' If you are not willing to undertake' to justify, by the good word of the Lord, your course and action on the subject of slavery, in the pulpit and through the press, in the face of, and over the objections I shall urge against the proofs 370U adduce, say so manfully, and do not try to avoid it by saying it is a negative, or by trying to get the investigation 0^ an inquiry that logically arises after that investigation is had, thrust in before it. Fraternally yours, Jer. Smith. Winchester, Ind., x\pril 10th, 18G1. This letter, though sent immediately, was suppressed, and not published in the Luminary. I can not imagine any reason for its suppression, but that it too plainly exposed bis course, and got him up into too tight a place. He had either to undertake to justify his conduct in slavery agita- tion, (not discussion) or to manfully say he could not do it. Agitators can not stand a close logical investigation; and abolition agitators are no exception to the rule. They must have ample sea-room, and when about to be pinned down at COHRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 41 any one point, they flee to some other. Had brother Boggs published this letter, he could not have practiced the 7mse he did upon the public and his readers by suppressing it, not answering it, and in his paper of the 16th of May, 1861, publishing the following article to cover up his re- treat : " OUR DISCUSSION. As there seems to be considerable difficulty in adjusting the propositions submitted by Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Esq. for a discussion, we propose the following two as a substi- tute for the whole : 1st. To hold human beings in involuntary servitude, as property, is a sin in the sight of God, and contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Boggs affirms; Smith denies. 2d. The agitation of the anti-slavery question in the church, either orally or- through the press — teaching the duty of christians to withdraw their fellowship from such as persistently continue to hold slaves, is schismatical and heretical, and consequently a sin in the sight of God, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures. Smith affirms ; Boggs de- nies. The whole ground is thus covered by two propositions. We have sought no advantage in the wording of them, but rather to express clearly the real sentiments held by us re- spectively. Bro. Smith thinks it is sinful to make the slavery question a test of fellowship in the church, or to agitate it in the pulpit, or through the press. We think slavery is a sin, and are willing to affirm it ; and we pre- sume Bro. Smith is willing to affirm his sentiments. If so, we can have a discussion rigJit away. If not, it is hardly worth while to prolong our preliminary correspondence. We are satisfied that slavery is contrary to the teaching of the Bible, and are ready to affirm it anywhere, and before any tribunal. We are also willing to defend the whole anti-slavery movement by our brethren, against the charge of schism and sinfulness, made by Bro. Smith and those whom he represents. If he is ready to deny what we af- firm, and affirm what we deny, the discussion will commence immediately." 42 INTRODUCTION. On the reception of this I immediately wrote to the edi- tor. In the Luminary of May 30th, my letter appeared, with accompanyings, in matter and form, as follows: THE DISCUSSION. In the absence of the editor, the pro tern takes the liberty of publishing both of the following communications. They will, no doubt, be intelligible to those readers who have read the preliminary correspondence upon this subject. In the meantime, the absence of the editor for some weeks will be a sufficient apology for any apparent neglect of the subject. Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary: — The Luminary of yesterday is just received, containing an ar- ticle headed " Our Discussion.^' That of last week was also received, in which nothing is said about our discussion, nor was my last letter td^ you, of the 10th of April, contained in it. There is not, and has not been, on my part, any ^'diffi- culty" in adjusting the propositions for discussion. I have stricken out the 1st proposition to gratify you; I have agreed that the 2d and 3d may be modified as you propose to modify them ; and I have agreed to withdravf the 4th, if you are not willing to let it occupy its logical position in the series. I use the numbers here, as they stood in the propositions as originally proposed by me. Were I now to accept the two proposittions you set out in the Luminary of yesterday, as there set out, I still could not rely that the discussion would go on ; for two proposi- tions have long since been agreed upon, and yet you do not proceed with the discussion, but say in your paper of yes- terday, that "there seems to be considerable difficulty in adjusting the propositions." I respectfully claim and insist, that my last letter, dated April 10, 1861, and this note, be inserted in the next num- ber of the Luminary^ and do hope that you will at once proceed to open the discussion. If you do not, and the discussion does not go on, cease to send the Luminary to me. Fraternally yours, Jeremiah Smith. Winchester, Ind,, May 17, '61. CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 43 Bro. Boggs: — I have for two years been a reader of the Luminary. I like it in the main. But I must take the liberty of protesting against your interminable discussion of the slavery question. I don't wish either to be under- stood as being opposed to free discussion, but I must be al- lowed to judge of what will be suitable mental food for my children. I see by the last number, that you are about to enter the list with a Bro. Smith, upon the subject again. You must suffer rae to say, that I can hardly stand it. I don't like to say, '^stop my paper." You don't know, perhaps, that my seven children, whom I love dearer than my own life, belong to the proscribed class. If, instead of discussing the question whether we should be made to work for you white folks without wages, and sold to the highest bidder by the pound, you change the form of it and discuss, "Is it sinful to fatten and bar- bacue those children?" it would not be quite so repulsive. Perhaps Bro. Smith would accept of it in this form. If he should not, and the discussion must go forward in the old way, please stop my paper. Yours very truly, ^ Mana Pointer. P. S.— Should Bro. Smith consent to the question as above stated, could you not get Bro. Hartzell to undertake with him? Be is a much more experienced debater thau you. i M. P. ir$pedale, 0., April, 1861. This correspondence, and brother Boggs' conduct in re- lation to it, exhibit a fair specimen of abolition tactics; and I introduce it here as well to show them, as to lay what I said before the reader. After making a great show of willingness and anxiety to undertake to sustain his dogma that slavery is sinful, and to justify his conduct in agitating the slavery question in the pulpit and press, when brought to the point, ho backed square out, suppressed the letter that brought him to the point, and after a month's silence, to mislead his readers as to the true state of the corres- pondence, said, in his paper, that there was " considerable diflBculty in adjusting the propositions," when there had not been, as is shown by the correspondence; and finally, 44 INTRODUCTION. when held to his position again bj my letter of the 17th of May, he got either a real or fictitious negro to protest against his "interminable discussion of the slavery question," to help him out of his predicament. Discussion is what he and Mana Pointer both object to; but agitation must go on. Discussion might make bare their folly and impiety; agita- tion, however, would poison and mislead, if not infuriate, the public mind. The one must be suppressed ; the other must be persisted in, in the pulpit, press, and everywhere, except where there is an opponent. And derision and oblo- quy must be invoked, by having Mana to talk of selling by the pound, and fattening and barbacuing his children! These are abolition tactics, and are practiced and indulged in by men who claim that they are christians, and are doing '' the work of the Lord,"^ in thus acting ! Thus ended the flourish of trumpets with which brother Boggs set out. He kept Mana Pointer on his list of sub- scribers, and struck me off, but did not return my §2 that I had sent him. His paper, I believe, went down soon after. Brother Elijah Goodwin, an amiable and excellent bro- ther, who was publishnig a monthly religious periodical at Indianapolis, commenced issuing it in weekly form on the 1st of January, 1862. It soon began to show that the dis- semination of abolitionism was its mission, equally with, if not more than, the dissemination of Christianity. I speak thus becanse they are distinctly different things, and lie in different fields, departments and kingdoms. Aholitio7iism is political, and belongs to the kingdoms of this world; while diristianity is religious, and belongs to the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Believing, as heretofore stated, that duty required that I should not longer remain silent, as to the abolition assump- tion, that slavery is sinful, by which (it being uncontro- verted) abolitionists had been enabled to do so much harm to our country and people, both religiously and politically, and were still doing harm in that direction, with increased exertions and vigor, and being anxious that our brotherhood should not be rent and torn asunder, as almost all other re- ligious denominations had been by that abolition assump- tion, I resolved to combat abolitionism in brother Goodwin's (1) ICor.xvi, 10. INTRODUCTION. 45 paper so far as it exhibited itself there, and that it should not go to the brethren who read that paper unanswered and unrebuked. Brother A. R. Benton, President of the Faculty of the Northwestern Christian University, at Indianapolis, wrote for brother Goodwin's paper. His eminent abilities, and deservedly high position, made his teaching upon that sub- ject the more readily accepted as correct by the mass of readers, and pointed him out as a proper person to sustain the abolition dogma that slavery is sinful, if it is sustain- able. He was therefore the proper person to pay my re- spects to, in doing what I thought, and still think, it was my duty to do. An article of his, published in brother Goodwin's paper. The Weekly Christian Record, of April 8th, 1862, made the proper occasion for me to enter the arena; and I dropped a note to brother Goodwin, to know if I could have space in his paper to reply to the article, and received the following answer : Indianapolis, April 12, 1862. Bro. Smith : — Yours of yesterday is at hand^ and I an- swer, that you can have space in the W. C. Record to re- ply to Bro. Benton's article. I suppose you wish to notice that portion which seems to refer to American slavery. I have always been opposed to discussing that question in our paper, not because I thought it should not be discussed, but because I conceived the public mind not to be in a proper state to be profited by the discussion — nor am I sure the time is now fully come, though I think it is approaching. Please write in christian love, and for the good of the cause. Yours in hope, E. Goodwin. I sent an article, which was replied to by brother Ovid Butler, one of the bishops of the Christian Church at In- dianapolis, and President of the Board of Directors of the Northwestern Christian University. For a number of years, he was a prominent member of the bar at Indianap- olis, where he deservedly stood high ; but he retired from the practice some ten or fifteen years ago. His eminent abilities and position, and the fact that he had long been an 46 INTRODUCTION. abolitionist, and was well grounded and established in his conviction that slavery is sinful, made him a very proper person to discuss that question with. A public correspond- ence ensued, which resulted in our entering into a regular discussion of the proposition, Slavery is sinful. Those pre- liminary articles, commencing with President Benton's, I now lay before the reader. [From the Christian Record, of April 8th, 1862.] FANATICISM OF ERROR. It is a most inexcusable wrong to stigmatize as fanatics, men of pure, disinterested and philanthropic aims in life. From this most flagrant injustice, even the religious press, and the pulpit are not altogether free. As a convenient polemical weapon, it has always been found easier to demolish an opponent by hurling public sentiment against him, than by calmly canvassing his views. This kind of treatment has been in vogue from ancient times, as for example, the case of Paul at Athens, when he preached to the people of that polite metropolis, Jesus and the Resurrection. When he came to that part of his discourse that treated of the Resurrection, they mocked, or tried to raise a laugh at his expense, as a most incorrigible simpleton and fanatic. Nor was this his only experience of that sort. While he was expounding the faith in the presence of Agrippa, Festus interrupted the flow of his discourse with this decisive refutation, in a loud voice — the louder the bet- ter in such a case — " Paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make the mad ;" or, in modern parlance, you are a fool and fanatic. In calm response, the apostle af- firms his perfect sanity, and that he speaks forth " the words of truth and soberness." In this case, can there be any doubt v/ho was the fanatic, and who the wise and sober man ? Festus personates the fanatic of error ; Paul represents the man with the soundest judgment and life. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 47 Festus was loud-moutbed in calling him by an opprobri- ous name, without the least propriety in fact; Paul evinces his freedom from all extravagance, by the most civil and courteous response. As the word fanaticism is somewhat in use now, and in- deed all the had words of our language are in uncommon demand at present, it must be worth a little thought to get the right use of the Satanic vocabulary. If we must use abusive and malign words, let us learn to use them with some propriety, for the sake of scholarship, if not of de- cency. I do not pretend to say that the bad words — the abusive epithets of the language — should be altogether dropped, for those are the Dahlgren guns by which some men do the most execution. They are the heavy artillery by which an adversary is sometimes effectually demolished, and great eclat comes to the victor. It is a very convenient proceed- ing, to send men straight to perdition upon our own judg- ment and responsibility. It is not enough that we can ex- communicate, but we have learned to anathematize and to brandish the most terrifying epithets. We do not insist, therefore, upon the total relinquish- ment of prescriptive rights in the use of formidable Avords, but only that they be used with due. Christian discrimina- tion. Now who is the fanatic ? Is he the man whb is a great enthusiast in behalf of the truth ? By no means. Paul was a great enthusiast, but no fanatic, in the opprobrious sense of that word. So enthusiastic was this devoted apostle, that, losing sight of every other interest, he said, " this one thing I do,"' and that in him we applaud. But the man who in the pres- ent time devotes himself to some one great philanthrophy,. is stigmatized as a " man of one idea," a fanatic, and forth- with to be frowned out of respectable society. Is this decorous, and of Christian charity, or of demoni- ac malignity ? Many Christian ministers, like Paul at Corinth, have de- termined to know nothing in their preaching but this one thing, " Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Let them rise to- the most unwanted pitch of enthusiasm on this unique theme, do they become thereby fanatical ? All right minded, men will answer, no. 48 INTRODUCTION. Mere enthusiasm then for any truth is not fanaticism nor reprehensible, but they are obnoxious to this name, whose whole energy is given to the advocacy of wicked institu- tions and immoral practices. It is not strange that men of stolid indifference to the efforts made for meliorating the condition of mankind, should brand this philanthropic zeal as extravagance and fanaticism. Nor is it to be wondered at, that wicked men, zealous for the growth of some collossal crime in human so- ciety, should strive to bring into reproach, men by whom their craft is endangered. But that men, professing to re- vere God, and to obey his law, would strive to abate any ardor of Christian philanthropy, no matter in what form ex- hibited, and to contrive the means for the downfall of men devoted to any special good work, is passing strange. This fanaticism of wickedness often becomes ^' exceeding mad" against all forms of goodness, and like Saul of Tar- sus, pursues its victims even into strange cities. Fanati- cism is never allied to true religion or philanthropy,^ but is always in league with malignant emotions, and diabolical practices. It is a word derived from ^^ fanum" a temple at whose shrine the devotees indulged in the most abomina- ble orgies. These '-'- fanaiicr were the patrons and abettors of every detestable practice, and are the prototypes only of those who reverence some idol abomination, which, though ugly, is nevertheless mighty. St. Dominic, the arch inquisitor, was a famous type of a fanatic, in pursuing, with unflagging zeal, all dissenters from Roman Supremacy, in order to extirpate them utterly. To burn the body for the good of the soul, was the prime dogma of this class of fanatics, But this is a most malig- nant type of the evil, re- produced in different forms, from that time until the present, exhausting every form of perse- cution for opinion's sake ; at one time assailing the person, then the property, character, reputation or inlluence of the object of its hate. Every string in the whole gamut of persecution has been struck by this pestilential demon of fanaticism. (1) This is true ; hence it can not be allied to what pertains to Christianity, nor to true philanthropy. And as abolitionism is fanaticism, it is not allied to Christianity nor to phi- iauihropy. It ia neither. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 40 No earnestness in the cause of truth and right should be stigmatized by an opprobrious name, but he is a desperate fanatic who lends his powers to the devil, in order to make wrong respectable, and to wear the semblance of religion. No sophistry will ever convince the world that the noble zeal of Howard, Wilberforce,^ and such as they, was an odi- ous fanaticism ; but the record of their philanthropic labors will be pondered with increasing delight, as long as virtue and religion are esteemed among men. A. K B. [Fi-Om the Christian Record of April 22cl, 1862.] FANATICISM OF ERROR. My esteemed brother A. R. B. has an article under this caption, in the Record of the 8th of April, that I propose to notice briefly. Fanaileism is defined to be : enthusiasm, religious phren- zy ; wild and extravjsgant notions. Afanaiicis defined to be: an enthusiast, a man mad (or monomaniac) witii wild notions. See Walker and Webster. Hence, " men of pure, disinterested and philanthropic aims in life," m.iy enthusiastically endeavor to effect their '• aims" by " v.ild and extravagant notions ;" or, their aims, (1) That President Benton, and all others of his school of opinion, may see how far they misapprehend Mr. Wilberforce, and how far they are misled by their aboUtionism, I append from the Loston Courier the following, copied by it from the London Times of March 2d, 1863 : * * * * Y^'q now give, from the Times of March 2d, a letter of a similar purport, from one of tin- sons of Wilberforce. Will the newspapers referred to allow their readers to see this ? MR. WILBERFOnCE OX A SESVILE INSURRECTION. To the Editor of the London Times : Sir— As far as it relates to Sir T. Fowell Buxton, the letter of Mr. Buxton has fully an- swered your question, " whether the sons of Wilberforce and of Buxton, who have all been brought up in the teaching of tlieir fathers, now share the opinions of the Emancipa- tion Society as to the proclamation of Mr. Lincoln." Allow me to add my testimony, as far as your question refers to the late William Wil- berforce. The last time I had the happiness of hearing him spealc in the House of Commons, he expressed in the strongest terms the same feelings contained in the words quoted by Mr. Buxton from his father's speech. None of his surviving friends need be reminded that he retained them undiminished to his life's end. On that occasion he had avowed in the House his feurs that the rejection of Sir T. F. Buxton's motion for the emancipation of the 50 INTRODUCTION, though they think them philanthropic, may really be mis- anthropic, Utopian, impracticable, or such as they have no right to attempt to effect or carry out ; and, if so, they are clearly fanatics. My brother asks, " Who is the fanatic ? Is he the man who is a great enthusiast in behalf of the truth? By no means," says he. Those who follow the truth are not '* great enthusiasts." The Lord's life and teaching is conclusive proof of this. Paul was not an enthusiast, though my brother charges him with being one ; and though he did '' one thing," to-wit, " press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ,"^ yet he also became all things to all men,^ and was not a " one-ideaed man." lie pressed toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ, and not out of him, toward the effecting of some " aim " of his, which he thought was philanthropic, but which Christ, by his precepts and example, had taught him not to interfere with at all; though the institution which is made the pretext or occasion for this modern philanthropy, existed then uni- versally in a worse form than it has ever existed in any portion of this Union. Fanatics always seize hold of some truth, and combine with it some error, either of theory or fact, and become mad, monomaniac or phrenzied, upon their idea, and get into the strange hallucination that their way is the only way to benefit all mankind, and that all must partake of the benefit of their '* wild notions." Witness the Jews when Titus sat down before Jerusalem. slaves might lead to insurrection. The words were received with a cheer, as a concession, by his opponents. I shall never forget the earnestness with which he declared his horror at the thought, and solemnly appealed to Almighty God that it was his daily prayer thit nothing of the sort might talie place. It would be impossible that any of my father's sons should have watched, without the deepest interest, the beariug of recent events upon the condition and prospects of the ne- gro race, and 1 doubt not they have all formed the same conclusions with myself. My own position, as editor of a journal, has imposed upon me the moral responsibility of ex- pressing an opinion, and so compelled me to consider the whole subject. Allow me, then, to say that, if my father's life had been prolonged, I am certain, on the one hand, that his abhorrence for slavery and his zeal for emancipation would not have been lessened ; and equally certain, on the other hand, that he would have considered it a grievous crime to stir up insurrection and servile war ; doubly so, if it were done, not from mistaken benevolence, but from seljfsh political purposes. This, as Mr. Buxton truly says, *•< the only meaning of Mr. Lincoln^ s proclam,ation, if it has any meaning at all. * * 1 am, sir, j'our obedient servant, Hknry Wm. Wilberforce, Weekly Ecgister newspaper office, 32 Erydges street, Strand, Feb. 26th, 13o3. (1) Phil, iii, 13, U. (Q) 1 Cor. ix, 22. PRELIMINARY COSRESPONDENCE. 51 They had the religion given from heaven through Moses, were of the stock of the chosen people of God, and had the holy of holies to guard. See the Saracens. They had the truth that there is but one God, combined with the false- hood that Mahomet was his prophet, and coupled with these they had the " wild notion " that they must eradicate idola- try (in which Christendom was then sunken) and extend the benefits of their theory to all mankind. See the Crusaders of the seven crusades. They had the truth that our lives, labors and estates belong to God, and should all be expended in the service of Christ, combined with the falsehood, that reclaiming the tomb of the Savior at Jerusalem was the ''one thing" required of them as servant's of Christ. The Jews' "one idea" was the extermination of the "monster iniquity" of the desecration of the holy city and temple by the Roman "power;" and by that fanaticism, 3,000,000 were destroyed in nine months. The "one idea" of the Saracens, was the extermination of idolatry, and the extension of "the true faith" over mankind ; and that fanaticism, in 150 years, destroyed " the third part of men.'* The Crusaders had the "one idea" and " philanthrophy " of redeeming the holy sepulcher from the' infidels ; and, for two hundred years, in their seven cru- sades, they commil^ted atrocities and injuries to mankind so horrible, that when they were uttered by the seven thunders in the vision given to John, he was forbidden to write them out in the apocalypse.^ These are noted instances of fanatics and fanaticisms. And, as history is philosophy teaching by example, those of us who claim to be philosophers, should be taught by these fearful lessons. My esteemed brother calls the institution a " wicked in- stitution," a "collossal crime in human society;" and re- gards the utter eradication of it, without looking to our present condition and surroundings, as the " one great philanthropy." hi both of these he is in error. It is not a crime ; nor would the utter and immediate eradication of it be a philanthrophy, but a most woful calamity.^ But be- (1) Rev. ix, 15. (2) Eev. x, 4. (3) What little has actually been done in immediate emancipation of the slaves, up to this time, (March, 1863,) begins to show how great the calamity would be to both the white and black races, if the 4,000,000 slaves of the United States had really been eman- cipated by Lincoln's proclamation of Jan. 1st, 1863. 52 INTRODUCTION. yond these, and more potent with christians, the institution is a part of, and belongs to, kingdoms of this world — human governments ; and hence is entirely a distinct thing, and separate from the kingdom of the Lord, which is not of this world. The Lord refused to interfere with, or to attempt any philant'nropic reformation of any of the kingdoms of this world, or of any of their institutions. His efforts and labors were to reform man, not to reform governments. He uniformly refused to interfere with governments, and gov- ernmental matters and business. Hence, this institution, and the philanthropy of my bro- ther in relation to it, are questions in political economy, and outside of Christianity. Christians ought to be careful how they become " zealous," *' enthusiastic," about things outside of Christianity. All the divisions among christians, and the consequent evils to Christianity, from the Arian controversy down to the dreamy theory of soul-sleeping, have been about matters outside of Christianity, and on ivhich revelation is silent. Hence, christians should learn wisdom from this sad experience, and adhere closely to the high call- ing of God in Christ — in his body — in his kingdom — and not get outside of him, and of matters revealed to us through or by him. May the Lord enable us to do so, that our zeal may be according to knowledge. J. S. April 15/A, 1862. {From the Christian Record, of April 29, 1S62.1 FANATICISM OF ERROR. Bro. Goodwin : — In the Record of the 22d inst. I see an article by J. S. purporting to be a reply to the article en- titled " Fanaticism of Error," by A. R. B. published in the Record of the 8th. Apart from some immaterial difference of opinion as to the meaning of the words, fanatic and fa- naticism, I see nothing in the article of J. S. which can claim to be either a reply to, or a fair notice of the article of A. R. B. If I am not much mistaken, J. S. in his arti- cle affords abundant evidence that, according to his own PRELIMINAKY CORRESPONDENCE. 53 definition of the term, he himself is a fiinatic. A. R. B. says nothing about slavery, and in his whole article neither makes an attack upon that institution, or a defense of abo- litionism, unless it be by an implication and construction, which clearly and certainly J. S. is not authorized to make. It is true that he says that "the man who in the present time devotes himself to one great philanthropy, is stigma- tised as a " man of one idea," a fanatic, and forthwith to be frowned out of respectable society," and again, "nor is it to be wondered at that wicked men, zealous for the growth of some collossal crime in human society, should strive to bring into reproach men, by whom their craft is en- dangered. But that men professing to revere God, and to obey his law, would strive to abate any ardor of christian philanthropy, no matter in what form exhibited, and to con- trive the means for the doAvnfall of men devoted to any special good w^ork, is passing strange." Believing, as I do, that the institution of slavery is a collossal crime, and that the effort to eradicate it is a great philanthropy, I might, perhaps, be justified in applying the language of A. R. B. to that institution, and to the efforts which are being made to effect its overthrow. But there is nothing in the article itself, to warrant my asserting that such ideas were in the mind of the writer,^ and I could only venture that infer- ence from my own deep convictions, that in that sense, the language is true. On account of these convictions, J. S. would call me a fanatic, and yet he must admit that they are Ids convictio7is, to justify his construction of the language of A. R. B. Apprised, as I have long been, that J. S. rejected the idea that slavery was a collossal crime, but that, on* the con- trary, he professed to believe that it was no evil, and that, instead of regarding the efforts for its removal as a great philanthropy, he entertained, and often expressed the opin- ion, that the agitation of the subject was criminal, and ought to be suppressed, I confess to a little astonishment at his readiness and quickness in construing the language of A. R. B. as referring to that subject. It proves, however, very clearly and conclusively, either that his convictions are at war with his professions, or that he is really and tru- (1) YetBro. Goodwin understood it as referring to slavery. See his letter, page 45. 54 INTRODUCTION. \y the wildest fanatic — a monomaniac upon the subject of slavery. He has been long engaged, both in religion and politics, in efforts to exorcise the ghost of the slavery ques- tion ; still it haunts him. Is a coUossal crime spoken of — the ghost of slavery is presented vividly to his imagina- tion. Talk of a great philanthropy — and his teeming brain is alive with a whole army of abolition fanatics. If this be not fanaticism, and if he be not a fanatic, I confess that I do not understand the meaning of the terms, and it will be necessary for me to get a new dictionary to learn what they mean. I might, perhaps, get the right kind of one " down south," but as it might not be quite safe for me to go there just now, and as I could not hope that my or- der would be honored at Charleston or New Orleans, I must request J. S. to get me one from the printing establish- ment of De Bow. That, of course, would be all right. But there is evidence of progress in this production of J. S. I know him to have been opposed, bitterly opposed, to the agitation of the question of slavery. Neither in church or State — in religion or in politics, would he admit it to have a place. As a politician, he would suppress the discussion everywhere, " either in or out of Congress." As a religionist, he contended, as it seems he still contends, that '' the institution is a part of, and belongs to the king- dom of this world — human governments, and hence, entire- ly a distinct thing, and separate from the kingdom of the Lord, which is not of this world ;" and that " it is a ques- tion of political economy and outside of Christianity." This citizenship in the two kingdoms has been quite con- venient to J. S. It has enabled him in either kingdom to evade the discussion of the question of slavery, by put- ting in a plea to the jurisdiction. But this article of J. S.'s^ affords some evidence that he is getting ashamed of the dodge. He ventures beyond the line of his defenses, to meet and refute, in the moral field, the proposition which he himself has constructed out of the material furnished him by A. R. B. He says, " My esteemed brother calls the institution a * wicked institution,' a ' collossal crime in human society,' and regards the utter eradication of it, without looking to our present condition and surroundings, as the one great philanthropy." This involves a proposition, which, al- PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 55 though not to be found in the article of A. R. B., J. S. has framed for the purpose of meeting and refuting it. In thus attempting to refute the proposition, he has entered the field of controversy, which he so much deprecates, but in thus crossing the Rubicon, he has used the precaution to throw across it a pontoon bridge, not only to assist him in crossing, but to facilitate his retreat, in case he should deem it prudent to retire. He enters the field under pro- test to the jurisdiction, and still says that the matters in controversy, " are questions of political economy, and out- side of Christianity.^^ In other words, that the christian's Lord has no jurisdiction over them, and here is his whole argument, in refutation of the proposition above named. He says, in reference to his " esteemed brother,'' and to his supposed proposition, *' I)i both of these he is in error." " It," (the institution) " is not a crime, nor would the ut- ter and immediate eradication of it, be a philanthropy, but a most woeful calamity." This is a bold and brief argu- ment, and is final and conclusive, if we accept the opinions of J. S. as unerring and infallible. In one respect, if in no other, it resembles the teachings of the Master, for J. S., speaks " as one having authority." If we admit the author- ity, there is an end of all controversy upon the subject. But upon this point of authority, I hesitate, and I suppose that others may be reluctant to allow the claim. But there is hope for J. S. His position is in advance of his former one. He is willing that the question of slavery should be discussed, at least on one side of it, and that is yielding half of his objections to its agitation. I suspect that he will yield farther soon, and relying upon his own powers of assertion and argument, he may perhaps ofi'er a full discussion of the question, provided he can have the privilege of shaping the propositions to his own liking.^ But it is too late. The question is no longer a deoateahle one. The logic of the schools has been exhausted upon it, and so far as the argument of words is concerned, the question is settled. The glorious gospel of a common brotherhood in humanity — of man's equality before God and before the law, has been preached to every willing ear thorughout the (1) This satisfies my mind that brother Butlkr had a hand in shaping the course that brother Bocjgs took in the preceding correspondence. 56 INTRODUCTION. land. Those who have rejected it, have done so obstinately and -willfully, and no human argument can reach them. Our God, the Father of all, has assumed, and is now con- ducting this great controversy. " He doeth according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth." By the stern and terrible logic of events, He is developing this argument, and working in the hearts of the unwilling, a conviction of the great truth that '' God is no respecter of persons." I have strong faith that the doom of slavery is the inevitable result of the present fear- ful conflict,^ and I pray to God that in the effort to save it from utter destruction, our Government and, our Union may not be borne down and perish with it. 0. B. [From the Christian Record of May 6th, 1862.] FANATICISM OF ERROR. My dear brother 0. B., in the last 'Record^ has a very heated article on the brief notice of (not reply to) the arti- cle of my esteemed brother A. R. B. under this caption. I said nothing about slavery, if A. R. B. did not. Slavery is not found in my article any more than it is in his. Neither of the vrords slavery nor abolitionism is found in my article. But it is clear that A. R. B.'s article referred to slavery as the " collossal crime in human society," and abolitionism as the " one great philanthrophy," for which he com- plained that they were stigmatized as men " of one idea," though he did not use the terms. I did the same in no- ticing his article, though I would just as soon have spoken out, and used the terms direct. If others choose to sow their poison in the public mind, under covert means, by using indirect terms, that when called to account for it, they may deny and say, " that was not what I meant," I choose to beat the bush, and drive them from their covert, by assuming the same flimzy garb, (1) This shows that abolitionists, from the beginning of the present unfortunate civil war, regarded it as a war for the aboUtion of sJavery. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 57 that tliey may have assumed ; and, so far as my dear brother 0. B. is concerned, it seems that I have succeeded admira- bly in this case. Fanaticism was the subject under the consideration of my esteemed brother A. R. B. and myself. After my dear brother 0. B. says, "z7 is too late'' to doubt that the institu- tion of slavery is sinful, that ^Hhe question is no longer a debatable one,'' it is not hard to find where the fanaticism is, in this unfortunate and dire controversy that is upon us in all its horrors. But if added to that, we look through the paragraph in which this is found, and the succeeding one, demonstration clear as noon-day bursts upon us. Slavery is an institution of civil government ; it is a part of the kingdoms of this world. In the United States, it always has been, and still is, a State institution. Hence, citizens of the States where it exists, are the only ones that have any constitutional right to take any political action in relation to it, or to discuss any political action "in relation to it ; and if others do it, they are " busy-bodies," so far as political action is concerned. But it has been harped so long, that thousands of excel- lent people have got to believe that it is true, that it is a sin; aud hence, as they desire to eradicate all sin from the earth, they have entered into crusades against it, increasing in intensity and vigor, till our present woful condition ex- ists. And now it is too late to question that it is a sin ! *'JThe ^question is no longer debatable " ! What further proof need any sober, rational man have, of the fanaticism of the crusades, and of the dire situation we are in, our public affairs being in the hands of men of that notion ? The institution of slavery is not sinful. If it were, how- ever, as it is a governmental sin, christians, as such, have nothing to do with it ; for they labor in a kingdom not of this world. But if it were sinful, and christians might in- terfere with governmental sins, as it does not exist in the free States, we of the free States, as christians, have no more right, and are no more bound in christian duty, to in- terfere with it, than we have right, or are bound to interfere with the Cuban, English, French or Austrian governmental sins. These are my positions, and show the reasons why I say that christians should not alloAv themselves to be divided 5 58 INTRCDUCTION.- and distracted by matters pertaining to the kingdoms of this world ; and though I do not desire to debat-e, yet, with the truth of God's revelation of his will to us, I hold my- self amply able to sustain them upon all proper occasions. J. S. April Both, 1862. The following note was appended to A. R. B.'s article in the liecord of May 6th, 1862 :. ^ NOTE TO J. S. My respect for Br. S. would not permii his remarks on my article entitled " Fanaticism of Error,*' to pass without notice, and therefore I prepared another article on that sub- ject for the Hecard of this week; but as another brother has seen fit' to make some strictures upon Bro. S.'s commu- nication, I have thought it unnecessary to publish what I had written before the article of Bro. 0. B. came under my notice. A. R. B. • And the following appeared as editorial in the Record of May 6th, 1862 : '' FANATICISM OF ERROR.'' Our readers have noticed a few articles in our paper un- der the above title. They are well written and breathe the right spirit; but we think those who have written the last papers are given the subject a turn that the author of the first article did not anticipate. How much farther these brethren may desire to carry the matter, we know not ; but we wish it distinctly understood, that we publish an inde- pendent sheet, and that both sides to any question that may be introduced into our columns shall be heard, as long as the writers discuss the merits of the question at issue, avoid personal invectives, and treat each other as christians. Any matter of a moral character, upon which honest men may have different views, may legitimately be discussed in our religious papers. Purely political questions we prefer, however, to keep out of the Recoi^d; but the moral phase of PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 59 questions that only exist by the protection of the civil law, may be investigated, without considering its political bear- ings. Should these brethren continue this subject, we hope they will look at it only as a moral question. [From the Christian Record of May 20th, 1S62."] COMMUNICATIOISr. Bro. Goodwin: — I suppose that J. S. will expect me to notice his article, published in the Record of the 6tli inst., and I desire to do so briefly. He calls my former commu- nication a very " heated article." If it deserves that epi- thet, I was not aware of it. I leave the readers of the Record to judge whether the epithet is rightly applied. He says, that " neither the word slavery or aholiiionisin^ is found in" his article, and intimates that it was as free of the ideas represented by these words, as was the article of A. R. B. He seems to suppose that I had not noticed the absence of these words in his article, and had been as hasty in my construction of it, as I had charged that he was, in his construction of the language of A. R. B. I certainly had not failed to notice that neither the word slavery or abolitionism was used by him, and if I made an erroneous or even hasty construction of his article — if his language be fairly or even possibly capable of any construction, other than that I gave it, I am properly subject to his criticism. Of this, too, the readers of the Record can judge. But a graver matter is the insinuation of J. S. that the article of A. R. B. was an effort to "sow poison in the pub- lic mind under covert means, by using indirect terms," and that these covert means and direct terms were employed by A. R. B. to enable him to deny their real meaning ^'wJien- called to account for itJ^ This charge^ against A. R. B. is (1) It vras not a c\iarge against A. R. B, particularly, but a general proposition that fits the action of abolitionists generally ; and my applicatton of it to O. B., that I had thereby brought him to use direct terms, shows that 1 used the expression in the general sense, and not as a charge individually against brother Bkntox. 60 INTRODUCTION. most unjust, and might be construed to involve a threats which it is possible J. S. might not have the power to exe- cute. I need only to refer the reader to the article of A. R. B. to show that the language used by him has no con- cealed or covert meaning, and that no indirect terms are emploj^ed by him. The words objected to by J. S. have as clear and certain meaning as any words in the English lan- guage. It is not probable that A. R. B. will think it neces- sary either to confess or deny, or to give any explanation of his language, either to help or to hinder the construction which J. S. has put upon it, even if " called to account for it/' Under the apprehension that something offensive to him was hidden under the language of A. R. B., J. S. says that he " chose to beat the bush, and drive them from their covert,'' and he felicitates himself, that, so far as I am con- cerned, he has ^' succeeded admirably." If it is a bush he has been beating, I was not under its covert, and hence he can not claim to have driven me out. I had nothing to do with the article of A. R. B. — was not consulted in reference to it — and had no knowledge or intimation of its existence, until I saw it in print. It is, I think, evident, that J. S. wishes to have a discus- sion upon the subject of slavery, and is somewhat disturbed at my remark, " that the question is no longer a debatable one." Indeed, he seems to regard the disposition to con- sider the question settled, and the debate upon it closed, as of at least as baneful a character, and as pernicious a ten- dency, as he has hitherto regarded, and still seems to con- sider the disposition to discuss it. According to his logic, the harping upon — the agitation of this subject — -has brought us to " our present woful condition." And now, if it be proposed to cease agitation, to terminate the debate, and regard the question as settled, he discovers fanaticism in the proffered silence, and talks of " the dire situation we are in," on account of " public affairs being in the hands of men of that notion." There is apparent inconsistency in these views of J. S., but perhaps he thinks that our com- munity is affected with a species of hydrophobia, from the bite of that rabid animal, called agitation, and concludes, perhaps wisely, to apply the well recommended remedy of " the hair of the dog to cure the bite." PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 61 However that may be, J. S. has presented and crowded together rather confusedly three propositions, which he seems not unwilUng to debate. He thus states them : '• The institution of slavery is not sinful. If it Avere, however, it is a govermental sin ; christians, as such, have nothing to do with it, for they labor in a kingdom not cf this world. But if it were sinful, and christians might in- terfere with governmental sins, as it does not exist in the free States, we of the free States, as christians, have no more right, and are no more bound, in christian duty, to in- terfere with it, than we have, or are, to interfere with the Cuban, English, French, or Austrian governmental sins." These J. S. calls his positions, and, in reference to them, he says, " and though I do not desire to debate, yet with the truth of God's revelation* of his will to us, I hold my- self amply able to sustain them upon all proper occasions." Were I to undertake to discuss the subject of slavery with J. S., I should not choose to do so upon his proposi- tions, in the form he has given them. They are all nega- tives, and by negation, is the worst and most unusual form for stating a proposition for discussion. The second and third propositions are stated hypothetically, and are, I doubt not, simply intended as a double line of defense, around the first or main proposition. The third proposi- tion raises an immaterial question, for it may be that it is our right and our duty to denounce sin, in both a sister State and a foreign jurisdiction, and that the extent of the right, and the measure of the duty, in either case, would depend upon our means and facilities for doing so effectual- ly. The proposition presents no issue of sufficient impor- tance to invite discussion. Indeed, I regard the language of all the propositions as inapt and indefinite. But all this is immaterial, as I am not disposed to under- take a set debate, or a formal discussion of the subject. Keither health nor time will permit me to promise so much now. I will, however, suggest a proposition, which I think would cover the whole field of argument. It is this : American slavery, as established, recognized, or permit- ted by the laws of the slaveholding States, and exemplified in the condition, character and conduct of both masters and slaves, is sin against God, and against humanity. This proposition is, I think, broad enough to embrace the 62 INTRODUCTION. whole subject, and definite enough to invite a full discussion of all its details. Although, for the reasons above stated, I can not prom- ise to attempt a formal discussion of it, yet if J. S. thinks proper to assume the negative, and the editor of the Record consents to give us room in his columns, I will endeavor to furnish some articles, from time to time, to sustain the prop- osition, and to meet, as best I may, and so far as I may think necessary to a proper' understanding of the subject, such arguments as J. S.' may offer against the proposition. If, however, J. S. is not satisfied with this proposition, or if he prefers another course of proceeding, it is possible to present the question in a form, and to proceed with the de- bate, in a manner which I presume is quite familiar to him, much more so, indeed, than they are now to me. I would propose that, upon an agreed case in the Court of Con- science, Jesus the Lord j^^esiding as sole Judge, Legree be considered as arraigned, upon an indictment for the enslave- ment, oppression, and murder of Uncle Tom, the facts charged in the indictment to be such, and only such acts of ownership, control, use and treatment of Uncle Tom, by Legree, as by the laws of slaveholding States, are regarded as the lawful, justified, or permitted acts of the master, in reference to his slave. If J. S. thinks that the laws of the State of Louisiana, or of any other slaveholding State, will constitute a good defense, he can make them available, by pleading them in abatement to the jurisdiction of the Court. Upon a demurrer to such a plea, the whole question would come up for argument in a form with which J. S. is un- doubtedly familiar, for, if I mistake not, he has long prac- ticed before, and presided in courts of justice, in some, or at least one of the " kingdoms of this world." It would be an aspersion of his character as a christian, to suppose that he was not also familiar with the practice in the " Court ef Consciences^ which is a high Court, in the ^^ kingdom ivhich is not of this ivorld.^^ The law which would govern the case, would be " God's revelation of his will to us^' which is the supreme law and sole authority in that Court, in which Jesus the Lord presides as Judge. Although the Judge might be suspected of pity and sympathy for the poor, degraded, down-trodden, and oppressed of humanity, yet, as J. S. affirms- that he "refused to interfere with, or ♦ PrwELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 63 attempt any philanthropic reformation of any of the king- doms of this world, or of any of their institution; s," I sup- pose he would be willing that the case be tried in this Court. I submit these suggestions for the consideration of J. S., and wish to know his further pleasure in the prcniises. 0. B. [From the Christian Record, of May 2Tth, 1862.] FANATICISM OF ERROR. An article from Bro. 0. B., in the Record of the 20th of May, requires some notice from me. 1 spoke of " the dire situation we are in, our public af- fairs being in the hands of men" who set it down as a fore- gone conclusion, that slavery is' sinful, and that that propo- sition is no longer disputable. This my language clearly indicates, and not that they are in the hands of men who agitate (not discuss) the slavery question, as Bro. 0. B. says I say. Slavery is either sinful or it is not sinful. Brother 0. B. and those who have been and are acting with him — " agita- ting" — constantly denounce it in such phrases as "the sin of slavery," " the sum of all villianies," " the monster in- iquity," " the colossal crime," &c. And yet my dear broth- er 0. B. will not undertake to affirm directly that it is sin- ful, and attempt to sustain his affirmation by the good word of the Lord, written in God's revelation of his will to us !. But in lieu thereof, he proposes this wordy verbosity — not to discuss it in form — but to " furnish some articles from time to time, to sustain" it. " American slavery as established, recognized or permit- ted by the laws of the slaveholding States, and exempli- fied in the condition, character and conduct of both masters and slaves, is sin against God, and against humanity." Slavery and marriage are both institutions of civil gov- ernment, and relations existing in human society. Had ifc 64 • INTRODUCTION. • been constantly " harped " and " agitated " for thirty years past, that marriage is sinful, using constantly such set phra- ses in speaking of it, as *' the sin of marriage," " the sum of all villainies," " the monster inqiuity," " the colossal crime," until society v/as upturned, and civil war of most gigantic proportions was inaugurated ; and then, when it was proposed to examine and see whether there was not an error in the grand, cardinal proposition, by which the storm had been fanned into existence, those who had been so con- stantly "harping" and '' agitating," instead of meeting the question squarely, and affirming directly that marriage is sinful, as they had been doing all the time, propose to fur- nish some articles, from time to time, to sustain the propo- sition that "American marriage, as established, recognized or permitted by the laws of (some or all) the States, and exemplified in the condition, character and conduct of both husbands and wives, is sin against God and against human- ity"! would not all see that it was an evasion, and an attempt to avoid the discussion of the question whether marriage is sinful or not, and to get off into a logomachy about the laws -of States, and the conduct of husbands and wives, in dis- charging their respective duties pertaining to the marriage relations ? I think there can be no doubt but that all would 60 see it. Can not we now look equally dispassionately and sanely upon the question, whether slavery is sinful or not? and upon the conduct of those who have been so long asserting that it is sinful? The inquiry is, Is the relation of master and slave a sin- ful relation ? Is it sinful for men to hold that relation to each other ? It is not whether a master or a slave sins by improperly discharging the duties required of him by that rplation. Many husbands and wives commit many sins, by failing to discharge the duties required of them by the mari- tal relation ; but that only proves them sinners, and does not prove marriage sinful. So many masters and slaves commit many sins, by failing to discharge the duties re- quired of them by the relation existing between them ; but that only proves them sinn&rs, and not thd^t slavery is sinful. Brother 0. B., not only thus goes av/ay from the ques- tion at once, but gravely proposes to me to go into trial in a " court of conscience," of Legree and Uncle Tom, as set forth in the fiction called Un.cle Tom's Cabin ! The re- PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 65 vealed will of God to him and me is, to "think of what- soever things are true,"^ and not to think of, or contem- plate, much less to enter into a grave discussion in a pub- lic, religious paper, of fictions that never existed, except in the imaginations of persons whose conduct in bruiting abroad such fictions, whether intended by them or not, pro- duce "hatred," "variance," "wnith," "strife," and "sedi- tion," all of which are denounced by the good word of the Lord, as being works of the flesh, and sinful.^ I shall ab- stain from either discussing or circulating such fictions. Bro. 0. B. and those who agree with him, will, of course, act as they see proper in the prennses. They and I have each to account for himself, and ri';C for the rest of us. The Lord has not erected a "court of conscience," nor made it a " high court " in hi^< kingdom. Our own con- sciences are witnesses for ourselves, not courts in which to try either ourselves or our brethren, much less such a fictitious person as Legree. The fanaticism of the en- 'i- into which my brother 0. B. and those who think and ;ict with him. have fallen, is now apparent. They assume that slavery is sinful. They re- peat it till they believe it to be not only so, but indisputa- bly so. When their pr ^josition is denied, and they respect- fully asked to prove ny the word of God that slavery is sinful, they " enthusi:jstically " say that American slavery, as it exists, by the I .ws of the slave States, and exemplified in the character jp 1 conduct of the masters and slaves, is sin ; that is, the c uduct of the masters and slaves is sinful, and they have a bad character, therefore, the slave laws of the States are bad ; therefore, American slavery is a sin against God ;iiid humanit}^ and slavery itself is sinful, but we will not undertake to prove it to be so by the word of God ; and then propose their " wild notion" that we go into th'' high court of conscience, created by the Lord, when he lu ver created such a court, and there try a ficti- tious being, taking fictions for lacts, and thus settle the question 1" (1) Phil, iv, 8. (2). Gal. v, 19-21. (3) That tlie reader may see the difference between the^ci'/o?e. of Uncle Tom's Caljin, and the /ao^ of Uncle Tom himself, I insert the following from the the Frankfork Ken- tucky Commonwealth of December, 1862 : UxcLE Tom's Cabin. — Some time after Mrs. Beecher Stowe had her Abolition production, called "Uncle Tom's Cabin," published, and it had taken a run, sucii as works of fiction GQ INTRODUCTION. May we all grow in the knowledge of the ii^uih, and thus be cured of our errors, as well as be relieved of the fanati- cisms of them, is my prayer. J. S. P. S. — If 0. B., or A. R. B., or any of that school of opinion, will undertake to prove by the Scriptures that slavery is sinful, I will discuss the question with them in the Record^ on equal terms. If they do not, I hope that they will quit denouncing it as a sin, and thus misleading the brethren, and fanning up strife and civil war for its ex- termination, and the destruction of us as a nation and peo- ple. [From the Christian Record of June 3d, 1862.] COMMUNICATION. Bro. Goodwin: — Passing by some remarks in the recent article of J. S., as unnecessary to notice here, I desire to notice his assertion that I will not undertake to affirm directly that slavery is sinful, and attempt to sustain the often do, without any one being able to account for the morbid appetite that craves such books, we saAv it stated in a newspaper that Henry Ward Beecher had represented, in a puplic lecture he was delivering, that there was such a personage as Uncle Tom — a real character, on whose history his sister founded her book ; that Uncle Tom lived in a cabin near Indianapolis, Indiana, at the time he himself resided there, and, in connection with his account of Uncle Tom, he spoke in very feeling terms of his own early trials in begin- ning his ministry at Indianapolis, and the words of encouragement received by him from the then Governor, N. Noble, of that State, under whose protection Uucle Tom then lived. * * * * * * * * * *.* We have sometimes thought tliat we had done wrong in not making known the facts about Uncle Tom, as we have since found many Abolition brothers and sisters, and other weak- minded, story loving readers, who believed firmly that there was not only such a person- age as Uncle Tom, but that his life and history were truthfully given by Mrs. Beecher Stowe, and that all of her other characters were drawn from life. In one thing she gave Uucie Tom's character correctly. He was a noble man by nature, and a Christian by practice— what used to be called an old fashioned Virginia gentleman— a man of mark wherever he went. For, though a negro, and a full blooded one, his 'per- sonal appearance was commanding, and his open, gentle, manly countenance made him warm friends of all persons, white and black, who became acquainted with him. He lived to be, as was belived, over one hundred years of age, and, whilst a slave, never was out of the family to which he belonged. He was born and raised in the famil}' of Nobles, of Virginia ; came to Kentucky, the property of Dr. Thomas Noble, who lived, when he first came to Kentucky, back of Covington, then Campbell, now Kenton county, about ten miles, at a place which was afterward the farm of Major Winston, and on which he lived many years. Dr. Noble afterwards moved to Boon county, at a place afterwards called Bellevue, and there lived many years, and was there buried. Dr. Noble was a man of the old school, the compeer of Major Tliomas Martin, Col. John Grant and his brother. Squire Grant, Gen. James Taylor, George Gordon, and many other early settlers, who were old men when we were a boy, men full of that jollity aijd PEELIMINAFvY CORRESPONDENCE. 67 affirmative bj the good word of the Lord, written in God's revelation of his will to us, but in lieu thereof, I propose a " word J verbosity," kc. The proposition which I suggested, and to prove which I offered, in case it should be denied, to submit some argu- ments, is as clear, as definite, and as positive an affirmation, that " American slavery is sin," as it is possible for me to make it. I limited the affirmation to American slavery; for whatever may be our opinion of the moral character of Jewish servitude, or Roman slavery, these opinions are merel}^ speculative, and have no practical importance at the present day. I decline any discussion of them any further than they may be legitimately introduced as arguments, either for or against American slavery. My proposition embraced a definition of American slavery, or, in other good nature so common among the early settlers of. Kentucky : who took a part in their time, and a goodly part of it, too, to the cultivation of the social graces; who loved each other as sparsely-settled people, in a new country, always do, and did not make the gain of dollars and cents the only or chief object of life. After Dr. Noble's death, Uncle Tom continued on the farm and managed the same, under the direction of his mistress, until she died, when, under some arrangement among the heirs. Thomas and Sarah, his wife, were permitted to go free. During the period that Uncle Tom was chief overseer for Mrs. Noble, our first recollec- tion of him began. We were a small boy, and being on a visit to kindred were playing with an uncle, also a boy about our age, in the vicinity of Mrs. Noble's barn, when we heard the sound of stripes being pretty well laid on some person, who was begging earn- estly to be let off; on looking through a crack in the side of the barn we saw old man Thomas administering upon a young negro man pretty severely. The cause, we learned, was that the young negro had failed to worm a piece of tobacco which Thomas had directed, when leaving home a day or two before, and which his expe- rienced eye detected to have been greatly slighted by the young negro. Young as we were we could but express our astonishment at the young man submitting to be whipped, when Thomas remarked, "He knew he deserved it, my son, for disobe- dience of my orders, and for telling a story by saying he had killed all the worms, when the plants showed the contrary." Uncle Tom believed that the negroes were, in the general, better off with good masters than to be left to themselves. That white people never would recognize them as equals, nor consent to their having equality with them, in church or State. His own history verified his belief. When Mrs. Noble died, Thomas, who had never thought of leaving her whilst she lived, was advised to go to Cincinnati and live ; that he would there find many of his race free, and have their society, and be where he could have church advantages. He spent some daj^s amongst tbe free negroes of Cincinnati, and re- turned to the house of one of his advisers with this answer: " Miss M 1 can't live with the people I have seen in Cincinnati. They would not suit me to live with. But few of them work, and nearly all are worthless. I am going to get master N to buy me some ground near Lawrenceburg, where master L— N and Miss L V live, and Sarah and I will live near them, and we know they will see we are not imposed on." They lived at Lawrenceburg until L N and L V left there, and then becoming dissatsifled, Noah Noble moved the old people to his land, near Indianapo- lis, where they both remained until tliey died. Thomas and Sarah were never separated for a week in their lives. Never belonged to any one but Dr. Thos. No))le and his wife, and the heirs of Dr. Noble, and, when they were . permitted go free, they clung to the family ; knowing this fact, there was not one of them who would not care for them and provide for their wants. The mock sensiblility, which so often wept over Uncle Tom's fate, has lost its tears over a fiction. We have ourself seen men and women making a great to do over the negroes, wiio would let the poor white women and children perish with himger and cold. * * Three of the Noble family yet live, who can correct us if we have not stated Uncle Tom's history aright. L. T. t)« INTRODUCTION. words, simply expressed what I mean by those terms. It is, I suppose, on this account that J. S. calls it a " wordy verbosity." The objection shows clearly the necessity for defining, in the proposition itself, what is meant by the use of the terms A merican slavery. American slavery is not simply an abstract idea — a legal fiction, or a imked theory. It is also the necessary inci- dents, results and consequences of these, as developed in the condition, character and conduct of both masters and slaves. Slavery exists both in theory and in practice, both in law and in fact. It is not simply in the abstract, but in the concrete, that I desire to consider it, if I make it the sub- ject of discussion. I would not undertake to prove Satan a sinner, if limited solely to the consideration of his per- sonal being, and precluded from any and all reference to his sensations, volitions, and actions, nor am I disposed to attempt to prove that the theory — the institution or system of slavery — is a sin, separate from, and independent of its effects and consequences, in and upon the condition, char- acter, and conduct of masters and slaves. The whole eifort to show that slavery — the relation of master and slave — is sinless, has been expended upon the consideration of slavery in the abstract, and in the unwarranted separation of the institution, and the relation from their necessary incidents and qualities. I do not propose to meet the question in that shape. I do not know that it would be profitable to do so. The proposition, as it stands, embraces my definition of American slavery, and expresses my conviction of its moral character. If, in the terms in which it is stated, J. S. admits its truth, there can be no controversy between us about it. Or, if he regards the proposition as immaterial or unimportant, he will, of course, decline to discuss it. But if he considers it false in fact, and pernicious in ten- dency, he will probably attempt to refute it. I will here re-state the proposition. It is as follows : American slavery, as established, recognized, or permitted by the laws of the slaveholding States, and exemplified in the condition, character, and conduct of both masters and slaves, is sin against God and against humanity. The institution of marriage and slavery, J. S. regards as parallel institutions, equally sacred, and equally entitled to the respectful consideration of a christian people. In pre- PRELIMINARY CORRESrONDENCE. 69 senting his vievrs, he thus speaks of them : " Shivery and marriage are both institutions oi civil government, and re- Lations existing in human society." He reasons, in effect, that the one is entitled to equal protection and respect with the other. This view is so monstrous, so abhorrent, and so offensive to the moral sense, that I confess I am not yet able to look steadily and calmly at it. The divine institution of marriage, paralleled and asso- ciated with the diabolical institution of chattel slavery, is a thought too revolting for calm consideration. But they are so presented by J. S., and the consideration is thus forced upon me. I remark, then, that marriage is a divine ordi- nance, existing before and above the institution of marriage by the civil government. The civil institution of marriage is in harmony with, and in furtherance of, the divine pur- pose in its ordination. For this reason the institution of marriage is rightly regarded as sacred and holy. If there be aught in the civil institution, in contravention of the divine purpose, or in violation of the law of God in refer- ence to it, in just so far is the civil institution sinful. Such are some of the features of the civil institution of marriage in the territory of Utah, and these might, perhaps, justly be paralleled with the institution of slavery in some of its revolting features. But the consideration of the subject of marriage in its relation to slavery, properly belongs to a more advanced stage in the discussion of this question. Should I reach that point in the discussion,! may then give it further consideration. J. S. seems much shocked at my offer to discuss the question with him, in the form of a legal argument, upon a case to be agreed upon, and referred to a court of con- science. He rebukes me for proposing to use " fictions that never existed," in making up an agreed case for " a grave 'discussion in a public religious paper," and asserts that "the Lord never erected a court of conscience, nor made it a high court in his kingdom." J. S. is well aware that there are in the civil courts agreed cases, or cases founded upon assumed facts, having no real existence, and that these constitute a large proportion of the cases litiga- ted in such courts. To these J. S. does not object. He is familiar with their use, and aware of the benefits derived from them. But ho objects to their use, in " a grave dis- 70 IXTRODUCTION. cussion in a public religious paper." On the bench and at the bar, he possibly i*€gards himself as '* outside of Chris- tianity," and at liberty to use means for the ascertainment of truth, which he thinks are prohibited in the " kingdom of the Lord," and in the investigation of moral questions. The Great Teacher was proverbial for the use of parables, as the means of communicating moral truths, and this fact, as it seems to me, fully justifies the use of fiction to the ex- tent and in the manner I proposed. If J. S. does not like the names of Legree and Uncle Tom, there could be no ob- jection to his selecting such as he might choose, to person- ate the characters and conduct of masters and slaves. Civil governments have their courts of conscience so des- ignated because they a^ssurae to decide according to right and conscience, unembarrassed by the technicalities of strictly legal proceedings. The highest Court in England is called a court of conscience, and the Lord Chancellor, who presides in it, is called the keeper of the king's con- science. Our own courts of equity, either State or National, are courts of conscience. Writers upon national law rec- ognize the existence of a national conscience, a public moral sense, before and by which public acts, done or con- templated, are tried, and either approved or condemned. There is established in the human heart, by God the Crea- tor, who has so fearfully and wonderfully made man, a court of conscience, which decides upon the moral character of human actions. If Jesus the Lord presides in that court — if the law of the Lord, as revealed to us in his Word, be administered there, its decisions must be just, righteous and irreversable. Is it possible that there can be found a citizen of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, who de- nies tlie existence of such a court in the Lord's kingdom. J. S. does so, and we therefore need not be surprised at his denial of the sinfulness of American slavery. J. 8. expresses the hope, that if I will not discuss the question of slavery with him, in the form he presents it, I will " quit denouncing it as a sin." I decline the discussion in that form ; but I hope and trust that, w^hile life lasts, I may not cease to denounce American slavery as a sin. As I regard the subject, to promise to do so w^ould be volun- tarily to abjure allegiance to the Lord and Master, and to renounce fojrever my hope of heaven. 0. B. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 71 [From the Record of June 3d.— Editorial.] THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN 0. B., AND J. S. Our readers have noticed, some with regret, and some with delight, the articles in the Weekly Record, by Breth. 0.' B., and J. S., out of Avhich, discussion of tho vexed subject of Slavery, is likely to grow. This was not an- ticipated when these articles were commenced, and how far they are to be continued we can not now say. We need not say to these brethren, that we hope they will treat the subject with that dignity and christian forbearance which so grave a subject demands. Whether the bodies and souls of men for whom Jesus died, may be chattelized, and sold on the auction block, in common with horses and mules, with- out incurring the displeasure of the great Father of all, as a question of no small moment. Still, as thousands of our fellow citizens, and even of christians, have been taught from infancy to believe this is all right in the eyes of God, and the light of the Bible, the subject demands serious, scriptural investigation. We hope, if the discussion is to go on, that Bro. J. S. will cease to even intimate that the north is chargable with all the horrors of the southern rebellion, thus indirectly justifying the south, in their attempt to pull down our glo- rious temple of liberty. Stick to the text, brethren. [From the Christian Record of Jync 10th, 1S62.] FANATICISM OF ERROR. As further proof of the fanaticism of the error into which my brother 0. B. has unfortunately fallen, I will note the following in his last article. " The institutions of marriage and slavery, J. S. regards as parallel institutions equally entitled to the respectful consideration of a Christian people." 72 INirtODUCTION. I said no such thing ; I meant no such thing ; and no such thing is inferable from what I did say. [Supposing that he could reflect dispassionately when marriage was the subject of consideration ; I used it in lieu of slavery, in stating his course as to slavery, to show his evasion, and attempt to avoid the discussion of the question at issue, whether slavery is sinful or not. I said nothing about the two institutions being " equally'"' sacred, or ''equally" en- titled to respect ; and nothing of that kind is inferable from what I said. Again, he says : " He reasons in eifect, that the one is entitled to equal protection and respect with the otlier ;" and confesses that he is " not yet able to look steadily and calmly at it." And again, he says : " The divine institution of marriage, paralleled and asso- ciated with the diabolical institution of chattel slavery is a thought too revolting for calm consideration. But they are so presented by J. S." ! An intellect that is so unhinged as to honestly and in good faith, thus misapprehend "vthat is said, and imagine that something entirely different is said, is in a very bad condition to " think on whatsoever things are true."^ Hence a calm consideration and investigation, in "the words of truth and soberness,"- of a subject about which that intel- lect is so unhinged, I fear is wholly unattainable. My brother 0. B. will not " attempt to prove" that '' the institution or system of slavery is sin, separate from and in- dependent of its effects and consequences, in and upon the condition, character and conduct of masters and slaves." I understand this to be an admission that the institution of slavery is not a sin ; that it is not sin to hold the re- lation of master to a slave ; in other words, that it is not sin to own a slave. If this is inferring more than the lan- guage of 0. B. justifies, let us take it in the language in which he utters it — that he is not disposed to atteinpt to prove that slavery is sin. But he professes to be willing to attempt to prove it, if we will couple with it, its effects and consequences, in and upon the condition, character and conduct of masters and slaves. Here it is at once seen, that, if this course should be tak- (1) Phil, iv, 8. (2) Acts xxvi, 25. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 73 en, our discussion would be, not whether slavery is sinful or not, but -^hat are its effects ? its consequences ? and what are they in and upon the condition, character and conduct of masters and slaves? Judging from the specimens we have already had of his proneness to deal in fictions instead of facts, that is to deal in fictions instead of dealing in " what- soever things are true," we should, at once, differ as to what its effects and consequences were, and get into a dis- cussion of that, and not of the question. Is slavery sinful ? He would insist that certain gross fictions, that those of his school have been bruiting abroad for years, are facts, and are the effects and consequences of the institution. I should deny that they were facts, and also deny that they were the effects and consequences of the institution, and should call on him to show that they were the effects and consequences of the institution, instead of being what ra- tional men would say they were, that is, that they were the effects and consequences of the prbneliess to sin, and of the actual sins, of the masters and slaves. I should insist that the character and conduct of Chris- iian masters and slaves were as good as the character and conduct of other Christians^ even as those of Bro. 0. B. or myself; and that the character and conduct of christians do not depend upon their state and condition in life, whether it be that of masters or slaves, or of those who do not hold that relation to any other human being, but upon their "patient continuance in well doing," and '■' growth in grace, [favor] and in the i^nowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," by continuing in, observing, or keeping his word,^ and re- quire, him to show the contrary. Here, Bro. 0. B., if he should be consistent with his for- mer assertions, and with those of his school, would say that one could not be a Christian and a slave-holder; that to be a Christian and guilty of " the sin of slavery," " the sum of all villianies," "the monster iniquity," "the colossal crime," and "associated with the diabolical institution of chattel slavery," it "is a thought too revolting for calm consid- eration." This would bring us back to the starting point ; that the institution of slavery is a sin. But, Bro. 0. B. is not dis- (1) Rom. ii, 7 : 2 Peter, iii, 18 ; John viii, 31, 32. 74 INTRODUCTION. posed to attempt to prove it to be a sin. The result, then, would be, that slavery is not a sin ; but according to 0. B., some things that slave-holders do, and which, he says, are the effects and consequences of slavery, are sins. 0. B. can not consider slavery in the abstract, but in the concrete, if he discusses it. There is no abstract or con- crete about it. It is neither compound nor complex. It is a simple single relation. If it were proposed to inquire as to the sinfulness of adultery, or drunkenness, how strange would it sound to hear one of those who proposed to discuss it, say, that he could not consider it in the abstract but in the concrete, if he discusses it ! and insist upon mixing up ef- fects and consequences, either real or supposed, of adultery or drunkenness, in the discussion of it, so as to confine it (ac- cording to his notion,) to "American" adultery, or " Amer- ican" drunkenness ! The good word of the Lord does not so speak of persons or things. It denounces liars, fornicators, covetous, extor- tioners, idolators, drunkards, adulterers, whoremongers, ef- feminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, and railers, as sinners, without any abstraction or concretion about them, or either of them, and does not place slave- holders with them, either abstractly or concretely, notwith- standing, there then were as many slave-holders, when the Lord taught and the apostles wrote, as there were of the classes above enumerated. The good word of the Lord also denounces iying, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciv- iousness, idolatry, witchcraft, liatred^ variance.) emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, [sects] envyings, murder, drunkenness, re veilings, bitterness, anger, clariior, evil- speaking, malice and blasphemy, as sinful, without abstrac- tion or concretion, without designating them as Asiatic, Eu- ropean, or American, and does not place slavery among them, though it was as rife when that word was written, as these vices were, and abounded much more in the human family than it does now. If such a crusade against it as now exists, is so very essential, why was it not necessary for those inspired men to, at least, enumerate it among the vices that the good word of the Lord denounces as sinful ? Why did not the apostles make the discovery that Bro. 0. B. has, that failing to denounce it as a sin, " would be voluntarily to abjure allegiance to the Lord and Master, PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 75 and to renounce forever my [their] hope of heaven"? But they did not make the discovery, and did not so denounce it; and yet Peter and Paul put oiF this tabernacle, not only with the hope, but the full assurance of heaven. I will here add, also, that the good word of the Lord warns Christians, and enjoins upon them, that they should none of them " suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busy-body in other men's matters;" but that '' if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf."^ Suffer- ing as a Christian then, is not suffering as a busy-body in other men's matters; and the busy-body in other men's matters, is ranked with murderers and thieves, by the in- spired Peter, just before he put off the tabernacle of his body, as the Lord had showed him.^ 0. B. still insists that there is a court of conscience in the Lord's kingdom. I will be under great obligations to him, if he will cite me to the passage of the New Testament, establishing it ; for I confess that I have not seen it, and I think I have seen all that is in the book. There is nothing in the Lord's kingdom that is not mentioned in that book, that is certain. If it is not mentioned there, it is not in his kingdom. A few words to my much esteemed and amiable brother, E. Goodwin, Editor of the Record. In noticing our arti- cles, he says : " Whether the bodies and souls of men for whom Jesus died, may be chattelized, and sold on the auction block in common with horses and mules, without incurring the dis- pleasure of the great Father of all, is a question of no small moment. Still, as thousands of our fellow citizens, and even Christians, have been taught from infimcy to believe this all right, in the eyes of God and the light of the Bible, the subject demands serious scriptural investigation." This shows how great the mischief that railing, evil-speak- ing, and evil-surmising has done among us, when it, has produced such an effect upon so amiable and intelligent a brother, as the Editor of the Record. 1. The question he states is not involved in the inquiry whether slavery is sinful or not. 2. Nobody has been taught (1) 1 Pet. iv, 15, 16. (3; 2 Pet. i, 14. ■tb INTRODUCTION. as he states. 8. Christians neither believe nor pi'actice such things. Again : 1. The question is not involved ; for slaves (why could he not use that term instead of the false periphrasis " bod- ies and souls of men, for whom Jesus died " ?) are sold on the auction block only in three cases. 1. When the owner voluntarily puts them up at auction. 2. When they are sold by the sheriff' on execution. '6. When sold by execu- tors or administrators. The first, christians do not do, and 110 others do, except the regular slave dealer ; and he only gets the refractory slaves, who have failed to discharge their 'duty as slaves, as laid down by the apostles in the christian' scriptures, and are, I suppose, in the providence of God, 'thus punished for their sin in that failure. The 2d and 3d can not take place where the christian law ■to " owe no man anything*^^ is kept by the master. In that case, there will be no sheriff's sale of his property ; and his executors or administrators will deliver his slaves over to his heirs, and not put them on the auction stand. So, it is the sin of the slave, or of the master, that puts slaves on the auction block, and not the institution of slavery. Bro. Goodwin, like Bro. 0. B,, puts something that he supposes to be the effect and consequence of slavery, for slavery, and denounces that, saying it is a question of no small moment, when it is really not the question involved. 2. 3. Such things are not taught in the slave-holding communities ; and christians living in those communities, neither believe nor practice such things. Bro. Goodwin further says: " We hope, if the discussion is to go on, that Bro. J. S. will cease even to initmate that the North is chargable with all the horrors of the Southern rebellion, thus indirectly jus- tifying the South in their attempt to pull down our glorious temple of liberty." I have not even " intimated" that the North was charga- ble with all the horrors of our present unhappy and most unnecessary civil war. I have made no intimation the one way nor the other. I have been endeavoring to show some things wherein we of the North have erred in the unfortu- (1) Rom xiii, 8. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 77 nate q.uatrel, because I am writing for Northern readers, and addressing the Northern mind. In doing that, it is not necessary, nor even proper, to speak of the errors of those of the South. When I address the brethren of the South, (if I should ever have the opportunity of doing so,) then will be the proper time to show the errors into which they have fallen. In my opinion, grave errors have been committed, and are beins; committed, both North and South : and nei- ther " is chargable with all the horrors" of the present dis- tress, .People like to have the faults and errors of others pointed out, but not their own. The Lord and the apostles, however, did not teacli that w^ay. And as my lot is cast in the North, my duty is to cast in my mite, to aid us in the North to come to the light on the subject. We ought not to shun coming to the light of God's truth, lest, perchance, our deeds should be reproved. " He that doeth truth Com- eth to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God."^ And it is a weak excuse for not coming to the light, when it reproves our conduct, to say that it will indirectly justify the conduct of somebody else. It will not do so ;- but even if it will, '•' let God be true, but every m.au a iiar."^ That is what inspiration says in the premises. May the Lord enable us to come to the light, as He is in the light. ' J. S. (1) Johniii, 20--21.. (2) As evidence that this proposition is true, I will cite what the great British statesman Edmund Burke said in the time of our revolution. Speaking of those who were opposed to the policy of the government, he said : " They have l^een told that their dissent from violent measures is au encouragement to rebellion. Men of great presumption and little knowledge will hold a language which is contradicted by the whole course of history. General rebellions and revolts of a whole people never were encouraged, now or at any time. They are always provoked. But if this unheard of doctrine of the encouragement of rebellion were true ; if it were true that the assurance of the friendship of numbers in this countrj- toward the colonies could become an encouragement to them to break off all connection with it, what is the inference ? Does any body seriously maintain that, charged with my share of the public councils, I am obliged not to resist projects which I think mischievous, lest men who suffer should be en- couraged to resist? The very tendency of such projects to produce rebellion is one of the chief reasons against them. Shall tliat reason not 1)e given? Is it then a rule that no man in this nation shall open his mouth in favor of the colonies ; shall defend their rights, or com- plain of their sufferings ? or when war finally breaks out, no man shall express his desire of peace ? Has this been the law of our past, or is it to be the terms of our future connection ? Even looking no further than ourselves, can it be true loyalty to any Government, or true patriotism toward any country, to degrade their solemn councils into servile drawing- rooms, to flatter their pride and passions, rather than to enlighten their reason, and pre- vent them from being cautioned against violence, lest others should be encouraged to resis- tance ? By such acciuiescence great kings and mighty nations have been undone, and if any are at this day in a perilous situation from rejecting truth and listening to flattery, it would rather become them to reform the errors under which they suffer, than to reproach those viYla forewarn them of their danger."— ^-ar/u's Utter to the sheriff a of Bristol, publUh.- ed iJi April, 1777. (3) Rom.iii, 3-4. 78 INTRODUCTION. REMARKS. As Bro. J. S. has paid his respects, in a very kind and respectful manner to the Record, duty and the rules of rec- iprocity demand a few remarks from me. Bro. J. S. sup- poses that it was the railings, evil speaking and evil sur- mizings of others, that led me to say — "Whether the bod- ies and souls of men for whom Jesus died, may be chattel- ized and sold on the auction block, in common with horses and mules, without incurring the displeasure of the great Father of all, is a question of no small moment. Still, as thousands of our fellow citizens and even christians, have, been taught from infancy to believe this all right, in the eyes of God and the light of the Bible, the subject demands serious, scriptural investigation." In this my Bro. is mistaken. Evil surmizing and evil speaking does not thus effect me. My remarks were prompted by facts. But Bro. J. S. says — " no body has been so taught, as he (I) states." What! Nobody taught that slaves may be sold on the auction-block in common with other property, without incurring the displeasure of God ! ! Bro. J. S., " I speak that I know, and testify that I have seen." I know that many good and pious men in the slaveholding States mourn over this state of things, and shed tears at tiie sight of such sales ; but still it is true, that thousands, and tens of thousands are taught and there- fore believe that the sale of slave-man is just as righteous as the sale of a horse or mule. Our good brother thinks I should have said " Slaves,'' and not " the souls and bodies for whom Jesus died." Did not Jesus die for the slave as well as for the master ? If so, my phraseology is correct. Even the term sprvant, would sound a little more softly on many .ears than the word slave. But this is no reason why the naked truth should not be spoken; or, that things should not be called by their proper names. I have found a few persons who denied that Christ died for Africans, or the negro race; but surely this is not Avhat Bro. J. S. means. Yet he says, to express the term slaves, by " the souls and bodies of men for whom Jesus died," is " a false paraphrase " ! But Bro. J. S., admits that slaves are sold on the auction block under three classes of circumstances. That admis- sion is enough to place the whole institution under the ban PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 79 of condemnation.^ Bro. J. S. says, slaves can not be sold at auction by a sheriff, or admidistrator where the christian law, to "owe no man anything," is kept by the master. But such sales often become necessary to make equal divis- ions of esta.tes. And then that law is not always kept ac- cording to the strict letter, even by christians; and thousands of slaveholders do not profess to be governed by the law of Christ. Good men often become involved so that their property fiills into the sheriff's hands. Hence, I conclude that any law that places human beings on a level with brute property, and subjects them to be thus exposed by the im- prudent trading of their master, is an unrighteous law. Bro. J. S. denies that he has ever " intimated that the North is chargeable with ' all' the horrors of our present un- happy and most unnecessary civil war." It was in view of the following paragraph that I made the remark to which he refers, as found in the 18th number of our weekly : " But it has been harped so long [that slavery is a sin] that thousands of excellent people have got tjo believe that it is true, that it is a sin ; and hence, as they desire to eradicate all sin from the earth, they have entered into cru- sades against it, increasing in intensity and vigor, till our present woful condition exists." My conclusion from this was, that Bro. J. S. blamed this awful war, with all its horrors, upon the slavery agitation in the North, and, indirectly, justified the South in their rebel- lion. I am glad, however, that I have given him the occa- sion to explain ; and that he now tells us that he did not mean to be so understood. That great national evils have been committed both North and South, I admit ; but I am far from admitting that the course pursued by a few fanat- ics in the North who had but little influence either North or South, has caused this horrible rebellion. But this is no time to inquire who caused the rebellion, 'net the storm be pass- ed, and the nation become sober, before we agitate that question. (1) What a strange notion ! What passage of scripture proves this assertion of broth- er Goodwin? 80 INTRODUCTION. [From the Christian Record of June 17th, 1862.] FANATICISM OF ERROR. Bro. Goodwin: — I regret to be under the necessity to oc- cupy more space in the Record, and more of the time and attention of its readers, in a discussion with J. S. without the prospect of soon reaching the real subject of discussion. If J. IS. and myself are to give our views upon the subject of slavery, it were time that we began the argument. If that is not the purpose, we need not lagouble ourselves, or the readers of the Record, with so lengthy a logomachy. I suppose, however, that I must still follow J. S. so far as to notice briefly some of the contents of his last article. J. S. still regards me as having fallen into the " fanaticism of error," while I regard him as its willing captive. Which of us is the best illustration of that species of fanaticism, is a question upon which, as a matter of course, we should differ, and upon which the reader will form his own opinion with- out reference to ours. J. S. complg,ins that I have done him injustice, in my re- marks upon his paralleling the institutions of marriage and slavery. Some injustice may have been done by those re- marks, to his unexpressed sentiments and convictions, but I still think I gave a fair construction of the language he used. He spoke of both marriage and slavery as simple institutions of civil government, and neither assigned to the one a higher, or the other a lower rank. I accept his dis- claimer of any intention to represent • them as equal, but still he has not assigned to them, or to either of them, any other rank. In the event of his prosecuting this discus- sion, if he does not yet attempt to exalt slavery to the rank of a divine institution, I shall be agreeably disappointed. In reference to a court of conscience in the Lord's king- dom, and the propriety of an agreed or hypothetical (fase for the trial of slavery there, I have nothing to retract from what I have said upon that subject. To my conception, there is a quality, faculty, or power of the mind, which in- vestigates and decides upon the moral character of acts done or contemplated. It is its province to hear and de- termine the case presented, and hence, by no unauthorized PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 81 figure of speech, it may be called a court. That quality, faculty, or power of the mind, I call conscience, and it is so called by the common consent of mankind. It tries and determines the moral character of acts contemplated, as well as of acts done. To do this, the act contemphited is in mental contemplation regarded as done, and thus an agreed or hypothetical case is made out and submitted to the decision of conscience. This J. S. calls fiction, and gravely talks of my "proneness to deal in fiction," and keeps repeating, for my benefit, the apostolical injunction, "think of whatsoever things are true." I claim that I have not violated truth in this matter, and that J. S. has sufiScient intellect to appreciate that fact. It is unworthy of him, and of the subject, to resort to a species of pettifogging, for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the readers against me, and against such arguments as I may use in opposition to chattel slavery. But I ought, perhaps, to excuse J. S. for although he has long been a citizen of the Lord's kingdom, he has not yet learned that there is in that kingdom a court of con- science, and doubtingly requests me to " cite to the passage of the New Testament establishing it." It would draw me from my present purpose to attempt that now; but perhaps wdien the matter in liand is disposed of, I may find leisure to attend to his request. But for the present, to use an- other figure of speech in reference to the conscience, or another fiction, if J. S. will so regard it, let me say, that to my co]itemplation, the conscience is the Lord's garden in the human heart. It has cost him much of labor, much of suffering, to make it good, to cleanse, purify, and enlighten it, and to render it a fit and proper place of his resort, for the purpose of holding communion with the human soul. And v.hen, in the cool of life's summer day, he shall come to walk in this his garden, happy is the man who, with hum- ble boldness, can meet and commune with him there. But it is to be feared that, upon such occasions, many other than Father Adam will be found holding themselves from his presence, not, perhaps, in the shadow of the trees of the ancient paradise, but beneath the deeper shadows of those specimens of political growth called civil institutions. I can not attempt to follow J. S. in all he says upon the subject of slavery. His track is too intricate, or at least 82 • INTRODUCTION. diverges too far from my line of thought to induce an effort on my part to do so. I will, however, notice some of the items. J. S. understands me to have admitted, " that the institu- tion of slavery is not a sin — that it is not sin to hold the relation of master to a slave — in other words, that it is not sin to own a slave." I have made no such admission, not even in reference to the insfitntion of slavery, contemplated in the total exclusion of its incidents and qualities — its ef- fects and consequences. If he will revise my remarks,'*he will find, that by fair construction, my language has directly the opposite meaning. I said, however, that the discussion of the moral character of the institution — the simple theory of slavery so contemplated — would be unprofitable. I did not refer to the relation of a master to a slave, or to the claim by one man to own another as slave property. These are some of the incidents and qualities of slavery — the ef- fects and consequences of the institution. The moral char- acter of the relation and of the claim, I have not yet de- clined to discuss with J. S. The subject is fully embraced in the proposition I have submitted. I hold, that the legal- ized relation of the master to the slave is sinful, and that the legalized claim of one human being to another as his slave, his chattel property, is sin. The agitation of the subject of slavery has deeply " vexed the righteous soul" of J. S. With or without reason or appropriateness, and both in season and out of season, he makes hostile demonstrations against those whom he calls agitators. Hence, he cites freely, and at random, from por- tions of the Holy Scriptures, designating various crimes and offences, italicising such of these crimes and offences as he regards as applicable to these agitators. The italics are in- tended to give them point, and indicate the purpose for which the quotations are made. They have no apprecia- ble reference to the subject of which he is treating. But if I mistake not, these missiles will much more frequently light upon his own head than reach the mark at which he aims them. He had better reserve his fire, and not waste his ammunition, by firing at long range, under circumstan- ces that leave his preGumed antagonists ever in doubt, whether he is aiming at them. Should he reach the field of conflict, he will need all his ammunition then, and still may PKELIxMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 83 •Hnd himself under the necessity of retiring for the want of more. At any rate, he shouhl exercise more judgment and discretion in the selection and use of his missiles, lest he should inflict upon himself the wounds he intends for others. J. S. has said, that the institution of slavery is a question of political economy — an institution of civil government — a civil institution — a State institution — and as such is not sinful, and yet he declines to discuss the question of the moral character of American slavery, and talks gravely about the impropriety of designating slavery as American. He thinks it would sound strange, if one who proposed to inquire into the sinfulness of adultery, or drunkenness, should insist upon confining the discussion to American adultery or drunkenness. If adultery and drunkenness were institutions established, legalized and protected by State laws — if they were institutions of civil government, such limitation of discussion in reference to them would seem to me appropria4:e. There is, we are told, in the ter- ritory of Utah, an institution of adultery, legalized and pro- tected by the Utah laws, and there it would be most perti- nent and most appropriate to discuss the moral character of Utah adultery. The agitation of which J. S. complains so bitterly, is and has been wholly in reference to Americayi slavery, and the claims and conduct of the master to the slaves, as legalized and protected by American laws. Of this J. S. is well aware, and if disposed to meet the real question at issue, he will consent to discuss my proposition, or some other one, involving about what is intended to be expressed by it. He has submitted no proposition himself, nor has he sug- gested any one in tangible form. I therefore conclude that he does not intend to discuss the question, but simply seeks an opportunity to discharge a few arrows, Parthian like, at the advancing antagonists of chattel slavery. Unless his next article, should he think proper to furnish another, shall be at least some approximation to the point, my impression now is, that I shall not attempt to follow him further. However, as I have submitted a proposition, and as yet have offered no argument to sustain it, I may be disposed, with the consent of the editor of the Record^ to make some effort, in an article or two, to prove that American slavery is sin. But I leave that matter open for further considera- tion. 0. B. 84 INTRODUCTION. FANATICISM OF ERROR. REPLY OF J. S. TO E. G. SO Ills vf I ^;ol.i -)Q e«, w! til- of all, , is A few remarks are proper in reply t© Bro. Goodwin. If any nrian " consent not to^wliolesonie words, he is proud^, -^ ^ -'" but doting about questions and strife of words, whereof Cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse dis- putings, (gallings one of another, marginal reading^ of men of corrupt, minds (wholly corrupted in mind, lUw Trandaiion^ and destitute of the truth. "^ We are enjoined not only to hold fast " sound words," but even ^'the form" of them.^ Well might we be so enjoined and commanded, and how great heed should we take to observe the injunction when we speak of matters pertaining to the Lord, his laws and kingdom, may be seen, when we consider that the Lord himself gave to his disciples, and through them to us, *' the ^vore masters, but they are delivered up to the earth. Hence, I said, that "the bodies and souls of men for whom Jesus died," was a false periphrasis for the word slaves. It is false. For "the services and labor of men," is the true periphrasis for the word. And the clause "for whom Jesus died," is an unnecessary appendage, and, it seems to me, is added only to make improper impressions upon pious and kind-hearted brethren and sisters, and is a random use of words and phrases that christian teachers should not indulge in. Bro. Goodwin's labor and services, and mine, and all the christian brethren and sisters' labors and services, belong to, and are owned by the Lord — so did Paul's ; and by looking at 2 Cor. xi. 23-38, we will see what great and hard labors and services were exacted of him hy the Lord. Having done this, let us reflect a moment, and see what we think of using such language as, the body and soul of a man for whom Jesus died, five times whipped with thirty-nine lashes each time; thrice beaten with rods: once stoned; thrice shipvrrecked ; a night and a day in the deep; in traveling, often in the perils of the water, of robbers, of Jews, of the heathen, in the city, in the wilderness, in the sea, and among false brethren; in Aveariness and painful- ness, and watchings, often in hunger and thirst, and fast- ings, in cold and nakedness ; and besides all these things of outward bodily sufferings, the daily mental labor and anxiety of the care of all the churches placed on him; and he finally put to a violent death by a wicked heathen ; all this exacted hy his master. Can this be done ? Can such an institution exist "without incurring the displeasure of the Great Father of all'"? It does look somewhat like both Paul's body and soul were " chattelized ;" but they were not. His services, labor and sufferings were all of Paul, that the Lord reduced to property, when he "captured" him, and "reduced" him to his service. But slave- owners only have property in the labors and services of their slaves — not in their sufferings, nor live^, as the Lord had in Paul, and has in all christians. Bro. Goodwin thinks that the admission that slaves (he there uses the term) are sold on the auction-block, is enough 86 , INTRODUCTION. to place the whole institution under the ban of condemna- tion ; and he concludes that any law allowing it, is an un- rirrhteous law. Here we see that it is the laiu that he ob- jects to, and not to slavery. Well, as neither the Savior nor the apostles ever gave an opinion of the goodness or badness of any of the laws, or of any of the kingdoms of this world,fI shall refrain from discussing that question in a religious discussion, in a religious paper. In a political forum, I am, and always have been, ready to do it, but not here. J- S. June 11, 1862. REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.. Upon the foregoing from our esteemed Bro. J. S., a few remarks may be necessary. I have no disposition to enter into a general discussion of the subject of American slavery with J. S. or any other person, especially the political phase of the subject. Particularly would this be improper on my part, while the preliminaries of a 'discussion of that subject, between Bro J. S. and another brother, are in course of adjustment. I know, too, that this is a very exciting sub- ject, 9nd one that is difficult to either oppose or defend, without becoming extravagant in the use of terms. Bro. J. S. seems to think ^that I have become guilty of this extravagance, because I used the terms, "souls and bodies of men for whom Jesus died," to express slaves, and he gravely informs us, " that the bodies of slaves are not chattelized, but they belong to the slaves during their natu- ral lives, and at death they are returned to the earth, the mother of us all. The souls of the slaves are not chattel- ized, but they belong to the slaves, and to the God and Father of all our spirits." I am inclined to think this is a new definition of slavery, formed to suit the occasion. The body and soul of the slave belongs to the slave, and the slave's service belongs to the masterj Where, then, is the slave? The slave owns the body and soul — who is that slave? If the slave owns the slave's body, he has a right to use that body as he may think proper. Suppose a certain slave should conclude to move his body, which belongs to him, from Kentucky to Canada, what would the master do or say ? I am inclined PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 87 to think he would pursue the slave, and, if caught in the United States, would compel him to bring that body back by the force of the fugitive slave law. In vain might the slave claim that the body was his own ; the master would claim the man, and all that goes to constitute the man. But what is the fact in the case ? Look over the tax-list of a slave State, and you will see horses, mules and slaves, put down as property, withq^ut any distinction being made between the slave man and his service. When a man is put up at auction, the cryer does not call for bids on the services of the man, but on the man himself. 'Tis true, the pur- chaser expects to get service out of the slave, but he buys the man in the hope of the service. Just so when he buys a horse or mule. He buys the animal for the sake of the service he can get out of him. Thus the man and the mules are sold in common. Let us hear what Mr. Cobb, the great expounder of slave law and defender of Ameri- can slavery, says. He says: " Of the other great absolute right of a freeman, viz : the right of jprivate property, the slave is entirely deprived. His person and his time being entirely the property of his master, whatever he may accumulate by his labor, or is oth- erwise acquired by him, becomes immediately the property of the master." There is the plain truth in the case, stated by one of the ablest defenders of the institution, of the present age. Bro. J. S. admits virtually, that Christ died for the souls and bodies of slaves ; and that it would be wrong, therefore, to chattelize them, and sell them in common with horses and mules. Such a thing is too revolting for his moral feelings. Hence, he is not willing to admit that any body does it. Still he must admit that the master has supreme control over the body of the slave. Thus my statement of the case is correct, as shown above. Bro. J. S. thinks the phrase, " for whom Jesus died," is " an unnecessary appendage." I think not. It shows the worth of the person sold. Should I say my neighbor killed my horse, the offence would appear great; but if I should say, my horse for which I paid five hundred dollars, the crime would appear still greater. So, to sell a man. seems hard, but when we add the man for whom Jesus died, it gives us a more just conception of the magnitude of the offence. That the per- 88 INTRODUCTION. son is sold and becomes the property of the purchaser, we have proved ; and as it takes both soul and body to make the person, then the souls and bodies for whom Jesus died, is chattelized and sold. We did not use the phrase to make improper impressions upon the minds of the brethren and sisters, as our brother seems to suppose. Our object was to place the practice in its true color before our readers. I know w^e may conceal the enormity of a crime by giving it a pretty name ; but, that we may see things as they are, we should call them by their proper names. Bro. J. S. don't like the name; then let him not defend the tiling. What does Bro. J. S. mean by the example of Paul which he here introduces? The Lord claimed the services of Paul, and thd master claims the services of his slave ; all the dif- ference that he makes between the claims of the Lord upon Paul, and the claims of the master upon his slave, is, that the Lord claimed Paul's life and suiferings, while the master only claims the slave's services. But Paul's master re- warded him for his toils — do slaveholders reward their slaves according to their works ? If Bro. J. 8. is unwilling to defend the traffic in human flesh, let him say no more in favor of the institution. [From the Christian Record of July 17, 1862.] FANATICISM OF ERROR. Absence from home prevented an earlier notice of the ar- ticles of brethren 0. B. and the Editor,' which appeared in the Record of the 17th of June. Our heavenly Father has been so kind to our fallen and sinful race, as not only to provide a way for redeeming, re- generating and elevating us from our fallen and ruined condition, to a position higher in the scale of existence than Adam held before he sinned, but he has, by and through the Lord, instructed us, and revealed to us his will in the prem- ises, and what he requires of us. He has not only revealed in his good word, what he requires of us, but, to prevent PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 89 any mistake or misapprehension, he has, in his word, defined most of the tilings that it is important for us to knoiv to un- derstand his commands to us, and our duty a? members of the Lord's kingdom in this world. And we are commanded to hohl fast to sound words — wholesome words — in speak- ing of the Lord, his laws, and the matters pertaining and relating to his kingdom ; and we are explicitly told that those who will not consent to wholesome words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, are proud, knowing nothing, &c. Hence, my objections to words and phrases used by brother 0. B. and the Editor, are not because they are " revolting to my moral feelings," nor because I " don't like them/^ but because they are untrue, unsound, and unwholesome. Neither our "moral feelings," or "sensibilities," nor our " consciences," are tests of truth in ascertaining the Lord's will ; but the Scriptures given by inspiration are the tests ; and they " thoroughly furnish the man of God to every good work," and give him " instruction in righteousness," that he " may be perfect."^ In the good word of the Lord, sin is defined ; righteous- ness is defined ; and slavery is defined. Si7i is doing what is forbidden, or failing to do what is commanded. Right eousness^ is doing what is commanded. Slavery, like many other things, is neither sinful nor right- eous ; hence, brother 0. B. need not be alarmed lest I should " attempt to exalt slavery to the rank of a Divine institution." I here simpily state these things without ad- ducing the proofs. I will do it when proper. Slavery, is obedience to some person or thing. In proof of this, I adduce the following passages of Scrip- ture, quoting each as in the common version, in Wesley's Translation, and in tlio New Translation, published by Bro. Campbell. 1. To whom you yield yourselves servants (slaves) to obey, his servants (slaves) ye are to whom ye obey.- — Com- mon Version. Wesley^s is the same, except that to before whom is omit- ted in the last clause. To whom ye present yourselves servants, (slaves) hy ooe- (1) 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. (2) Kom. vi, 16. 90 INTRODUCTION. dience, his servants (slaves) you are whom you thus obey. — JUiew Translation. 2. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he 'brought into bondage.^ — Coin. Vers. For by whom a man is overcome, by him is he also brought into slavery. — Wesley. For every one is enslaved by that which overcomes him. — Netv Trans. 3. Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (slave) of sin.^ — Com. Yers. He that committeth sin is the slave of sin. — Wesley. Whosoever commits sin is the slave of sin. — New Trans. The Lord, while here, was a slave and a master, and his slaves were his brethren. He took upon himself the form of a servant, (slave) and being found in that form, he became a slave by humbling himself and becoming ohedierit. He became obedient to his Father unto death, even the ignnominious and painful death of the Cross." " Ye call me Master and Lord : and ye say well ; for so I am."'' " One is your Master, even Christ.''^ " Whosover shall do the will of my Father, is my brother.''^ *' Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these, my brethren," &c.'^ The Lord, then, while here, was a slave ; he was also then, and now is, a Master, and a master too over his breth- ren. He occupied both positions in the relation of master and slave. Yet he was without sin.* He neither sinned by being a slave, nor by being a master. I state this that Bro. Goodwin may see what I mean by this example; inasmuch as he inquires what I meant by the •example of Paul, in my last. The Lord was a Master to Paul, and Paul was his slave ; and I showed what great la- bor, services and sufferings the Lord exacted of Paul, much worse than selling his services and labor upon the " auction block," to a cotton or sugar planter, would have been ; and that this was done by the Lord, " without incurring the dis- pleasure of the great Father of all." Yet brother Goodwin insists that the definition I gave of slavery in my last is a new definition, though as old as the (1) 2 Pet. ii, 19. (*) John xiii, 13. (7) Matt, xxv, 40. (2) John viii, 34. (5) Matt, xxiii, 8, 10. (8) Heb. iv, 15; IJohn iii, 5. (3) Phil, ii, r, 8. (6) Matt, xii, 50. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 91 apostolic writings; and he quotes Mr. Cobb. I respectfully insist that the good word of the Lord is more reliable than the word of Mr. Cobb, though he may be a ''great expounder of slave law." " A greater than Solomon " is the authority that I respectfully beg leave to submit to, myself. Others, of course, will decide and act for themselves, as to which authority they will accept, as we each have to account sep- arately for himself, and not for another. Obedience is slavery, and overcoming is mastery, according to that author- ity which is greater than Solomon. Brother Goodwin says : "If Bro. J, S. is unwilling to defend the traffic in human flesh, let him say no more in favor of the institution" of slavery. Here " traffic in human flesh," and " the institution of slavery," are used as convertible phrases, meaning exactly the same thing. And I suppose that he thinks that this is a correct definition, and that he is using " sound words, wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ." Is not traffic in hog flesh, cattle flesh and sheep flesh, re- spectively, traffic in pork, beef and mutton, slaughtered and ready for market? It certainly is. Is the institution of slavery traffic in the flesh of slaves, slaughtered and ready for market in the butcher's stall ? What a. monstrous use of words I what an abuse of words ! and in a religious dis- cussion in a religious paper ! ! Thus miscalling things, and misrepresenting the institu- tution of slavery, has been, and is, a principal means used to mislead the public mind of the brotherhood upon the subject. And the principal thii?g to do, to disabuse the public mind, and let in the light of divine truth, by which we can look at things and see them as they are, is to cor- rect this reckless and improper mode of expression. " Persons held to service or labor," are to be given up and returned back, says the Constitution of the United States.^ The Constitution gives the same definition of slavery that the inspired writers do. Held to service and labor is the language ; that is, held to serve and labor for the master — not held that the master may traffic in their flesh in the butcher's stall. In the meantime, the bodies (1) Const, art. iv, $ 2. 92 INTRODUCTION. and souls of the slaves are as much theirs, as those of the masters are theirs. And the fact that the bodies of the slaves are the slave's bodies, while their services and labor belong to their masters, no more entitles the slave " to use that body as he may think proper" in going to Canada or otherwheres, so as to deprive the master of the labor and services of the slave, than brother Goodwin is entitled to use his body as he may think proper, by becoming a thief, a robber, or keeping a doggery, or a brothel, and so deprive the Lord and the christian brotherhood of his labor and services as a christian preacher and editor. And will brother Goodwin say, that, as this is so, his body and soul do not belong to him? I apprehend not; and yet it can be as truly said of him as of any Kentucky slave. Would he say that he was chattelized ; that his flesh was trafficked in ? I apprehend not. Would he, instead of saying as the ancient and inspired slaves of the Lord did — Paul or Peter, a slave of Jesus Christ, &c. — say, the body and soul of one Elijah Goodwin, for whom Jesus died, chattelized by Christ, &c. I am certain that brother Goodwin would not use such lan- guage. He says that he did not use the phrase "for whom Jesus died," to make an improper impression. If not, and he only wanted to use a proper phrase descriptive of the per- son, why did he not use the phrase, "who die in Adam?"^ That is equally true with the other, and would have placed " the practice in its true colors before our readers," as much as the other did — yea, and more ; for there is a mawkish, morbid condition of the public mind at present on the sub- ject, created by long "harping," that makes such a use of the phrase produce an improper impression at the present time. The " thing " brother Goodwin speaks of, I do not " defend." I object to the name he gives it, not because I dislike it, but because it is untrue, and contrary to the directions given us in the good word of the Lord as to the use of tvoi^ds, and the contemplation of tJiings. But, with him I say, "that we may see things as they are, v^e should call them by their proper names." And this is what I am trying to get him to do. Brother Goodwin says, "Paul's Master rewarded him for his toils — do slaveholders reward their slaves according to their works ? " (1) 1 Cor. XV. 22. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. Ud If they do not, their sin is in failing to discharge their duty as masters to their slaves, as laid down in the christian Scriptures, and not in owning the slaves. Masters, as well as fathers, have great responsibilities resting upon them. I am opposed to the institution of slavery as a question of political economy; and, were that out of the way, and I lived where the institution existed, I should not assume the relation of master. I have a wife and eight living children, which gives me full as much responsibility, as a husband and father, as I want to have to bear, v/ithout adding to it the responsibility, as a master, of one or more slaves. But because Paul and all the christians have a good Master in the Lord, while some masters of slaves are " forward," and sin greatly in their conduct toward their slaves, that's being so, neither proves the one slavery righteous, nor the other slavery sinful. It only proves the one master " perfect," and the other a great scamp (if I may use the term.) The Lord was made perfect through the suffering he endured while a slave, and as a slave.* Does brother Goodwin know how much nearer perfect the slaves of the United States are than the same race is in Africa, whence they came?^ Does he know why the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, though they were the elect people of God ? Does he know why the Lord humbled himself and became obedient (that is, a slave) unto death, even the death of the Cross, to make him per- fect through sufferings? If he does not — if these are " deep things of (Jod,"^ that he can't fathom any more than I can, (and I confess I can't) let him not, on that account, berate his and my brethren who live in the slave States, and their institutions and domestic relations, and call them hard names unwarranted, and even condemned by the (1) Heb. ii, 10; and v, 8, 9. (2) That the reader may see the condition of the negro race in Africa, and compare it with the condition of the negro race in the slave States of this Union, I append the follow- ing: Seven Thousand Negroes Butchered.— The West African HercUd publishes statements of the horrible massacres reeently committed by his ebony Highness, the King of Dahomey. Several persons agree in stating that the number of negroes slain on the occasion was esti- mated at 2,000, but another correspondent gives the number at 7,000. He says he was pres- ent by compulsion, and that the bh)od swept past him like a flood into a large reservoir. Another gentlemen, referring to these inhuman butcheries, says : "I assure you, it made me quite sick, and at the same time I felt stunned. The poor wretches met death with per- fect indifference." (3) ICor. ii, 10; and Rom. xi, 33. Because God's judgments or determinations as to the negroes, are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out, the abolitionists essay to take the matter into their own hands, and undertake to manage it for him. 94 INTRODUCTION. Scriptures, and thereby stir up wrath, envy, strife, railing, evil surmising, and gallings one of another. Whatever brother 0. B.'s " conception " may be as to the quality, faculty or power of the mind, and his system of philosophy as to conscience, and his "figures" about gar- dens, and his philosophy thereon, I respectfully beg to be excused from considering them. For the Lord has warned me to " beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions [teachings] of men," and not after the teachings of Christ ;^ and as he declines to cite me the passage of Scripture establishing the court of conscience in the Lord's kingdom, I decline to have any- thing to do with his philosophy, in a religious inquiry after the truth. He still insists that legalizing slavery and adultery makes them sinful, and that the *' legalized claim of one human being to another is sin." Does the legalizing of either of these, by human governments, make it a sin, when, if it were not legalized, it would not be a sin? Slavery is not legalized in Indiana, but it is in Kentucky. Are we to un- derstand him, that to hold a slave in Kentucky, by the laws thereof, is sin ; but not so if a slave is held in Indiana, for it is not legalized here ? If this is not what he means, why does he talk so much about legalized slavery? It is appar- ent that he wants to discuss, not slavery, but the laivs of the slave States. That is, he wants to enter into a christian (?) discussion of the things of the kingdoms of this world — a thing that neither the Lord nor the apostles did, and a thing that they forbid christians to do! He says, as adul- tery is legalized and protected in Utah, there it would be most pertinent and most appropriate to discuss the moral character of Utah adultery. Query : Did legalizing it make it either more or less sinful ? and is Utah adultery more or less sinful than Indiana adultery? Will he answer? Query 2 : As slavery is not legalized in Indiana, is it " most pertinent and appropriate to discuss the moral character of" Kentucky slavery here ? and if we do, do we not become busy-bodies in other men's matters? Brother 0. B. says I have submitted no proposition, nor suggested any one in a tangible form. The reader, by (1) Col. ii, 8. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 95 looking back, can see what weight this is entitled to. I have stated repeatedly the proposition, and in a postscript to my article in the Record of May 27th,^ I stated that, if 0. B. or A. R. B., or any of that school of opinion, would take the affirmative of it, I would discuss it. To stop all cavil, I will state it in form. Slavery is sinful. Slavery is sin. Is slavery sinful? Is slavery sin. It is stated here four ways. I take the negative of each of them. Will 0. B. affirm any of them? If he will, let him say so. If he will not, let him quit denouncing it as a sin. And let him quit denouncing it in words, when, what he supposes to be its effects, an that word is used and understood in popular language, and as it exists in American society, under the sanction and protec- tion of the laws of the slave States, I would give liim the opportunity to do so. If, however, it is something else, which he may term slavery, which he purposes to defend, and especially if that something else is construed to ( 'a- brace the willing service, and obedience of man to ids Maker, and of the christian to his Lord, I cjju certmnly have no controversy with him upon that subject. Defining slavery as above, I affirnn the proposition that " Slavery is sinful.'' This is the form suggested by J. S., and of course he will not object to it. What I may have to say upon the proposition will be directed to the considera- tion of the moral character of xVmerican slavery, referring, if at all, to servitude of other character, simply for the pur- pose of argument or illustration. J. S., of course, will choose his own manner of argument, and may occupy a field as extensive or as limited as he pleases. I shall not feel bound to follow him any farther than I may think it necessary to do so to establish the proposition, so far as it relates to American slavery. The proposition that " slavery is sinful," embraces the proposition that "slavery, as it ex- ists in American society, under and by virtue of the laws of the slaveholding States, is sinful," and if I choose to make my own remarks, specially applicable to the latter form of the proposition, J. S. can not complain, as 1 am willing to allow him the full latitude of the other form. It is not true that I have insisted, " that legalizing slavery and adultery makes them sinful." J. S. must have been PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 99 aware of his perversion of my language, when he made that statement. The idea which I intended to present, and which, I think, is clearly apparent to every honest and in- telligent reader, is, that the legalizing of either slavery or adultety does not change its moral character, or purge it of its native sinfulness. Although legalized and protected by the laws and usages of civil communities, slavery and adul- tery are yet sins against God and against humanity. This is certainly comprehensible to every one to whom the Great Father has furnished an ordinary share of brains, and I do not suspect J. S. of deficiency in this particular. There are other matters in the article of J. S. which it may be proper to notice in their proper place. They will probably again be presented should this discussion proceed, and may then require some attention. I therefore pass them now. * To escape this perpetual moving in a circle, or, perhaps, I should rather say, this rambling and purposeless discus- sion with .). S.,I will introduce here one argument to prove the proposition, that "slavery is sinful." If J. S. chooses to reply, I hope that he will attempt the refutation of this argument. " For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things." 1 Jonn iii, 20. Above and before all logical reasonings, the intuitions of man's moral nature assert the sinfulness of slavery. To these, to the enlightened christian conscience, to the moral convictions of the human heart in communion with God our heavenly Father, and in fellowship, and sympathy with Je- sus the Lord, I appeal, as my first and best evidence upon this issue. Whatever else I may say, however elaborate may be the further argument, upon this intuitive perception of tiie right, and conviction of the wrong, in the heart, en- lightened by God's word, and humanized by his love, I rely most confidently to sustain the proposition. Let me briefly state this argument. The love of liberty, the desire for personal freedom, is the strongest feeling in the human breast. It is the universal, all pervading senti- ment of humanity. Probably no individual of the human family can be found who does not desire liberty above all other earthly good. Each one feels that he has a right to himself — to the control of his own actions, and to the en- 100 INTRODUCTION. joyment of the fruits of his own labor, against the claim of any and all other human beings. The fiercest soldiers of the most unprincipled despotism are led to the battle-field by the war-cry of liberty, and in the fond delusion that they are fighting for this right to personal freedom. So highly is this boon prized by all men, that the very words, which are used to express it in human language, are chosen by inspiration to represent tho highest joys of the christian state, on earth and in heaven. Hence the following and innumerable other similar expressions in the word of God: '< The glorious liberty of the children of God ;" " The truth shall make you free;'' " If the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed f^ "But Jerusalem which is above is free;'' " Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made u& free.'' It is possible that those terms are here ysed in a more literal sense than many are willing to admit, but if we regard them as figuratively used, for the purpose of presenting to the mind the fullest and most correct ideas of the joys of the christian state here and hereafter, which can be communicated in human language, such use of them proves that liberty — personal freedom — is regarded as the greatest and highest blessing among men. I may venture to affirm, that of all the human family, there probably can not be found one individual, whatever may be his condition and circumstances in life, who is willing to be enslaved — to be made the property and subject to the absolute control of any other human being. We all desire that others should yield to us the right, and leave us in the enjoyment of per- sonal freedom. The Master has commanded that " all things whatsover you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them." Hence, desiring liberty ourselves, and wishing above all else, that our personal freedom may not be taken away from us, we are forbidden, by this express command of the Lord Jesus, to enslave, or attempt to enslave others. In the light of this divine command, no man may, without sin, become a master, or owner of another, who would not himself be willing to become the slave and property of his fellow man. This argument appeals to the conscience of every christian, and clearly ynd conclusively fixes the guilt of sin upon American slavery. Hence, I say, that the in- tuitions of man's moral nature, in the light of the divine PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 101 law, and under the promptings of an enlightened christian conscience, assert with deep earnestness the truth of the proposition, that " slavery is sin." 0. B. [From the Christian Record of July 29th, 1S62.] DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, Brother 0. B has at last agreed to affirm that Slavery is sinful, and to undertake to prove it. As I have agreed to discuss it with him on equal terms, if he would take the affirmative of it, it may now be under- stood as settled, that there is to be a discussion of that proposition. It is true that he puts a " defining slavery " with his agreeing to affirm the proposition ; but does not make that defining a part of the proposition ; hence, I am not to be understood as accepting his " defining slavery " as the proper definition of it. Should he insist upon his definition, in the discussion, and so place himself on the record therein, I will then attend to it. In order to arrange the equal terms upon vdiich the dis- cussion is to proceed, I propose for his consideration the following DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. Projjosition — Slavery is sinful. O.B. affirms; J. S. denies. RULES OF THE DISCUSSION. 1. Each party is to have equal space, say two columns, of the Christian Record, to each number ; any excess or deficiency of space in one or more numbers shall be allowed for in subsequent ones, so as to make the whole space occu- pied by the parties equal. 2. Each party shall have ten numbers, 0. B. opening and J. S. replying, and so on, until the numbers shall be com- pleted on each side. 102 INTRODUCTION. 3. When the discussion shall be completed, it shall be published in book form, inserting these preceding articles as an introduction, at the joint expense of the parties, each having an equal voice in the publication, if the parties shall then be willing to so publish it ; but if either shall decline to so publish it, the other shall have the right to do so at his own expense. These terms being equal and fliir, I suppose he will ac- cept them. If so, he may proceed at once to open the dis- cussion with number one of his articles. If he wants any modification of the rules, let him state it for ray considera- tion. I will agree to any terms that are equal and fair. Having disposed of this preliminary business matter, I will now notice what he says in his last article. He says : "J. S. has undertaken the defence of slavery," &c. 0. B. afiirms that slavery is sinful ; I deny it. Instead of saying that I deny that slavery is sinful, he says that I have undertaken the defence of slavery ! Let us look at this manner of speaking, using it in relation to another subject about which our reasons and intellects are not be- clouded. 0. B. says ISTapoleon was a base hypocrite. I deny it. Then 0. B. says : " J. S. has undertaken the de- fence of Napoleon! his Russian campaign, his overturning the free government of France and all," when I had only denied his charge that J^apoleon was a hypocrite. In searching after truth, we should speak of things truly. He says : " J. S. has denounced, in the bitterest terms, those whom he calls abolitionists and agitators of the sub- ject of slavery." I do not use bitter terms. The reader will please look back and see whether he can find them. 0. B. introduces " one argument to prove the proposi- tion that slavery is sinful," and it is this : " The intuitions of man's moral nature assert the sinfulness of slavery ;" and he says that this is his *' first and hest evidence upon this issue." Well, this is his first, and, with him, I think it is his best ; and it is no argument nor evidence at all. For the intui- tions of man's moral nature are not tests of sin and right- eousness — tests of truth. It is the spirit of truth that guides us into truth ;^ and it is not our intuitions, nor any- (1) John xvi, 13. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 103 thing that pertains to us, that we are to take or follow as a guide to the truth. And this spirit of truth guides us to the truth, by taking the things of the Lord and showing them to us,^ in and by the word of inspiration, which is the vrord of God ; and his word is truth." Hence, what the spirit of truth shows to us of the things of the Lord, is properly called by inspiration " the knowledge of the Lord," and is the only source of knowledge that we have. All else is "imagination," in which men become " vain," and get their " foolish hearts " " darkenened." " Professing themselves to be wise they become fools.'"^ They walk "in the vanity of their mind," as Gentiles walk, and not as christians walk, "having their undersiandi?ig dRvkened^ be- ing alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them."'^ But christians do not "war after the flesh ;" that is, in this Gentile and human manner of war- ring for the truth ; they war " casting down imagmations (reasonings, marginal reading^) and everything that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, [the knowledge God has revealed to us,] and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ," to the word of God — the truth of God.'^ Li briefly stating that first and best argument, he says : " The love of liberty, the desire of personal freedom, is the strongest feeling in the human breast," This is contradicted by the whole history of the human race, as well as by in- spiration, both of which prove that lust — the love of plea- sure and enjoyment — is the strongest feeling in the human breast. He quotes as a text for this first best argument, 1 John iii, 20 : " For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things-" This is a divinely in- spired assurance to us, that, if we are conscious ourselves, that we have disobeyed, or are disobeying God, by doing what he has forbidden us to do, or by failing to do what he has commanded us to do, that God is greater than our hearts, our own perception and consciousness of the fact, and knows all things, and herce, knows that we have disobeyed, or are disobeying. This being what that passage says, brother 0. B., by quoting it to prove slavery sinful, says: (1) John xvi, 15. (3) Rom.i, 21, 22. (5) 2 Cor. x, 3-5. (2) John xvii, IT. (4) Eph, iv, 11, 18. 104 INTRODUCTION. " Because, when we are conscious ourselves of disobedience, we may be assured that God knows it ; therefore, slavery is sinful f" What logic ! If his sense of the passage be the true sense, the next verse must be taken in the same sense. It reads : " Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence tow^ard God." And as the slaveholders' hearts condemn them not for holding slaves, they properly have confidence toward God, and it is all right with them. And as all idolaters' and anti-christians' hearts condemn them not, they may have confidence toward God that all is right. But the truth of God is, that sin and righteousness, ri<>-ht and wrong, are not thus tested, measured and ascer- tained. The word of the Lord is the test and measure. " The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day,"^ and not his heart, nor his conscience, nor his intuition, nor his anything else, shall judge him, either 0. B., myself, or the slaveholder. Sin and righteousness are not only thus tested and measured by the word of the Lord, and we judged by it at the last day, but in this life, if we live according to the will of God, we live, not by our intui- tions, our hearts, our consciences, our moral feelings, nor our sensibilities, "but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."^ Brother 0. B. hoped I would attempt a refutation of this his first best argument. The reader will see that I have at- tempted it, and Avill determine for himself w^hether I have succeeded in the attempt. He quotes the "golden rule." This does not prove slavery sinful ; but it is so much relied upon by those who 'a^^ree with Bro. 0. B., I will defer its consideration until it takes its regular place in the discussion, only saying now, for his and their benefit and consideration, that the phrase, " in like circumstances," which was interpolated into it in the catechisms and school-books I used to see when a boy, has to be interpolated into it to give it the sense, bearing and application he and they give it. J. b. July 21sf, 1862. (1) John xii, 43. (2) Matt, iv, 4; Deut. viii, 3. PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 105 [Editorial in the Christian Record of July 29lh, 1862.] THE DISCUSSION. . Our readers will learn from the article of Bro. J. S. in this issue, that the discussion of the moral character of slavery is about to proceed. With this some are very much delighted, while others are fearful it will result in evil. To all such we would say, be not uneasy; these brethren are among our old, well tried and experienced brethren ; they have passed the age of fiery youth; they both belong to the legal profession, and of course know how^ to conduct a discussion. This may not be the most favorable time for such a discussion, still, I am inclined to the opinion, that, if properly conducted, it will result in good. We have just received a private communication from Bro. J. S. from, which we take the followinn; : "Bro. Goodwin: — May we all be able to come to the knowledge of the truth; I. know I want nothing else; and if I am in error, I hope to be shown it, and for which I will be thankful. Being of the opinion that the error is on the other side, and that much mischief has been done, and is being done, by that error, is the reason why I feel it my imperative duty to cast in my humble mite to enable us all to come to the knowledge of the truth. I honestly believe we all want to find the truth, and pursue it. I know it to be the duty of all to do that; and as some of us are wrong, it is the duty of all of us to try to find where that wrong is, that those of us who are in error may amend our ways." This breathes the right spirit, and expresses a good rea- son for the discussion. While brethren discuss points of ditference for the sake of learning the truth, and not merely for the sake of the mastery in argument, good will result from the effort. That this may be the result of this iaves- tigation, is my prayer. There is one rule proposed by Bro. J. S. to which, as the proprietor of the paper, I have a right to object, namely, that when one of the parties fail to fill two columns with an article, he shall make up the deficit in a subsequent number. This might lead to an occasional article of too great length. The other rules proposed by Br. J. S. may be dispo&ed of as the parties may agree. 8 DISCUSSION OF SLA.VERY. Peoposition — Slavery is Sinful, 0. B. affirms; j. s. denies. [From the Christian Record of August 5th, 1862.] 0. B.'s FIRST AFFIRMATIVE. The editor of the Record^ in noticing the proposed dis- cussion between J. S. and myself, (which he seems to regard as a fixed fact,) says of J. S. and myself: " These brethren are among our old, well-tried and experienced brethren. They have passed the age of fiery youth ; they both belong to the legal profession." The readers of the Record will, of course, accept this statement of the editor as an assu- rance that the discussion, if it proceeds, will be conducted in the true christian spirit, and upon fair and honorable principles. But to J. S. and myself it is an admonition, and an intimation of what will be expected of us. I so ac- cept It. J. S., in a private note to the editor, professes a desire to come to a knowledge of the truth, and if in error, hopes to be shown that error, &c. I am not sure that a public discussion, either for or against any given proposition, is the right way to conviction of error on the part of either disputant, and I have never been vain enough to suppose even for a moment, that my powers of argument were sufficient to convince J. S. of the sinfulness of slavery after he should have committed himself publicly to disprove the proposition. The days of miraculous conversions are supposed to be past. For J. S. then, I have no hope of 108 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, a conversion. Others, who are not so committed, mny be reasoned with to more advantage. I partake largely in the doubt expressed by the editor, that " this may not be the most favorable time for such a discussion." The argument has been assumed by a Logician, stronger and more in earn- est than any human reasoner. His arguments are facts, fearful, terrible facts — deducing conclusions, and forcing convictions upon reluctant masses of men, which were hope- less of attainment by human reason. Awed and abashed by the developments of this stern logic, the friend of the oppressed is disposed to " stand still and see the salvation of God," and, in the presence of the "burning bush" of the Great Deliverer of Horeb, to feel rather than hear the admonition, " Draw not nigh hither, put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is Jioly f^round." But it may be, that, notwithstanding past deri- [ictions, the professedly christian church is not yet wholly rejected as an agency in the accomplishment of God's pur- poses — there may still be work for it in the moral field of this controversy. The Great Deliverer may yet accept the tardily proffered services of his people in the consumma- tion of his purpose for the deliverance of the oppressed. The hope and trust that this is so — the anxiety, not for the abolition of slavery, for that I regard as God's work, and 3ure of being accomplished, either with or without the aid and co-operation of either church or State ; but that the shurch and people of God may be his willing agents in this work, I am induced to make an effort to prosecute this dis- cussion so far as my time will permit, and as I may think it profitable to do so. But to the article of J. S. He says that I have " at last agreed to affirm that slavery is sinful, and to undertake to prove it." He may take to himself his own admonition, '' In searching after truth, we should speak of things truth- fully." If I understand myself, I have from the fii^sf affirmed that "slavery is sinful," and ray venturing to sug- gest th;it it was " a collossal crime," stirred him up to chal- lenge this debate. But first and last I have declined to dis- cuss any other form of slavery than that which is legalized in American society. With the distinct avowal that I should so limit myself, I have consented to the form of the proposition suggested by J. S. As I have the affirmative DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 109 of the question, it will be both ray privilege and my duty to lead in the discussion. It would be a work of superer- ogation for J. S. to defend where I make no attack, and it may, perhaps, be as much as he can accomplish to meet and refute successfully the arguments against American slavery. Should he make an effort to lead me farther, he will pardon me if I should not choose to follow. While American slavery is bringing upon us the rage, and the tempest of fiercest war, wrapping our towns and cities in flames, drenching our land in blood, and covering our fields with our slaughtered friends and relatives, I have no heart to turn aside from this one great question to discuss with J. S. the moral character of West India Cooleyism, Mexican, peonage, Russian serfdom, former English villianage, ancient Jewish servitude, or even Roman slavery. So far as any or all of these may be legitimately drawn into the discussion of American slaverj, I may give them the atten- tion which I niay deem necessary, but beyond that, I leave to J. S. the undisputed possession of those fields. J. S. does not like to be regarded as having undertaken to defend slavery. His restiveness under the imputation is a favorable indication. I hope that restiveness may in- crease, until he shall be induced to make a much stronger disclaimer. The hypothetical case he puts does not, as I perceive, help him out of the difficulty. With the foregoing explanation of my own position and purpose, I am willing that the proposition should stand as stated by J. S. As to the rules of discussion which he proposes^ they seem to me to contemplate a discussion more formal than I anticipated. I from the first declined a for- mal discussion, for the reasons that my health was too poor, and my time too much occupied, to enable me to promise so much. These reasons, especially the last one, exist now in still greater force than formerly. I am v/illing, how^ever, to make an effort to sustain the proposition by some argu- ments to be presented from time to time, as may be con- venient for me, to which J. S. can reply as lie thinks best. So far as it depends upon me, I am willing that it be under- stood, that each of us have the privilege of using an equal space in the Record for the presentation of our arguments, and in the order named by J. S., and that the limit or ex- tent of the privilege be determined by the editor of the 110 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. Record, either in advance or otherwise, as he maj think best. I woukl further stipuLite for J. S. that in the ab- sence of argument to fill up his portion of the space, he have the privilege of selecting at random, and incorporating in his argument, without reference to their pertinency or applicability to the question at issue, such portions of Holy Writ as he may desire thus to reproduce; for the Scripture *' is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The want of argument can not probably be better supplied ; for however inapplicable to the subject, the quotations will be profitable, for some purpose, to the devout reader. I had not contemplated writing a book. My impression is, that it would be an unprofitable investment, either pecu- niarily or otherwise. I suppose, however, that either party would have the right to publish the discussion at his own expense, as no copy-right is contemplated by either. As J. S. has intimated his desire for such publication, I wish it understood, that neither party will make the publication without the co-operation of the other, unless the other first decline to co-operate on equal terms. Having disposed of these preliminary matters, I come now to the proposition itself. I affirm that "slavery is sin- ful." I have not room in this article to introduce any new- argument, but will re-state my former one, and notice the reply of J. S. to it. It is unfortunate either for mo, or for J. S., that he does not seem to understand that argument. It shows a want of capacity, either in me to state an argument clearly, or in him to comprehend it when so stated. Let me try again, and perhaps I may be better understood. The argument is capable of being presented in the form of a syllogism, and I will endeavor, by reversing the order in which it was stated, to so present it now. The first and major proposition in the syllogism may be stated as follows : The Lord Jesus commanded that " all things whatsoever yo would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." The second and minor proposition may be stated thus : The love of liberty is an intuition — an instinct of hu- manity. Above and before all logical reasonings, each one desipes for himself personal freedom, and rejects and repels, DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. Ill as most abhorrent to his nature, the idea of being made a slave, and held in bondage, subject to be used, controlled, and disposed of, as property, bj any other human being. These two propositions are the premises of the argument. The conclusion to be deduced from these premises is : That to deprive a human being of liberty, to reduce him to slavery, and hold him as property, subject to be used, con- trolled, and disposed of, as other property, is a transgres- sion of the law of the Lord, embraced in the first proposi- tion, and consequently sin. This conclusion is the inevita- ble sequence of the premises ; and if there be no error, no defect in either of the propositions, the argument proves bejond doubt or controversy, that "slavery is sinful." Is there error or defect in either proposition ? The first is the command of the Divine Master, and in the very words of the Holy Writ. It is addressed to man, under all circumstances, and in every condition in life, and covers the whole field of man's relation to man. It "is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," and appeals to man's intuitions, prompted by his self love, and claiming sympathy, consideration, assistance and justice from others, deducing from these intuitions, these promptings of a man's selfish desires, an infallible and unerring rule of conduct for him, in his actions towards others. J. S. will hardly venture to deny this proposition, vdiat- ever else he may say of it, to avoid its force in this argument. He does not, however, seem to know that it is a part of the argument as heretofore stated by me. I regard it as the basis of the argument, yet he passes it by with scarcely a notice, except to say that he "will defer its consideration until it takes its regular place in the discussion." As I have the affirmative, the onus of the proof of the proposi- tion lies upon me, and it is both my privilege and my duty to lead in the discussion. J. S. has the negative, and it is therefore incumbent on him to dispose of ray arguments as I introduce them. When he shall have accomplished that successfully, his work will be done. I have introduced this divine command as the major proposition, in what I have termed my "first and best evidence" in support of the main proposition. I so term it, for the reason that it covers the whole field, and pervades, with the light of a divine- 112 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. command, the whole subject of controversy. I expect that J. S. will give it proper attention. The second or minor proposition of the syllogism, as above stated, needs little to support it more than I have already said of it in my former articles, to which I refer the reader. The intuitions of man's nature, the very in- stincts of our being, are the proof which I adduce to sus- tain it. My proof is in the heart and consciousness of each reader. To the reader I appeal : " Would you willingly surrender your liberty — your personal freedom? Do you desire to be made a slave, and held in bondage, subject to be used, controlled, and disposed of, as property, by any other human being?" For a reply you would not pause to reason, and to canvass the advantages and disadvantages of such a position, but above and before all reasoning, and precluding all deliberation, out of the intuitions of your own hearts would come the prompt and indignant answer : " No ! Death rather than slavery." Were I to put the same question to J. S., I doubt not he Avould give them the same prompt and indignant reply. He could not so far forget his own manhood, and belie the instincts and intuitions of his own nature, as to hesitate or pause even to reason upon such a subject. This proposition of the syllogism I regard then as established beyond controversy, and have no fears that J. S will be able to refute it. The premises being established, the conclusion follows as a natural and inevitable sequence. That concUiEion is, that to enslave a human being, and hold him as property, sub- ject to be used, controlled and disposed of as other prop- erty, is a transgression of the divine law, in refusing to do to others as we would that they should do to us — and is therefore sin. Hence, I have said, and now repeat, that the intuitions of man's moral nature, in the light of the divine law, and un- der the promptings of an enlightened conscience, assert, with deep earnestness, the truth of the proposition that " slavery is sinful." In conclusion, I again quote from Holy Writ, and the quotution may perhaps be regarded as pertinent here: "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God."^ 0. B. (1) 1 John iii, 20, 21. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 118 [From the Christian Record of August 12th, 1862.] FIRST REPLY OF J. S. . I confess that I am surprised at the course of my brother 0. B. Instead of accepting the rules proposed by me for the discussion, or proposing them in a modified form^for my consideration, he has gone on in a rambling way, and set- tled nothing definitely. Logical discussion, to elicit truth, should be carried on under explicit rules, equal and fair. And the erratic course of those who denounce slavery as sinful, makes it the more necessary in a discussion with any of them, to have explicit, definite rules of discussion. They are rambling and erratic in their course, "wandering stars,"^ and should be tied down to pursue a rational course, when a grave examination, by "the word of truth," of their hallucinations, is undertaken. But it seems that this can not be had. They must first be restored to reason — to their "right mind"^ — before they can be induced to act rationally ; and 1 suppose I ought to have known that this is so. The first two paragraphs of 0. B.'s last article present another strong evidence of " fanaticism of error." The " wild notions " contained in them could as properly have been expressed by the Saracens of the year 650, and by the Crusaders of the year 1098, as by my brother 0. B. Whether such " wild notions " will be adhered to now as they were on those occasions, till as much mischief is done as was then done, the Lord only knows. May he yet avert such awful calamities, is my devout prayer. " Americnn slavery bringing upon us the rage and the tempest of the fiercest war"!! &c., says 0. B. in his last. If slavery brought on the war, why did it not bring on war during the first fifty years or this government? as it existed then more in proportion to the w^hole people, than now. All, however, was peace, till fanaticism sprang up. As well might the Crusaders have said, that the tomb of the Savior brought upon them the rage and tempest of war ; and have added, as is now added, that it must be exterminated, to take away the cause of the war, and give us lasting peace ! (1) Jude 13. (2) Mark v, 15. 114 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. It is strange what hallucinations can seize and lead cap- tive the human intellect. Alas! that it is so. But inspira- tion informs us, that because we receive not the love of the truth, God sends upon us such strong delusions.^ To cast in my humble mite, to bring us back to the love of the truth, and free us from such delusions that are working such great calamities among us, I shall, with the blessing and p*ermission of God, proceed with this discussion in the rambling, erratic course that my brother 0. B. seems dis- posed to take. If this is not " the most favorable time,'' it is certainly the time when it is most needful to find the truth and pursue it. I will say to the editor of the Record, that I did not con- template, in making up for deficiency of space, to have any articles of so great length as to discommode him. The fair construction of the rule I laid down, is, that the articles should all be, as nearly as may be, of two columns length; but not necessarily of that length ; and excesses or defi- ciencies afterwards allowed for in other articles — not in one. Brother 0. B.'s last article fills a little over two and a quar- ter columns. His argument, as reversed and re- stated, is entirely a dif- ferent syllogism from that previously stated. I will examine it as last stated. " Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets."^ 1. If this part of the word of the Lord did forbid slavery, and make it sinful, and if holding slaves was a violation of this Golden Rule of the Lord, that includes both the law and the prophets in it, the inspired apostles would certainly have so informed slaveholding masters, when converted to Chris- tianity, and would have required them to free their slaves. But they did not do so. They, by divine inspiration, pre- scribed rules by which the masters and slaves should govern themselves in their respective states and conditions to each other, as master and slave, and did not inform them that that relation was sinful — was a violation of the Golden Rule of the Lord — and that they must dissolve it. Paul substan- tially quoted this rule in two of his epistles, and yet in one (1) 2Thes. ii. 10. U. (2) Matt, vii, 12. DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. ^^ of these very epistles, he enjoined upon ""ff^ ,;;';^ ^=', „'^ their duty to each other, ^vithout saymg tl^J* ''>'',. ff'°^ they held to each other was a violation of the lule, and Se sinful ; but instead of doing that, h^o.^"'^-";.'^' ^ « the churches, ih^t, in whatever state orcond.t.on m life each one was callkl into the christian kingdom, that he should re- main in that state or condition, whether bond or free, cir- cumcised or uncircumcised ; that if any were called, being a slave, to care not for it; but if he could be made fiee to ise it. rather, that is, prefer it.' He sent the slave On " mus back to his master, Philemon, with an apostohc le ter in which he did not say that holding O"^^'™"?..^^^^";,^?' was a violation of the Golden Rule. How ditferent this teaching and action from that of those who run under- ground railroads, their aiders and abettors . ° Much more apostolic precept and action could be cited to show, that they did not construe the Golden E„e a. forbidding slavery; and their construction of *at r" « is conclusive to all who arc willing to take God at his woid and live, or square their conduct by it. , . , ,, ^. „ 2. Bu the Lord expressly says that this rule is both the law and the prophets. It includes both. Wha ,s he law then? See Ex. xxi, 1-21; Lev. xxv, 89-55; Deut. xv 12-18; which est,ablish slavery, and prescribe r" ^^ a" J regulat .,ns for its government. And the Lord said that the Gol.ien Rule was this law, instead of saying tha it counter- acted, contradicted, or repealed, or superseded it, as brothei OB argues. It is better to regard what the Lord says, thVn 'what 0. B. says. And the prophets what are they on s subject? See Jer. xxxiv, 8-22, where sore punish- ments are denounced for disobedience of this law of slavery Other passages might be quoted to the same effect from the prophets. And this is the Golden Rule as expounded by ""s^S'se interpretations of the Golden Rule, by the in- spired apostles, and by the Lord himself, settle its meaning and construction authoritatively and conclusively. But there is no harm in us poor, weak, uninspired mortals, looking at it ourselves, and seeing the apositeness and cor- rectness of the divine interpretation of it. (1) 1 Cor. vii, n-21. DISCUSSIOX OF SLAVERY. Does a master want others to i'vce hhu'? Kn k ' he IS not in bondage. The Golder RmI V ^^^ ^ ^^ecause quire him to free his shu4s t an e t *i ' '^''' "'' ^^^• to free him Ilenr^o t .I t "" '^''''^ "^^ ^^^"^ them _^ iuiij iien^e the necessity, to not stop at Lt:lt Z '^'""^ r^'^ '«' ^^''^ *>-""' d» ;voH, ^-ith .til,: tire t:^:,3r L^'r.;?; ^"ll I've in peace, harmony and co.corrt w t?h?m 'Vf °, i'' '" speak evU of'l,^ nd n r ''■ '^'T"'"'' '"'^«'-^' ''"^ speak "e it II r^ ' 1 ' t,'" 'V"' ''^"°""^^' ''-'■>'' -"' f i.. servant ri';:;fa;;'r'b:;r tb^otSo' r'f'"^^ :;-S"?i'in7ib:::z™r'--Hrrvr upon hi™ and his neighbors, to'S ^^^'deJ^VS ^ DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 117 turn his and their families, and domestic arrangements and order of society ? If he does not, the Golden Rule does 7iot require him to make ^'ar upon others for such purposes; but enjoins him not to^ do it. These and a great many other things, the Golden Rule teaches and enjoins upon Bro. 0. B. and me, as well as upon all others ; but it does not authorize any of us to be picking at the motes in our brethren's e3^es, instead of pulling the huge beams out of our own ; nor to get up crusades against them, if they do not square their conduct according to our notions of right and wrong. That was the spirit that actuated the Crusaders, Sara'cens, anti-christians of every grade, and all tyrants; and is, itself, at war with the spirit of Christ. His major proposition, as he has arran^^ed his syllogism in his last, failing to answer the purpose he quotes it for, logic does not require me to examine his argument further. He narrows his minor (major, as he stated before,) down to desire of personal freedom, and the abhorrent "idea of be- ing made a slave;" and he draws his conclusion, wild and rambling, " that to deprive a human being of liberty, to re- duce him to slavery, and hold him as property," is a viola- tion of this Golden Rule; and slavery is sinful. Now, he has protested, all the time, that American slavery is the only slavery that he will discuss ; and it does not in- clude depriving human beings of liberty, and reducing them to slavery; for that was all done while the British govern- ment held this country as colonies, arji during the first twenty years of the exi?tence of this government, and has been no part of American slavery for fifty-four years. Holding of slaves, as property, in his language, or, truly, holding them to serve and labor, is the only one of his three that is included in American slavery. And I have clearly shown that the Golden Rule does not require the master to change the relation that he and his slaves did not make, but find themselves in. All American slaves were born so, and have not been deiyrived of liberty and reduced to slavery by any one ; they have only been and are held to serve and labor for their master. Slavery, itself, is obe- dience or rendering service. So 0. B.\s conclusion to his syllogism covers two things not existing in American slavery, nor in slavery itself. Man-stealing is a sin, and always 118 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. was.^ Joseph's brethren committed a great sin in stealing him, depriving him of his liberty, and reducing him to slavery; but Potiphar committed no sin in buying him, and holding him a slave. The law (which the Golden Rule is) allowed persons to sell themselves into slavery, (see chapter above quoted) to deprive themselves of liberty, and to re- duce themselves to slavery. Why must brother 0. B., in undertaking to prove slavery sinful, talk about two other things — depriving men of liberty and reducing them to slavery — instead of conjfining himself to slavery itself? It comes from that reckless, loose; careless, rambling manner of speaking, that has been so long used by anti-slavery agi- tators, that it has become a second nature with them, and it seems as impossible to cure them of the fault, as it is to rid a people of provincialisms in dialect. I suGficiently showed in my last, that 1 John iii, 20, did not relate to slavery at all. But as he has quoted it again, without any attempt to avoid the objections I raised in my last to the use he was trying to make of it, I will quote it, with its context, here, which is sufficient to show the reader the utter absurdity of quoting it to prove slavery sinful. I quote from the New Translation — the reader can look at it in the common version. " We k}ioiv that we have passed away from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who loves not his brother, abides in death. Every one who hates his brother is a man-slayer ; and you knotv that no man-slayer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we have known the love of Christ, because he laid down his life for us; therefore, we ought to lay down our lives for the breth- ren. Whoever, therefore, has goods of this world, and sees his brother in need, and yet shuts up his compassion from him, how abides the love of God in him ? My little children, let us not love in word nor tongue ; but in deed and in truth. For, by this tve hiow that we are of the truth, and shall as- sure our hearts before him. But if our heart condemn us, certainly God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart do not condemn us, we have confidence with God. And, whatever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments^ and do the things which are pleasing in his sight:" and, therefore, are assured (1) Ex. xxi, 16. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 119 •s in our hearts. Whereas, when we do not keep his com- mandments, and do tlie things that please him, our hearts condemn us for the derilection ; and God being greater, knows it as well as we; J. S. August 6th, 1862. [From the Christian Record, of August 19th, 1862.] 0. B.'S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE. " And the Lord commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat."^ I pass for the present without notice the reply of J. S. to my former argument, I hope, however, that the readers of the Record will preserve it for future reference, as I pro- pose hereafter to give it some attention. I desire here to introduce another argument upon the proposition under discussion, and will not have room for more in this article. American slavery, both in law and in fact, is based upon the assumption of the right of one man to enslave another, and to buy and sell, hold and possess, use, control and en- joy him as property. In the language of the law, and of judicial decisions, a slave is a chattel, and as such is subject, as all other property is, to be used, controlled and disposed of by the master at his own v/ill, and for his own profit or pleasure, irrespective of the will or consent of the slave. This assumed right of property in man is the basis of the whole slave system, the si7ie qua non of slavery, both in American thought and in American law. It is the trunk of the deadly Upas tree, which has sent its roots deep into the southern soil, and has spread its branches wide over the fairest portions of the republic. Within the assumed boundaries of the Union, about four millions of human beings, claiming with us a common pa- (1) Gen. ii, 16, 17. 120 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. ternity, and a common brotherhood, are chattelized — held as property, like cattle, hogs and horses, subject to be used, controlled and disposed of, as may suit the pleasure, caprice or necessities of their masters. The aggregate market value of this species of property has been estimated at some two thousand millions of dollars. The legality of the claim — the validity of the' title in heaven's high chancery to all this property — are involved in the proposition under discus- sion. J. S, appears for the claimants. He could not ask a more important case, or one involving a heavier property interest. My purpose is to prove that the claim is false, defective, and vicious — that it can find no support in the divine law, but on the contrary is a violation of that law. The love of dominion over external things — the desire to possess, enjoy and control property, is universal in the hu- man breast. It was planted there by the Creator of man, for good and wise purposes, and might almost be regarded as that characteristic which distinguishes man from trie brute. When rightly and properly directed and employed, it is per- haps the principal agency in the civilization of man The right to acquire, possess and enjoy property, is by some writers even classed among the inalienable rights. The laws of meum el iuem — of mine and thine — fill much the largest spacp on the pages of the statute books of States and nations, and engross much the most of the attention of judicial tribunals. These facts show that the civil govern- ment claims, and to it is conceded, the proprietorship of, and the dominion over, all those things which are regarded as the subjects of property, and the right and duty of con- trolling their distribution among the members of the com- munity — of determining to whom shall pertain the exclusive use and enjoyment of the several portions thereof, and of protecting each in such use and enjoyment. So far as property rights are concerned, these are the peculiar, per- haps the only province of civil government. But this is admissible only in. reference to those things which may rightfully be regarded as property, and in and over which human governments may legitimately claim the ownership and proprietorship. The purpose of my present argument is to show that man — that any human being is not rightfully the subject of such a claim of ownership, either on the part of a civil commuunity, or of any member DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 121 thereof. I present the argument in a series of propositions, which, if true, lead to the conclusion above stated. 1. God the heavenly Father, is the Creator, Preserver, and Proprietor of man, and of all things. His they vrere and are. His right and title are supreme, and above and before any and all others. Does this proposition need proof? Listen, then, to the voice of inspiration : " So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."^ "Thou, even thou art Lord alone; thou hast made the heaven, the heaven of heavens^ with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.'"' '^ Behold the heaven, and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, and all that therein is."" "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein."'^ " Lord, thou art God, which has made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is."'' 2. An}^ and all right or title, which any man, or any civil community, can rightfully have or claim to property in either men or things, must be derived from God the Great Proprietor, and held by and under a grant from him. The christian has no need of proof for this proposition. His own moral intuitions — the spirit of God dwelling in him — teach him that all that he has, and all that he is, are the gift of God ; that " every good, and every perfect gift," is from God, who " giveth to ail life and breath, and all things." 3. The gifts and grants of God to man are either special or general, and all of them, in which we of the present day can have any interest, or under which we can claim any right, are recorded in the Record of His Will, as revealed to 'us in the Holy Scriptures. 4. A special grant is a gift or grant to a designated per- son, or to a specified class or number of persons, or to a particular family or civil community, of rights, privileges, immunities, or property, to the extent and for the purposes specified in the grant. The grantees alone — those who are what the law terms parties or privies to the grant — are en- (1) Gen. i, 27. (3) Deut. x, 14. (5) Acts iv, 24.. (2) Nch. ix, G. (4) Ps. xxiv, 1. 9 122 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. titled to claim anything under it. All others are strangers to the grant, and can chiim no right or property under it, or derive any benefit from its provisions. I call special attention to this proposition, as I may have further use for it, in the consideration of the subject under discussion. The Scriptures afford many cases of such grants. I notice but one now. God gave to th€ children of Israel the land of Canaan for a possession upon certain terms and conditions specified in the grant. Among other things, he commanded them to exterminate the Canaanites then dwelling in the land, and he made their obedience to his commands, the condition of their possession. It will not be contended that the American Republic, or any State of the Union, can rightfully claim either the land of Canaan, or any other portion of God's earth, under that grant, or that the command of God to Israel to exterminate the Canaanites is or can be a justification to us to exterminate any people, and take possession of their land. God, the sole owner and proprietor of all things, " doeth according to his will, in the army of heaven, and among the inhabi- tants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto' him, what doest thou."^ There is not in the divine record any special grant, under which we can claim property in man, or the right to hold, use, control, and dispose of as property any human being. 5. A general grant is a grant to the family of man, with- out distinction or discrimination of particular individuals, families, nations, or communities, of rights, privileges, im- munities, or property, to the extent and for the purposes specified in the grant. In such grant, aggregated and uni- versal humanity is the grantee, and each member of the human family may claim under it an equal right and title to partake of the benefits conferred by it. There are upon the divine record two such general grants. It may be well to refer to them, and consider them, and consider them carefully, to ascertain v.-hether they, either in their letter or spirit, confer upon any one or more of the human family, the right to hold others as property. The first of these grants was made soon after the creation, to our first parents, as the head and representative of all their (1) Dan. iv, S5. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 123 posterity. It is in these words : " And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and re- plenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;, to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat."^ The other of these general grants was made to Noah and his sons, as they descended from Mount Arrar'at. They were then the head and representatives of a new race of men. Before and around them lay a new and a purified world awaiting their possession. The grant was a renewal, somewhat changed and enlarged, of God's former grant of dominion, and property to humanity. It is in these words: " And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth. And the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea ; into your hands are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require ; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man ; at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth mean's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."^ If there be any other general grant of property to man, it is probably included in what is called the primeval curse, in which (Jod said to Adam, "In the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat bread." Whatever else is involved in this curse, it may fairly be construed as granting to man the products of his own labor, and to have for that purpose a comprehensiveness of meaning, embracing the whole field of man's legitimate labors. (1) Gen. i, 28-30. (2; Gen. ix, 1-6. 124 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. These several general grants are very extensive in their application. They embrace all — everything that man may rightfully claim as property. It is not my purpose hero to show ^yhat is granted by them, or to point out the means and manner of the individual possession and enjoyment of the things granted. To do so, even to the most limited ex- tent, would require more space in the Record than I can now ask. One thing is not embraced in either of the^e grants, and it is the one thing which is the subject of the present discussion, not in either of these grants, not in any common or general grant from God to humanity, is the right of property in man conferred upon or vested in man, or in any part or portion of the family of man. On the con- trary, the latter portion of the grant to Noah and his sons contains what the law terms the exclusion of such a conclu- sion upon this subject. The idea of property in man is exclu- ded by the terms of the grant. This is simpiy a property grant; and what relevancy or pertinency can the concluding sentences have, unless they are significant of such exclu- sion. Man is set apart, sanctified, shrouded in the image of God, and to him is given the protecting aegis of God's word. " Whoso &hedth, 1862. [From the Christian Record of October 14th, 1S62.] 0. B.'S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE. " Ye shall make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty, throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof, it shall be a jubilee unto you."^ In the opening of this discussion, I expressed the opinion that the question of slavery was no longer a debatable one — that the arle events transpiring, was working out the solution of the dark problem. Events, the most fearful in human history, fraught with 'the fortunes of the present, and the destinies of the future, .have passed, and are now passing, with the velocity of thought. In their contemplation, the mind becomes dizzy and bewildered, and in their presence the human intellect "reels to and fro, and staggers like a drunken man." Clouds and darkness, storms and tempests, involve the whole area of this, the " conflict of ages." And yet, the just and the merciful One "rides upon the tempest and directs the storm." God is in all history. How fearfully, how terribly is he manifesting himself in this. It is the trumpet of the (1) Lev. XXV. 9, 10. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 159 Lord's jubilee, proclaiming " liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof." Hope has waited long for a responsive note from our National authorities to this proclamation of the just and holy One, conscious that our national life depended upon the character of such re- sponse. It has come at last. The response is made in the recent proclamation of the President of the United States, proclaiming liberty to all tlie slaves, in all portions of the national domain, which shall be in rebellion on the first day . of January next. Who shall doubt that this national act is in harmony with God's purpose, and believing this, we may not despair of the salvation of the nation, and th^e pres- ervation of the Union. "If God be for us, who shall be against us." " And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying Allelulia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad, and rejoice, and give honor to him."^ The great question of American slavery is solved, not by man's argument, or reasonings, but by the inexorable logic of events, guided and controlled by the hand of the Omnipotent One. The conflict, the storm, and the tempest, are' still raging, and for a time may be even more fierce, bitter, and intense, than heretofore, but the christian will not doubt that there is a glorious day approaching — a day of peace, prosperity and happiness to the church, the nation and the people. More deeply than herotofore, do I feel that the question is no longer a debatable one, and have therefore the less in- clination to pursue the discussion. I shall, therefore, en- deavor to be as brief as possible, in following the line of argument which I had proposed to myself. J. S. must ex- cuse me,, if I do not give to his fragmentary arguments the notice to which he may think them entitled. I have, as I think, satisfactorily disposed of his argument drawn from the curse of Canaan, and have shown that American slavery can find no support from that curse. I propose now to notice the Hebrew law of servitude, which J. S. claims sanctions chattel slavery among chris- tians, and has been neither repealed or annulled. It is a (1) Rev. xix, 6, 1. 160 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. most singular position, for one professing to be a christian, to take that the Hebrew law is in force in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus. I might cite many passages from the christian Scriptures to prove that the Lord himself fulfilled the law, and annulled it, nailing it to his cross, and himself gave a full and perfect law to his disciples, and that the Hebrew law never has been, and never can be, the law of the christian kingdom. But to do so, would seem to indi- cate a doubt of the intelligence of the reader, for such is the whole tenor of the christian Scriptures. So fully and so strongly is this taught, that Paul said to those Jewish scribes, who, like J. S., still insisted upon the law of Moses, " Christ has become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. ''^ I need not say more to the christian reader upon this subject, than to ask him to re-read the Gallatin letter. Whatever the Hebrew law of servitude may have been, the christian can not avail himself of its provisions, to sustain his claim of property in man. But the Hebrew law is not liable to the reproach of sanctioning chattel slavery, even among the ancient Israelites. On the contrary, its provisions were humane and benevolent, and wholly antagonistic to such claim. Good and wise laws are necessarily adapted to the cir- cumstances and condition of those for whom they are made. When those laws were given to Israel, the Israelites had just escaped from a bondage of ages, to a people who at the present time would at the best be regarded but as semi- civilized. Under their long oppression, the Israelites had became even more debased and degraded, and less self-re- liant, than the negroes of the South at the present day. The people in and around tlie land of Canaan were not suffi- ciently advanced in social life, in civil organizations, and in the arts and sciences to be entitled to be characterized as semi-civilized. We have, perhaps, at the present day, no better representatives of these, than the inhabitants of the interior of Africa. Thickly settled over all the land of Ca- naan, and the surrounding countries, the necessities of civil government, for the protection of persons and property, were keenly felt by them; but there was no appreciation of what (1) Gal.v, 4. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 161 was or should be the nature, character, or purposes of such government. Might ruled, and everywhere, in social life and civil organizations, the power of the strongest prevailed over the right. The people were separated, and formed into almost innumerable petty communities, called kingdoms, which were constantly preying upon each other, and were sunken in idolatry, and steeped in crime. God proposed to use the degraded fugitives from Egypt, to exterminate that portion of these people then inhabiting the land of Canaan, and to establish there a wider, stronger, and more enduring nationality — a civil government founded upon the idea, then new and strange to humanity, of the rule of law instead of might. In a country not larger than an ordinary State of our Union, thirty-two kingdom's were overthrown, and the inhabitants exterminated to make room for Israelites. The Hebrew laws were made for the Israelites in their inhabi- tancy of this country, in the condition and under the cir- cumstances above named. God's purpose was not solely the establishment of a larger and more enduring nationality ; but also, and perhaps principally, the elevation and civiliza- tion of the Hebrew race, and theii* preservation as a sepa- rate, distinct and peculiar people, as the depositors of his Holy Oracles, until the promised Messiah should come. It was inevitable that the Israelites would have intercourse Yfith the surrounding heathens. Those heathens would seek the security and protection of their stronger nationality. Humanity required that such intercourse be permitted, so ftir as might be, without endangering the religious faith of the Israelites, or their distinctive and peculiar national character. The Hebrew laws, and especially the laws of servitude, were apparently framed for that purpose. It will not, I presume, be contended by any one, that the law, so far as it related to Hebrev>^ servants, involved the idea of chattel slavery, or property in man. That law may be found, Ex. xxi, 2-11; Lev. xxv, 89-43, and 47-55; *Deut. XV, 12-18. There ar^ also in other portions of Ex. xxi, some provision in reference to stealing, killing and smiting a servant, which seem to apply specially to Hebrew servant?, as none other are named in the connection. A Hebrew might be sold for theft, or for debt, or he might sell himself, or perhaps his children. These two last, although called sales, would be simply contracts for his own 162 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. service, or the service of his cliildren. However sold, the hiw made no distinction in the condition of the Hebrew ser- vants. The service could not continue for more than six years, unless at the end of that time the servant voluntarily, and in solemn form, contracted to serve until the year of jubilee next thereafter. He could not bind himself for a longer time. The law specifically and positively provid<3d for his kind treatment, and for the protection and preserva- tion of his manhood, his individuality, and his rights, as an Israelite. Certainly no idea of chattel slavery could apply to his condition. Another class of servants is named in the Hebrew law, and these are called bondmen. These in their condition approximate nearer to the condition of slaves than any other known to Hebrew law. The law in reference to them is as follows: "Both the bondmen and the bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen' that are round about you ; of these shall ye buy bondmen and bond: maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of these shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession, and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen forever."^ This is the whole of the Hebrew law for the establish- ment or sanction of bondage in Israel; and perhaps, were there no other provisioi^ to modify or explain what is here intended, we might infer that something like chattel slavery was contemplated by it. This, however, would be an infer- ence not fully warranted by the terms of the law. The heathen or the stranojer mi<2;ht sell himself, or the strangrer might sell his children to the Israelites, provided these chil- dren were natives of the land. Such sale was a contract for service between the master and the bondman, or the parent of the bondman, if a child. Although the claim for the service of the bondmen descended to the heir of the master, ;yet the obligation to serve did not descend to the children of the bondmen. The year of jubilee discharged and enfranchised the bondman, for the laAv provides as follows : " And ye shall (1) Lev. XXV, U-4S. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 163 hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof, it shall be a jubilee unto you.''^ Hence every bondman must be freed at the jubilee next after his service began, be that time longer or shorter. In these particulars, Jewish servitude differed from American slavery in some of the most revolting fea- tures of the modern institution. Nor were these th-e only differences. From the bench of our highest national judicial tribunal, it has been declared, that "the African has no rights which a white man is bound to respect." Harsh and unfeeling as this seems, it is nevertheless legally true in reference to slaves, wherever chattel slavery exists. It is the necessity, the inevitable sequence of the claim of the right of prop- erty in man. Was that true of the Hebrew bondmen? Had they no rights under the Hebrew law, which the He- brews were bound to respect. The heathen, whether inhab- iting other lands, or sojourning among the Israelites, Avere called strangers by them, and^are so spoken of in their law. That law says in reference to strangers, "and if a stranger sojourn with thee, in your land, ye shail not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord thy God."- " If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen into decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a stranger or sojourner, that he may live with thee."^ " One law and one manner shall be for you, and the stranger that sojourneth with you.""* " ilear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him."'' " Love ye, therefore, the stranger, for ye were strangers in the knd of Egypt."'^ These passages, and many more which might be cited, indicate the spirit of the Hebrew law, in reference to the heathen, the type of the African of our day, and are in direct conflict with the spirit of our laws, as indicated by the decision above named. I blush for the civilization and Christianity of the age, in which such barbarism could find utterance in the court of a professedly civilized and chris- (1) Lev. XXV, 10. (3) Lev. xxv, 35. (5) Deut. i, 16. (2) Lev xix, 33, 34. (4) Numb, xv, 16. (G) Deut. x, 19. 164 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. tian people. And yet the sentiment is essential to the ex- istence of chattel slavery. The fact that the Hebrew law was wholly antagonistic to such a sentiment, is conclusive proof that chattel slavery wa§ not only not contemplated, but was forbidden by that law. The servitude of the bond- men was not slavery. It was instituted for the mutual ben- efit and convenience of the parties. It commenced in their voluntary contract, and its continuance depended upon their option. Especially might the bondman terminate it at any time, by leaving his master. The Lord forbade his being returned. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the .' er- vant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best. Th )u shalt not oppress him.'"^ The relation between master and bondman was one of mutual choice, and of mutual benefit and convenience. When we consider the civil and social condition of the heathen, in and about the land of Canaan, their v, eaknor^s and their wants, their insecurity in person and propeny, under the prevailing^ rule of might and tyrannical ,force ;>n the one hand, and the civil and social con'e learn what is sinful or wrong, and become thereby reproved and corrected ; and there only it is we are instructed in righteousness, or told what is right; and by them the man of God — the man who obeys and follows God's directions — is thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and of course to the avoidance of all evil works.^ This man of God who thus does, being thus thoroughly furnished, does not need any argument, or inference, or philosophical disquisition, to show him what is si'u or what is righteousness. He only has to look into this law of the Lord contained in the Scripture given by inspiration; it is " the perfect law,"^ and is the only perfect law that was ever made. Being perfect, it has left nothing to "doubtful disputation," or argument, or inference, so far as sin and righteousness are concerned. As brother 0. B. had not, in his first three numbers, cited any law of the Lord of which slavery is a transgression, and thereby shown that it was sinful, in my third reply I respectfully requested him, in his next number, to cite us to tlie law of which slavery is a transgression, if there was .such a law. He hasjiisherto failed to do it, and has taken no notice of my respectful request ; and in his last number thinks that the question is not debatable. As he has given no proof to sustain his proposition, it does seem that there is no room for debate. And it is a very easy way, and perhaps the only Avay, for a disputant who can offer no proof to sustain his propositions, to say it is indisputable, and stop there. But he goes oif into a paroxysm, and speaks of the (1) 1 John iii, 4. (2) 2 Tim. iii, 16, IT. (3) James i, 25. DISCUSSION or SLAVERY. 167 "logic of the fearful and terrible events transpiring," as being proof; gets "dizzy and bewildered;" seems to think that the President's abolition proclamation settles the ques- tion, and asks " \Yho shall doubt" that it is an emanation from God; shrieks like a maniac in " the conflict, the storm, and the tempest" now unhnppily existing in our beloved country ; and says that it is God's work. *' It was the Puritan meddling with the moral stafus o? slavery that inflicted this fearful contest upon us," and not the good Lord. x\nd when called upon to sustain the Puri- tan assertions as to the moral status of slavery by the good word of the Lord, such hallucinations are given us in a grave discussion of the question ! " Fanaticism is the bane of harmony. It has disturbed many States, and overturned many governments. It is one of the most difficult social evils to d^al with. It is a growth of prosperity, and 3^et gains strength under persecution. It often appeals to the most generous prejudices oi human- ity ; it often wears the garb of religion and morality; it has wonderful powers of proselytism ; it has great capacity to make wrong look like right, and to deck errors in the robes of truth. It is a terrible apostle of evil. Discord fol- lows its lead, and revolution, too often, is the end of its career." 0. B. asserted that God had never granted property in man. I produced three instances from the divine volume where he had granted property in man — to Shem and Japheth, to Israel, and to the civil governments. He tried to avoid the first by asserting that the Canaanites served Israel, while the Israelites were serving the Egyptians, and thus fulfilled and exhausted that grant. I replied that Israel was not Japheth, and was only a part of Shem; and that the curse of Canaan, to be a servant of servants to his brethren, meant being servants to the posterity of Ham, and not to Shem and Japheth, or any portion of either, as Israel was. To meet this, he says he has "satisfactorily disposed of his [my] argument drawn from the curse of Canaan!" Well, if this statement is true of my brother 0. B. and those who agree with him, abolition intellects are easily satisfied. But it is consonant with the assertion that the question is not debatable — his proposition is to be taken as indisputably true without proof. 168 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. But he says that I claim that the Hebrew law of servi- tude sanctions chattel slavery among the christians ! I have claimed no such thing. I quoted the Hebrew law of servitude as j?roof that God had granted property in man — granted it to Israel — and showed who Israel was since the Lord's kingdom was set up. I quoted it as proof of a grant of property in man, which he asserted God had never made ; and he thus tries to dodge it by changing the issue. But I shall not let him do it. I know how slippery those who take his position are; and it is my duty, in this grave discussion before the brotherhood and the world, to not let him dodge out of the issue in that way, without exposing the dodge. Whenever those who are constantly asserting slavery to be sinful, are impaled upon the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, they always attempt to dodge away from it, by mising another and different issue. Brother p. B. is attempting it now, and it is my duty to . show it to our readers. He asserted that God had not granted property in man. I showed that he had through Noah. He tried to dod^ije it as above stated; which really was an admission that there had been a grant made; but the dodge was, that it was not a very large grant, and it had been fulfilled and exhausted. I showed that God had granted the heathen to Israel. He tries in his last, to dodge that, by raising a new issue, and insisting that the laws of God gave to govern the slave property created by that grant, were different from the laws of the slave States of this Union. "What a weak attempt at a dodge ! He admits the grant of property — the very thing in issue — but tries to get round the admission, and do away its effect, by raising in the mind of the reader a new issue, as to whether the laws given by God to govern the Hebrew enjoyment of slave property were the same or dif- ferent from the laws governing the enjoyment of slave property in the United States. That question is not mate- rial in determining whether God has granted propert}^ in man or not, and in determining whether it is a sin ro hold such property, and exercise the rights of such ownership. I said that the grants of property in man given through Moses had not been revoked by the Lord, and the things granted resumed by him ; and I desired ray brother 0. B. to cite us to the passage of the divine volume revoking DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 169 those grants, if there was one. He, in his last, cites us to Gal. V, 4, -which reads thus : " Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Justified is here used in the sense of saved ov pardoned; and hence, what Paul here as- serts is, that those who seek to obtain pardon of their sins, in the manner and by the means prescribed in the law, are fallen from grace or favor, which is the means of pardon set'out in the Gospel. And this 0. B. quotes as a revoca- tion of the grant of property in man, when it only shows that there had been a change in the system of pardon or justification in the christian dispensation of grace or favor, from the system prescribed in the law of Moses for pardon. He requests us to read the whole of the letter to the Galatians. Well, I have done it, and I hope our readers will do the same, and they will see, as I see, that which in- spiration teaches plainly, that it was. the '^handtvriii7ig of ordinances,'' that the Lord " blotted out " '' and took out of the way, nailing them to his cross,"^ and "abolished in his flesh the eranity even the lata of commandments concerning ordinances,''^ and not grants of property given through Noah or Moses. Those grants are not hand-writings of ordinances. And there are many other grants besides those under consideration, as the grants of the earth and the ani- mal creation to man, and of the land of Canaan to Israel, &c. None of these were blotted out or taken out of the way by the Lord, because they Avere not hand-writings of ordinances, nor commandments concerning ordinances. But recurring back to things under consideration, the laws governing the enjoyment of the slaves granted to Israel, of the heathen, were hand-writings of ordinances, and were blotted out and taken out of the way, and the laws pre- scribed in the apostolic writings for the government of masters and slaves, and the- enjoyment and use of slave property, were substituted for, and took the place of, the laws given through Moses for the government of the rela- tion of master and slave, and the use of slave property ; and the grant of property in slaves still stood untouched. Whether my brother 0. B. has not acquired this " knowl- edge of God," that is, knowledge communicated of God, or, (1) Col. ii, 14. (2) Eph. ii, 15. 12 170 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. if he has, whether he wants to prevent the brotherhood from " coming to '^ this " knowledge," it is not material to this discussion to have answered ; but it is my duty to see that the brotherhood are not kept from this " knowledge," under any pretense whatever. It was the hand-writing of ordinances that was taken away by the Lord and nailed to his cross, and not any grant of property or privilege, or prescription of morals set out in the Decalogue, that Yv^as taken away by the Lord. Peter, in his speech in ^e college of apostles recorded Acts xv, when the question was, whether the Gentiles should be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, the hand-writing of ordinances, said, that that yoke should not be put upon the disciples, but that through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ — the means of pardon prescribed by him — all should be saved, and not by being circumcised and keeping the law of Moses. Whether the slave laws prescribed through Moses were better or worse than the slave laws that were prescribed through the apostles, and which took the place of those prescribed through Moses, is wholly immaterial to the in- quiries. Did God grant property in man ? Is holding and enjoying that property sin? Neither is it material whether the slave laws of the slave States of the Union are better or worse than those of Moses, or of the apostles, in determin- ing whether the relation of master and slave is sinful. The laws governing the marriage relation in a State may be bad, but that does not prove the relation sinful. So the laws of a slave State, governing the relation of master and slave, may be bad, but that does not prove the relation sinful. I am thus particular in stating these matters, that the reader may not be misled by the two columns of disquisi- tion on the Mosaic slave laws given by 0. B. in his last, and to fully explain the effort he is making to change the issue. In a good portion of his disquisition he is in error ; but it is entirely immaterial to the question in issue in this discussion to show it ; and I intend not to be drawn off from the issue. But there is one thing that he says that I shall notice, because of the gross manner in which the public mind has been abused by it. He says : "From the bench of our highest national judicial tribunal, it has been declared, that 'the African has no rights which DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 171 the white man is bound to respect/ " and then goes on to argue as if the court had so held. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking of public opinion in relation to the negroes, that " prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independ- ence, and when the Constitution was formed and adopted," stated, as a historical fact, that, " They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to asso- ciate with the white race, either in social or political rela- tions; and so far inferior that they had no rights which a white man w^as bound to respect." The court did not say whether that regarding was correct or incorrect; but merely stated it as a historical fact that they had been so regarded for more than a century before the Declaration of Independence. An(f yet brother 0. B., from that, and that alone, affirms what is above stated. It has been aflSrmed thousands of times. A cause that resorts to such perversions and falsifications, it seems to me, must he sinful, 0. B. lets oflT nearly a column upon this false assump- tion, as to what the Supreme Court adjudicated. He is too good a lawyer not to know that the authority does not sus- tain what he assumes that it does. His premises being false, of course his argument is at fault, and his conclusions erroneous. And more than that, they -are immaterial to the question at issue, whether true or false. The assertion that God had not granted property in man, is a main foundation pillar in the abolition theory. 0. B. set out with it, and still asserts it, notwithstanding I have shown to the contrary three instances of the grant. I will now add these others : that the husband has property in the wife, ard the wife in the husband; parents have property in their children, and children in their parents; all granted by God, and enjoined by him in every dispensation. This assumption that God has not granted property in man, like every other assumption of the abolition theory, is untrue. I again respectfully request and insist that brother 0. B. cite us to the law of the Lord of which slavery is a trans- gression. The debate is half out now, and it is time that he would furnish us some proof of his proposition. I also respectfully request him to inform our readers, if 172 DISCUSSION 0? SLAVERY. slavery is a sin, and slaveholders sinners, why are they not so specifically denominated in the christian Scriptures? Murder, adultery, lying, covetoujness, idolatry, evil-speak- ing, evil-surmising, emulation, wrath, strife, sedition, heresy, or making sects, &c., are all specifically denounced as sins; and murderers, adulterers, liars, covetous, idolaters, back- biters, false accusers, .&c., are all specifically denounced as sinners. If slavery was a sin, and slaveholders sinners, why did not the apostles say so in enumerating sins and sinners? There were then, when they wrote, as much slavery as there was adultery, and as many slaveholders as there were adulterers ; why was one specified and the other not, if they were equally sins and sinners ? And so of the others. And I will say, in all kindness, that those who honestly desire to " come to the knowledge of the truth" of God upon this, and upon all moral questions, must look to, examine, and study his word, his revealed will, and not run off, nor allow others to lead them off, into such wild rhapsdies as are contained in the first four paragraphs of 0. B.'s last article. He, and those who agree with him, have erroneously worked themselves into the belief that slavery is sin. His having failed so far in this discussion, to show the law that slavery is a transgression of, and therefore a sin, shows that he and they are in error. But upon that error, for years, " they have sown the winds," and alas ! our unhappy country and people are now *' reaping the whirlwind."' And whilst the storm is raging so fiercely and fearfully, to refer to the fact of its existence as proof that they and he are right, is the wildest fanaticism, and wholly out of place in a grave reli- ligious inquiry after the truth of God upon the subject. J. S. October 20th, 1862. P. S. — Professional duty requiring me to attend the court of an adjoining county last week, I was thereby pre- vented from getting this number ready in time for to-mor- row's Record. J. S. (1) Hosea viii, 7. EPISODE Abolition tactics, and " the moral character," not of slavery, but of the abolition conduct that carried out and executed those tactics, make it my imperative duty to put on record here, and lay before the public certain facts and transactions that never should have occurred ; but, having occurred, had the law of Christ been followed and acted upon, they would have been buried in the tomb of the Cap- ulets, and consigned to perpetual oblifion. I am sometimes inclined to think that this necessity has been imposed upon me in the providence of God, that the deformities of abolitionism may be the more fully exposed, by having this phase of it exhibited to the public. But whether this is so or not, future events must determine. As stated in the postscript to ray last article, professional duty required my attendance at the Circuit (Jourt of the adjoining county of Jay, on the 15th of October, 1862. Gross personal outrages were perpetrated upon me there by certain sons of Belial, set on and incited by certain political demagogues, that drove rae from court, and prevented me from attending to my business there According to the old, homely, but true proverb, "If I do you a wrong, you can forgive me; but if you do me a wrong, you can never for- give me," the men who instigated the perpetration of this great wrong upon me, could not forgive me for the wrong they had done me, but followed it up with a still greater wrong. They caused to be published in the Winchester Journal^ an abolition hebdomadel paper printed in the town where I reside, a grossly scurrilous article concerning me and that transaction. It appeared in that paper of the date of Friday, the 24th of October. On that day, two of the demagogues went to Indianapolis, and on Monday morning, October 27th, the scurrilous article appeared in 174 EPISODE. the Indianapolis Journal^ the abolition sess-pool of all the political filth and falsehood of Indiana. It was too gross to have a place in any decent print, and, of course, can not be inserted here. In addition to the fact that all its statements of the facts of the transaction were false, it falsely charged me with " being drunk, and swear- ing worse than an Algerine pirate ;" with " swearing terri- bly, and using the most abusive language ;" with saying that Shanks and '' all his supporters Avere G — d d — d nig- gerites;" with " ringing the changes of the most profane vocabulary, denouncing the soldiers also as a set of G — d d — d tories, and secessionists and traitors;" and that I " now swore more terribly, denouncing Shanks as a traitor, and calling the soldiers 'd — d traitors and secessionists,' and swore that had (I) been at Mumfordsville when our soldiers were taken prisoners, and had the authority, (I) would have hung every G — d d — d one of them, as they were all d — d traitors. I am sorry to have to soil my pages with such filthy falsehoods ; but thus m-uch is necessary that the reader may understand what follows. Upon my demand, the conductors of the Winchester Journal^ though somewhat reluctantly, published my de- fence in their next succeeding paper, of the date of the 31st of October, 1862. Without any communication whatever with me, either orally, by letter, or through third persons, my brother Goodwin published in the Uecoi'd of the 4th of November, 1862, the following: DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. Our readers have noticed a discussion of the moral char- acter of slavery by 0. B. and J. S., which has been publish- ing for some weeks in the Christian Record. The discus- sion has been read so far with a good degree of interest by many; but just as it was assuming a greater degree of in- terest, by approaching the New Testament argument, we have seen certain reports in the public prints, touching the recent conduct of J. S., which compels us to close our col- umns against the further prosecution of the discussion until he sets himself right before the religious public. If Bro. EPISODK 175 O. B. wishes to give his views of the New Testament Scrip- tures in reference to the duties of masters and servants, without referring in any way to the discussion, he may do so throuo;h our columns. Thus the reader will see, that, notwithstanding I was in his editorial house, mansion, or church, and in there as a christian, and a 'christian disputant or debater, and with his assent and permission as such christian disputant and deba- ter, without taking one step, or doing one act required by the law of Christ in such cases, as well as by common cour- tesy between man and man, even of those who never recog- nized the relation of brethren in Christ as existing between them, my quondam brother Goodwin so far endorsed these foul charges as to publicly in his paper, before the whole brotherhood, so far as his paper circulated among them, ex- communicate, or rather thrust me out of his religious paper, house, mansion or church, and tell my quondam opponent to proceed, but to get on into the New Testament, and give his (the abolition) vicAvs of what that says about the ques- tion under discussion. He, Goodavin, was not only a hisliop and an elder in that religious journal, but he was sole bishop, elder, and autocrat of it. Immediately on the reception of his paper of the 4th of November, I sent the following communication to him : Elder E. Goodwin, Editor Christian Record: — As I presume from what you say in the Record of the 4th inst., that it would be offensive to you for me to call you brother, I do not so address you; for the Lord commands me to ^' give none oifence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God ;"^ and my desire at all times is to avoid sinning by transgressing his commands, though alas! I daily more or less transgress, and thereby sin. And were it not that the good Lord has opened up a way and given me access to the Father, and is there an Advocate for me, whereby I may obtain the forgiveness of my sins thus daily committed, I would be ruined and lost, entirely and hopelessly. You say : " We have seen certain reports in the public (1) 1 Cor. X, 32. 176 EPISODE. prints touching the recent conduct of J. S., which compels us to close our columns against the further prosecution of the discussion, until he sets himself right before the reli- gious public." Did you know that those " certain reports " were written out and circulated in " the public prints," by two political demagogues, who are infidels in religion? Did you know that " the public prints " that circulated those reports w^ere political partizan prints, and hence nought but sess-pools of filth and falsehood? Did you pursue the course laid down by yourself, under the head of Discipline, in the Address on the Government and Discipline of the church, published in the Record af October 28th, as proper to be pursued?' Did you follow the rules you there laid dow^n, that " in dealing with members charged w^ith crime, the first object should be to secure to all their rights, and do justice to all ; and the final object should be to save the oifender, if possi- ble ; and if this he not possible, to save the church from (1) That the reader may see the difference between brother Goodwin's statements of the law, and bis action in this case, I append the following extracts from that address : "On this subject I remark, first, that we may contemplate all the offences claiming the attention of the overseers of the church into two classes : first, such as arise from disagree- ments between brethren, or where one brother does a wrong to another; and, secondly, breaches of the law which affect the whole brotherhood alike, such as profane swearing, drunkenness, and such like. Now, in dealing with members charged v/ith crime, the first object should be to secure to all their rights, and to do justice to all; and the final object should be to save the offender, if 2'>ossihle ; and if this be not possible, to save the church from scandal." * * * * * * * " In cases of the first class named above, the elders should see the parties as soon as pos- sible, and endeavor to reconcile them to each other. This should be done without making special charges against either. If the matter is not generally known, and the reconcilia- tion is effected, nothing more is necessary in the case ; but if it has been noised abroad, and the members of the congregation generally, or any considerable number of them know that any such difSculty has existed, then the elder presiding at the first meeting of the church subsequent to the reconciliation, should announce to the congregation that the difficulty had been adjusted, and that the parties are now reconciled to each other." * * * * * * * "A similar course should be pursued in reference to the second class of offences. If a member of the church should be guilty of profane swearing, or drunkenness, or any other violation of the law of Christ, the elders, or some one of them, who would be likely to have the most influence with him, s?wuld visit him in, kindness, and tell iti love the crime that he is said to be gxtilty of, and try to restore him. If he should deny the charge, and the report is so generally known and believed* as to bring a reproach upon the good cause, let him be requested to meet the elders in their oflicial meeting ; let those knowing the facts appear as witnesses, and let the accused brother make his defence. If found guilty, an effort should be made to bring him to repentance. If this point is gained, he should come before the church, and, either in person, or through one of the elders, make confession of his fault, and state his determination to do so no more, upon which he shoidd he. forgiven. But if he remain stubborn, and refuse to make satisfac- tion for his wrong doing, it should be announced to the church that he has forfeited the fellowship of the brotherhood, and can be no longer regarded as a member." And then, and not till then, may the offender be publicly kicked out of a religious paper, if he re- fuses to go out without being thus publicly expelled. * This foul charge in my case was not believed even partially, much less generally, by those who knew me. EPISODE. 177 scandal" ? Or, did you from '' certain reports," written' by infidels, and circulated by them in filthy partizan prints, without taking any of the steps laid down by yourself in that address, as being those to be taken to comply with the divine injunction, "Let all things be done decently and in order," that is to say, without visiting, without trial, with- out conviction, without effort to bring to repentance, and without any knowledge on my part of what you were about to do, excommunicate me, whom you have heretofore pro- fessed to regard as a member with you of the body of the blessed Lord, and publish that excommunication, not only to the church of the brotherhood, but to the world? The answer to these questions already exist for eternity. I do not ask them to accuse or crireinate you, (for God for- bids that I should be an " accuser of the brethren,") but because the word of the Lord says : '^ Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins/'^ After having thus adjudged, and convicted, and excom- municated me, you tell me I may set myself right before the religious public. Well, this is a privilege for which I am very thankful. It is true that your course, like that of the administration for a year past, first to condemn, seize, and incarcerate, and then to let the culprit, if he can in his dungeon, prove that he is not guilty of anything, is similar to the civil and religious liberty enjoyed vfhen the Inquisition in religious, and despots in civil governments, had universal control of Christendom, and looks to me like retrogression to the dark ages, instead of being a still brighter effulgence of the Gospel light, and of the liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free, and an advance of civil liberty in the freest form of government, and hith- erto the freest government ever constructed or existing for man, in these IJnited States of America, in the afternoon of the nineteenth century. But still as I am not blessed with transcendental notions of " free speech, free press, free soil, free men, and Fremont," I suppose that I must, out of courtesy to those who are so endowed, accept it as progression in light and liberty, civil and religious. (1) James v, 19, 20. 178 EPISODE. I will therefore proceed to state the efforts I h'lve made to set myself right before the world, including the religious public, since the gross and false libel of me Avas published in the Winchester Jeiirnal of the 24th of October, and copied into the Lidianapolis Journal of the 27th. I prepared an article, which, though the conductors of the Winchester Journal winced considerably at having to publish it in their paper, they thought proper not to refuse to do so. On the day of its publication, I wrote a letter to the Indianapolis Journal Company, directed to J. M. Til- ford as its President, of which the following is a copy : Winchester, Oct. 31st, 1862. To the Indianapolis Journal Company : — As the article libelous of me was copied from the Witichester Journal of the 24tli instant into your paper of the 27th instant, I claim, as an act of justice, that my article contained in the Winchester Journal of to-day be forthvath copied into your paper ; and I hope you will not refuse to comply with this request. Respectfully, &c., Jer. Smith. J. M. Tiiford, Pres. Ind. Journal Co. Accompanying which, I sent a private note to Tiiford, of which the foUowint: is a iD copy: Bro. Tilford : — I send the enclosed to you as the Presi- dent of the Journal Company, and all that I have to say now, is, that divine writ informs us that the " serpent cast out of his mouth water [lies, vituperation and slander] as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood," and I, as one of the least among '' the remnant of her seed,"^ have to receive my portion of that flood of calumny, it seems. May the good Lord, out of his abundant mercy, pardon all who have been concerned in doing me this great wrong, and thereby sinning, is my prayer. Afl'ectionately, &c., Jer. Smith. (1) Rev. xii, 15-ir. EPISODE. 179 My article not having appeared in the Journal, on the 5th of November I sent the following: Winchester, JSTov. 5th, 1862. J. M. TiLFORD, Pres. Iiidianapolis Journal Co. — Sir: — On the 31st ult. I sent a request to the Journal Company, directed to you as its President, that my reply to the gross and false libel of me, published in the Winchester Journal of the 24th of October, and copied into your paper of the 27th of October, be copied into your paper as an act of jus- tice to me. It has not yet been done. I write this to again urge that it be done ; for I am anxious to avoid the neces- sity of having to bring a suit for libel against the Journal Company. Whether all sense of truth and justice has left the earth, and law is dethroned, and only fraud, force, and anarchy exist in our unhappy country, I am not able to say ; but I really fear that it is so. Respectfully, &c., Jer. Smith. My article has not yet appeared in the Journal, nor have I received any communication from them; which fully shows the fairness, uprightness, and christian spirit and conduct of the conductors of that sheet ; and demonstrates the facilities they have afforded me to set myself right be- fore the world and the religious public; and the extreme anxiety they have to make amends, and undo the wrong they have done me. Tilford is a bishop of the church at Indianapolis ; the foreman and the clerk in the Journal office are deacons of that church; and I suppose they have seen the divine injunctions, " to speak evil of no man,"^ and " to do justly, and love mercy. "^ Paul had " perils amongst false brethren."" Is it possible that I am entitled to the honor of suffering as he did? As your paper is printed by that company, and your office is in their building, I think it probable that you had knowledge of these things as they transpired. As you have brought the matter to the notice of your readers, by publishing your condemnation and excommuni- cation of me upon the false libel, without notice, or hearing, (1) Tit. iii, 2. (li) Micah vi, 8. (3) 2 Cor. xi, 26. 180 EPISODE. or trial, or attempt to reclaim me, I herewith enclose a copy of my published .defence, and request you to lay it, with this communication, before your readers. And I hope you will comply with this request. If you do not, I shall have to find some other means of getting them before the public. For, if the Lord spares me, I intend to have all these things laid before the public in some form ; for all is known to the Lord, and will be known to all at the great day, and had as well be made known to the public now, though it may be some time yet before they get there. If so, I must exercise, as I am commanded to do, the christian virtue, PATIENCE. I confess, however, here, that in this case it is hard to exercise it. But I am commanded to, and will, "h t patience have her perfect work."^ " Some men's sins do go before, and others they follow after." It may be, and I have no doubt is, very convenient to 0. B. and those who agree with him, to have the discussion choked down now ; for he was getting into a very tight place. But truth is mighty, and will finally prevail, though she travels in a slow coach, while falsehood, slandei', and detraction, run on the wings of the wind. It is proper to say here, in conclusion, tliat the chai-ge of drunkenness made against me in the lible, was not noticed in my published defence herewith enclosed, for good and sufficient reasons, which I have given, and will here- after give, when proper. All that is necessary or proper here and now to say, is, that the charge is false. Repeating the prayer, " May the God and Father of all, out of his abundant mercy, forgive all who have been con- cerned in doing me this great wrong, and thereby sinning," I am. Very respectfully, &c., Jer. Smith. Novemher 10 th, 1862. [From the Winchester Journal.— Enclosed in the foregoing.] TO THE PUBLIC. An article in the Winchester Journal of last week, abusive of me, an humble citizen in the private vv^alks of life.'quietly attending to my own business without molesting or disturb- ing any one in attending to his, is so utterly false, that I (1) James i, 4. EPISODE. 181 vleem it proper to notice it, lest my silence should be taken as an admission of the truth of the statements contained in it. That I swore worse than an Algerene pirate, or swore at all, or used profane language, is fcilse. That I said that Shanks and all (or any) of his supporters were traitors and niggerites, is false ; but I said that all the niggerites had voted for him, which all know is true. I did not speak about soldiers, nor use the word soldier in either of the conversa- tions hereinafter mentioned; and, of course, did not call them tories, traitors, or secessionists ; and I did not say a word about Mumfordsville, nor hanging soldiers, nor hang- ing any body else. All this was manufactured out of the whole cloth at the time, by those whose object it was to rai^e a mob. I v/ent to Portland on the 15th day of October, the day after the election, to attend to some professional business in court. When I arrived there, knowing that Mr. Black, the landlord, was a Democrat, and, of course, an anti-Shank man, I jocularly remarked as I drove up, as I have heard remarked perhaps a hundred times in my life, " Is this a Shank tavern? If it is, I guess I'll go farther.'^ Mr. Black, coming up to my buggy, remarked, " I guess it's all right, Judge; get out." I again jocularly remarked that I did not want to patronize an abolition house. Some of the persons around (none of whom I knew) angrily began to denounce me as a secessionist, &c., and I denounced abolitionists back again, and within a minute of the time I stopped my buggy, Mr. Underwood came up to my buggy, and said that he was Marshal of the county, and warned me- how I talked. This fired me up, and I said ex- citedly, ''Well, you had better arrest me and take me to Fort Lafayette; I dare you to do it." He mildly replied, that we datti to do things that we do not want to do; and to get out and put up. His manner and language at once calmed my excitement, and I remarking, " Let these scoun- drels not bother me Chen," or " keep away from me," or "let me alone;" I do not remember which way I said it; got out of my buggy, and went into the sitting-room of the hotel. Having sat there some twenty minutes, I Avent to the court-house, and remained till the court adjourned. Mr. 182 EPISODE. • Hawkins, the clerk, came and saluted me, and I chatted with hina till all had left the court-house, when I returned to the hotel. After supper, in the dusk of the evening, I started out to the stable to see my horse, as it is my custorft. Mr. Joseph Maddox met me on the way, and commenced talking with me about politics, he urging Republican views, and I sus- taining Democratic views. The conversation was mild and respectful by both of us, and continued some five or ten minutes, perhaps longer. In the meantime, a considerable crowd gathered around us, when a young man at my left hand said, " Old man, you must hush up.'' Another imme- diately, at my right hand, said with an oath, " You must leave." Maddox immediately crouched down and slid away from between them. I was surprised, but was immediately convinced that there was concert among them to do me personal violence. The two men who tlrus first spoke I did not know, and they were dressed in soldier's clothing. About a half dozen voices immediately spoke up. I stepped a few paces to the fence, and placed my back against it. I was wholly unarmed. The cries were, "you must leave in twenty minutes;" " where's a watch;" "hang him;" "ride him on a rail;" where's a rail," &c. I said I had come to court to attend to my business in court, and 1 had a right to stay and attend to it. "You shan't;" "let it go un- done ;" " you called us secessionists," &c., were halloaed back in the crowd. I continued, and said that I had started to the stable to see to my horse, and came across Mr. Mad- dox, and stopped and talked with him ; and I have said nothing disrespectful of any of you — which was true. All this transpired within two minutes of time. A kind of lull then occurred. I saw a little opening in the crowd to my left hand, towards the house. I started to the house ; the second or third step I was tripped and fell. A friend, whose voice I knew, stooped over me and told me to get up, and come with him into the house. I did so, and at the in- stance of friends, I was conducted to a place of conceal- ment, where I remained an hour or more, I should guess. A friend then came and told me that my buggy was ready, and it was agreed that I should get into it and go to Mr. Jonas Votaw's. I went with him to my buggy, surrounded by a crowd, got into it, and drove off. Soon after I crossed EPISODE. 183 the creek, Mr. Votaw came riding on behind me- We went on to his house, put up our horses, and I stayed all night. Next morning, after breakfast, while the mail was being opened by Mr. Votaw and lady, the soldiers' wagons came along, and stopped in the road opposite the house. One of them came in whom I knew to be the second one who had spoken on the night previous at my right hand, but did not know his name. lie stayed in some five or ten minutes, eyeing me sitting in the public room, and then went out; and after a while they started off. Had he or any of them then offered violence to me, I should have killed thenio My friends had furnished me arms, and I then had them. Had I hud them on the previous night, I should have kiJled two men. I am glad that I did not have them ; for God knows that I do not vv^ant to shed the blood of a fellow creature. Brave men do not, fifteen or twenty of them together, attack a single unarmed man, whether they wear soldier- clothes, shoulder-straps, or have held a seat in Congress. Cowards only are cruel to the weak and defenceless. I remained publicly at Mr. Votaw's till after dinner. By the advice of friends, whose counsel it was my duty to re- spect, I did not go back to Portland, but came home in the evening, arriving there before dark. As to the contemptible lies about John Bowden, in the article : I sold him a farm in Jay county three years a^^o last March. He has paid but about §80 on it, and has had the use of it for four crops, worth ^400 ; and has sold 'off and destroyed the timber. lie promised me a year ago, when I took judgment for §1,086 92 of the purchase money then due and unpaid, that he would pay §400 by Christmas, and I agreed to wait a year for the balance without security, if he made the payment; and it was so entered in the record of the judgment. He did not make the paym.ent, and I sued out execution, and it was returned no property found. In May last he promised me to pay §500 by harvest, or surrender the title-bond without costs or trouble. He did not do it, and I wrote twice to him afterwards, and could get no answer from him, nor the bond. About the first of September, I had an offer for the land at a loSs to me of only about §200, and the offer was to stand open till Christ- mas. I again wrote to Bowden, reminding him of what he 184 EPISODE. had promised, and requesting him to surrender the bond, or I should take steps at the fall court to sell out his equity. He failed to answer, and about that time volunteered. I brought the suit ; went out to take my decree and sell out his equity, and get my property into my possession, which I had a clear, legal, and equitable right to have. lie, with the assistance of two others, got up the mob, resulting as above stated, notwithstanding the court and all its officers were present. The law was powerless in protecting me in my legal rights, and afforded me no protection. Bowden got the decree rendered, giving him to July next before a sale of his equity can be made, ivUhout Ms ijiving any secu- rity whatever for the purchase-rtioncy, all being due. He will not pay it, nor a cent of it, and is utterly insolvent and worthless, and will get nearly another year's use of the farm, making $500 in all. I lose a sale, and by that time, the farm will probably not sell for more than half what is due me, including the costs which he has compelled me to make. Thus he affected the object he had in raising the mob. Had I dreamed it possible he could have so succeeded, I should have gone back to court, though I should have been thereby put under the-necessity of killing three or four per- sons, and perhaps of losing my own life. And now, in ad- dition to all this, to try to cover up these irross outrages perpetrated upon me, this torrent of abusive falsehood is published to overwhelm me if possible. I had no personal hostility to Mr. Shanks. I had poUdcal hostility to him for two reasons : 1st. He is v/holly unqual- ified to fill a seat in Congress. 2d. He sustained measures in Congress utterly subversive and destructive of the Con- stitution and the Union, both of which I am very anxious to preserve for my posterity as I have enjoyed them. And when my country's all is at stake, as it now is, in a choice between its interests and personal friemlships, I hesitate not a moment to take my stand for my country. Gross and groundless as these outrages are to me per- sonally, I sorrow less for them on that account, than because th'^y add another to the many evidences we have of the rapid speed with which the Constitution and the laws are being overturned and destroyed, and anarchy, internecine strife and the reign of terror are being inaugurated in our beloved but unhappy country. The result of the recent EPISODE. 185 elections !:;ive me a gleam of hope that daylight is coming. Had abolitionism succeeded ftgain in the elections this faH, our beloved Union, and the Constitution that forms it, and the Goverrniieiit, would have been hopelessly gone. The abolitionists and the secessionists are but the two blades of the same pair of shears, tliat have been, and are, shearing this Union and Government to shreds. Either without the other would be powerless and harmless. But tohii)g ihu debate, &c. You do not say how much you desire to pub- lish — whether you would include the preliminary articles, or whether you would wish to add other and extrinsic mat- ter. Were I disposed to unite in the publication, these would be necessary inquiries. I see no good that can result either to you or me, b}-" tlie publication of the debate in its present form ; and it would seem that you have abandoned the idea of the discussion being again resumed. Y^ou are mistaken in the presumption that I knew what has passed between you and brother GooDVfiN, or between you and the Journal Company, in reference to the charges against you. I have read what has been published. Be- yond that, I have been told that you had written some lengthy articles both for the Record and for the Journal^ which the editors had not published for the reason, as I un- derstand in each case, that they were too lengthy, and the matter regarded as irrelevant to anything which had ap- peared against you in the respective papers. I may be mistaken in this ; but it is the impression I got at the time. EPISODE. 195 Your communications were not submitted to me. My ad- vice was not sought, nor was it given, as to their publica- tion. An^as publicly thrust out of the forum, the door slammed in my face, and you told to go on, which you commenced doing. And you "say in all frankness, that I (you) think Bro. Goodwin did right in thus closing the debate." I shall not again ask aduiittance into that forum, and, perhaps, ought not to occupy it if ten- dered, unless proper amends be made to me ; though, in obedience to the lavf of the Lord, I forgive all trespasses committed against me, in the manner therein enjoined on me to forgive them. You s;)y that you prefer that I put myself " right before the public and resume the discussion ;" and yet say that you do not know what has passed between brother Goodwin and me, and the Journal Company and me. Not boasting of my rectitude, (for God knows I sin too often) I, however, heo leave to state, that I am nearer rio^ht before the All-see- ... ing Eye, before the public, and in curia, as we lawyers say, than are those who have trespassed against me in getting up and circnlat'uig this slander. But that is a subject that I will not, neither now nor here, discuss nor expatiate upon. To 196 EPISODE. my own Master I stand or fall, and not to those who judge another man's servant;^ an(], with his help, I will try and meet his approhation. But do not understand that I " decide not to attempt" to " put m^^self right before the public. " I have attempted it, but hitherto, however, with only partial success. But if the Lord spares me and permits, I purpose that it shall all come to the light, as I informed you in my letter of the lUth ultimo. But all this has nothing to do with the business of this correspondence. Hence to it. I desire to publish an introduction giving the reasons why it is important noiv to inquire and ascertain whether or not slavery is sinful ; in which will be included the preliminary articles. Tlien the discussion as far as it has gone. If you will immediately proceed with tlie discussion, in manuscript, to its conclusion, the other five numbers on each side will of course go in. If you do not, it will be a refusal on your part to finish and publish the discussion jointly, and I shall publish it as far as it has gone, with such concluding argu- ments and matter as I deem proper to go to the public with it. I again desire an early categorical answer, yea or nay ; and if yea, send me your number six immediately, or say whether I shall take that already published in the Record^ as number six, and reply to it. Fraternally yours, Jer. Smith. To which I received the following long response: Forest Home, near Indianapolis, Dec. 16th, 1862. Bro. Jer. Smith : — I have yours of the 10th. Your an- swer to my inquiries as to what you desire to include in the proposed publication, is not as definite as I could have wished. I could perceive no motive which you could have for the simple publication of the debate in its present un- finished state, and could therefore but suspect that you pro- posed uniting with it, in the publication, your defence against the charges made against you in the political papers of the (1) Rom. xiv, 4, day. I could not percoive the connection of the dehate, either with those charges, or with your vindication against them. For the purpose of ascei'tnining "how much you desire to publish, whether you would incliide the preliminary articles, or whether you would wish to add other and ex- trinsic matter," I asked you to "let me know how much and how little you desire to publish?" To this you reply that "you desire to publish an introduction, giving the reasons why it is important iioip to inquire and ascertain whether or'not slavery is sinful, in which will be included the preliminary articles. Then the discussion as far as it has gone." You do not say that this is ail, nor liave you removed my susificion that you wish to add to it other and extrinsic matter. You do not say how much or how little you desire to publisli. If your purpose is simply the pub- lication of the debate, I see no necessity of an introductory argument^ "giving the reasons why it is important now to inquire and ascertain whether or not slavery is sinful." It would be asking me to co-operate in the publication of whatever you might noiv choose to write on that subject. To this I could not consent. Nor could I consent, under cover of publishing the debate, to co-operate with you in a publication, the real purpose of which would be to vindicate- yourself against charges which have no connection with the debate, or with any matters named in it. I am not your accuser, and have no acquaintance with tiiose who are. Y^ou do not need my help or co-operatioij in your vindica- tion. Y^ou can manage that better without connecting me or the debate with it. I have a right to object, and do object, to your publish- ing the debate in connection with your purposed vindica- tion. You could have neither motive nor excuse for doinii so, but by charging me with being your accuser, or with colludinsr with those who have accused you. Such a charge would be false, and would be an attempt to place m.e in a false position. Such a charge would be calculated to injure rather than benefit you, in your vindication. Y'our charac- ter and former habits, so far as known to me, afforded a fair presumption that the charges against you were false. I so jgtated when I first heaid them, and you have no right to iplace me in a position of antagonism to you upon those charges. 198 EPISODE. I suppose I need not hardly say whether I will now con- sent or decline to unite with you in the sole and simple pub- lication of the debate as it stands, with the preliminary ar- ticles as they stand, as I apprehend you do not contemplate making a proposition of that kind. Yet if so made, I should probably decline to unite in such a publication, as I am of opinion that the book would neither find sale, nor be read by the brethren, especially in the incomplete and imperfect state of the debate on both sides. I am not inclined to proceed with the discussion in man- uscript, as you suggest; for to do so, we would be simply writing for the benefit of each other, unless I should con- clude, in advance, to unite in the publication when comple- ted. If the debate should proceed, I am willing to abide by the terms of my own proposition in reference to the publication, and in reference to the number and length of the articles,^ to which you agreed, but which you seem to forget, and strive to crowd me back on to your first propo- sitions, which were not accepted by me. I have had some talk with brother Goodwin. He said he was willing that you should resume the debate upon terms to which he thought you would not object ; and that he would write you upon the subject. I suppose he has done so. If he proposes anything satisfactory to you, please let me know. Yours fraternally, Ovid Butler. About the time that I got the last preceding letter, I re- ceived the following from brother Goodwin : Indianapolis, Dec. 13th, 1862. Bro. Smpih : — I supposed you would see the propriety of the plan suggested by me, in a former letter, for clearing yourself of those unfavorable charges which appeared against you in some of the public papers, and that you would adopt that plan. I hoped that ere this, I should have received a favorable decision from the proposed committee, by publishing which, you would be placed favorably before the christian public. I have felt much afilicted in mind, to (1) Where is this proposition? If the reader can find it, he can do more than I can; and he has, in the preceding pages, all that brother Butler wrote, or that I agreed to on the subject. EPISODE. 199 think that one who stood so high in my esteem, should be made the subject of such serious charges, under any cir- cumstances ; and therefore I feel very anxious that you should clear yourself of them, if you are innocent, as you aver. But you seem to have paid no attention to my friendly suggestions. For your sake, and for the sake of the cause of Christ, I do not feel willing for the matter to remain as it is. I therefore suggest, in all kindness, that you write and send me something like the enclosed article, and I ^yill publish it. Then the charges will stand denied ; and if any brethren should feel dissatisfied, it will remain for them to renew the charges, and ask an investigation. If no one should do this, your denial would stand approved. I hope you will not regard it as presumptions in me to make these suggestions, and that you will let me hear from you on the subject at your earliest convenience. Yours in hope, Elijau Goodwin. " The enclosed article.'' Bro. Goodwin: — You advised me, in a private note, to call a committee to investigate those slanderous reports that were published in some of the public prints against me, for the purpose of proving myself clear of those charges. I choose, however, simply to deny those charges ; and let those who believe them, and think the cause of Christ is suffering thereby, bring them up in due form, before a com- petent tribunal, and I will be ready to answer for myself. That I had an unpleasant difficulty with certain men that I believed to be soldiers, at the time referred to in those papers, by their attacking me without any provocation on m}^ part, is true. That I may have done and said things, in the excitement, that the law of Christ would not justify, I admit ; but that I was drunk, and swore profanely, or that I swore at all, on that occasion, I most positively deny. Yours, &c. I sent to brother Goodwin the following answer : Winchester, Dec. 18th, 1862. Bro. Goodwin: — Your kind letter of the 13th inst., with its enclosure, came while I was absent from home. 200 EPISODE. Since my acquaintance with you, I have regarded you as possessed of a kind heart, and of uprightness of intention ; and this letter is an evidence, that in so regardin<:ij you, I did you no more than justice. But, my dear brother, permit me, in all kindness, in this private con-espondence between us, to suggest to you, that you, in common with uivself, and all other poor mortals of Adam's race, are liable to, and do, fall into errors of judg- ment, leading to, and resulting in, errors of action. Flow n>uch better it would have been, in my humble judg- ment, and how much more consonant with the divine law relating to such matters it would have been, had you writ- ten this, or a similar letter, to me, before, and instead of, publidi/ thrusting me out of the Record as a disputant in tlio middle of a discussion, stating that you were compelled to do so by certain reports in the public prints touching my recent conduct, thus ns why I did not, in ray address to the public, on the subject, notice the charge of drunkenness. They were two. \\\ that address, I was in a political forum. 1. Had I been as drunk as charged, I should not, for that reason, have been mobbed. If I should, almost all the per- sons engaged in the mob should have been mobbed also. And men who conduct leading Republican p)apers shouhl be also mobbed at least twice a week. 2. Temperance society men hold that if one partakes of spirits at all, he becomes intoxicated; while confirmed in- ebriates hold that one is not intoxicated so long as he re- EPISODE. 201 tains his consciousness and powers of locomotion ; and all stages between these two extremes are held by some one or other in society as being the point at which intoxication commences. Hence, intoxicated or not intoxicated, is too vague an issue to make before the public, with political demagogues. The truth is this : I saw some friends and drank some spirits on the ^\iiy as I went to Portland, and felt the iniflu- ence of the spirits I had drunk, somewhat, when I got to Portland, and, of course, the spirits could be smelt on my breath ; hut I was not dnmlc in any fair sense of the tenn. The demagogues seized upon the fact as it was, to make the charge — hence I committed a sin ; for I was commanded to abstain from all appearance of evil.^ And though I actually committed no evil in partaking of the spirits, yet the use the devil made of it at Portland, and through the press, gave it the appearance of evil — hence I sinned ; and for that sin I have sorrowfully and bitterly repented, and have the word of God that I am pardoned for it. I did not say or do things at Portland " that the law of Christ would not justify ;" and hence, I can not say that I did, either publicly in your paper, or in this private corres- pondence with you. To my own Master, I stand or fall ; and not to those who judge another man's servant;- and with his help, I hope to be able to meet his approbation. May the good Lord enable us all to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are'called," and to be not high-minded but fear/ is my devout prayer. The God of peace be with you. Farewell. Jer. Smith. It is seen that brother Goodwin, in his last letter above inserted, says that a public denial by me of the foul charges '' would stand approved,'"' unless brethren who believed them, and thought the cause of Christ was suffering thereby, "should bring them up in due form before a competent tri- bunal,'' and '' renew the charges, and ask an investigation." He was right in this. And, if this was correct and true on the 13th of December, 1862, when he w^rote that letter, it was equally true and correct on the 10th and 17th of iSo- (1) IThes. V, 22. (2) Bom. xiv, 4. (3) Eph. ir, 1. (4) Bom. xi, 20. 14 202 EPISODE. vember, preceding. And the reader, by looking to ray com- munication to him of the date of November 10th, which I asked hita to publish, Avill see that in that communication I denied the charges, each and all of them. Tiiat denial "stood approved," unless brethren renewed the charges, brought them .up in due form, and asked an investigation before a competent tribunal. But brother Goodwin, on the 17th of November, refused to publish that denial ; and said, in his letter refusing, that I had " adopted the wrong cour^-^e" to set myself right before the world. In less than a month afterwords, ho^^'ever, to-wit : on the 13th of December, he said it v/as right, and recommended me then to take it — things still standing as they then were, before the brother- hood and the public. The reader, by looking back, will see that I said in reply to that, that I was not certain that the manner then sugges- ted by him was the best, or even a proper way of proceed- in o" takino- all the facts that had transpired into considera- tion ; and that hence, I could not then accept hrs suggestions. He had said that he did not feel willing to let the matter rest as it was, from which I had necessarily to understand that he intended to have it straightened out ; and lie wanted me to take the initiative. I thought, and still think, taking all the facts that had transpired into consideration, that it was his place to take the initiative, and not mine. If he believed the charges, he should have renewed them, and asked an investigation, in due form, before a competent tribunal. If he did not believe them, he should, in liis paper, publicly, have taken back and undone the mischief he had done me by his publication in the Record, of the 4th of November. " Had he done so, then the way would have been open for me to make such a publication as recommended by him on the loth of December. I could not then accept that suggestion, because his publication of the 4Lh of NovembtT stood, and all that had passed between him and me, and the Journal Company and me, had been, and then was, suppressed and kept from the public. Things standing thus before the public, in publishing a denial of the charges, it was ab£;olutely necessary that, with it, I should set out the facts and circumstances showing the animus, the spirit, object and purpose of those who had got up, and of those who had circulated the charges. These things my comma- EPISODE, 203 nication of November 10th did, and that recommended by brother Goodwin on December 13th, did not do. He re- fused to publish mine of the 10th, I think, because it ex- posed the faults of the Journal Company and himself, rather than because it was too political, as he alleged. Hence, before I could properly appear in his paper, otherwise than jis set out in my communication of tbe 10th of November, or move in the matter, he had to take the initiative: either to renew the charges and proceed in dtce form, or to remove the quasi endorsement he had given them by his publication of November 4th, and place me before the christian broth- erhood and the public, as if that publication had never been made. Hence, I gave him the facts as to the charge of drunkenness, that he might have them to consider, with the others, in determining which course he would take. Yet he took neither, and *' let the matter rest as it was." He said I *' adopted the wrong course " in the article I pent him for publication on the 10th of November. Well, I said, and I think I have shown in the preceding pages, partly from his own pen, that he adopted the wrong course in making that publication, when he did, and as he did. In my public denial of the charges to which he gave a quasi endorsement by that publication, sent to him for publica- tion, I showed, as it was my duty to show, the impropriety of the course he, as well as the Journal Company, had pur- sued towards me, but included in it my prayer for their for- giveness for the trespasses they had committed against me, having set out and shown what they were. Is he to deter- mine what is the proper course for him and me both? Is it not as proper that I should determine for both? And yet I do not claim the right, and would not exercise it, if I have privilege of determining for both. I judge him not; and '* unto God would I commit my cause ;"^ *' I would order my cause before him."^ Brother Butler said that a certain thing said as to him, was so palpably a fiction, " that it needs no notice from me."^ These charges were so, as to me, with persons who had known my conduct for forty years, in this community, where I live. They were so palpably false that they did not need a denial from me, with all who had so known me, (1) Jobv/8. (2) Jobxxiii, 4. (3) Ante, p. ISS. 204 EPISt>DK and who did not wish to believe evil of me — who did not wrsh the charges true ; and those who did, I regard as beneath my attention, and unworthy of any notice from me. Such charges against brethren Goodwin and Butler, even^ in a religious paper, much more in dirty, filthy, political, parti'zan sheets, would need no denial from them, with me; nor would I circulate such reports against them, emanating from such sources. Brother Butler says that he stated, when he first heard the charge, that my character and former habits af- forded a fair presumption that they were false. ^ What put it into brother Butler's head, that in publish- ing the debate, I would unite with it my defence against the conduct of my accusers? And what put it into his head, that he would be charged with being my accuser, or with colluding with those who have accused me ? I bad said neither. The reader will please look back and see if I had. Did his '^ heart'' condemn him? Or, did his "intuition" " before and above all reasomug," bring these things up in his mind? Let us first state and look at the facts as they are. Brother Butler is a stockholder, and, I am told, a large one, in in the Indianapolis Journal Company. He is an influential member of that corporation or firm, whichever it may be. Tilford is the President of that Company, and of course a stockholder. They are the co-bishops of the Christian Chui'ch at Indianapolis, are both rabid abolition- ists, and, of course, are in intimate social relations. Brother Butler knows the Latin legal maxim, as well a& that it is true, Quifacit per alium, facit per se — "What a man does by another, he does by himself;" and, that as to firms and corporations, the act of the firm or corpora- tion is the act of each member; and that each member is presumed to know, that is, that it is taken as a fact that he does know, all the acts of the firm or corporation in the course of its business. Hence brother Butler knew and assented to the copying of the libel from the Winchester Journal into the Indianapolis Journal^ and knew and as- sented to the refusal of the Indianapolis Journal to publish my defence, notwithstanding the presumption, in his opinion, was, that the charges were false. If he did not actually (1) Ante,prl»if. g)?isoi>E. 20& k-BOW of these things at the time they were done, as he sayg he did not, when they came to his knowledge, what was his duty, he believing them to be false, and in contemplation of lav,', the Journal Company's act being his a<;t? It was to teW the Company to publicly, in their paper, withdraw the charges, or publish my defence. But instead of that, he says ^' my advice wa« not sought, nor was it given." Thus not only in contemplation of law, but in fact, he assented to, and assumed the acts of the Journal Company. Had he then forgotten what he so eloquently said in his third article of the debate about love, as exhibited in action — in doing?* Had he forgott'en the Scriptures he then partly quoted? "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men,^pecialli/ tinio themivho are of the house- hold of faith.^^^ " Love worketh no ill to his neighbor."^ ^' If any man say I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar : for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not &eeii ?"'' And had fie forgotten the divine commands that he did not there -quote ? " Above all things, have fervent charity (love) among yourselves : for charity (love) shall cover a multitude of siiis."^ " Charity (love) suffereth long, and is kind ; ^ '^ '''■ thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the trutk.''^ But this " fountain " of love brother Butler <;ould not " bathe in," and could not " breathe of that at- mosphere of love " in my case, because (as I can only sup- pose) I was not of the proper race and color t© be the re- cipient of the ebulition of abolition love. Yet he -says the Lord took this law of love from " neighbor," and ^ppii.ed i^; to "men" — "all men." And he approved brother Goodwin's publication of the 4th of I^ovember, closing the debate until I should " vindi- 'Cate" myself against the slander he had, through the i'/^r^^- ^napolis Journal^ sent all over the State, and had refused to send my " vindicatien " in the same sheet. The Wmchester Journal was limited in its circulation to 300 or 400 copies, and they in the region of country whei-e I have been known, (1) Ante, pp. 131-2-3-4, which the reader will please turn to and read. (2) Gal. vi, 10. (3) Rom. xiii, 10. (4) 1 John iv, 20. (5) 1 Pet. iv, 8. Wesley, in his note on this passage, says: "He that Zore« another, -covereth his faults, how many soevor they be. lie turns away his own eyes from them; and', as far as possible, MUes them from o^Aer^," instead -of publishing them brcadcast in his paper. { Matt. XXV, 34-4&. (2) Phil. ii,5. DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 219 JER. SMITH'S REPLY INCUMBER ONE. My Dear Brother Wiley : — Your number one, tlicugii left for me some time ago, only reached nre yesterday. Slavery is an institution existing in fact. It must be an institution of civil society or civil government; or it is an institution of the christian kingdom ; for there are but the tv/o — the kingdoms of this world, and the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I aver that it is an institu- tion of civil society or civil government; you do not deny it, but say that it originated in paganism, and that its ten- dency is back to paganism. If this is true, it is not an in- stitution of the Lord's kingdom, but of civil society, or the kingdoms of this v/orld. I understood you in our conver- sation, in which this friendly discussion was agreed upon, to agree with me that it was an institution of civil society. You do not, in your number one, deny it, but do not, in words, admit it, but pass on to the second propositioB, " as it involves the real issue between us," in your opinion. I notice this first proposition, as it is well for us' to under- stand each other as we go along, and " not strive about v/ords to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers,"^ and set it down that we agree that slavery is an institution of civil society. " Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law ; for sin is the transgression of the law."^ " All unrighteous- ness is sin/'^ These divine rules and definitions you quote in part. Of course they are right, because they are divine. But that we may fully understand it, I will quote some further: 'MYhosoever ahiddh in him^ sinneth not."'^ "He that keepeth his commandments, dwellefh in him, and he in him."^ ^' If ye keep my commandments, y6 shall abide in my love ; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."" " He that doeth righteousness, is righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous."" From these divine oracles we learn that sin is a trans- gression of the law of God ; that if we abide in the Lord, v/e will not sin; that if we. keep his commandments, we (1) 2 Tim. ii, 14. ^3) 1 John v, 37. (5) 1 John iii, 24. (7j 1 John iii, X. (2) I John, iii, 4. (4) 1 John iii, 6. (6) John xv, 10. 220 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. shall dwell or abide in him, and in his love, as he abided in his Father's love by keeping his Father's commandments ; that if we do righteousness, that is, keep the Lord's com- mandments, v/e shall be righteous as the Lord was righteous, who was not left alone by the Father, because he did "al- ways th.ose things that pleased" the Father,^ thnt is, the thinirs that the Father had commanded him to do. Having premised these things, I will proceed to notice your arguments, seriatim. 1. Your first argument, thrown into the form of a syllo- gism, is : The whole human family have one common ori- gin, to-wit, God and Adam; therefore the institution of slavery is sinful ! ! The conclusion does not follow from the premises. It has no logical relation to the premises. As well might the conclusion be: therefore the relation of ihonarch and subject, in all monarchical governments, is sin- ful ; or, therefore is the relation of President and subordi- nate officers, and the relation between them and citizens, in this government, sinful relations ! This argument is a fal- lacy, brother Wiley. You quote, in this argument, a scrap of home-made Scripture, that I think proper to notice, to-wit: "None but God can own a man." This is not only home-made, but it is contradictory of divine Scripture,* as vvill appear before we get through this discussion. Let us stick to the "Scrip- tures given by inspiration," in our investigation ; for they alone are "profitable for doctrine," and " for instruction in righteousness,"^ to-wit, for instruction in keeping the com- mandments of God; for, keeping the commandments of God, is righteousness. Some other matters thrown in by you under this head, 1 Y/ill notice, though irrelevant to the investigation before us. You assume that the institution of slavery reduces man " to the level of a brute beast," to "chattel property," &c This is untrue, brother Wiley; the imtitution does no such thing; and it is a great pity that so many good me?.! and women are misled by this, and similar mis statements tjiat have been made for years, and are still being made, as tc what the institution does. In almost every particular, i& the relation of master and the slave, different from tliat be- tween the owner and the animal of brute creation. Somo (1) John viii, 29. (2) 2 Tim. iii, 16. DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 221 had masters may treat some of their slaves like brute beasts; but it is the man, and not the institution, that does that. The institution itself regards both master and slave as hu- man beings, and not as brute beasts ; but either or both may, by their conduct, become like brute beasts, and each may treat the other as if he were a brute beast. But it is the man that does this — not the institution. Many hus- bands and wives treat their companions as brute beasts. Does that prove the institution of marriage sinful ? Cer- tainly not. Another item under this head : In this investigation, it is not incumbent on any one to '' labor to show the righteous- ness of the institution of slavery." It is incumbent on you to show that it is sinful, that is, a transgression of the law of God; it is not incumbent on me to show that it is commanded of God ; for that is required to niake it right- eousness in one to become or remain a slaveholder or a slave. The onus or burden of proof is on you, not on me. You are to produce the law of God that the institution itself is a transgression of; I need not produce any law of God ordaining it. 2. The institution of slavery is not violative of the mar- riage rights, any more than is civil government itself. Civil goverment may, and often does, separate husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, when the public defence, the public welfare, or public justice requires it. In time of war, husbands and sons are drafted into tl^.e army ; and when the public health, public duty, or public justice re- quires it, husband, vvife, son, or daughter, is separated from the rest of the family, by the civil government. Because of these facts, will brother Wiley say that the institution of civil government is sinful ? Of course not. Bad rulers or bad mastoids may commit sins by violating marital rights ; but that is their sin, not the sin of the institution either of government or of slavery. The master may have bad reg- ulations, or the State may have bad laws where slavery ex- ists, as to the marriage rights and relations ; but that is the sin of the master or of the legislature — it is not to be charged up as the sin of the institution. The " wholesome words of Christ" will be attended to in due time ; I am glad you have named them. ?). Your third authority is what Christ read from Isaiah 9,99 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. as reconled in Luke iv, 18, 19. This was done wlien he was entering liis ministry, and was simply a reading of what tl'ie spirit had said 700 years before, througli the prophet, that he should' do when he came. Among the things that the prophet said he should do, was *' to preach deliverance to the CiJptives." As he has fulfilled that mis- sion, and has ascended up on high, we must, to understand the prophecy, look to what he did i^reach, instead of look- ing to what it was said he would preach when he canje. If your construction of the propliocy is right, we can find that he preached that slavery is sinful, and that masters should lot their slaves go free. And that is the passage to cite me to. The passage you'cite, is where he announces what he is to do ; shov,' us where he did it. in your sense of preaching deliverance to the captives, and that will be the law, the transgression of which will be sin. I apprehend, my brother, that you can not find where he preached deliverance to the captives in your sense of deliverance; if you can, please cite me to the phirce. I must correct another erroneous statement you make under this head, that slaves '* are not permitted to receive the Lord's Gospel." As great a proportion of the slave population is christian, as there is of the white popuhition christian, either North or South. The whole race in Africa is heathen and pagan, while a large portion of the slaves in the United States are christians. The institution has brought them within the sound of the Gospel ; while, if they had remained in Africa, they would not have heard, and, of course, would not have *' received," the Gospel, and would have been pagans or heathens, as those that have re- mained there are. " God moves in a mysterious way." We can not comprehend fully wliy the chosen people of God were enslaved 430 years in Egypt; nor why the Africans have been enslaved in the United States 220 yeays, and still are enslaved. Let us "be not righteous overmuch; neither make ourselves overwise."^ Let us not get wise above what is written. The spirit only, seareheth the deep things of God.^ What he does not reveal to us in the Scrip- tures, we have no right to know, nor to try to know. 4. Your fourth pio' you where!" You then cite Matt, xxiii, 10; John xiii, 13, to prove that Christ was a Master ; for he said to the disci- ples that ho v>-as their Master, and they called him Master. You then quote 1 Cor. vi, 20, to prove that all christians are alave^ This looks well. But in order to use this argu- ment to advantage in this discussion, you should have pointed to the passage of the Savior's " slave code," where he sold his slaves — where he separated husband and v*ife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, &c. — and if this (1) James i, 25. (2) James ii, 12. 230 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. can not be found in the Lord's slave code, nor in his '* mind," nor in his practice, then y/)ur labor is all lost. But this is not the worst of it. The Lord sajs to his disciples : " But be not ye called Rabbi (Master) for one is your Master even Chnst, and all ye are brethren."^ This puts an ever- lasting veto upon all human slave codes. Now, dear bro- ther, you say ^' what the Lord commands must be done;" and so say 1. There can be no christian masters without disregarding the Lord's word. But this is "not all. The apostle says : " If the son therefore shall make you //eg, ye shall be free indeed.'^ This shows that the christian is the Lord's freeman ; and he '' shall be free indeed." To become a servant of Jesus Christ then, destroys every relation that would make one man the property or slave of another ; or that would allow one man to be called the master of an- other. This is what the Gospel does. You claim that '' if the institution of slavery is sinful, it is so because it is for- bidden ; and so forbidden as ,explicitly as drunkenness, adultery, &e." Now, brother Smith, you certainly know that getting drunk is not an institution, neither is commit- ting adultery an institution ; such actions are corrupt, wicked, brutal actions, and are the results of the sinful in- stitution of slavery. American slavery is an institution, and it does tolerate the practice of adultery, and is there- fore a sinful institution. And as certainly as adultery is sinful, the institution that tolerates it is sinful ; and as cer- tainly as adultery is forbidden, so certainly is the institution of slavery that admits it forbidden. Having now examined your reply, and removed every thing out of the way, I v/ill proceed with my regular file of arguments. 8.. This argument is founded upon the following passage, embracing the law of love. It reads as follows : *' Render therefore to all their dues ; tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom custom ; fear to whom fear ; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shalt love a) Matt, snii, 8. ' DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 231 thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neigh- bor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."^ The point embraced in this passage is this : The Gospel law is a law of love ; and as it requires its advocates to love fhei7' neighbors as themselves, and as love is the fulfilling of the law, it " therefore briefly comprehends " all the acts of benevolence neces,sary to adorn the christian character, and puts an everlasting end to the institution of slavery, which reduces human beings to a level with the animal of the brute creation. Here I plant myself, and here I expect to stand, fearless of anything that can be said in favor of the righteousness of the institution of American slavery. This lavf of ,love comprehends, in one general view, all the good contemplated in the Gospel of Christ ; and con- demns every species of wickedness — yea, everything that opposes the principles of the Gospel of Christ. Card-play- ing, horse-racing, and polygamy, are not once named in the New Testament; but the Gospel law, called by Paul " the law of the spirit of life ;'' called by James " the perfect law of liberty," condemns all such wickedness. 9. This argument is based upon the following words of the apostle : " Behold, the hire of the laborers v/ho have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.'*^ The whole connection in the fifth chapter of James goes to show that this is a nractical demonstration of slavery, and justly in- curs the judgments of God. American slavery is no mod- ification of the above case. If the Bible condemns any thing, it condenms oppression ; and if there is anything upon this broad green earth that can rightfully be called oppression, it is the institution of American slavery. Now, brother Smith, you must come right up to the work, and meet these arguments, or yield the cause, and admit that the institution of xVmerican slavery is a sinful institution. Thomas Wiley. March 20th, 18G1. (1) Rom. xiii, T-10. (2) James v, i. 232 DISCUSSION OF' SLAVERY. JER. SMITH'S REPLY NUMBER TWO. My Dear Brother Wiley : — Your number two is before me. Clear ideas are essential to correct reasoning and just judgment. To have clear ideas, we must have correct defi- nitions of the terms used; or, rather, we must understand the terms used in the sense in which they are used. Hence, I will try again, to explain the sense in which certain terms are used in this our friendly investigation. In the proposition, Slavery is an institution of civil society^ or civil goveryiment^ let us settle what is meant by the terms civil society or civil (jovernment ; for the two are used as synonymous. Civil government is used in contra-distinction to ecclesias- tical government. This nomenclature arose more than a thousand years ago, and really grew out of papistical notions and ideas. Civil and ecclesiastical were the terms used to designate the two orders of government; secular and holy the terms used to designate the officers of each respectively. The government of the Roman Erxiperors and their oiScers, were called civil and secular ; while the government of the church (as it was called) and its officers were designated as ecclesiastical and holy. That nomenclature was carried into the common law when it arose in England; civil government was used to designate the government of the King and Parliament ; and ecclesiastical govermnent was applied to the church or religious government. "We borrowed these terms, and the ideas conveyed by them, from the common law of England, which we inherited from her. So civil govern- merit or civil society means the governm.ent of the State, or secular government, whether it exists among a pagan peo- ple or a christian people, and whether the people were civi- lized or barbarous. I3arbarism did not always exist among pagans ; for the Greeks and Romans were pagans, and yet they were the most civilized and polished nations of antiquitj^ But Christianity, lived up to truly, will, of course, produce a higher state of civilization, than the Greeks and Romans attained to. But I am wanderins; too ftir off. Civil is the counterpart of ecclesiastical. We, of this DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. '233 reformation, in our designation of things, usitig terms ns we have for near forty 3'ears, wouhi use the terms human government and dloine government to desi;j;nate them. The way they are designated in the christian Scriptures is this: Civil or secular governments, as designated by Catho- lics and the common law, and human governments, as we designate them, are, in tlie chrii-tian Sciiptures, called " the kingdoms of this world;" while ecclesiastical and hoh gov- ernment, as designated by Catholics and the common law, stai.d, iii their notions, in the place of v^-hat we call divine govcnimcrit, and in the place of what is designated in the christian Scriptures as *' the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." In the nomenclature of the christian Scrip- tures, rhere are but two governments — the kingdoms of this w^orld, and the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1'he kingdoms of tliis world include all human governments, whether savage, barbarous, or civilized; and the kingdom of the Lord is the divine government during the christian dispensation. When that dispensation shall end, the Lord will surrender the kinrrdom to God.^ But durin«r its ex- istence, it is, in the Scriptures, called the kingdom of the Lorrl Jesus Christ. So the terms civil government, civil sociefy, is used, and •will be used by n)e throughout this discussion, in the sei;se of human governments , kingdoms of ihistvorld; whWe diviyte government and divine laiv will be used to designate the gov- ernment of the Lord Jesus Christ and his laws. And, in tlnit sense, I say that American slavery is an institution of civil government; and you agree to it in that sense ; for in \ftiir last, you say " human laws are essential to the in- stitution of slavery." So much for this ; and I hope we will understand one another hereafter, and that you will attach the same idea to the words I use, that I do myself, when I use the phrases civil society, civil government, and divine goveriAinent and divine law. Another preliminary matter relating to definitions, and the having of clear ideas of things about which we talk. You set out by quoting from John the definition of sin, that it is a transgressio?i of the laiv. I accepted it, because it is of divine authority, and hence true. But I went on further, to give the Scripture definition of righteousness, * (1)1 Cor. XV, 24-28. 16 234 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. that it was doing what God commanded. Sin then, is the traruujresHton of God^s law; and righteousness is (^oiW(7 /n's eommandmcnls — keeping his law. Let us keep these ideas clear in our minds, brother WiLEZ, wiien we go to examine to see whether anything is sinful or righteous. If it is a transgression of God's law, it is sin ; if it is doing a com- mand of God, it is righteous. Hence, doing a thing not forbidden of God, is not sin; and doing a tiling not com- manded of God, is not righteousness. Hence, to make slavery sinful, it must be forbidden : to make it righteous, it must be commanded. You have undertaken to prove it sinful ; I have not undertaken to prove it righteous. But you seem to think that my denying that it is sinful, is aa averment that it is righteous. Not so, m^y brother. But you say "it must be either right or wrong." That may be true, and still it may not be either sinful or righteous, in the Scripture sense of sin and righteousness. I will try and show you that this is so. To migrate, or travel from one place to another, may be right or wrong, that is, it may be proper or improper, expedient or inexpedient, for any particular person to do so at a particular time ; but it is not i'ighteousness to do it unless it is commanded of God, nor sinful to do it unless it is prohibited of God. Now, when Abram left Ilaran and went to Canaan, he did an act of righteousness, because God had commanded him to do so : and, if the apostles had gone by the way of the Gentiles, or into the cities of the Samaritans, when the Lord sent them, during his ministry, they would have sinned, because he commanded them not to do so. Any other person that went at the time Abram went, or at any other time, from Haran to Canaan, did not *' do righteousness " by that act; nor did any other persons that went by the way of the Gentiles, or into the cities of the Samaritans, sin by so doing. A great many other instances could be given from Scripture to the same effect. Hence, we see the necessity, if we want to understand *' the mind of Christ " and "grow in the knowledge of" him, to keep correct ideas of sin and righteousness before our minds when we presume to call anything sinful or righteous. I will now proceed to review what you have said in youE last, under the respective numerical heads. 1. As you seem to think I have " failed " to give a single DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 235 instance in support of the truth of the dechiration that " in alnaost every particuhir, is the relation between master and slave different from that between the owner and the animal of the brute creation ;" and reiterate the assertion that *' the institution of shivery reduces human beings to a level with animals of the brute creation," I will elaborate these matters some further. Does the institution of slavery deprive human beings of speech, of thought, of the reasoning powers, of the mental faculties generally, of the affections, of the erect attitude or upright position in which God formed man to go, of an im- mortal spirit, and of religious aspirations toward his Maker? It must do all this, and even more, before it can be truly said that it reduces human beings to a level with animals of the brute creation ; for they lack all these things. I can not now call to mind but one particular in which the relation between master and slave, and the relation between the owner and the animal of the brute creation, is the same, and that particular is the relation of owner and owned. In everything else that I can now think of, the relation between them is different. The relation between the master and the slave is that of man and man, with all the concomitants of conversation, society, &c., &c., including the high and holy relation of brethren in the kingdom of Christ ; while the relation between the owner and the animal of the brute creation, is simply that of man and brute, differing in almost every respect from that of man and man. Now, though you are "willing to risk the whole contro- versy on the truth" of the declaration that ''the institution does no such thing" as reduce human beings to the level of brutes, I shall not hold you to it, though I have shown that it "does no such thing." My object is to convince your judgment, not to obtain a mere polemic victory, in this friendly investigation. It is best, however, as I think you will see now, to come down to sober truth, and drop all such exaggerated assertions that have been asserted and re- assertele foi- a sin, and as a sinner, for violating something that was arrived at only by some two, three or four deductions fr'uu something that God had said. And in all cases where God held any one accountable as a sinner, it was for the viola- tion of something that God had directly said. Sin and (1) Col. ii,8. DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 237 righteousness, based upon inference=;, built up tbe papacy, and, with other things, brought on the long night of moral darkness, which has now, thank God, nearly passed awny. We should come out not only from Bablyon, but from her practices. If we follow her practices, we are so far a part of her. Coming out of the communion and ecclesiastical body of the Man of Sin, does not prevent us from being a part of the Man of Sin, if we follow his practices and do his work. We must not only come out of Babylon, but we must leave there everything Babylonish, even though it be " a goodly Babylonish garment,"^ of reasoning men to act from their deductions from what God has said, instead of acting directly from what he has said, without the deduc- tion or the inference. I say these things that you may re- flect upon them, and examine the good word of God to see whether these things are so : and that you may cease to try to prove slavery sinful by inference, and begin to look up direct proof of its sinfulness. 2. The laws of Indiana divorce men and their wives, and take chihiren from one or both of the parents, as the case may be, for all time to come ; and slave laws do it for no longer a time. Indiana has never had occasion to do it — but she may; and other States of the Union have had occa- sion to drjst't husbands, fathers and brothers, from wives, children and sisters, and take them to battle where they were slain and never returned. And the European govern- ments are now constantly doing this. I must correct another incorrect assertion, brother Wiley. The institution does not " ruthlessly separate " husband and wife. Bad masters may, and perhaps sometimes do; but not a thousandth part of the instances tliat have been con- stantly represented throughout the North, during the last ten or fifteen years, ever existed in fact. When masters do so, it is their sin, and is so set down in the law of God governing in the premises; and not a word of comlemna- tion, in tliat place, of the iiiMiiution or relation existing be- tween the master and the slave, is found. 3. I admit, brother Wiley, that what the apostles preached and taught, is the preaching and teaching of the Savior; for he sent them as he was sent. But please to cite me to the passage where either he or the apostles preached " de- (1) JoBh. Yii, 21.. 238 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. liveraiice to the captives,''' in your sense of deliverance, to- "wit, freeing the slaves, (and all the country they all preached and taught in was full of slaves,) and that will show that it is right to prea(di abolitionism, and that your construction of tiie prophecy that the Savior read,^ is ri^j^ht. The pas- sages you cite mc to, Acts xxvi, lG-18 ; Eph. iii, 8, say nothing about slavery, freeing the slaves, or even about captives. Tlie first is a rehearsal, by Paul, of his conver- sion.; and the second says he was to preach /he unsearchable riches of Christ — not that the slaves should be freed, nor that slavery was sinful. Would it not be well for preachers to do that way now ? 4. The Golden Rule. I warned you about visions and dreams, because you had, in your first number, mentioned visions and dreams. You wholly fail to answer my inquiry, why, if your construction of the Golden Rule is right, the apostles, in writing to christian masters and slaves, ut that is not the rule; yet your interpretation makes that the rule. But the rule is : W hatsoever you would that men shoidd do to you, do ye even so to them. Let us apply this to the mas- ter and slave directly. Does the master want the slave to free him? No: because the master is free. Plence, he need not free the slave, as he does not want the slave to (1) Luke iv, 18, 19. DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 239 free him. Does the slave want the master to free him ? Though it might be, and is otherwise with most of the shives, let the answer be, yes. But the slave can not do to the master what he wants the master to do to him, because the master is already free. So that in the case in discus- sion, to-wit, that between the master and the slave, where the slave wants to be liberated, the Golden Rule does not direct the master to liberate the slave, and the master's failing to do it, is not a viohition of the Golden Rule, unless the phrase, in like circumstances, be interpolated info the rule. All your argument from this rule requires that interpola- tion into it. Brother Wiley, we do not want the Scriptures interpolated ; and it seems now, from the examination, that Paul and Peter were right, in not telling christian masters, in their epistles, that siav^holding was a violation of the Lord's Golden Rule. 5. The Lord has two sets of laws for his disciples ; one to govern them and their conduct in his house and kingdom, and with and towards their brethren in Christ, and one to govern them in their conduct " towards them that arc with- out,"' and as being members or subjects of the kingdoms of this world. But to '* rightfully divide the word of truth,'^ on this suhject, will come up hereafter, and ^ill take too much space here. The 'Maw of liberty" mentioned by James is not a law to free slaves who are slaves by the laws of the kingdoms of this world ; but I forbear to elaborate -and show that at present. 6. I can now only briefly say, that worshipping the Lord's disciple, is not worshipping him ; hence the passage, Matt. XXV, 34-46, does not prove that as we treat the Lord's disciples, we treat him. But more of this hereafter. 7. The Savior is a good Master, and keeps his Father's commandments; and hence does not violate any of the divine laws relating to masters. And as to selling, separa- ting husband and wife, &c., which is uppermost so much in heated imaginations, I have not space to elaborate now. I will only at this time briefly say, that he chose Paul, saying at the time he "captivated" him, that he would ''show him how great things he had to suffer" for him;^ which things Paul did suff'er, even to the giving up of his life. Stephen, James, Peter, Paul, and, it is said, all the apostles except (1) Col. iv, 5; 1 Cor. v, 12, 13. (2) 2 Tim. ii, 15. (.3) Acta ix, 18.~ 240 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. John, were *'sold" even unto death, in the service of the Lord, as well as into prison, to stripes, iscu:^sioif of slavery. truth of your proposition, that the sinfulness and righteous- ness of man wJiolly depends upoa disobedience or obi*dicnce of the positive, express commands of God. You have com- mitted a fatal error at this point, as I will now proceed to show. While there is no man Avho believes more in positive divine institutions than myself, and while no one believes more fully than I do, tliat God has given to mun, in his written word, a full and complete plan of salvation, still there are moral obligations and moral duties, as clearly set forth in th» Gospel, as there are positive express command- ments. There are positive^ moral, and relative obligations or duties to be performed. And as no one but Abrnm was commanded to go to Canaan, in the same sense that he was, therefore it was a special case, and comes within the pur- view of moral obligations of the Gospel of Christ. As well might an individual bring up the case of the thief on the Cross, to prove i\\q general rule orphan of salvation, re- vealed in the christian Scriptures, as to bi-ing up Abrara's case to establish the truth of your position. Sending out the- apostles was another sy^maZ case, a parallel case with the one just examined; and no more. establishes the truth of your position, than the case of the palsied man being miraculously cu>-ed, establishes t\iQ plan of salvation. In order to show more forcibly the total failure of your position, and to exhibit the moral obligations set forth ,in the Golden Rule — the law of love — I will instance a few cases. There is, or has been, systems, legalized systems of gambling, called lotteries, in our country; and still there is not one express command in the Scriptures about them. Arc we, therefore, left in the dark on this subject? Or could we all eniijaoje in such business and not commit sin? Again, men assemble together at the card-table, stake their money, and play cards, win or lose ; and still there is no positive^ express command on the subject. Can individuals, therefore, practice gambling of this kind and not commit sin ? Or does the inoral government of the Lord Jesus Christ — "the Golden Rule" — condemn all such things? It most assuredly does. Once more: Were a company of persons, in a clandestine manner, to place some obstruction in the pathway between your mansion-house and your office, and cause you to get some of your limbs broken, could they DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 245 do so, and not commit sin? Tbere is no such thing posi- tively or exprcfeslj forbi(hien. But the Ifiw of love — tlio moral principle ot the gospel — clearly forbids and condemns all such things. Many more cases might be offered ; but one more \vill Bufiice for the present. Were a company of persons to fasten the iron grasp upon y(ui and me, brother Smith, and force us and our families from our comfoi'table dwellings, and place us entirely in the same condition that the instiiu- tion of American slaverv places human beings, could such an act be dorie and no sin committed by it? Let tliis be ansvvered according to the Golden Rale — according to the law of love, and the whole question will be forever settled. The next item is in reference to the institution of slavery redua'uig human beings to a level with the animal of the brute creation. On tins point you say : " Does i\\e institution of slavery deprive liuman beings of speech, of thought, of the reason- ing powers, of the mental ficulties generally, of the affec- tions," &c. Now, brother Smitk, I did not say that slavery makes of human beings animals of the brute creation, as you Avould have me to way, or as your reply indicates ; for that would be a contradiction of terms; but I did say, that the institu- tion of slavery i-educes human beings to a level with the an- imal of the brute creation. That is what I said; and in the true sense of this subject, that position can be main- tained. You ask, " Does the institution of slavery deprive human beings of speech ?" I answer, yes! It does not always deprive them of the pmopr of speech, but it does indeed de[)rive them of the liberiij of speech,^ and that is the true sense in which I am discussing this subject; and in that sense it does reduce human beinsi-s to a level with the ani- mal of the brute creation. In the true sense of the institution of slavery, and in reference to t\\Q fact of it rcducivg human beings to a level with the animal of the brute creation, I will offer the fol- lowing : As the animal of the brute creation is an article of (1) Were brother Wii.ky alive now, what would he sny of Rurnside and hi.« order " No. 3.S," and Hascall and his order " No. 9 " and of the banishment Oi Vallandighani? Would he not -^ay that those Generals and Uie administration wen; reducinc: free American citi- Eens to the level of the animal of the brute cieation, and heuce sinful institutions? 246 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. merchandize, so is the slave. As the animal of the brute creation is taught to know the meaning of words expres- sive of the will of the owner, so is the slave. As the ani- mal of the brute creation is compelled by force to obey the will of the owner, so is the slave. As the animal of the brute creation is deprived of owning anything, so is the slave. As the animal of the brute creation may be deprived of nurturing and enjoying the association of its offspring, so may the slave. As the owner of the animal of the brute creation can sell the animal at pleasure, even so can the slave be sold. As the owner of the animal of the brute creation disregards the affections (for the animal of the brute creation, brother Smith, has both mind and affections) of the animal by separating it from its mate, and its off- spring, even so does the institution of slavery disregard the affections of the slave, by separating him from his com- panion and offspring, and thus reducing him to a level with the animal of the brute creation. In all these cases, and in many more, does the institution of slavery reduce, or bring down, human beings to a level with the animal of the brute creation. And I am still wil- ling to risk the whole controversy upon the truth of this one item. *' Sober truth" is enough for me. " None but God can own a man." You inform me that if I will take a tour to the South, I will certainly see that the above quotation is not true. Well, I am willing to ad- mit that, by the authority of the sinful institution of slavery, one man is permitted to own another, as an article of mer- chandise ; but none bid God can oion a man, m the true sense of ownership. No man can own his fellow-man, only by authority of the sinful institution of oppression, made by man, in direct opposition to the law of the divine law- giver. Next in order comes the item of separating families. On this item you say : *' The laws of Indiana divorce men and their wives, and take children from one or both of their parents, as thp cfase may be, for all time to come ; and the slave laws do it for no h)nger time." Now, brother Smith, these remarlcs of yours fail to reach tlvs point I made. My argument went to show, that husbands and wives, being separated by divorce, or parents and children, being separa- ted by being called into the service of their country, does I5EBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 247 not separate families in the same sense that slavery sepa- rates them. This must be done, brother Smith, otherwise the argument fails to reach the case. But you claim that I have fallen into an error by saying that the institution of slavery ruOdesdy separates husband and wife. This is not an error ; it is strictly true. Take for example the follow- ing : Deacon A., quite a respectable man, by the authority of the peculiar institution, owns a number of slave families, men, women, and children ; he is kind to them, even better than the law requires ; but he is suddenly called by death away, and they are left to the tender mercies of the insti- tution : what now is done with them ? What will the pecu- liar institution do for them ? They -^vq forced to the auction block, where the institution, with all its tender mercies, ruthlessly separates husband and wnfe, parents and children, to realize all the horrors of perpetual bondage. This, dear brother, is what the institution of slavery does do ; and if such an institution is not sitiful, then it is no use to talk about anything being sinful. The next item is your reply to my argument on Luke iv, 18, 19. But you so signally failed to remove, or to even weaken the force of my argument, that it is unitecessary to make any further defence of it now. But again : In regard to the Golden Rule you say : "What a pity Paul made so great a mistake in Philemon's case, in sending Onesimus back to serve him, instead of tell- ing Philemon that he couy not retain Onesimus as a slave, without violating the Lord's Golden Rule ; and he must let Onesimus go free ; and if he did not he would sin." I am glad that you brought up this case ; for I am prepared, by it, to show two facts : first, that Philemon and Onesimus were brothers according to the fiesh ; and second, after Onesimus was converted to Christianity, he was no longer bound to service. If this can be done, then one of two things must be true. He w?is not a servant in the sense of American slavery; or the Gospel, when it converts a man, destroys the relation of master and slave. If the truth or the above statements is questioned, I pledge myself to sus- tain them ; but fo-r the present, I will pass to noti<3e some other remarks made in regard to the Golden Rule. You say : " The slave can not do to his master what he wants the master to do to him, because the master is already free.** 248 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. The Golden Rule says, *' All thing.s whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." But you say this can not be dono! ** The slave can not do to his master what he wants the master to do to liim." Tiius you have shown, thjit tlie institution of slavery makes it im})ossihle for the Golden Rule to be obeyed. The Lord has ^iven this rule, and its moral obligations rest up 2 Tim. ii, 15. 258 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. for this cause [that they may keep up the regulations of their civil government] pay ye [christians] tribute also : for they are God\'i ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. [You christians must] render therefore to all their dues," under the laws and regulations of these civil governments or kingdoms- of this world. ^ " Submit your- selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,^^ even to the ordinance of man that establishes the institution of slavery ; for so is the will of God."^ Your ninth argument or proof, was fully met by showing that masters did not "hire" their slaves, and, of course, did not keep back their Idre hy fraud. Your tenth argument or proof text, does not show " that the Gospel of Christ sets aside * ^^ slavery," and prove that the "institution of slavery is sinful." It does not have any relation whatever to slavery. 11. "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord;" therefore, when you "submit your- selves" to the "ordinance of man," establishing slavery, you do it in the name, or by the express authority of the Lord, as above shown; but when you "resist," "in word or deed,'' you do not do it in the name of the Lord, or by his author- ity, but directly against it; and they that resist, &c. -. Affectionately yours, Jer. Smith. April nth, 1861. This last letter was never answered by brother Wiley, and the discussion ended here. Whether it was because he began to doubt the correctness of his abolition opinions, and that he might examine more fully and carefully the good word of the Lord upon the subject, before he proceeded further with the discussion, I do not know ; but I am in- clined to believe that that was the reason. He was a very honest, candid man with himself, as well as with all others. And when he had reason to fear that he was wrong in any- thing, he went to work, faithfully and honestly, to ascertain the truth of the matter ; and if he found himself in error, to correct it. That trait in his character was a principal rea- son why I entered into the friendly investigation with him. He lived more than a year after the close of the forego- (1> Rom, xviu, l-5r. (2) 1 Pet. ii, 13 and 15. See, also. Matt, xxii, 21. DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 250 ing correspondence, and died in August, I believe, of 1862. He Avas an excellent man, and I have no doubt has gone to be with the Lord. He went to prepare a place for his dis- ciples, that where he is, there they may be also.^ I have no doubt but brother Wiley has gone there. ! that I may so conduct myself as to meet him in those happy man- sions, is my prayer. As all who undertook to sustain the proposition, Slavery is sinful, desisted before the discussion ^vas concluded — in brother Boggs' case before it was begun — I shall now pro- ceed to close the discussion, ex parte. I would much prefer having an able, candid opponent, that all that can be urged in favor of the proposition might be considered. Proceed- ing alone, I may overlook some things that many honest people think go to sustain the truth of the proposition. I shall, as I proceed, so far as it falls in my way, show the sinfulness of abolitionism. June 20th, 1863. (1) John xiv, 2, 3. CONCLUSION OF THE DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY For sin is the transgression of the law.^ For where no law is, there is no transgre:d— The way of justiiicatiou which he hath fixed.— Wcslet/'i Nots on the Pansage. (2) Ante, p. 99. ' DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 271 which exalteth itself against the hnoivledge of God; and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."^ Mr. Wesley says in his note on this passage, that by bringing every thought into captivity to the obe- dience to Christ, " reasonings are destroyed." This is true. If we yield our thoughts in obedience to Christ's commands, without cavil as to their propriety or impropriety, "their moral character," or anything else, we cast down or destroy reasoning on that branch of the inquiry, and apply our reason to the only proper use we can make of it in an in- quiry of that kind, which is, Did Christ say so by himself, or his sent apostles, during, or after his incarnation? or, did he, as the Word of God, say so before his incarnation, and, if so, is that saying still in force, or was it taken out of the way and nailed to his Cross ? TJiis is the sole and only proper use that ive can make of our reasoning powers as to the commands of God relating to our acts either of commis- sion or of omission. And whenever we do otherwise, and go to reasoning about his commands, and govern our action by the results and conclusions of our reasonings, it leads to, and if continued in, results in apostacy from God. This has been universally so, continually, from the day that Adam was placed in Eden, down to the present time, inclu- ding all present modern discussions, and, of course, inclu- ding this. I will cite a few of the many authenticated in- stances of the truth of this assertion. 1. The Adversary of our race approached Eve in the garden of Eden, and commenced reasoning and arguing with her ; and she listened to his argument. " God doth know," said he, having assumed the form of, or rather, en- tered into, the serpent, *' that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened ; and ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil."^ All this was true. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Partaking of it, would give Adam and Eve that knowledge ; and they did not then possess it. Superior intelligences who had '* kept not their first estate,"^ had that knowledge ; and Adam and Eve, by acquiring it, would become as they, knowing good and evil. They could not acquire that knowledge any other way; for the only law given to them was the one allowing them everything else upon the earth, and thus within their (1) 2 Cor. X, 3-5, Wesley's Tram. (2) Gen. iji, 6. (3) Jude 6. 272 CONCLUSION OF THE reach, and proliibiting them the fruit of that tree. There coukl be no transgression of law by them, without viohiting that prohibition ; and notwithstanding they had knowledge of good, they could iiave no knowledge of evil, without sin. The knowledge of evil was beyond their intellectual capac- ity, in their state of innocence. They could not know good and evil by contrast. Hence, all the serpent said to them was true, except the one thing, '* Ye shall not die." Hav- ing told that lie, he commenced the argument to prove it; every word of which argument was true. The command was plain; the sanction or penalty for disobeying it was not so plain; "for in the day thou eatest thereof, dying thou shalt die."^ Eve could have no trouble in understanding the command : " Thou shalt not eat of it." But she listened to, and heeded the argument. She saw that the tree was good for food, was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; she took and eat — transgressed the direct plain command of God, being 'drawn off by an aigument about the penalty — and acquired the knowledge of evil, to the great woe and misfortune of herself, and all her pos- terity; became wise enough to know evil, and to know good and evil, in or by contrast. This fact in the history of our race in its outset, proves that we should not get wise above what is written ; and that we should not go to reasoning or arguing about the plain commands of God, or their effects and consequences. All the commands of God are plain. *' No man ought to be wiser than the laws," is a maxim of the common law, which is put down by Coke in Latin thus : Neminem ap- portel esse sapieiitiorem legihus. Co. Lit. 97. The common law adopted the same wise principle that governs in the divine law. 2. God said to Abraham, " Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of (1) Gen. ii, IT, The Hebrew rending; see the marginal note. As explained V>y the knowlfcilge of God as now possessed by our race, one day la a;j a thousand years with the Lord, 2 Pet. iii, 8, and as verified by the fact of the duration of human life from the crea- tion of man to the present lime, we can understand the penalty better than Adam could, but not tlie connnaud. In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt commence dying, become mortal, and thou shalt die within a thousand years thereafter, and nouQ of thy race shall live a thousand years. So now, we can understand the commands of the Gos- pel better than we can comprehend the sanctions or penalties denounced in it. Hence, we •re in a condition similar to th it of Adam as to the law and the penalty. In Eve's case, the devil's argument related to the penalty; this should cautitm iw against those who up- proutih us in the same way, attacking the sanctions of the Gospel. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 273 Moriah ; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains, Avhich I will tell thee of."' Ilaci Abraham been an abolitionist, or had he acted upon the principle that abolitionists act upon in trying to prove slavery sinful by argument, he would have reasoned about thus : God has promised me that my seed c<>ming out of my own bowels, shall be as numerous as the stars in heaven; that in Isaac shall my seed be called; and by his direction, I have sent Ishmael away that Isaac may be my sole heir, and the father of my posterity. " The decrees and com- mands of God must of necessity be consistent and in har- mony with each other. I can not suppose that God would command the sacrifice of Isaac, if obedience to such com- mand w->uld conflict with his before expressed purpose and decree."^ If I sacrifice Isaac, the promise of God will fail ; and I, having sent away Ishmael and sacrificed Isaac, will be left without an heir, and without posterity. Besides, my " moral sensibilities " will not permit me to slay my own and only son ; '^ such a thing is too revolting to my feel- ings,"^ and I can not do it. But Abraham, not being an abolitionist, acted differently. Without any argument or equivocation about it; and with- out pretending to undertake to comprehend and understand how all these promises, decrees and commands of God could be reconciled and made consistent with each other, and all made to stand and be fulfilled; and though his paternal feelings were strongly Avrought upon, without doubt, yet his " moral sensibilities " were not shocked, nor was it " too revolting to his moral feelings," because God had commanded Jtim to do it; hence, he " rcse up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac, his son, and clave the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him, -'' * ^^ built an altar there, and laid the wood in order; and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood." What a trying moment to the old patriarch, " the friend of God" ! " And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." It was enough. The angel of the Lord called to him out of heaven, and said, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, (1) Gen. xxii, 2. (3) What brother Goodwin says, ante, p. 8t. (2) What 0. B. says, ante, p. 150. 274 CONCLUSION OF THE neither do thou anything unto him: for now I k7ioiv that thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me."^ Abraham " staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being ful]y persuaded, that what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And, therefore, it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, but if we believe on [or confide in] him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."^ By faith, or confidence in God, and in unequivocal obedience to his command, Abraham thus " offered up Isaac : and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said. That in Isaac shall thy seed be called : accounting that God w^as able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."^ For thus unequivocally and without question, obeying God, " he was called the friend of God,"^ and became the father of the faithful.^ 3. God, by the mouth of the prophet Samuel, commanded Saul to *'go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not ; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."* Saul went to work upon abolition principles, and reasoned and argued with himself, that to leave Agag, the king of Amalek, temporarily alive till he could show him in triumph to Israel, would not be a material variation from the com- mand of God to utterly destroy Amalek ; for he destroyed all the Amalekites except Agag. And to save alive the best of the sheep, and the oxen, and the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good,^ would furnish abundant sac- rifices for the altar of God, and he could thus abundantly sacrifice to, and honor God. But his action from this fine philosophical course of reasoning, was ^^ rebellion, which is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."^ And because he followed his reasonings and conclusion upon the subject, instead of obeying the plain (1) Gen. xxii, 2. (4) James ii, 23. (7) 1 Sam. xv, 9. (2) Kom. iv, 20-24. (5) Rom. iv, 11. (8) ISam.xv, 23. (3) Heb. xi, 17-19. (6) 1 Sam. xv, 3. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 275 command of God, he vfas rejected from being king of Israel, and his liouse and posterity cut off. 4. David was anointed king of Israel in place of Saul, after Saul's rejection. For that reason Saul sought his life, notwithstanding David had been faithful and true, and was blameless. Saul pursued David with armies to take his life, guiltless as he was. While he was so pursuing David, the Lord delivered 4iim into David's power twice,^ and David was advised by his followers to slay Saul, they saying that God had delivered him into his hands; which was true. Had David been an abolitionist, he would have followed the advice, reasoning thus: God has rejected Saul from being king of Israel, and anointed me in his place and stead. Saul, without cause or fault on my part, is trying to take my life ; and the law of self-defence allows me, in order to save my own life, to strike the first blow, and take his life if I can. God has now delivered him into my hands while pursuing after me to take my life, and has given me the opportunity to save my own life, and rid the throne of the rejected of God, and open the way to my own ascension of it, as promised by God through Samuel, who anointed me to the place now filled by Saul. This is a strong case, had David gone to reasoning upon it ; but he did not so go to reasoning and arguing the question. The law of the Lord said: "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm ;'*2 hence, David would not slay Saul, nor suffer his follower, Abishai, to do so ; " for," said he, " who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guilt- less? "" He said furthermore, at the time, " the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle and perish."* This last took place shortly after- wards. David even caused the Amalekite who falsely claimed to have killed Saul, to be slain because he had slain the Lord's anointed, stating to him that his blood was upon his own head, because he had testified against himself, as to the fact of having slain the Lord's anointed.'^ This kind of conduct of David, in strictly observing the law of the Lord, without reasoning as to the propriety or expediency of that course, or whether he could help to bring about the (1) 1 Sam. xxiv, 3, 4 ; xxvi, 7, 8. (4) 1 Sam. xxvi, 10. (2) 1 Chron. xTi, 21 ; Ps. cv, 15 ; Gen. xx, 2-17; xii, 17. (5) 2 Sam. i, 15, 16. (3) 1 Sam. xxvi, 9 . 276 CONCLUSION OF THE purposes and decrees of God bj violating them, is the rea- son why he was a man after God's own heart, and was sought out by the Lord, and commanded by him to be cap- tain over his people.^ 5. When David was bringing the ark of the Lord from Kirjath-jearim, from the house of Abinidab, upon an ox-cart, Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinidad, drove the cart. On the way the oxen stumbled and shook tjie ark ; and LTzzah, reasoning ^that if the ark fell from the cart, it Avould almost necessarily be broken or injured ; and being a pious Jew, anxious to preserve the ark of the testimony from injury or destruction, took hold of it to make it steady and prevent its falling from the cart and receiving injury. For this the Lord struck him dead upon the spot f because, by so doing, he violated that law of the Lord forbidding any but priests to touch the ark when traveling." Before noting other cases, I will sum up these that I have cited. In the first and third cases. Eve and Saul listened, and yielded to reasoning and argument, one of the serpent, and the other of the people; and the result was apostacy, from God, death and all the woes that human flesh is heir to, in the case of Eve ; and rejection from the throne of Israel, and the cutting off of his house afid posterity, in the case of Saul. Eve's was transgression of law ; Saul's was unrighteousness ; one doing what was forbidden ; the other failing to do what he was commanded to do. In the second and fourth cases, Abraham and David obeyed the word of the Lord at once, without arguing and reasoning themselves into different conclusions, leading to different action, than the direct and straightforward obe- dience of God's word ; and, for so doing, they occupy the highest places among the servants of God in the whole hu- man race. Poor Uzzah, out of zeal for God, and for the preserva- tion of his ark, put forth his unhallowed hand, took hold of it, and the penalty of God's law was immediately inflicted upon him. He and Saul both had religious grounds for their acts ; the one to preserve the ark from injury ; the other to procure sacrifices for God's altar. But their mis- taken piety did not shield them from the consequences of (1) 1 Sam.xiii, 14; Acts xiii, 22. (3) Num. iv, 15. (2) 2Sam. vi, 1-7; 1 Chroii. xiii. 5-10. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 277 , the transgression of God's law. God had appointed priests to take care of the ark, and it was their duty to do it, and not Uzzuh's. God's righteousness for the protection of the ark was to have it taken care of by the priests, and Uzzah had no right to interfere. God has also appointed means for the preservation of the ark of the new covenant, and christians ought to he careful not to attempt to preserve it otherwise. When they attempt to preserve it by means of civil governments, or political action, or by any other means than by the church, the body of Christ, "fitly joined anil compncted together " by the laws of the Lord for that pur- pose, thej are guilty of a sin similar to Uzzah's. It is proper also to note here, that the Philistines took the ark of God at the time that Ilophni and Phineas, the priests, were slain, kept it seven months, traveled it through their country from city to city, aud yet none of them Avore slain for touching it, which, of course, they did.^ Why were none of them slain for touching the ark? Because the law on that subject was not addressed to thern, but to the Israelites alone; and " where there is no law there is no transgression ;" and " sin is not imputed vrhen there is no law."^ Hence, the Philistines did not sin in touching the ark. Having noticed these cases of action recorded in the Old Testament, I will proceed to the New, and see how the Lord acted and taught on the subject. He never gave a philosophical reason or argument in relation to what should be done; but he did as to truths not relating to action. 6. When tempted of the devil, Christ did not argue any of the questions raised by Satan, but ansv/ered with a law of God governing the question. If thou be the Son of God, said Satan, command that these stones be mtide bread. This was questioning his Sonship, and because he was hun- gry, using that craving to try to get him to attempt to do something not commanded* him of the Father. The Father had not commanded him to work miracles, to convince Satan of his Sonship, but the human family; and not mira- cles to supply his own wants, but to benefit and supply the wants of the halt, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, &c., of the human race. The Lord did hot answer as to his Sonship, but to his craving, and without arguing as to (I) 1 Sam. iv, 5; aud vi, 1. (2) Rom. iv, 15 ; v, 13. 278 CONCLUSION OF THE that, he only quoted the law of God, ^' Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." When he showed him the kingdoms of the world, and of- fered them to him if he would worship him, he replied directly with the law of God on that subject, and not with an argument : " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." When set upon the pinnacle of the temple, and told to cast himself dowp, the devil tried Scripture on the Lord, thinking, no doubt, that he might ensnare him there, as the Lord seemed to stick so close to what was written. *' For it is written," said the devil with a very pious face put on, as thousands have since put on pious faces when quoting Scripture, and thereby misleading honest souls, "he shall give his, angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." This was all true; and abolitionists would have acceeded to it at once, and acted upon it. Or, if they had not acceded to it, they would have gone to arguing about it, to show by argument, that it should not be done. But the Lord took neither of those courses, but answered : "It is written again^ Thou shalt not tempt, try, or put to the proof, the Lord thy God." Abolitionists, however, have no compunctions about tempting, trying, or putting to the proof. Deeming themselves right in their theory, and that the angels of God will bear up everything else in their hands, and keep them from dashing against the rocks, they drive on recklessly and thoughtlessly of every other con- sideration. Being wrong, however, in their theory, the angels do not bear things up in their hands, and hence the ruinous dashing against the rocks that is now going on. Thus the Lord used the word of God directly, without any argument, or reasoning, or philosophizing. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit,^ to destroy error and falsehood with. It is sharper than a two-edged sword." All who drop it and look to reason, argument, deduction, con- clusions, philosophizings, apostatize from God, " become vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts become darkened."^ Having seen how the Lord acted so far as his own con- (1) Eph. vi, IT. (2) Heb. iv, 12. (3) Rom. i, 21. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 279 duct is concerned, when assailed by the adversary, I will now see how he did when applied to by others to know what they should do. 7. When a certain lawyer stood up and tempted or tried the Lord, saying, " Master, what shall I DO to inherit eter- nal life ? " The Lord did not go into an argument, nor into a philosophical disquisition, like Socrates, or Plato, or Cierco, or Seneca would have done, to show the beauty and propriety of virtue, as they called it, but promptly, and to the point, he answered, " What is written in the law? How readest thou?"^ The Lord reasoned and argued as to matters not pertain- ing to our conduct — what we are to do, or not to do — but of things that it was proper for us to know. When the Sadducees, who put the case of the woman who had been the wife of seven brethren, had been told that they erred not laiowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, the Lord argued the question thus with them: CJod spoke to you, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God, said he, is not a God of the dead, but of the living.^ This was a conclusive argument that there is a resurrection of the dead, and that Sadducee- ism is untrue. But this is a tlmig proper for us to know, that is, that there will be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust; but it is not something that we must do or not do. Upon the question. What are we to do ? the Lord did not argue, but said, " It is written," or, " I say to you." 8. As to matters not necessary for the human family to know, the Lord gave no information when applied to. In- stances under this head are, when the Pharisees and Sad- ducees sought a sign : and when his disciples desired to know if the Lord would at that time restore the kingdom. In the first case, he said a wicked and adulterous generation seek a sign, but no sign shall be given them, save the sign of the prophet Jonah ; and in the other, he told his disci- ples that it was not for them to know the times and seasons, which the Father had put in his own power.*^ These are enough instances to enable us to know the course the Lord pursued in his teaching. Many others could be cited to the same purport. (!) Luke X, 25, 26, (3) Matt, xii, 38, 39 ; xvi, 1-4 ; Mark viii, 11, 12 ; Acts i, 6, T. (2) Matt, xxii, 24-32. 280 CONCLUSION OF THE 9. When God revealed his Son in Paul, that he might preach hira among the Gentiles, "immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood," but went and did it.^ Mr. Wes- ley, in his note on this passage, says: "Being fully satis- fied of the divine will, ard determined to obey, I took no counsel with any man, neither taith my own i^mson or incli- nalions^ which might have raised numberless objections." I will cice a few instances from the history of Christianity since the apostolic day. The first great one that did so much injury to Christianity, and from the etTects of which it has not yet recovered, was the Arian anrl Athanasian controversy about the Father, Son and Spirit in the Divine Being. Reason and philoso- phy were invoked to settle matters about the divine exist- ence that woe not revealed, because not necessary for us to know, and which the human intellect is wholly incapable of knowing. All the fads necessary for us to know, are plainly revealed, and we can understand tliera ; the princi- pal of which are, that there is one God and Father of all; that Jesus (Jlirist is his Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and Power of God, by Avhom all things were made that are made ; that this Word was made flesh and dwelt among us ; that he was the manifestation of God in the flesh; that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever con fi. led in him should not perish, but have ever- lasting life, kc. That when he ascended on high, the Holy Spirit of G^)d, according to the promise of the Father, de- scended to his disciples to remain with them till the Lord shall appear again. Instead of being satisfied with the facts revealed, and which were pertinent for them to know, and which thf^y could understand, they set to work with their philosophy, to determine the essentce of the Father and Son, and how the F.tther, Son and Spirit make but one God, &c., matters not revealed, and if revealed, could not be coraprehtiiidtMl by them : and for one hundred years and more, all Christendom was shaken by the controversy, and christians were drawn off from obeying the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel for them TO do, to bickerings about these speculations, the disputants trying to get wise above what is written, and to supply what God had not re- vealed of his own being and existence, and resulting in the (1) Gal. i, 15, 16. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 281 great npostacy. The effects of that foolish, not to say wicked, controversy, Christianity has not yet got rid of. Because the Lord told Peter that he would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever he bound on ejirth should be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven ;* by adopting argument, philosophy, reason, and deduction, as the proper course to pursue, the Man of Sin deduces that this made Peter the chief or prince of the apostles ; that Peter went to Rome, and became the first bishop of Rome; that the Popes are his successors in regular line; that he had the keys to open and shut all matters in heaven and on earth, and so have the Popes ; that Peter was the vicar of Christ, and the Popes being his successors, are vicars too, and hence they have been styled Lord God the Pope. This came of christians allowing themselves to be spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit as to the existence of God, and the delegation of his power. And because the Lord, after his resurrection when he ap- peared to his di.-iciples, and showed them his hands and his side to i ')nr;^e to Peter, and to Peter alone. And the knowledge of God also shows, that it was the apostles that the Lord breathed on, and told them that whosesoever sins they remitted, should be remitted unto tihem ; and that whosesoever sins they retained, should be retained unto them ; and that Peter, on the day of Pente- cost, in the pro?once of the other apostles, and of the whole one hundred and twenty disciples, speaking as the Spirit gave him utterance, laid down the law of remission and re- tention of sins, specifying whose should be remitted, and whose should be retained. This he bound on earth by the words then and there spoken, and by the word of the Lord, when he promised the keys to Peter, it was immediately ])0und in heaven.* And at the house of Cornelius, he bound and loosed the same way to the Gentile world f which was ratified and confirmed by the college of apostles at Jerusalem, when Peter rehearsed the matter to them.^ The apostles continued to judge or give laws to the Israel of God, the one now man made by the Lord, of Jews and Gentiles, binding and loosing as to sins, for which see their writings in the New ^J'estament. And the knowledge of God shows us that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, were given by the Lord lill his disciples should come to a perfect man in tlie knowledge of the Son of God;^ that when the laws of the kingdom were fully developed, when the perfect system came, that which was given by the Lord to the church in part, to- wit, apostles, A:c., were to be taken away and cease.'' The apostles and supernatural gifts were taken away. The apostles have no successors, for they did the whole v/ork they were appointed for. They were sent into the world by the Lord, as the Lord was sent iuto the world by the Father.*^ If the apostles have suc- cessors in their mission on earth, so has the Lord. But Ct) Actsii, 38, 35); Matt, xvi, 19, (3) Acta xi, 18. (5) 1 Cor. xlii, 9, 10. i;i) ActM X. (4) Eph. iT, 11-13. (6) John xx, 21. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 283 neither lias successors. The Lord and the apostles both did their mission fully, and have been received up into glory. I will not go over in detail, but refer in general terms, to the numerous sins and acts of rigliteousness (penances, &c.) that have, for fifteen centuries, been manufactured by the Mother of Harlots, and her numerous daughters, by argu- ment, inference and deduction, called by the good word of the Lord *' philosophy and vain deceit ;" or, as translated in the new translation, ""deceitful philosophy.'' As to which, christians are commanded by God, to '* bewnre lest any man make a prey of you through an empty and deceitful philos- ophy, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the w^orld, and not according to Christ. For all the fulness of the Deity resides substantially in him ; and you are complete iri Jdm, who is the head of all govern- ment and power. "^ The way to abide, or remain in the Lord, is to keep his comratindments,^ and not to be led away by deceitful philosophy. If christians thus abide in him, they become complete, lacking nothing. But if they follow deceitful philosophy, they get out of Christ — do not remain in him — apostatize, and go away from God. If we want to avoid apostacy from God, we must avoid running after rea- son and a deceitful philosophy, as to what his commands are, as to what is sinful, and as to what is righteous. And yic should take his word at what it says, without question or gainsaying. For, sin is the transgression of the law; not a trans- gression of the argument from the lavv'. All unrighteous- ness (or failing to do what God requires) is sin. Sin is not imputed when there is no law. Whore there is no law, there is no transgression. ]5y the law i 'he knowledge of sin obtained, and not by argument. I had not known sin but by the lav/ : for I had not known lust (inordinate desire) except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Take these principles that I have elaborated at some length, and appiy them to brother Butler's number six, and they show how weak, and how far-fetched is his attempt (deceitful philosophy) to prove slavery sinful by the story of the prodigal son,- related by the Lord in the 15th chap- ter of Luke. Weak as were his efforts to sustain his prop- osition while I was his respondent, he became still weaker (1) Col. ii, 8-10, New Tt-ans. (2) John xv, 10, and 4.-7; 1 John ii, C, 6. 284 CONCLUSION OF THE when I was thrust out of the debate. What he says about the prodigal son is too weak to need any farther notice. 1 will notice the other matters in the article. In the 8th 'chapter of John, the Lord was talking of bondage or filavery ; fi)r bondage was slavery in the Jewish law. He said : " He that committeth sin is the slave of sin : and the slave abideth not in the house forever • but the Son abide'th forever. If, therefore, the Son shall make you free, you will be free indeed."' Mr. Wesley, on the passage, says.: -^^ And (he slave ahideih not in the house — AH sinners shall be cast out of God's house, as the slave was out of Abraham's: hut /, th- Son, abide therein forever. ^^ Brother Butler's definition about tenures is made to suit his case, and is not true. A man can be as much a slave for five years, as he can for five hundred years Is he held to ser- vice ? is the question ; not how long is he to be so held? Now, I say as long as the heir is a minor, he differs nothing from a bondman, although he be Lord of all. For he is under tutors and stewards, until the time appointed of his Father. So, also, w^e, whilst we were minors, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might buy off those under the law, that we might recei^'e the adoption of sons. And because you arc sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So you are no more a bondman, but a son ; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.^ This quotation is sufficient to answer what he says on the passage. Servant m Scripture, says Mr. Webster, means a slave, a oo7idi)i,..i. This translation has bondman through- out. The C{jmmon version has bondage in the od and 9th verses, which shows that bondman is the proper word in the 1st and 7th verses. What is so often repeated by bro- ther Butler about chattel property, is raising a cob house that he may demolish it. It is not involved in the question of slave or no slave, as applied to an individual; and this question I have sufficiently discussed hereinbefore. I will now proceed to conclude my discussion of the proposition. Slavery is sinful. *' And the Lord said unto her, [Rebecca] Two nations (1) John Tiii, 84r-36, WesUy'i Trant. (2) Gal. iv, 1-7, Ifew Trans. f DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 285 are in thy vromb, and two manner of people shall be sepa- rated from thy bcwels : and the one people shall be stronger than the other people ; and the elder shall serve f he younger. ^'^ Here God granted property in the posterity of one twin brother, to the posterity of the other twin brother. This grant was reduced to possession by David, the man after God's own heart, more than seven hundred years after it was made.^ The tenth commandment reads thus : " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbors.''^ Here, in the first written law ever given to man, written by the finger of God, property in men-servants and maid- servants is recognized, as property in houses, fields, oxen, and asses is recognized. And property in men-servants and maid-servants is not only placed on the same level with prop- erty in animals of the brute creation, but with the very lowest animal of the brute creation — the ass. Had brother Goodwin been there at Mount Sinai when this law was spoken by the Lord out of the smoking and burning mountain, he would, at once, have said this is an unrighteous law ; for " I con- clude that any law that places human beings on a level with brute property, is an unrighteous law"M! *' It is too jre- volting for my moral feelings "^ ! ! Had brother Butler been there, he would have said it is "so abhorrent, and so offensive to the moral sense, that I confess I am not able to look steadily and calmly at it;" it " is a thought too re- volting for calm consideration "^ ! ! But they were not there to correct the Lord ; and they are now laboring, and have been for years, to rectify the error ! Query : Was this part of the Decalogue taken out of the way and nailed to the Cross by the Lord? I apprehend not. If not, the abolitionists have been violating it ever since they sprang up ; for they have been coveting — inor- dinately desiring — the men-servants and maid-servants of their slaveholding neighbors; and they have been so inor- dinately desiring them, that they have been enticing them (1) Gen. XXV, 23. (4) Ante, p, 19. (2) 2 Sam. viii, 14 ; 1 Chron. xviii, 13. (5) Ante, p. 87. (3) Ex. XX, 17; Deut. V, 21. (6) Ante, p. 69. 286 coNCLueio.v of the away, and running them off for "years ; and have established lines calied underground railroads to run them off upon, and boast of the fact, and of the business. Brother Butler contended in his fifth article, that the slaves granted by the Lord to Israel, of the hen then round about them, Avere to go free at the jubilee.^ Brother Good- win took the same ground in two articles in the Record of March od and 10th, 1863, in reply to a request from bro- ther Wra. H. Winchell. They all seemed to be troubled, too, about the povrer to sell slaves. That need not trouble any one. For if orse is a slave for life, it vtould be no worse for the slave, if the master had power to sell ; and it might be better, if he had a bad master, that that master had the power to sell him to a good one. I wiil examine these matters some. The grant is recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of Le- viticus, from the 44th to the 46th verse inclusive. To say that it does not grant an estate of inheritance in perpetuity to the Israelites and their posterit}^, is to contradict the plain language of the grant. And to take the ground that it only granted estates from jubilee to jubilee, is to take the ground assumed by Universalists, that forever does not mean altrai/s, but only to the next jubilee, or to the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, or to some other vague time. But this statute of the Lord, recorded in that chapter, is self-ex- pounding, so far lis forever and io the jubilee are concerned, which I will proceed to show. It sets out with the establishment of the Sabbatic weeks, ending with the jubilee, at which time they were to "pro- claim libert}^ throughout all the lands unto all the irdiabi- tants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and yo shall return every man unto his family."^ *'In this jubilee je shall return every man to his possession."" It provides that "the land shall not be sold forevrr ; for the land is mine ; for ye were strangers and sojourners with me. x\nd in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemp- tion for the land.""* It then provides how lands that are sold are to be redeemed, and goes on : "But if he bo not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall re- main in the hand of him that bought it, until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall re- (1) Ante, pp. 162, 163. (2) Verse 10. (3) Verse 13. (4) Verses 23, 34. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 287 turn unto his possession."^ But it goes on to provide, that a dwelling house in a walled city, must be redeemed within a year after it is sold; and if not redeemed within that space of time, " then the house that is in the walled city ehall be established forever to him that bought it, through- out his generations : it shall not go out in the jubilee."^ Here, forever and in the jubilee are put down as two dis- tinct things, and not the same thing. And here it is said that some land shall not go out, and the former owner return to it, notwithstanding in the 10th and 13th verses, it is said evert/ man shall return to his possession at th€ jubilee, as it is said that liberty shall then be proclaimed to all the iiihab- itants of the land. But the statute goes on and makes an exception to the houses of the Levites in their cities.^ Then commences the provisions as to servants and slaves. ** If thy brother by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto ihee, [as provided in this and other laws] ; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant [slavej : but as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall bo with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee : and then he shall depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen [are sold]. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God. Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, [slaves] which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat ill 3^our land : and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."* The statute then goes on to provide that if a sojourner or stranger wax rich, and an Israelite become poor, and sell himself to the stranger or sojourner, he may be re- deemed by the brother or kindred of the Israelite, pre- scribing the manner in which the price shall be reckoned D) Verse 2S- (2) Verse 30. (3) Verses 32-34. (4) Lev. xxv, 3&-46. 288 CONCLUSION OP THE up to the next jubilee, according to the time of a hired ser- vant, and that as a yearly hired servant he shall remain with him, and that if he be not redeemed in these years then lie shall go out in the year of jubilee, both he and his children with him ; the same reason being given for this provision as to Israelites sold to strangers or sojourners that was before given for the provision, as to Israelites sold to Israelites, to- wit, "For unto me the children of Israel are servants ; they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt : I am the Lord your God/^^ Here is an estate of inheritance granted in bondmen or saves, to the Israelites and their children, forever ; and a clear distinction is drawn between the tenure by which they were held, and the tenure by which servants who were of the children of Israel were held, whether they were held by Israehtes or by strangers or sojourners. The bondmen were to be a possession; they were to be taken as an inherit iance far their children, to inherit it as a possession; and to be bondmen forever. Why was it provided that they were to be an estate of inheritance, and bondmen forever immediately after and before estates in other servants were granted that were limited to terminate at the jubilee in any event, if the estate in these bondmen was to terminate at the jubilee too? It would be trifling in the divine law- giver, to describe the tenure of the services of three differ- ent kinds of servants, Israelites to Israelites, Israelites to strangers and sojourners, and heathen to Israelites, provi- ding that the first two should go out at the jubilee, and that the other should be an estate of inheritance forever to them and their children for a possession forever, when he actually meant that they should go out at the jubilee too, and that the estate m them extended only to the jubilee. The divine iaw-giver did not so trifle in framing the statute. The es- tate given by the statute, in bondmen, is an estate in per- petuity to the slave and his children. But they say that this statute does not give nower to sell the bondmen or slaves. Brother Goodwin says : '^Tho Jewish master had no authority given him to sell such ser- vants to third persons. ^ You shall take them as an inheri- tance for your children after you, to inherit them for a pos- session, says the law; not as an artic le of commerce— a (1} Lev. xxv» 4T-65. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. -289 mere chattel— to be traded and driven from land to land, by speculators in human flesh."^ This thing of chattelizing and selling slaves, is a great trouble to the abolitionists. I have had private conversa- tions on the subject with many excellent brethren, Avho made the fact that the slaves are assignable and transierra- ble, the principal ground, and some of them made it the only ground, for saying that slavery is sinful- The objec- tion is an objection against the law of the institution, and not an objection against the institution itself; and really does not arise in the inquiry. Is slavery sinful 1 When brother Butler raised the objection, we were discussing the question whether God had granted property in man. In that discussion, it was immaterial whether the grant God gave to Israel of property in the heathen for slaves, inclu- ded the giant of power to alienate that property, or not. Entailed property is as much property as is property which is alienable. So brother Goodwin's decision above cited, if it is correct, simply shows that the statute made the bond- men entailed property to the Israelite and his children; and the bondmen and their children were both property and slaves, and were granted by the divine law-giver, and were held by virtue of a divine grant. But brother Goodwin was answering an inquiry from brother Winchell, who wanted to know from him ''if any law, which God ever gave to man, authorized or justified the buying or selling of men, women and children.'' And brother Goodwin, in the above quoted passage, decided the question, that he did not ; and all his authority for the de- cision, is given in what is above quoted from him. As many are, honestly I have no doubt, stumbling on this question, I will proceed to show that brother Good- win's decision is not correct. The part of the statute that he quotes as proof that bondmen were entailed property — to be be kept in the family of the owner — simply creates an estate of inheri- tance m perpetuity in the bondmen and their posterity. It is not a limitation creating an estate tail, but an expression to create an estate of inheritance in perpetuity. Our com- mon deeds read ''to him and his heirs forever," and no one supposes that that creates an estate tail, and prevents the ' ~~ (1) Christiaa Record, March 3(1, 1863. ^^^ CONCLUSION OF THE grantee from alienating the estate the next Jay if he tTT- f.''^«°"fthi3 grant. It was to tl,e iLe itet and then- children forever: creating an estate in perpetu y to be alienated or not, at the will of the holder. ^' =nn V" r? S"'*?,"^" ""i""! creation to Noah and his •sons, he d,d not add, "you may buy and sell them '' be powei to buy and sell them, but entailed them upon the Noar.;ulV-"' «'"'<"-en, the ^rant of the animal ere'at.on to a light to sell our horses, cattle and hogs, but must keen them with ourselves and our children. When the lima creation was granted to Adam, the same rule obtained nnon tl^e h ■ ^""" rT'^ '' ^''"'^' ^"^ P"' limitations ."■^111 ed "tV"1 ""'.' 'f""*'?"^ *^ 1-nd, because he wanted It Jmiited. If he had not put in those limitations the Israe ites would have had unlimited powers of alie 'ti ' bo as to Israehtish servants. God limited the power of alienation a^ to them, because he did not want thlm to be 1 mUuirn h r^'Tr''" -"' ''"^ "°"'^^ '-^« been, if th mitationhad not been put into the law. The reason of this IS twice given: " For they are my servants which! brought out of the land of Eg^pt."' I p.-ovent t g „ eral power o alienation implied from the grant of properfv m tnem God provided, as to them, that ""they sha not t old as bondmen.-' They were to be kept i^ the fam ly and treated as hired servants, and not to be ruled over wiU rigor, and .;,<>„« no> be sold as bondmen are sold, anda e Uiem. Ihis clause prohibiting Israelites to be sold as bond- inen, ,s an expression of the lawgiver clearly implying tha bondinen were alienable, and "articles of LnnJ"" So the statute itself disproves brother Goodwin's dec sion given to brother Winehell. Brother Butler did not tn^ hat bondmen were alienable. He is too good a lawyer to take .such a position publicly. He placed it upon the ground that they went out at the jubilee ' Again: It was provided that "if a man sell his daughter lants do^'l^'T'"".'' ''" '^'f ""' SO out as the mender- vantsd o. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed (1) Lev. ,xv. 42, 55. ^iT^-. ,,,, «. ^^ri^i;:^^!^;^^- DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. -» 291 her to himself, .ben sh.ll he let her be redeemed : t(. sell her unto a strange r.ation he shall have no po^^er, ieein^ he hath dealt deceitfully with her. „„>,;KiHnation of himself, with or without a consideration, or he might be- come a slave by being sold for debt. In all these ways, in both laws, the man became a slave directly or indirectly, by his own act. Both of those laws were observed among the people in that day. Hence this injunction to chiistians that they should not, either directly or indirectly, hy ilinr own act, become slaves of men. And this was but the first and last injunction in the passage quoted, that every one should remain in the calling, state and condition in which he was when called or converted to Christianity. If he was a freeman, he should remain so; whereas, though the slave was enjoined to remain contented in the condition he was, yet if he could properly be made free, he was permitted and directed to accept it. Under the Mosaic dispensation, the Lord allowed his servants to make themselves servants to men; but under the christian dispensation, the command to them, is, that they shall not become slaves to men. And this means as well that they shall not become slaves to their persons and material interests, as that they shall not he- come slaves to their theories and systems of righteousness. For, as obedience is slavery,'' the command forbids them to obey human leaders and theorizers, or to suffer such to lead them away from Christ, his teaching and laws. Christians (1^ I^v.xxv,42, 55. (3) Lev. xxv, 39-43; 47-5ft. (2) Ex. xxi, 6. (4) Ante, pp. 91, 155. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 299 are forbidden to become slaves to human systems, either ethical or ecclesiastical; and as abolitionism is a human system of ethics, it is included in the prohibition. Chris- tians are to rem lin with God, and serve him, by observing liU sijstem of ethics, which is '' the righteousness of God," and is ''revealed in the Gospel."^ Those who do thus re- main with him in deed and in truth, acquire and preserve a holy indifference with regard to outward things — the things of rhis world. Would slaves that are converted to Christianity be en- joined and commanded by the Lord to remain in that con- dition, if shxvery is sinful? Does nofthe fact that he so commanded christian slaves, show that he regarded the in- stitution, as not sinful? Tlie apostle Paul, in his letter '' to the saints which are at Epliesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus," wrote thus: " Lit no man deceive you ivith vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not therefore partakers with them. * ^ ^^ Walk as the children of light. ^^ '-'^ ^ ^ H< g^e then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord (g^ * Hi * >K Submitting yourselves to one another in tlie f^ar of God. '' VVives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church : and he is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. '' Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the chui-ch, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church not having spot or wi inkle, or any such thing; but that it might bo holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man yet hateth his own flesh ; but nour- isheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (1) Rom. i, 17. 300 CONCLUSION OF THE For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery : but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheles^?, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as IdmseJf ; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. ^' Chihlren, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and thy mother; which is the first commandment with a promise; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth. " And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath : but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. " Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in single- ness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart ; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men : knowing that whatsoever good thing a man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. " And, ye masters, do the same things nnto them, for- bearing^ threatening : knowing that your Master also is in heaven ; neither is there respect of persons vv'ith him."^ And in writing " to the saints and faitliful brethren in Christ, which are at Colosse," he wrote thus : "And .whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. " Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. " Children, obey your parents in all things : for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. " Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. " Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in sin- gleness of heart, fearing God : and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that (1) Eph. V, 6-32; vi, 1-9. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 301 of the Lord ye siiiU receive the reward of the inheritance : for ye serve the Lord Christ. But h© that doeth wrong, shall receive for I'le wrong he hath done; and there is no respect of person-. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal ; knowing that ye also have a master in heaven."^ I quote together these two extracts from the inspired writings of the great apostle of the Gentiles, because they are very similar, and each of them embraces and combines together all the domestic relations of society. Those do- ■ mestic relations are the relations of husband and wife, par- ent and child, and master and servant. They have existed in human society from its origin ; or, at least, we have au- thentic information of their existence as far back as the days of Abraham, some three thousand and eight hundred years ago : and thej still exist in the society of at least one half of the human race. Abraham's day is the period at which the relation of master and slave is first noticed in the divine record; and the period at which the tvy^o epistles from which the above extracts are taken, were Avritten, is about the period at wliich the writing of books of inspira- tion ceased. Those two periods, then, are the two points of time at v/hich revelation first and last notices the rela- tion of master and slave. And the last is to continue and be in force during, and to the end, of the christian age or dispensation. At the first point or period, the Lord blessed Abraham, and gave him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and men-servants, and maid- servants, and camels, and asses ;^ and he directed the slave Hagar, and her son Ishmael to be cast out and sent away, that he should not be heir with Isaac, the free son of Abraham.^ And it may not be inappropriate to remark here, before I proceed to comment upon those two extracts from Paul's writings, that the inspired record of the gifts of the Lord to Abraham " places human beings on a level with brute property ""* — with flocks and herds, and camels and asses. Yet I hope that brother Goodv/in, and all abolitionists of similar sensitiveness, will not be seriously injured by the " shock " it will give to his and their " moral feelings " to learn it, notwithstanding he may still " conclude " that it (1) Col. iii, 17-25 ; iv, 1, (3) Gen. xxi, 10-12 ; Gal. iv, 30. (2) Gen. xxiv, 35. (4) Ante, p. 79. 302 CONCLUSION OF THE was very "unrighteous" in the Lord to so give, and to have it so recorded. And that though Paul, on these two different occasions, in writing by inspiration letters to the saints of two different churches, in different h)cnlities, "associated" the "divine institution of marriage " with the institution of shivery, and gave k>ws nnd (h'rections very similar, if not "parallel," as to the duties of wives to husbands, and of slaves to masters, as well as of the duties of husbands to wives, and of masters to slaves; yet I hope that brother Butler's "moral sense" has sufficiently strengthened itself, that he may be now "able to look steadily and calmly at it," without serious injury. As he was Avholly unable to bear it in June, 1862, 1 spared him then; but now I must declare "all the counsel of God:"^ I can shun it no longer. It is true that Paul, by inspira- tion of the Lord, gave laws as to the institutions of marriage and slavery in the two extracts above quoted, from which it seems that he "reasoned in effect, that the one is entitled to equal protection and respect with the other." But bro- ther Butler and abolitionists generally, have been, and are, correcting these sad errors into which Paul and the Lord, and even Peter too, as we shall see hereafter, fell. "This view," says brother Butler, "is so monstrous, so abhorrent, and so offensive to the moral sense, that I confess th;it I am not yet able to look steadily and calmly at it. The divine institution of marriage, paralleled and associated with the diabolical institution of chattel slavery, is a thought too revolting for calm consideration. But they are so presented by" Paul, "and the consideration is thus forced upon me.^'^ And he is "pegging away," abolition- like, to correct these monstrous errors of Paul, and of the Spirit of inspiration that spoke through him. But irony aside. Does not the fanaticism of abolitionism begin to be visible? Aye, to "appear to all men"?" Preceding and prefatory to the injunctions, as to the do- mestic relations, copied from the letter to the Ephesians, we are commanded to let no man deceive us tviih vain words; for because of our so doing, comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. We become disobedient when wc follow the philosophy and vain deceit, (the vain woids in this passage,) of those who teach otherwise as to the (1) Acts XX. 27. (2) Ante, p. 69. (3) Tit. ii, 11. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 303 domestic relations of society, than is taught and enjoined in the extracts quoted. Therefore, we should not be par- takers with them ^vho so teach, nor follow their teaching. Is it not time for us, as a nation and people, to reflect and consider, that because we have allowed ourselves to be deceived with the vain words of abolitionists, with their philosophy and vain deceit, as to the sin of slavery, the wrath of God is now upon us in this terrible civil war. Hence, we should cease being deceived by them, and walk as children of light, of the light which came down from heaven, and which is exhibited to us in the revelation of God in the Scriptures of truth ; and not walk in the darkness of abolition theories. We should "have no fel- lowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them,"^ as I am humbly trying to do. We should see then, and take heed, "that we walk circumspectly, not as fools, [fanatics] but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are" truly and lamentably "evil." For these rea- sons we should not be unwise, foolish or fanatic, but should go to work in good faith, to understand what the will of the Lord is, upon this question of the sinfulness of an institu- tion that has existed among us as a people ever since we became a people ; and submit ourselves to one another in the fear of God, by using the light he has given us in his revelation, to ascertain his will, and then following and obeying that light, let it lead where it may. The apostle, having given us these directions, and this warninor ac];ainst hQm^ deceived with the vain words of theorizers establishing their own human systems of right- eousness, they being themselves ignorant of the righteous- ness of God on the subject;^ or, if not ignorant, trying, like the serpent in Eden, to lead us away from the right- eousness of God, goes on to direct us as to our duty in these three domestic relations of human society — the rela- tions of husband and w^ife, parent and child, and master and slave. He does not tell us to rip up, veto, or abolish any of these relations, or that we must abolish the last relation, though the doing of it produce civil war, internecine strife, anarchy, a reign of terror, the overthrow of the best gov- ernment God ever gave to man, and the destruction of our own liberties, and the establishment of military despotism; (1) Eph. V, 11, (2) Eom. X, 3. 304 CONCLUSION OP THE all of which our modern abolition preachers, by toord or action, directly or indirectly, tell us to do. But instead of that, wives are commanded to submit themselves unto their own husbands as unto the Lord ; for, in obeying this injunction, they obey the Lord; and in sub- mitting to obey it, they submit to the Lord ; for he gave the injunction through his inspired apostle. They are told ii^ the letter to the Colossians, that to do so, is " fit in the jjord." But many of these infidel " humanitarians " teach that man is not the head of the woman, as Christ is of the church, like Paul taught, but they have set up their own righteousness, that is to say, a " woman's rights " system, teaching that women should not be in subjection to their " husbands, as unto the Lord," " as it is fit in the Lord " that they should be. All of whom, so teaching, are aboli- tionists, and teach the same as to the relation of master and slave, that they teach as to the relation of husband and wife. Being infidel as to one regulation of the Lord, no wonder that they are infidel as to another — yes, as to all regulations of the Lord — which regulations of the Lord constitute the righteousness of God for us to govern our- selves by, and to conform our conduct to. So the righteousness of God, as Avritten out by Paul in the extracts I am considering, written under the direction, and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, directs slaves to be obedient to them that are their masters accord- ing to the flesh, that is, according to the regulations of the kingdoms of this world, which includes tlie regulations of the slave States of the heretofore Union of this our hereto- fore happy country : and to be obedient to them with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, " as unto Christ ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, [that is, as abolition- pleasers] but as the servants of Christ, doing the [this] will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men ; knowing that whatsoever good thing a man doeth, [and obeying these injunctions is doing a good thing] the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free ;" and knowing also, that when they so act, and do in word and deed, they do it *' in the name," under the direction, and by the authority of the Lord, thus giving thanks to God and the Father, by thus obeying the Lord's directions and injunctions to them. And knowing DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 305 that of the Lord they shall receive the reward of the in- heritance, because they serve the Lord Jesus Christ in thus doing; and that he that doeth wrong by disobeying these directions of the Lord, shall receive for the wrong he hath done ; and that there is no respect of persons with him, in settling up these matters, even though one is an aboli- tionist, and the other is a " contraband " deceived and en- ticed away by the abolitionist, by his " vain words." Children are also commanded to obey their parents in all things : for this is right. Honor thy father and thy mother, is the first commandment that the Lord gave with a prom- ise ; which promJse was, that it may be well with them, and that they may live long in the earth. Here the command is repeated, so there can be no doubt that this command of the Decalogue is continued in force, and was not nailed to the Cross by the Lord. We have now seen, and I have examined, what the Lord commanded the subordinates in these three domestic rela- tions; and we see that wives, children and slaves, are placed by the Lord, in his christian code, in subordinate positions, in those relations, and commanded as to what their duty is in those positions. And there is seen to be a similarity be- tween the duties of Vv-ives and slaves ; but that the wife oc- cupies the higher, and the nearer, and the dearer position, is also very evident. Wives are only to submit themselves to their husbands; but slaves are not only to be obedient to their masters in all things, but they are to serve their masters, not with pretended eye-service, but with single- ness of lieart, in good faith, as if they were doing the ser- vice to- the Lord himself, and not to men. For, in so doing, they " serve the Lord Jesus Christ." The duties of wife and servant, and their respective po- sitions in the domestic relations of society, are paralleled and associated together here, by the inspired writer ; and in bringing to the attention of the reader the whole counsel of God upon the subject I am examining, I am compelled to thus present them, notwithstanding the doing so may throw my abolition friends and brethren into convulsions; but I Jiope if it does, it will produce no serious injury either to the physical, mental, or moral powers and faculties of my abo- lition friends and quondam brethren. 306 CONCLUSION OF THE I will now look at those who stand upon the other side in these three domestic relations of human society. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. How did he love the church ? Why, he loved it well enough to give himself for it. That is the kind of love that husbands are commanded to have for their wives; love enough to give themselves for their wives. He that loves his wife loves himself. No man, let him be as bad as he mny, ever yet hated his own flesh, bat nourished it and cherished it, as the Lord nourishes and cherishes the church. The man and his wife are one flesh by the divine law ; and every christian in jyarticular is commanded to so love his wife even as he loves himself, and the wife is commanded to reverence her husband, because every christian and every christian church reverences the Loi'd and all his command- ments, including these commandments as to the domestic relations of society. Fathers are not to provoke their children to wrath. Masters are commanded to do the same things to their slaves, that is, as Mr. Wesley says in his note, '' act towards them from the same principle," the principles just inculcated for the slave to act from to the master; which principles are, that the master act in good faith from the heart, as to the Lord; that he give his slave that which is just and equal between them in their respective positions in the re- lation they hold to each other; knowing that he also has a Master in heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom he is amenable as a slave, as his slave is amenable to him : and that the measure he metes to his slave, his Master the Lord, will measure to him again;' which is impressively taught by the Lord himself, in the parable recorded in Matthew xviii, 28-85. This is the Lord's code as to the domestic relations, es- tablished for the christian kingdom, and now in force therein; and it is to continue in force during the christian dispensation. When a man occupies the position of hus- band, father, and master, filling one position in each of the three relations, and he, his wife, children and slaves, all live in the strict observance of these laws, a domestic circle exists similar to that of Abraham, the father of the f.iithful. Brother Butler and abolitionists truly say that marriage (1) Matt, vii, 2. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. -307 is a divine ordinance, and that the relation of husband and wife is a holy relation. Would the Lord, in giving laws to govern that holy relation, connect witli them la^YS to govern a sinful institution, a diabolical institution, a modern Moloch? Let abolitionists "stop and think" upon this, " ere they farther go." Mnniage is a divine ordinance, while slavery is a human institution. The one is commanded of God; the other is neither commanded nor prohibited. Hence, to enter into the marrinjre relation is doing rigliteousness, because it is commanded; but to become a slaveholder is neither doing righteousness nor committing sin, because it is neither com- manded nor forbidden; and is like thousaiids of other hu- mnn actions, neither righteous nor sinful — but indifferent. But when a man enters the relation of master and slave, then the commands of God reach him, and he does right- eousness or commits sin according as he demeans himself. On the other hand, should a person who is in the relation, be properly and lawfully rid of it, then the commands of God pertaining to him in the relation no longer apply to him, and he is not bound by them. Those who do not stand in the relation of master and slave have none of the re- sponsibilities of the relation resting upon them; and are not bound by the laws of the Lord relating to it. The laws of the Lord relating to the institution only apply to, and are only obligatory upon, those who hold the relation of master or slave to some other human being. Hence, there being no law as to others who do not hold that rela- tion, there can be no transgression by them, unless by im- pertinent interference, they make themselves busy-bodies in other men's matters, when they become accountable — not for "the sin of slavery" — but for being busy-bodies.^ By the laws of the Lord's kingdom, every one is accounta- ble for his own conduct, and his own actions; and not for the conduct and actions of others. "So then every one shall give an account of himself to God ;"2 and not of other people. But more of this hereafter. The apostle Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, wrote thus : Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God (1) 1 Pet. iv, 15; 2 Thes. iii, 11 ; 1 Tim. v, 13, (2) Rom. xiv, 12. 308 CONCLUSION OF THE and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are fiiithful (or believers) and beloved, partakers of [who re- ceive] the benefit. Tltese things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doc- trine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil-surmisings, per- verse disputings of men of corrupt minds, [wholly corrupt, in mind], and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain i ; godliness : from such withdraw thyself.^ I note first, that the persons spoken of here, were slaves under the yoke of Roman bondage — a much worse syst:;m of slavery than any that ever existed in any State of Uiis Union. They were commanded to count their masters worthy of all honor. This is what Paul taught in his let- ter to the Romans: "Render tlierefore to all their ilacs: tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom fo whom custom: fear to whom fear; honor to 'whom honor J''^ Slaves are here commanded to count their masters worthy of all honor. Honor, then, by the law of the Lord, is due the mast:;- from the slave; and the slave, in rendering it, renders only what is due the master. And this is enjoined by Paul that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed, or defamed, as it reads in the New Translation. The doctrine of God, then, is, that slaves render to their masters all honor as their due; and when christian slaves fail to do so, of their own motion, or by advice of abolitionists, they thereby give occasion for the name and doctrine of God to be defamed or blasphemed. And christian slaves that have believing masters, that is, christian masters, are commanded to not despise them because they are brethren in Christ ; but that they serve them the more, because they are be- lievers and beloved who receive the lienefit of their services and labor. And these things Paul enjoined it upon his beloved Tim- othy to teach and exhort. This is the divine command in the premises. Those who so teach and so exhort, do right- eousness, because they do the command of God. Those (1) 1 Tim, vi, 1-5. (2) Rom. xiii, T. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 309 teachers who fail to so teach, are guilty of unrighteousness, which is failing to do the commands of God ; and being guilty of unrighteousness, they sin, for all unrighteousness is sin.^ And those teachers who teach the contrary of what Paul here enjoined Timothy to teach and exhort, transgress the law, and thereby sin.^ And Paul went on immediately, after enjoining Timothy to so teach and ex- hort, to describe this last named class, and " the effects and consequences " of their teaching ; which description is an exact one of the preachers and teachers of abolitionism, and of the effects and consequences of their work, as I will now shoAv. 1. " If any man teach otherwise." Abolitionists do teach otherwise. ISo far the description fits. 2. If they " consent not to wholesome words." Aboli- tion teachers do not consent lo wholesome words, as what they have said in the preceding pages abundantly shows. I will not specify in detail, but only make general reference to the many instances where I have had to combat their improper use of words in the preceding pages. In this particular, they fit the description. 3. If they do not consent to "the w^ords of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to god- liness" — God-like-ness. The words of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the subject of the duties of slaves to their masters, that being the subject upon which Paul was teach- ing here, I have referred to in the preceding pages, which the reader will please to look back to and examine.^ These are the words of our blessed Lord as to the relation, rights and duties of masters and slaves. And the Lord said that the kingdom of heaven, or God's government, was like them. Hence, this doctrine he taught is godliness or God- like-ness on the subject. The {Savior was God manifest in the flesh.'* His conduct while here, was godliness, God- like-ness, or acting God-like. He took upon him the form of a slave, and was made in the likeness of men : and being found in fiishion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient, that is, he became a slave, for obedience is slavery. He became obedient unto death, the Roman system of slavery requiring the slaves to obey their masters even unto death ; and the Lord became obedient unto death, even to d) IJohnv, IV. (2) lJohniii,4. ^3) Ante, pp. 291-295. (i) 1 Tim. iii, 16. I 310 CONCLUSION OF THE tlie death of the Cross, which mode of death, bv the Roman law, could be inflicted only on slaves and ^nalefactors. This was the "mind" that was in Christ, and that chris- tians are commanded to have in them, as is evident from the whole passage cited in the foot-note.' And I have also noted in the preceding pages (including this passage that I am now considering, and what Paul said to Titus,^ and what the apostle Peter said,^ both of which will be hereafter noticed,) what the inspired apostles of the Lord taught on the subject by his commands; all of which are wholesome" or healthy words, even the words of the Lord Jesus through or by his apostles who had plenary power from him to bind and loose on the subject; and they teach the doctrine which IS acjcording to godliness. Abolitionists do not consent to these words, nor to this doctrine; neither to the words actually used by the Lord himself, and the doctrine he taught, nor to the words used by the apostles, and the doc- trine they taught. They repudiate the whole of it, and make unrelenting war upon it, calling it all tne hard names they can think of or invent— and they have great inventive powers in detraction and defamation. 4. The description goes on to say that those who teach otherwise, and do not consent to those words, and to this doctrine, are "proud, knowing nothing; but are dotin<^ about questions and strifes of words." Are not abolition- ists proud, puffed up, with their super-piety? This book ' shows how "vain in their imaginations'''^ reasonings, as it reads in the New Translation, they are, to try to make out and sustain their theory by their reasoning, independerjt of the knowledge of God upon the subject. They " walk in the vanity of their raind,"^ that is, have their minds lifted up and exalted with the vain notions of their wisdom, learning, and smartness, "above and before" the wisdom that IS ^ from above, "and cometh down from the Father of lights;"*^ the result of which really is, that thereby their "understanding" becomes "darkened" and "alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart."' Yet "they speak great swelling words of vanity," and thereby "allure through the lusts of the flesh [for p^ower, place, and popa- li^^ ^!'''-.."'^-^- U^ Horn, i, 21. (7) Kph. iv. 18. f2) 'iit.ii, 9 10. (5) Eph. iv. 17, 18. ^ P' • »v, IH. (3; IPet. 11,13-25; iii,l-T. (G) James i, 17 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 311 larity], tliroucrh much wantonness [as to the public welfare, either of church or State,] those that were clean escaped from thein who live in error."^ And Paul says, in the passage that I am considering, that, because they do as there (described, which I have shown that abolitionists do, they are proud, puffed up, and high-minded, but really JcTioio 7iotliing^ because they reject the knowledge of God, will not consent to the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus Christ ar.d his doctrine, and attempt, by their own reason- ing, to make a better system. Paul denounces those who do so as proud and knowin^j nothing; abolition preachers and teachars do so: therefore, abolition preachers and teachers are proud and know nothing; that is, proud and ignorant of the true knowledge of God on the subject. And more than that, Paul says that they dote upon, love, and liave excessive fondness for questions and strifes of words. Wordy strife is but the way of doing what the abolition leaders and founders of the sect commanded them to do long ago; that is, agitate! agitate!! agitate! !! which, being translated into the lioosier vernacuhir, is, keep up a fuss! keep up a fuss ! ! keep up a fuss! ! ! which they have assiduously done from the birth of their sect, aed still are doing, with more energy, if possible, than ever. 5. Tlie description further says, that of or from this doting about questions and strifes of words of those men, come " envy, strife, railings, evil-surmisings, perverse dis- putings of inen of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth." How exactly this fits and describes "the effects and conse- quences" of abolitionism ! Of it has come envy; of it has come strife, even to the strife of a terrible and gigantic civil war nov/ raging in our unhappy country. Abolitionism railed all the time, from the time it was born till now, and is now railing at everything and every body that will not worship at its shrine; evil surmizing has been its daily work all its life, and still is; and perverse disputings of men of corrupt mind and wholly destitute of the truth of God upon the subject of slavery, such as now exists in our unhappy country, caps the climax of its wickedness. This is an inspired description cf abolition preachers and teachers, and of the effects angeny ol the; Mother of Harlots. From which fate may the good Loid deliver ua. I will now proceed to notice the two other passages in 0) 2Jolm8-n. (3> Acts ix, 31, NewTrtiualutiou. (2) Til. iii, 10, 11, MewTrajJslfltiott- (4) PUil. iii, 18, 19. DISCUSSION OF SL AVERT. 815 the apostolic writings, relating to slavery, that I have not yet noticed. Paul, in writing to Titus, commands him to speak the ildngs that become sound doctrine. And among the things following that become sound doctrine, that Paul commanded Titus to teach, was this: "Exhort servants to be subject to their own masters, and in all things to be careful to please, not answering again, not secretly stealing, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our iSavior in all things.''^ It is sound doctrine to so teach the slaves; and for the slaves to obey the teaching, is to adorn the doctrjne of God our Savior. Abolition teachers diso- bey the command to so teach, and teach " otherwise," that the slaves should not be subject to their own masters, and should not in all things be careful to please them ; but to steal away from them whenever they can, and to show no good faith towards them. Thus disobeying the plain com- mand of God, they sin. The apostle Peter, in writing to the christians scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Capnadocia, Asia and Bithynia, wrote thus : *' Ye are a chosen generation [race], a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar [purchased] people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light ; which [who] in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which [who] had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshy lusts, which war against the soul ; having your conversation [behavior] honest among the Gentiles: that whereas [wherein] they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto gov- ernors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punish- ment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of .God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men : as free, yet not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. (1) Tit. ii, 9, 10, New Translation. 316 CONCLUSION OF THE Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the frovrard. For this is thank- worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrong- fully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffetted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently ? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is accepta- ble with God. For even hereunto were ye called : because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps : who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth : who, when he was reviled, reviled not again ; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who in his own self bear our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, be- ing dead to sins, should live unto righteousness : by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. " Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own hus- bands ; that, if any obey not the word, they also may with- out the word be won by the conversation [behavior, deport- ment] of the wives; while they behold your chaste behavior coupled with fear : whose adorning let it not be that out- ward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on apparel ; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even th« orna- ment of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands : even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. ** Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace [favor] of life ; that your prayers be not hindered."^ There can be no doubt of the binding obligation of this teaching upon us ; for the Lord gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and said that whatsoever he bound on earth should be bound in heaven.^ (1) 1 Pet. ii, 9-25 ; iij, T^. (2) Matt, ivi, 19. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 31T I have quoted thus much from Peter's first letter, that I might lay it all before the reader as it stands in the Scrip- tures. A good portion of it applies to the next general head of which I shall treat, which is, the duty of christians in and to civil governments, or the kingdoms of this world. Upon that branch of the extract, I will now only note briefly, that christians are a chosen, purchased nation, which before Peter wrote had not been a people, but were then, when he wrote, a people. Their mission in this world is to show forth the praises, as it reads in the common ver- sion, but, as it reads in the New Translation, to declare the perfections of the Lord, who called them from the darkness in which man is without the knowledge of God, into the marvellous light of the Lord's revelations to our race. They are simply sojourners and pilgrims or travelers in this world, and in thp kingdoms of this world. Here they " have no continuing city."^ They are commanded to sub- mit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake — not for their own sakes. The king or civil government is put down as an ordinance of man. It is to be submitted to as such, and submitted to for the Lord's sake, that his king- dom, government, and doctrine be not blasphemed or de- famed in the kingdoms of this world. It is similar to a citizen or subject of one civil government residing in an- other. He submits to every ordinance of the government in which he resides for the sake of his government at home, that it be not scandalized or defamed by his conducts All men are to be honored or respected, but the brother- hood are to be loved. This is one proof of what I stateiJ in my debate with brother Wiley, that the Lord has differ- ent laws for the conduct of christians, as to those that are christians, and as to those that are not.^ Speaking of the duties of christians as to the ordinances of man, Peter speaks of the duties of the servants to their masters. This shows that the institution of slavery is an ordinance of man ; and it is also to be submitted to for the Lord's sake. Abolitionists take issue with Peter, and say that it should not be submitted to. As Peter spoke for the Lord, and had authority from him to bind on earth, aboli- tionists, by taking issue with Peter, take issue with the Lord, and thus are against Christ, or ajiii- christism. Ser- 0.) Ueb. xiii, U.. (2) Ante^ p 239.. 318 CONCLUSION OF THE vants are commanded to be subject not only to good and gentle masters, but also to the froward, peevish, ungove-na- ble, perverse masters; because it is thank-worthy if a man for conscience towards God, rather than disobey his com- mands and laws, endure grief suffering wrongfully. And the example of Christ's conduct and suffering is cited by Peter, to show the propriety of the commands he gave the servants. Mr. Wesley, in his note on verses 22 and 23, says : " In all these instances the example of Christ is pe- culiarly adapted to the state of servants." The Lord, in the condition of a servant, as in every other condition, was PERFECT. *'In like manner," as translated by Mr. Wesley, and in the New Translation, wives are commanded to be in sub- jection to their own husbands; for it was so "in the old time," even as far back as Sarah's and Abraham's day. They had no infidel or unfaithful that is disobedient, aboli- tion or women's rights theories, and systems of righteous- ness, in either Abraham's or Peter's day, nor for nearly eighteen centuries afterwards. Peter commanded that wives be in subjection to their husbands in like manner, as servants were just before commanded by him to be subject to their masters. Hence, he not only fell into the grievous error that Paul did in paralleling, and associating the insti- tutions of marriage and slavery, but he commanded that the wife be subject to the husband, as the servant to the master. I have now noticed all the passages in the New Testa- ment that treat of the institution of slavery, except the letter to Philemon, which is sufficiently noticed in the de- bates. They show that the Lord did not preach deliverance to the captives in the sense of abolitionism, that is, he did not preach freedom to the slaves. Both brother Butler and brother Wiley failed to show that he did preach so, though repeatedly requested to do so. On the contrary, the Scrip- tures I have noticed, show that ho preached that the slaves should remain in the condition they were, and serve their masters. The deliverance to the captives that the Lord was anointed to preach, and that he actually did preach, was deliverance from mental and moral captivity; deliver- ance from sin, and death, and the grave ; deliverance from the snare of the devil, who had taken the world of mankind DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 319 captive at his will. The freedom that the Lord preached, was freedom from sin and all its consequences; from death, hell, and the grave; and not freedom from the institution of slavery, an ordinance of man existing in the kingdoms of this world. His command was to submit to every ordi- nance of man, including that ordinance, for his sake. As I did not have space to reply fully to brother Wiley's sixth argument, at pages 217 and 218, I will do so now. He took the ground that the passage quoted there, clearly established the general principle, " that as we treat the Lord's disciple, so we treat him." Upon that I took issue, anie^ p. 224. This shows how easily we are led astray when we under- take to draw general rules from particular transactions. Here the Lord blest and rewarded those on his right hand, because, in doing certain specified things to his disciples, he accounted them 'as having been done to himself; and he punished those on his left hand, because, in failing to do those same specified things that the righteous had done to his disciples, he accounted them as having failed to do them to him. From this brother Wiley drew the general propo- sition, and asserted it to be true, as to everything else, that might be done or not done to a disciple, as being done or not done to the Lord. That is, that because at the final account, the Lord will impute as having been done or not* done to himself^ what we may have done or not have done to his disoiples^ as to six things, that is, as to giving his dis- ciples food, drink, lodging, and apparel, and as to visiting them in sickness, and in prison, that he will impute every thing else also, as having been done or not done to hiin^ which we shall have done or not have done to his disciples; and as brother Wiley applied it, if a master of a christian slave shall have sold him, it will be imputed that he sold the Lord ! I gave one instance at page 239, " that worshipping the Lord's disciple is not worshipping him," to show that bro- ther Wiley's general rule is not general. One exception is enough to show that his general deduction is untrue, and breaks all its force. I will, however, now give a few others, and could give more. Teaching a disciple, is not teaching the Lord. Obeying a disciple's theory, system, or dogma, is not obeying the Lord. Working for a disciple for ■^^^ CONCLUSION OF THE wages, is not working for the Lord for wages. And hirin,, for y^f V:t '"" y«"' '« -'.'^'-g 'h« Lord to I'rf tor you By the same parity of reasoning, may we not say, that notwithstanding that by the laws of a^Stlte we own a disciple as a slave, we do not own the Lord as a slave' and that .elling that slave is not soiling The LoTd ' If one s owmng a disciple by the laws of a State makes him the owner of the Lord by imputation, will TotTdis! But let us get closer up. The charge was- I was in prison and ye came not unto me. The^lame was for not coming to him in prison. According to abolitionism the blame IS, because they did not releafe him from pr^on- tTJT~^''^K^J'' fetters-open his prison doorT The Lord, however, did not blame those on his left hand, for not Th T^J"^'' ^° •"■ ^'^ '^T^'"'- ^'''^^ «'^« not' the sn in IV ' f ^^""''g to him-not visiting him in the condition in which he was;-notfor not changing That con! dition and taking him out of it. And this if in strict ac IS abundantly shown m the preceding pages. Accord no. to aboLtion teaching and conduct, the "Lfrd shtldhavf said to those on his left hand ; I 'was in prison, and the • Golden Rule requiring you to do as you would be done bv required that you should have disregarded the laws and of-' dinances of man by which I was imprisoned, and " aghatd " action upon a "higher law" till you got up a party suffi ciently powerful to tear down tl^ jafl and^ take ie out" woS aV;f '" '''' -fWoodshed^evastation, fire and swo d , and because you di.! not do it, depart, &c. lliis shows the impropriety and danger of going to rea Honing, and drawing deductions and inferenfe fn a.cer taining what ,s sinful or righteous, instead of ook " to the direct commands of the Lord upon the particular tubject I have shown the many commands of the Lord to the mas ter and slave; and yet brother Wiley, instead of lo k , to' them ascertain the Lord's will in the premises reaso^ied Sstry^rSur' ''' «^'^'" H"'e,.c.rto"^7ru^ istr^v"'!;!!!'^"'!'^ t^^^y*"" a^-l a half of the Lord's min- istry, he ministered only to the moral, mental and physical DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 321 wants of the people. He never ministered, in any way, to their political wants, nor as to their condition in life, as to bond or free, high or low, rich or poor. This any one can fully and clearly see, who will carefully read the four Gospels. What more I have to say under brother Wiley's fifth head, will properly come up under the general head I shall next consider — the duty of christians in the civil govern- ment. I have now fully discussed the proposition, Slavery is sin- ful. Brethren Wiley and Butler both undertook to sustain and prove the proposition by the good word of the Lord. They both failed, and both desisted from the further prose- cution of the discussion, midway of it. I ask the reader's careful attention to, and consideration of, what has been said in the preceding pages ; and that they " search the Scriptures daily whether these things are so,"^ as the noble Bereans did. We are all equally interested in ascertaining and knowing what the truth is on this now momentous and absorbing question, in our now divided, distracted, and un- happy country. It will do none of us any harm to care- fully and calmly look at and consider what is said in the inspired volume, the only true source of light and knowl- edge, on this now terrible question. It is time for us all to carefully re-examine the ground we occupy, and see whether or not we are, or have been in error. We should do this disnassionately ; we should not let our party feelings, either religious or political, sway us from so doing ; but, as far as it is possible for human nature to do, we should approach the careful and honest examination of God's word upon the subject, as if we had no opinions of our own, in good faith resolving to follow God's truth, let it lead wherever it may. If we do that, we are certain to come to the light ; for ''he that doeth [obeys or follows] truth cometh to the light."^ God has communicated his knowledge to us : it is our duty to examine, ascertain, and acquire it. Let us do so, in good faith, on this subject, at this time. If we do, our errors may be ascertained, and our ways amended, in time to yet save our country and people from utter ruin and destruction. But, if we do not, and are wrong in the assumption that slavery is sinful, as I think I have abund- antly shown that we are, and still persist on that false as- (1) Acts xvii, 11. (2; John iii, 21. "-' CONCLUSION OF TUE sumption, to prosecute the present unhappy civil war with the demoniacal zeal of the Saracens, to exterminate the „ of slavery, who can tell or estimate the amount of respon" s.b.l.ty, present and prospective, now and in history! L pos: :'i'".:r"''^' "-" ^--^ -^ — ^^ -"<^-t wiiiim. cheerf.d V !l -^'''-n-"^ '"'^■'"- <="™« '« ''' '<> obey it cheei fully, and with wlhng mind, is my devout prayer. co,w '"P'''™™'^'-^ t». this department of my subject, I M.,i olst, 1860 Ihe writer is a graduate of the Virginia University ; and his article shows his schoh.rship and abiU on i< wnP" P'''"'"P'V'-^ °" ,'he account of the informa- tion It will give the reader on the terms.slave, servants &c • bu there are other valuable facts bearing on the sub ect well stated m the article : S'Unject PAUL ON ABOLITIONISM. New ENOLAND.-The following statement has appeared in religions journals published at Boston, Chicac.',^ New lorkand Pittsburg: "My strong conviction is,°that u,! bpirit, the day ,s not distant which will witness a more ex- tensive and appalling apostacy in New England than we have ever yet seen-and (hat apostacy will b^ into Univer! salism. Is this the whirlwind to bo reaped from sowinX ^.nd of ultra anti-slaveryism ? Abolitionism seems t" us a very direct path to apostacy." Now, it does seem to me that this remark of the editor scarcely does ull justice to abolitionism. Let u look for a moment at the real facts of the case, al^d see if we ca„ rrrrr ',"""" "■' the apostacy of abolitionism itself" for I contend that It IS not only the path to apostacy, bu e, tinn't 't"^ ''f-^V ^^'' '"'sl't seem to be a bold a - seition to make, in the face of so many wise and reverend men whose names have adorned the times in which "hey ned But the writer believes that he has counted the oosi n making such a statement. Look at the authority, and then speak your mmd. Just about 1800 years ago, here was a young minister, who uad just been sent forth to DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 323 preach the Gospel. He was remarkably ^^ell I'ead in the ScriDtures, having been trained in them from his childhood. His 'object in preaching the Gospel ^vas to teach men their duty, in order that they might be saved. But he jas youn^ and inexpei;ienced in the work, and though he under- stood very well the general character of his great work, and was familiar with the great central truths of the Gos- pel yet there were many particular points in the applica- tion of the teachings of the Gospel to every day life, on which he needed advice and instruction. Besides, he needed advice from an older preacher, as to how he should withstand the opposers of the Gospel, and how he should mana^re those still more dan.cerous opponents, who, P^otess- incr to° preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, should, inlfact, preach " anofher GospeV The name of this young preacher was Timothy. Now it so happened that iimothy had iust such a friend and adviser as he reeded in the per- son of the apostle Paul. This man was not only a very great preacher and distinguished orator, (see Longinus,) but he had been preaching about from place to place aTnong all classes of people. He had met with all sorts of inhdels, heathen, pagans, Sadducees, and worshippers of the ' Un- known God " He had refuted the philosophical dogmas ot the Epicureans and the Stoics. He had condemned heresy and apostacy wherever he had seen it. He had been through all sorts of tribulation and affliction, and had con- frontell all sorts of opposition. He had, moreover, been the means of Timothy's conversion. Now, these reasons made it very proper that Paul should give limothy the benefit of his experience, and accordingly he writes a letter to the young preacher. In the midst of this letter, he o-iveshimthe following directions: 1 Tim. vi, 1— " Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." Let us pj^use here a moment and see what this means. In the first place, what is the exact meaning of the term serimiis? In the original it is ** Douloi " This word is used in various places in the JNew Testament. Let us seek an illustration by comparing this passage with another, also penned by Paul himself. In Uomans i, 1, we find the following : - Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle," &c. Now, the word 324 CONCLUSION OF THE " doulos " used in this place to mean servant, is the singular number of precisely the same words which is used in the quotation from Timothy. If we can find out its meaning here, we can know what meaning to give to it there. Now, what does Paul mean by the term servant in this first chap- ter of Romans? The term seems capable of bearing but two interpretations. It either means a hireling, or it means that the person to whom the term applies is the property of the master. Now, it can not mean a hireling here. Paul did not mean to say that he was a hireling. Why, we know what an account Jesus himself gives of the hireling. He tells us (John x, 13,) that " the hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep." This was not the character of Paul. His heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel was, that they might be saved. Besides, the word translated Idreling, in John x, 13, is to- tally different from the word servant in Rom. i, 1, and in 1 Tim. vi, 1. In the first case, it is the word *' misthotos," or one who is paid for services rendered; in the other two cases, as we have seen, it is "doulos." But we can easily settle this question in a positive man- ner, by showing from Paul's other writings, in what sense he considered himself the servant of Jesus Christ. Let us turn to 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20, and we find Paul telling the ser- vants of Jesus Christ that they are not their own. And why? Is it because their time is hired? No, but it is be- cause they are bought iviih a price. Paul then means to say that he is a servant who is not his own, but is bought with a price ; and when expressing the relation in which he, a servant of Jesus Christ, stands to Christ, who bought him with a price, he uses the word ''doulos." This would seem to be a marvellously plain case to require any proof at all, were it not for the fact that abolition writers have tried to make it appear, to abolitionized ignorance, that the word "doulos" meant only a hireling, or a hired servant. This is certainly either perverting the right ways of the Lord, or else it is darkening counsel b;^ words without knowledge. But, after having settled the meaning of this term, let us look into the meaning of the rest of this verse. The apos- tle says that these servants are to give all honor to their masters. Now, who are these masters ? Are they simply the employers of the servants ? Are they the undertakers, DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 325 and the others the laborers for pay ^ as the abolition scholars would have us believe ? This would be incompatible with our settled meaning of the word '* doulos ;" for it is evident that the words are correlative ; and that, if " doulos " means servant^ in the sense of slave, and not hireling, then the word " despotes," or master, would not supply the proper correlative idea, if it merely meant an undertaker. This interpretation would give Paul as valid a claim to nonsensical writing, as some of the abolition commentators on him have established for themselves. But, lest there should be any mistake in our reasoning, let us again consult the original, to get the true force and intent of the word. The Greek word "despotes" is used here. This is the very same as our word despot. The only difference is in the termination. Now, we should hardly suppose that abolitionism itself could believe that the Eng- lish word despot meant simply a master-workman or under- taker. What do we mean when we speak of a despotic government? Everybody knows that we mean a govern- ment in which the will of one man is the law. It would be absurd to talk of an undertaker or master-workman here. And so every Greek scholar knows that it is just as absurd to say that the Greek word " despotes " means a master- workman. Now, it would seem that this case was made out without a possibility of error. There seems to be no other rational interpretation for the passage than the one which is here given. But I am aware that there are those who are not guided by reasoning and argument. Some are blinded by prejudice ; some are deceived by the bold and utterly groundless statements of pretended scholars. For the benefit of those, as well as for his own satisfaction, the writer has been at some pains to find authority for what he holds to be the truth. The result of his investigation is as follows : Says Calepin : " Doulos — Latin, servus; i. e., qui sui juris non est, sed alieno domino suhjiciturJ^ The Eng- lish of this is as follows : A slave ; that is, one who of his own right possesses no existence, but is subjected to another as his master. This looks pretty plain. But hear him fur- ther. The Gallic of this word, he tells us, is serf. The French is esclave ; ItuViSin, servitor e ; Spanish, siervo; Anglo- Saxon, a man-servant. Says Schrevelii: "Doulos" — ser- vus. '* Suidas Lexicon Kusteri " says : " Doulos " — servus. 326 CONCLUSION OF THE Jones' Lexicon : ^'Doulos" — a slave a servant; "doule" — a female slave. Damn : " Doule " — Latin, ancilla, serva — a female slave. Stephano : " Doulos " — servus, correlative " despotes," opposite " eleutheros." Now, "despotes" means a master, and is the correlative term to " doulos ;" and "eleutheros" means a freeman, and is opposed to "doulos." Du Fresne says: "Doule" — ancilla. Now, ancilla means a female slave, a handmaid. Donnegan tells us that " doulos " means a slave, a servant. Grove : " Dou- lous " — a slave, a servant. Pickering : " Doulos " — a slave, a servant. Diddell and Scott : " Doulos " — a slave, a bond- man, strictly one born so ; opposed to " andrapodon " — ti slave taken captive in war, from the idea of the captive falling at the feet of the conqueror; " doulous," from " deo," to bind. This derivation of the word is put down by the lexicographer as only probable ; and in this idea, he seems to be sustained by Professor Gildersleeve, of the University of Virginia, who is decidedly the highest author- ity I know, and who holds that the origin of the word is not settled. The Persian word is hendet^ probably akin to our word bondman. Now, " doulos" is not the only Greek word which means a servant or slave. On the contrary, the Greek language is exceedingly rich in its variety, and most critically nice in its distinctions. This is a marked peculiarity of the lan- guage in general ; and seldom does this peculiarity show itself more plainly, than in the various words with which the Greeks provided themselves for expressing the various modifications of the idea contained in the word servant. For example: "Andropodon" — a slave taken captive; " doulos " — one born so ; " douleuma " — one bought with money ; " doulosunos ' ' — one enslaved ; " doularion " — a little slave; "pais" — a slave, and in general a servant maid ; " paidion " — a young slave, lad ; " paidarion " — a young slave ; " ktema" — property in slaves ; " paidiske " — a young female slave. Now, here were evidently words enough to choose from, (and we have not exhausted them,) so that we are not to suppose that the word "doulo." is used because it came pretty near the idea, and there was no word to express it exactly. This supposition is too vio- lent even for an abolitionist, if he has any pretensions to Greek scholarship. But lest it may be supposed that the DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 327 meaning of this word is different in the New Testament from what it is anywhere else, we may cite the following passages from the classic Greek authors, and any one who feels disposed, and has the opportunity, may compare the passages. The word "doulos," or some modification or synonym of it, occurs, I believe, in the following places : Thucjdides viii, 28, iv, 34, ii, 61, and i, 18; Euripides He- cuba 865 ; Ibid Ion 556 ; Herodotus vii, 7, i, 27, i, 94, 174; Homer's Odyssey 22, 423. " But if Paul had desired to express the idea of a hired servant in this place," says some man, "could he have found any other word to use?" We answer, in the first place, that whether he could or not, he could not use this word " doulous." Words, like facts, are stubborn things. After their meaning has been settled by universal use for centuries, we can not take them up and give them an entirely new meaning, without giving any sort of intimation of the fact, that we mean by the words, not what others mean, but something totally different from anything which the words ever meant before. Now, the word *• doulous" never means a hireling or a hired servant. There is not a single authenticated case in the whole range of Greek literature, where the word has that meaning. And, therefore, even if there had been as great a dearth of words as there actually is an abundance in the Greek lan- guage for the expression of this idea, still Paul could not have used this word for it, without giving us some intima- tion of the liberty he was taking. But just see how very ridiculous this abolition idea of hireling becomes, when we compare it wita other passages in the Bible, where the same or cognate idea is to be expressed. I have found the ex- pression "hired servant" in nine different passages of our version of the Bible. Exodus xii, 45 — " A hired servant shall not eat thereof," &c. Here the Greek word of the Septuagint is not " doulos," but "misthotos" — one who is paid for services rendered- Lev. xxii, 10, "misthotos" is the word. In Lev. xxv, 6, the term " hired servant " occurs under such circumstances as to bring out the difference on which we are insisting. Our version has it, "And the Sab- bath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy lured servant^ &c. In the Septuagint, the Greek word used here for ser- vant is "pais;" for maid- servant, or maid, " paidiske ;" but 328 CONCLUSION OF THE for hired servant^ the same old word, " misthotos." Lev. XXV, 40, our version has hired servant — Septuagint, " mis- thotos." Lev. XXV, 53, our version has hired servant — Septuagint, " misthotos." Deut. xv, 18, our version, hired servant — Septuagint, " misthotos," Deut. xxiv, 14, our version, hired servant — Septuagint, "raisthou." Mark i, 20, our version, hired servant — Greek, " misthotos." Luke XV, 18, our , version, hired servant — Greek Testament, " misthotos." Now let us see if any better foundation can be found for abolitionism, if we give them the word hireling instead of hired servant. This word is found eight times in the Bible. Job vii, 1, our version has hireling — Septuagint, "mistho- tos." Job vii, 2, our version, hireling — Septuagint, " ther- apon." Job xiv, 16, our version, hireling — Septuagint, " misthotos." Isaiah xvi, 14, our version, hireling — Sep- tuagint, '' misthotos." Isaiah xxi, 16, our version, hireling — Septuagint, " misthotos." Malachi iii, 5, our version, hire- ling — Septuagint, "misthotos." John x, 12, our version, hireling — Greek Testament, "misthotos." John x, 13, our version, hireling — Greek Testament, "misthotos." Now, here are some seventeen or eighteen cases, in which the word hireling (or the term hired servant) is used in our English version, and not once do we find the word " dou- los" to answer to it. Really, it does seem that the learn- ing of abolitionism must be exceedingly stupid, if it can not see that the word " doulos " means a slave, and not a hireling. But let us examine one more extract from Lid- dell & Scott's Lexicon. Under the word "despotes," which is translated master in 1 Tim. vi, 1, we find the following : "A master, lord, strictly in respect of slaves; so that the address of a slave to his master was, ' o despot anax :* hence a despot, absolute ruler, whose subjects are slaves." The reader may find further light by consulting Herodotus i, 11, 111 ; iii, 89— Thucydides vi, 77— Eurip. Hypp. 88— Xenophon Anab. viii, 2, 13 ; vii, 4, 10. Now, I hold that abolitionism leads to apostacy, because it makes abolition commentators pervert the right ways of the Lord, and attempt to deceive the unsuspecting and ig- norant, by making them believe that when Paul writes on the relative duties of master and slave, he does not mean master and slave, but he means something else, which some- DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 329 tiling else the words never did or could mean. But we promised to show not only that abolitionism led to apostacy, but that it was apostacy itself. Now, we can do this, if Paul is authority. What is his reason for exhorting ser- vants to honor their masters? Why, "that the name of Ood and his doctrine be not blasphemed." The idea here is evidently this : *' If there are servants among you chris- tians, and they pretend to belong to the Lord, and at the same time do not attend to their duties as servants, and do not honor their masters, the unbelieving world around you will make light of and blaspheme the doctrine which pro- duces such fruits." Compare Rom. ii, 24; Titus ii, 5. Now% I contend that those who withstand the doctrine that Paul here teaches, are not only on the road to apostacy, but have already reached it. For, look further on in this chapter, (1 Tim. vi.) and we find Paul directing Timothy to teach and exhort the people in the doctrine of obedience of servants to masters. " These things teach and exhort." Brethren of the Southern pulpit, have we done our duty? Have we been teaching and exhorting these things? Or have we let a fear of being thought to meddle w4th politics, keep us back from declaring the whole counsel of God? Remember, that before Columbus was born, before this con- tinent was dreamed of, even when the Jews were traveling through the wilderness, God saw fit to legislate upon this subject ; and amidst the dense smoke and vollied thunders of Sinai's awful scenes, there came forth the table of stone, written by the finger of tlie Lord God Omnipotent, and de- claring to the race of men that they should not covet their neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid servant, nor anything that was their neighbors. Sla- very had its religious importance for thousands of years before New England was known. And shall we, ministers of the Most High, suffer our mouths to be stopped by a few puny politicians? No ! let us do our duty, and declare CJod's truth on this subject, as on all others, without fear of anything that man can do unto us. But Paul goes on to say, that '* if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil- 22 S30 CONCLUSION OF THE surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness; from such withdraw thjself !" There is the finest picture of modern abolitionism in the language. Paul must have been acquainted with some abolitionist, or else he looked forward to the abolition rant and hubbub of the 19th cen- tury. Paul knew very well that the words which he had been writing, (namely, that servants were to honor their masters) were *' wholesome words, even the word^ of our Lord Jesus Christ." And of course he knew how to de- scribe those who should teach otherwise. lie practised his own doctrine, too, sending Onesimus, the runaway slave, back to his master, Philemon. See how fully his descrip- tion of the abolitionist coincides with the character of those same fanatics of the present day. " Proud," says PauL " Yes," says Henry Ward Beecher himself, " so proud are you, that there is more sympathy for the negro even among the slaveholders themselves, than among you." " Knowing nothing," says Paul ; and sure enough, they do not evcD know enough to be aware of the fact, the open, palpable, staring faet, that a negro is a negro, and not a blackened white man, " Doting about questions and strifes of words;" just exactly so. For instance, discussing the various " isms " and such like. "Envy, railings, evil- surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds," &c. For example^ calling for an anti-slavery Bible, an anti-slavery Constitu- tion, and an anti-slavery God; saying, as they have said, that the Constitution of their country is "a league with hell ;" that " such a God as is described in the Bible, they would put him upon a block and sell him ;" and to clap the climax, proclaiming to the world that it is now old fogyism to trust for salvation in Jesus Christ and him crucified, and that henceforth the faith of the people is to rest on " Johri Brown and him hanged." " From such," says Paul, '* with- draw thyself;" and from such, say I, good Lord deliver usc J. C, HiDEN, Orange County, Va. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 331 THE DUTY OF CHRISTIANS IK CIVIL GOVERNMENTS. Christians, as such, though in the worhl, are not of the world. While in this state of existence, they necessarily have to remain -upon this globe, which God prepared for the habitation of man before he created hira. Man, consisting of body, soul and spirit, is partly matter and partly spirit. lie is the connecting link in God's crea- tion, between matter and spirit. The globe was prepared for him, and he was created and placed upon it. The fruits of the earth were given to him for food,^ which were suffi- cient to sustain his animal or physical system ; and the fruit of the tree of life was provided and given to him, to rejuvenate and revivify his animal system, and make its ex- istence perpetual. Everything upon the earth, and within his reach was given to him, excepting the fruit of one tree, of which he was prohibited from partaking, on pain of death. 2 He transgressed that command, was driven from the tree of life, and death ensued from it; and the earth was cursed for his sake. In this state of affairs, without redemption, the race was cut off and destroyed, and could not have perpetuated its existence. But God "so loved the world as to give his only begot- ten Son, that whosoever believes on him, may not perish, but obtain eternal life."^ Those who believe on him, and confide in him as the Captain of their salvation and their King, may not perish, but may obtain eternal life, from which the race was cut off by the transgression of Adam. He is " the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,""* " that the world may be saved by him."^ Other orders of intelligences sinned against the God of heaven, but no provision was made for their redemption. God " hath reserved them in everlasting chains under dark- ness unto the judgment of the great day.''^ But redemp- tion was provided for the race of man, that his body may be redeemed from the bars of death, and raised a spiritual and immortal bod^ — not animal and earthly as it was be- fore — and his spirit cleansed and purified from sin, the re- H) Gen. i, 29. (-t) John i, 29, New Trans. (2 Gen. ii, 16, 17. (5) Johniii, 17, New Trans. (3) Johniii, 16, New Trans. (6) Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii, 4. 332 CONCLUSION OF THE deemed and resuscitated man may dwell in the presence of the Lord, in whose presence he was before he sinned ; but with this difference, that he will be wholly spiritual in his redeemed and resuscitated state, whereas, ho was partly earthly and partly spiritual, in his primeval state. Hence, those who so conduct themselves as to obtain this "inheri- tance incorruptible, undefikd, and that fadeth not away,"^ will hold a much higher position in the scale of existence, than Adam held in Eden. In the Lord's government of the race after it sinned, as well as before, he used moral power or motive only, till near the flood. He did not inflict physical punishment upon Cain, the first murderer, but set a mark upon him, lest any finding him should slay him.^ The result of this sys- tem was, that in fourteen centuries " the earth was filled with violence."^ The Lord then laid down a new law : " My spirit [by moral power, persunsion,] shall not always strive with man, for he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.""* That was the probation given them in which to turn to God, and Noah was ap- pointed a preacher of righteousness,^ to reclaim them to the commands of God without God's having to inflict phys- ical punishment. But God said to Noah, " the end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them : and behold I will destroy them with the earth. "^ They did not repent at the preaching of Noah, and God, in his own proper person, inflicted the first legal, physical, capital punishment, that was inflicted upon the earth, by destroying the race, except Noah and his family ; to whom he prescribed physical punishment for crime and violence, as the law of the postdiluvian world : "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man ; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, b^^ man shall his blood be shed : for in the image of God made he man."^ Here he invested man with governmental powers to pun- ish crime, and made it his duty, as stated in the law of (1) 1 Pet. 1, 4. (4) Gen. ri, 3. (7) Gen. ix, 5, 6. (2) Gen. iv, 15. (5) 2 Pet. ii, 5. (3) Gen. vi, 11, 13. (6) Gen. vi,lS. DISCUSSION OF SLAYERY. 333 Moses afterwards, to cleanse the land of the blood of mur- der by the blood of the murderer;^ thus making man his minister on earth for governmental purposes. But he was made his minister for wrath or punishment, " a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."^ The Lord was still the minister of mercy, moral power, or motive, in the government of man, as he had been before the flood ; and by the Spirit, he continued to strive with man, and still does continue to strive. In the wrath department, or physical punishment depart- ment, of God's government of man on earth, from Noah's day forward, (iod made use of some of the worst monsters of human government, as well as some of the best, to exe- cute his wrath upon the children of disobedience. The Babylonian and Roman powers, who were made ministers of wrath against the Jewish nation at two different periods of time, are specimens of the former ; while Israel under Joshua, and Cyrus the Great, are specimens of the latter. Herce, to be God's minister of wrath, does not imply that the power which is that minister, whether it be a people or a sovereign, is righteous, or even praiseworthy or desirable. It is simply to be an executioner or hangman, which is not a very desirable calling. For reasons not revealed, and hence unknown to us, God permitted things to go on thus after the flood, century after century. And these kingdoms of this world, monsters though many of them were, were made ministers of the wrath of God to execute his vengeance upon the ungodly ; for vengeance belongs to him, and not to man.^ He would use one nation as a minster of vengeance on another, and shortly after bring another to take vengeance on his first minister; all of which the history of the Bible, as well as profane history, abundantly proves. In the fulness of time, however, the Lord himself became incarnate and dwelt among us, to re-establish his kingdom^ on earth, as it existed before the flood, (so far as govern- mental matters are concerned,) and to supersede human governments as ministers of God's wrath, by remodelling society, so that moral power alone will govern it, termina- ting in bringing his followers back to the tree of life, (1) Num. XXXV, 33. ^3) Deut. xixii, 35, 43 ; Kom. xii, 19 ; Heb. x, 30. (2) Bom. xiii, 4. 334 CONCLUSION OF THE ■whence sin expelled them ; having effected which, he ■will then have put all things under his feet, and will then sur- render the kingdom to God.^ His kingdom, however, was not set up on earth, until after his humiliation, his death, his burial, his resurrection, and his ascension, when God *' exalted him with his right hand a Prince and Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins;"^ when he was crowned Lord of all, and sent forth the Spirit ac- cording to the promise of the Father, to bis apostles, who set up his kingdom on the day of Pentecost. That king- dom is his body, and he is its head.^ Though his kingdom was not set up till after his ascen- sion, yet, during his ministry, he taught its principles ; and after his ascension, his apostles fully developed its laws. At the beginning of his ministry, he chose his twelve apostles. They then became the germ of his kingdom. He told them that they were not of this world, but that he had chosen them out of the world.* He prayed to the Father for them "because they are not of the world;" not that he should " take them out of the world," but that he should " keep them from evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth. As thou has sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. "^ Hence, christians, as such, as the body of Christ, as his kingdom, though in the world, are not of the world. They are chosen by the Lord out of the world, though while in this life they remain in this v»'orld. They are a holy nation, a purchased people, who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God. As christians, they are sojourners in this v/orld, and travelers or pilgrims through it.^ When Pilate asked the Lord if he was the King of the Jews, he testified the truth, and said that he was a King ; but informed Pilate, who was the representative of the Ro- man majesty, that his kingdom was not of this world: "if," said he, " my kingdom were of this world, then would my (1) 1 Cor. XV, 24-23. (4) John xv, 19. (2; Acts V, 31. (5) John xvii, 13-19. (3) 1 Cor. xii, 2Y ; Eph. iii, «j iv, 12 ; v, 25; Col. i, 18. (6) 1 Pet. ii, 6-11, N. T. DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. S35 seTvants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdona not from hence. "^ Here the two kingdoms were brought fa<;e to face. The kingdom of this world, the Roman power, represented bj Pilate, and the kingdom of the Lord, represented by the King himself. The Lord informed the representative of the former, that his kingdom was not of this world. Pilate knew that the kingdom he represented, was of this world. But as the Lord's kingdom Y>^as not of this world, there was no conflict of the jurisdictions of the two kingdoms. The Lord, though King himself, prospectively, while in this world, submitted to the kingdom of this world, and there was no conflict between the two powers. In this he leffc ^'us an example, that we should follow his steps."^ But the Lord said if his kingdom were of this world, then would his servants fight that he should not be deliv- ered to the Jews. When he was arrested, Peter drew his sword, and struck off the ear of the high Priest's servant. The Lord healed the wound and said to Peter, " Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I ean not now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?"^ There are some things to be noted here. The kingdoms of this world operate through physical potver, because the servants of those kingdoms fight. .For the Lord said that his servants would have fought had his kingdom been of this world. And he could have had an army of twelve legions of angels instantly, to phjsieallj overcome the Jewish and Roman powers, if physical force could have been lawfully used in his kingdom, as it was in the kingdoms of this world. But it could not be so law- fully used. " For the wrath [or physical power] of man worketh not the righteousness of God."* The righteous- ness of God, or what God has prescribed should be donCj is not to be wrought out or brought about by physical force, the wrath or punishment of man. Hence, the folly and sinfulness of all persecution in religious matters, down eyeu to the fanatical folly of "wiping out the sin of sla- very" by civil war. (1) John XTiii, 33-36. (3) Matt. xxTi, 51-53. i2) IPet. ii, 21. (A) James i, 20. 836 CONCLUSION OF THE " All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." The STv.ord is the emblem of the power of the kingdoms of this world ; and it is physical power, force. Physical power can not be used in the Lord's kingdom. Moral power alone, motive, the power put forth in the Gospel, which i& the power of God,^ is the only power that can be used ia the kingdom of the Lord, which is " far above all princi- pality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also that which is to come ;''^ and it wrestles "not against flesh and blood, [physical wrestling] but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this worlds against spiritual wickedness in high [heavenly, ecclesiasti- cal] places ;"" and the Lord, the head of the christian king- dom, " is the head of all principality and power,"* and will finally overthrow all those principalities and powers, when *' the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ."^ But all this will be done by moral power alone. Physical power has not been used, and will not be used by the Lord, to effect this. He '* healed all their sick, enjoining them not to make him known. Thus the word of the prophet Isaiah was verified, ' Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul delights ; I will cause my spirit to abide upon him, and he shall give laws to the nations ; he will not contend, nor clamor, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break ; and a dimly burning taper he will not quench, till he render his laws victorious. Nations shall trust in his name.^"^ As the kingdoms of this world are all thus to perish by the tri- (1) Rom. i, 16, ir. (3) Eph. vi, 12. (5) Rev. xi, 15. (2) Eph. i.21. H) C&l.ii.lO. (6) Matt, xii, 15-21, New Translation. The kingly conquests aad triamphant victories of the Messiah, are the subject on which Isaiah dwells in that part of his prophecy from which this quotation is made. The emblems introduced by the prophet are designed to- show the ease with which these victories shall be obtained. No trumpets, spears, or torches, shall be employed in making his laws victorious. He will not employ such wea- pon> in subduing the nations under him ; not even a bruised reed will be broken as r. sub- fttitute for a spear or lance ; not a spark of fire, not even an expiring wick will be con- sumed or extinguished, in bringing nations under his yoke. How unlike his conquests are to those obtained by fire and sword I The spear and the torch of ancient warriors, and the clangor of trumpets, are alluded to in these representations of Messiah's regal achieve- ments. * * * With these remarks we introduce Bishop Lowtk's translation of Isaiah ilii, 1-5: Behold my servant, whom I will uphold; My chosen, m whom my soul delights: I will make my spirit rest upon him ; And he shall publish judgment to. the nations.. He shall uot ciy aloud, nor raise a clamor» DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 337 umphs of the Lord's kingdom obtained without contention, or clamoi\ or the exertion of physical power even to the breaking of a bruised reed as a spear, the sword the power of the kingdoms of this world, will perish with those king- doms. And the Lord says in the passage under considera- tion, that all that take the sword shall perish with it; shall perish }vhen it perishes. Hence, christians who desire to survive the sword, and not to perish when it perishes, had better not voluntarily take the sword. Those who desire to survive the law of force had better not voluntarily resort to it. They who take and rely upon physical power, will per- ish when that power perishes ; while they who take, adhere to, and rely upon the Lord, and the principles of his king- dom, will stand in his kingdom, which endures forever, and shall not perish. The Lord taught his disciples to pray " thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven ;''* as recorded by Luke : "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. "^ How is his will done in heaven ? *' Ye his angels, that excel in [mighty inj strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word."^ In heaven his commands are hearkened to and done because they are his commands. No disobedience : and no coercion, force or physical power, used to compel obedience. The Lord taught us to pray for that state of affairs on the earth. When it shall have come, human governments, the ministers of God's wrath, his aven- gers to execute his vengeance upon the ungodly and the disobedient, will no longer be needed on earth — their oc- cupation will be gone, and the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdoms of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Millennium will have set in. Hence, the Psalmist sang, " Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.""* They shall need no coercion, wrath, or vengeance. The kingdoms of this world have jurisdiction of things pertaining to this world, life, liberty, and property. The Lord's kingdom is not of this world; hence, he, in all his Nor cause his voice to be heard in the public places ; The bruised reed he shall not break ; And the dimly burning flax he shall not quench : He shall publish judgment so as to establish it perfectly. His force shall not be abated, nor broken, Until he has flrnaly seated judgment in the earth : And the distant nations shall earnestly wait for his law. — A. Campbeli'a Note on Ihe Pa»»aff0. (1) Matt. Ti, 10. (2) Lukexi,2. (3) Ps. ciii, 20. (4) Ps. ex. a. 338 CONCLUSION OF THE ministry, refrained, upon all occasions, from interfering with matters pertaining to this world, or with the affairs of the kingdoms of this world, and what pertained to them. After he had fed the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes, when he '* perceived that they would come and take him by force, and make him a [political] king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone,"^ to prevent them from doing it. When '' one of the company said unto him. Mas- ter, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me," he said, '* Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?"^ That was a question to be settled, and a duty to be' performed by the civil government, the kingdom of this world having jurisdiction of the property and of the parties; and the Lord would not act in it — it did not belong to his kingdom. His course was the same in the case of the woman taken in adultery. He refused to give judg- ment in the case, because he had no jurisdiction of the cause. He did not set in Moses' seat to give judgment un- der the laws of Moses. The next transaction and act of the Lord that I shall note and observe upon, has so great a bearing upon the subject under consideration, and is so exact a daguereotype of many persons now existing, and of so many things now transpiring, that I shall quote it at length from each of the three inspired writers that record it, Matthew, Mark and Luke. I quote from the New Translation. The reader will have the common version, and can read them as they stand in that version. *' Then the Pharisees retired, and having consulted how they might entrap him in his words, sent him some of their disciples, and some Herodians, M'ho, being instructed hy them, said. Rabbi, we know that you are sincere, and faith- fully teach the way of God, without partiality, for you re- spect not the person of men. Tell us, therefore, your opinion: Is it lawful to give tribute to Casar, or not? Jesus perceiving their malice, said. Dissemblers, why would you entangle me ? Show me the tribute money. And they reached him a denarius. He asked them, Whose image and inscription is this? They answered, Cesar's. He re- replied, Render^ then, to Cesar thai which is Cesar's, and to (1) John vi, 15. (2) Luke xii, 13, U. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 339 God that which is God's. And admiring his answer, they left him and went away."^ " And thej/ desired to have seized him^ but were afraid of the multitude; for they knew that he spoke the 2^ arable against them. Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders, leaving Jesus, went away, and sent to him certain Pharisees and Flerodians, to catch him in his luords. These coming up, said to him. Rabbi, we know that you are upright, and stand in awe of none ; for you respect not the person of men, but teach the ways of God faithfully. Is it lawful to give tribate to Cesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give ? He, perceiving their artifice, answered. Why would you entangle me? Bring me a denarius, that I may see it. When they had brought it, he asked them, Whose is this image and inscription ? They answered, Cesar's. Jesus replied. Render to Cesar that tohich is Cesar s, and to God that which is God's. And they wondered at him."2 '* At that time, the chief priests and scribes, knoiving that he had spoken this parable against them, would have laid hands on him, but feared the people. And they watched him, and set spies upon him, instructing them to personate conscientious men, and surprise him in his words, that they might consign him to the power and authority of the procura- tor. These accosted him with this question : Rabbi, we know that you speak and teach uprightly, and that, without respect of persons, you faithfully recommend the way of God. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Cesar, or not? lie, perceiving their subtlety, answered, Why would you entangle me? Show me a, denarius. Whose image and inscription has it? They answered, Cesar's. He replied. Render, therefore, to Cesar that which is Cesar's, and to God that which is God's. Thus they could not surprise him in his discourse before the people; wherefore, admiring his answer, they kept silence."^ 1. The chief priests were at the head of this conspiracy against the immaculate founder of Christianity. They have been at the head of all conspiracies against his immaculate religion, and of all persecutions of those who follow the teaching and example of the Lord, from the day of this conspiracy until the present time, and now are. (1) Matt, xiii, 15-22. (2) Mark xii, 12-lT. ^3) Luke xx, l»-36. 340 CONCLUSION OF THE 2. But they had with them in this conspiracy the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes were the writers and expound- ers of the Mosaic law. They were the administrators of that law as a civil government among the people, and rep- resented the civil authority in this conspiracy. Tlie Phari- sees were the super-pious among the Jews, giving cijual weight, however, to tradition (inference, philosophy, reason, argument) that they did to the written word itself. The reader's mind can easily fix upon those who now occupy their position. 3. The chief priests, scribes and Pharisees desired to seize the Lord that they might consign him to the military despotism then in Judea, because he spoke a parable against them ihat exposed their abominable character and conduct. "Who are doing so now ? The reader's mind can easily sug- gest the answer. 4. They " were afraid of the multitude," they " feared the people." Who is afraid of the multitude now? Who now fear the people? Who tries to crush down the multi- tude of the people? Answer : The chief priests, the super- pious, and those who are now unfortunately holding the places in our government that the scribes did in the Jewish polity. 5. The Pharisees (the super-pious) retired, and consulted how they might entrap the Lord in his words, upon a po' litical question. 6. The chi"f priests and scribes watched him, and set spies upon him. They are now at the same work, only that it is the Lord's disciples — those who follow the Lord's example and teaching — that they are watching and setting spies upon, instead of the Lord himself. 7. The chief priests, scribes and l*harisees instructed their spies and emissaries. Yes, they instructed them to *' personate conscientious men," to "feign themselves just men." That was pretty work for the chief-priests and super-pious to be engaged in; but they engaged in such business then, and still do. They were instructed to per- sonate and feign themselves such men, and surprise him in his wi)rds, that they might consign him to the power and authority of the satrap of the Roman despot. It is not lawful to enquire whether that satrap was a Burnside or not; but it lies in our way to enquire whether our chief DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 841 priests, scribes, and Pharisees, are rot now acting as the same classes of gentlemen did in the Lord's day? 8. The emissaries approached the Lord with great appa- rent respect and deference, hypocritical though it all was. We know, said they, that you are sincere, and faithfully teach the way of God without partiality, and do not care for any man. We know that you are upright, and stand in awe of none; for you respect not the person of men, but teach the way of God faithfully ; and without respect of persons, you faithfully recommend the way of God. This was laying on flattery tolerably thick. I suppose, too, that they had on very long, pious faces. Having thus laid so good a foundation, they proceeded: "Tell us, therefore, your opinion : Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not?'' "Shall we give, or shall we not give?" "Is it lawful for us [the chosen people of God] to pay taxes to Cesar or not?" fart of the emissaries sent were Herodians, a set of men peculiarly attached to Herod, and consequently zealous for the interests of the Roman government, which was the main support of the dignity of the royal family of Herod— they were the "intensely loyal." They held that it was lawful to pay tribute to Cesar, or to the Romans, who had conquered and then governed Judea. The Pharisees, who had sent some of their disciples among the emissaries, held that it was not lawful to pay tribute or taxes to the Roman government, that it was contrary to the divine law to do so, and hence a sin; and they had more proof for that dogma of theirs, than abolitionists have for their dogma, that to pay the services and labor due to the masters by the slaves is sinful, as can be seen by examining Deuteron- omy xvii, 14-20, which comes much nearer proving the Pharisaic dogma,, than any Scripture that abolitionists can produce, comes to proving their dogma: and yet the Phar- isaic dogma is not proved by the above cited passage relied on by them. Hence, there was some apparent pretext for this application to the Lord to settle this question between the Herodians and Pharisees. But their application was really hypocritical ; because both parties rejected the au- thority of the Lord, and despised him, and. of course, would not be bound by, nor submit to, his decision of the question. They asked Ms opinion for ulterior, base, and unAVorthy purposes, and not that they might obtain an au- 342 CONCLUSION OF THE thoritative settlement of the question. Thej th >uglit that they had cast the toils around him, and so laid the snare, that he could not escape them. If he should say that it was not lawful, the Herodians would accuse him to the Ro- man governor for '^ disloyalty," " disloyal practices," trea- son against Cesar. If he should say it was lawful, the Pharisees, the Praise-God-Barebones class of that day, ■would denounce him to the Jewish people, as the betrayer of the liberties of their country, and as opposed to the law of God; as pro-Roman in sentiment, as a Roman sympa- thizer, and in favor of the monster iniquity of the desecra- tion of the holy city by the Roman *' power." A very nicely concocted scheme indeed it was, and devised and put into executton by very patriotic and very pious gentlemen. We have an abundance of just such pious patriots now-a- days.^ 9. But the Lord perceived their malice. Their cunning, artifice, and subtlety, could not deceive him. " He know- ing their hypocrisy," told them that they were " dissem- blers," " hypocrites," and asked them why they sought to entangle him? How pertinent that question now is to be asked of the many similar pretentious, pious patriots we have! He asked them to *' show him a denarius." He asked them whose image and inscription it had. They told him, Cesar's. He then gave his answer : Render, there- fore, TO Cesar that which is Cesar's, and to God that WHICH is God's. This was not dodging the question upon his part, to avoid committing himself; but it was the truth of God upon the subject. It was the same answer that would have been given if his interrogators had been as sincere, honest and candid as they pretended to be. Their malice, chicanery and hypocrisy, did not cause him to give a cunningly de- vised answer to avoid responsibility. He came into the (1) As one among the many thousand proofs that could be cited to sustain this asser- tion, I quote the following : " If the Bible teaches that the christian owes no duty to his government in such limes as these, let us tell the people so. If it teach that a christian does owe a duty to his gov- ernment, let us also tell the peoble so. Neutrality is duplicity, and is unworthy any man, much less a christian man, and a leader and teacher of the people. It is either right or wrong to sustain our government in this struggle. Will Bro. Campbell ask Bro. Franklin which it is, and let us have his reply V^— C/iristia7i Jiecord, Aug loth, 1863. A very nic<; plan (and exactly similar to that of old) to entangle and destroy brother Franklin, because he is following the example of the Lord. But it is really complimen- tary to him to have the malice of such men thus exhibited as to him, as it was exhibited as to the Lord. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 843 world to bear witness to the truth,' and he did so upon this occasion, as upon all other occasions. Never " was guile found in his mouth. "^ His answer dumfounded his interro- gators. They admired it, wondered at it, kept silence, and went away and left him. The truth always discomfits chi- canery, cunning, knavery, and hypocrisy, if brought to bear directly upon them. Let us now ascertain what this answer of the Lord teaches. The first thing to note is, that the answer clearly shows that there is no conflict of claim between Cesar and God. All that was Cesar's could be rendered to Cesar, and still all that God required could be rendered to him, notwith- standing Cesar had got all that was his, from the same per- son or persons. The command is, to render to Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and to God the things that are God's ; and this command applies to all of us now, as well as it did to those to whom the Lord addressed it. Hence, to dis- charge our duty under it, we must ascertain what things are Cesar's, and what filings are God's. For much of the trou- ble that has existed, and still does exist, and many of the calamities that have come upon mankind, and still are upon us, have been produced by the usurpation by Cesar of things that do not belong to him, or by the sinful intermed- dling by those who claim to be acting for God, with things that are not God's, but Cesar's. All admit and take Cesar as standing for, and represent- ing, the kingdoms of this world. The coins of a country designate the sovereignty of a country. Coining money has always been, and still is, a sovereign act, in all human governments. The fact that the Roman coins were the coins of the land of Judea, showed that the Romans held the soverei'as that that did it. That fiat debased the race that it ap- plied to, let it be whatever race it may, to the position of a slave of slaves, which necessarily made a large chasm between it and the free races; and the whole negro, physical and men- tal, shows him debased to that position. And the difference of color between the negroes and whites, made an equally large chasm; and there can be no question but that God placed that distinction between the races. Yet we have no revelation of when or how it was done, and hence we do not know. But the fact is there, patent to all. It must have been placed there by the word or fiat of God ; for by it the worlds were made, and without it was not anything made that was made. Hence, to call the instincts thus placed upon the races, prejudice, and to attempt to eradicate those instincts, and to override and close up the great chasms placed between the races by the fiat of God, is folly, not to say impiety, such as abolitionists only can be guilty of. The negroes are wholly incapable of elevation. I thought otherwise formerly ; but thirty or forty years of observation and reflection upon the subject, have conclusively satisfied my mind that the curse of Noah, or some other fiat of God, has debased them ; and that they can not be elevated until another fiat of God makes them capable of elevation. That is with Him, and not with me. I will try and do my duty to them as fellow human beings; but I will not try to eradicate the instincts placed upon their race and mine, by (1; Gen. ix, 2. 368 CONCLUSION OF THE the fiat of God, nor will I scold and abuse any one for obeying those instincts. I will close this branch of my subject, and with it my book, by copying in a letter from Professor S. F. B. Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, who says some things proper to be said in this book, so much better than I can say them, that I take the liberty of using his labors. That it may be ;)roperly understood, the letter from Mr. Edward IST. Crosby, )f Poughkeepsie, New York, to which it is an answer, is nserted also. I hope the reader will give the Professor's etter a careful reading, and ponder well what he says. LETTER FROM EDWARD N. CROSBY, ESQ. Troy, February 25th, 1863. Professor S. F. B. Morse — My Dear and Eesj^eeted Sir: — I have read with deep interest the letter in the New York Evening Post, of the 19th inst., addressed to you by Mr. D. D. Field. Its general tenor harmonizes with views which I have long coveted the privilege of expressing to you, but which have been repressed by a constitutional feeling of respect for eminence and seniority, and a fear of even seeming officiously to intrude. But, as Mr. Field sug- gests, your fame has become a national inheritance, and this alike is a motive and an apology for a jealous care on the part of your fellow-citizens as to aught that may impair its luster. It is the omissions, however, rather than tlie con- tents, of Mr. Field's sensible and temperate letter, that prompts me to speak. While appealing to you on many high grounds, still he fails to reach the highest from which the subject is to be viewed. And I trust it is not assuming too much for one who is not only an admiring fellow-coun- tryman and a near neighbor, but also a christian friend, to discuss this matter with you from the christian's stand- point. And what, may I ask, appears to you the sufficient reason for a christian citizen to ally himself with others, for the extreme and radical purpose of undermining or para- lyzing the power of the government at a crisis when una- nimity of support is so plainly essential, not only to the T^elfare, but to the very life of the nation ? There are many, alas ! who, from ignorance or passion, DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 369 persistently confound all the immense party, which came into being and into power only on the grand purpose of re- sisting Southern aggression, with the extremest radicalism and infidelity of the Garrison stamp. They would thus justify themselves in an indiscriminate and reckless hostili- ty to the policy of the government. I can, of course, find in this fact no explanation of the deliberate action of one of your principles and intelligence. Some may say that " the war on our part is unrighteous, and therefore un- worthy of support." But the rebels began it. To this it may be said : " The provocations offered them were such as greatly to diminish, if not remove, their criminality in thus beginning it." These assertions, though easily refuted, might require a discussion both long and foreign somewhat to my purpose. But it may be said that " the war, though righteous, is waged by unrighteous methods, such as confis- cation, and more particularly, emancipation." If, however, it is a legitimate function of our government to destroy the fabric of the Southern Confederacy, a fortiori, is it not justified in removing that which their own highest authori- ties pronounce to be the corner stone of that fabric ? More- over, though this position is as palpably untenable as the two previously stated, yet supposing it to be a sincere christian conviction, inasmuch as these methods must be objected to rather as inexpedient than as morally and le- gally unjustifiable, should not another christian conviction, that of duty to the '' powers that are ordained of God," prevent any disposition to resistor thwart the government? But I would fain suppose that rather than either of the above, the grounds of your political views and action have been an earnest desire for peace, and an abomination of war and its attendant horrors. In both of these feelings I claim the fullest sympathy with you, and yet I can not pos- sibly construct upon them a fulcrum for unfriendly action against our government. I have seen in the progress of events much to criticise and regret in the administration, but I feel assured that as far at least as our President is concerned, the errors have been those of the judgment, and are compatible with a pure integrity, and a high-toned patriotism. Horrible too as war is, we are to remember that it may yet be a worthy means to a worthy end. God has certainly in his word 370 CONCLUSION OF THE more directly and repeatedly given his sanction to it, than he has to slavery. But what is the legitimate, the inevita- ble tendency of such unfriendly demonstrations as those to which you w^ere persuaded to give countenance-" at Delmo- nico's, and which have had a fuller but natural development in Connecticut and elsewhere ? We are not left to theories for a reply. Facts show that while the rebel leaders insult- ingly spurn all pusillanimous overtures of conciliation, they also exult over them as evidences of divided counsels and increasing feebleness at the North. They are thereby em- boldened to declare themselves utterly implacable, except by success in their own ruinous plans. What, then, should be our necessary logic, our irresistible inference? Cer- tainly patriotism, and a wise appreciation of the worthy and the abundant means committed to us, would decide ;it once. Let us, by united and couragous effort, show the rebels that their success is perfectly hopeless. May I ven- ture to speak a word also as to the personnel in these mat- ters? Mr. JField says that he knows personally nearly all of those who were associated vnth you at Delmonico's, and implies very plainly that they borrowed from your presence a respectability for which they could make no becoming re- turn. It was on a previous public occasion, that I saw, with no slight regret, your good name published, as appear- ing on the same platform with the characterless , the infamous , and the pitiable . Can it be that the purest and most patriotic measures draw to their advocacy such persons, while they fail to attract the innumerable host who dissent, and wdiose patriotism and probity you can not but heartily commend? The high estimate I have formed of your christian char- acter, confirmed and increased by my intercourse with , has encouraged me to speak with the more freedom, and with the hope that it will be received in the same kindly spirit which has prompted it. Yours most sincerely and respectfully, Edward N. Crosby. DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 371 PROFESSOR MORSE'S REPLY. New York, March 2, 1868. My Dear Sir : — Yours of the 25th of February is re- ceived, and I take in good part what you say, written, how- ever, wholly under misconception of my opinions, my posi- tion, and the objects for which the society for the diffusion of political knowledge has been organized. I know from your estimable character, that your intention and motives were of the most benevolent kind in addressing me, and in reply, I shall make a few remarks, I trust in the same kindly spirit, while on the subjects you introduce I use per- fect plainness of speech. Your letter touches on many topics, upon some of which, i have, for y^ars, bestowed much study; and it may be, that a frank discussion of them at a time when the public mind is alive to such discussions, may be useful in eliciting truth. Fundamental difference of opinion is often more seeming than real, perhaps from the inherent imperfections of language itself, in conveying our real thoughts to an- other's mind, or through some defect of intellect or educa- tion in not using perspicuous language. If due weight were given to a consideration of this kind, there would be less of that asperity of remark upon other's misconceptions, which, in this day of excitement, deforms the popular style. Mere difference of opinion, honestly entertained, is entitled to that forbearance which is denied to brazen-faced, persis- tent falsehood. I can account for your misconceptions of the purpose of our society, as well as of many other topics upon which you have written, only on the presumption that you ground your remarks on the assumed truth of the egregiously false and impudent representations of an unprincipled reporter of tlie Evening Post. If this was the source of your in- formation, you might as well look for truth respecting Bible doctrine from Voltaire or Thomas Paine. Are you not aware that the pretended report of the incipient meeting at Delmonico's, which led to the formation of our society, is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end, exposed and refuted in numerous journals? Of how many false- hoods, persistently repeated, must a journal be convicted, before its statement of facts shall be received with suspicion? 6i'J> CONCLUSION OF THE I need not saj to you that the admission into the Evening Post of such a grossly abusive report, while entertaining, as I have hitherto, for its senior editor, so much personal respect, (however much I may differ from him politically,) is a source of deep mortification to me. MR. field's letter. Mr. Field's letter, addressed to me, was probably indited under the influence of impressions m.ade by that same in- famous report; and while I have no complaint of w.-snt of courtesy on his part toward me personally, I saw nothing in its general tenor of sufficient importance to require any answer from me. Though addressed to me, it was evident- ly addressed to the public through me, and I was used only as a convenient mode of addressing the public. So far as anything he said required notice, that notice was taken of it by several journals. I inslose you clippings from two which happen to be at hand. Whatever person;; 1 regard I have for Mr. Field, and for his highly respectable fi^-nily connections, the state of the country compels me to A\aive all considerations of social relations, in treating of its po- litical condition. His views and mine, on the subjjct of the policy of the administration, are anti podal ; and in view of his reported action in the Peace Congress, in con- nection with some of his radical associates, to w^hich action can be traced the present awful conditions of the country, since it was in their power (if I have been rightly advised) to have averted the war, I can not but look upon his and their political course as laying upon them a weight of re- sponsibility which I would not have upon my conscience for a thousand worlds. CHRISTIAN STAND-POINT. You desire *' to discuss the subject from the christian's stand- point." I accede to this the more readily since that is precisely the stand-point from which I have always en- deavored to view the whole field of controversy. On Bible truth, therefore, I am ready to plant every position I take. Did it not lead me into too lono^ a discussion for a letter like this, a discussion starting from a point too far back, even from fundamental theological principles, I should like to es- tablish with you this stand-point impregna,blj on the Bible. This will have to be done ere the perverted christian mind DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 373 of the country can be disabused of the ruinous fallacies which have turned aside the incumbents of so many pulpits from their legitimate duty of allaying the fierce passions of men, through the tranquilizing influences of the Gospel of peace, and changed them into impassioned political orators, whose exasperating harrangues have added fuel to the al- ready raging fires of a ferocious and desolating fanaticism.^ Such a discussion, important as it is, must be in abeyance. I proceed to answer your question, " What appears to you the sufficient reason for a christian citizen to ally him- self with others for the extreme and radical purpose of un- dermining or paralyzing the power of the government at a crisis when unanimity of support is so plainly essential, not only to the welfare, but to the very life of the nation?" GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION. I will analyze the component parts of your question. You assume, without any warrant, that my purpose is to " undermine and paralyze the power of the government." You appear to have fallen into the prevalent error of con- founding the government with the administration of the government. You are too sensible not to see that they are not the same. The word government has indeed two mean- ings ; and in order to rescue the subject from ambiguity, allow me to sa}^ that the ordinary meaning of government, m ^ree countries, is, that form of fundamental rules and principles by which a nation or State is governed, or by which individual members of a body politic are to regulate their action. Government is in fact a constitution by which the rights and duties both of citizens and public officers are prescribed and defined. If the word sometimes has a sec- (1) ''Politics and the jnilpit are terms that have little agreement. No sound ought to be heard in the church but the healing voice of christian charity The cause of civil liberty and civil gOTcrnment gains as little as that of religion, by this confusion of duties. Those who quit their proper character to assume what does not belong lo them, are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave, and of the character they assume. Wholly unacquainteii with the world in which they are so fond of meddling, and inexpe- rienced in all its alfairs, on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they have nothing of politics ))ut the passions they excite. Surely the church is a place where one day's truce ought to be allowed to the dissensions and animosities of mankind."— Burke : Reflections on French Revolution, vol i, p. 460. "I have something also to the divines, though brief, to what were needful, not to be disturbers of the civil affairs; but in hands better able, and more belonging, to manage them; but to study harder, and to attend the office of good pastors, knowing tliat he whose flock is least among them, has a dreadful charge, not performed by mounting twice into the pulpit with a formal preachment huddled up at the odd hours of a whol(> lazy week, but by incessant pains and watching, in season and out of season, from house to house' over the souls whom they have to feed. Which, if they well considered, how little leisure would they find to be the most pragmatical sidesmen of every popular tumult and sedition." —Milton: Treatise on Tenure of Kings, <&c. 374 CONCLUSION OF THE ondary or more limited meaning synonymous with adminis- tration of public affairs, then "the government" is meto- nymically used for administration, and should not be con- founded ^vith the original and true signification of the term administration, which means the persons collectively who are intrusted with the execution of the laws, and with the superintendence of public affairs. Opposition to the administration, then, is not opposition to the government ; the former may not only be utterly de- stroyed without affecting the health of the government, but it may be, and constantly is, thought to be necessary, in the opinion of the supreme power, the people, to destroy the administration in order to preserve the life of the gov- ernment. This is in accordance not only with the theory of our institutions, but with the daily practice of the peo- ple. Every change of administration, at every election. Federal, State, or municipal, great or small, exemplifies this great truth. The government remains intact, un- scathed, while the administration is swept out of existence. In the light of this explication, you must perceive, that so far from "allying myself with others for the purpose of undermining and paralj^zing the power of the government," the very purpose of our society is to uphold and strengthen the government, by diffusing among the people such a knowledge of the principles upon which it is founded, that it shall not be in the power of any administration, whether weak or wicked, to work its injury. I yield to no man in hearty loyalty to the government, nor in obedience also to the administration in all its consti- tutional measures, whatever may be my private opinion of their wisdom. You mistake me, if you suppose I have any " radical purpose of undermining or paralyzing " any of its legal measures. If I think them unwise, I shall use my constitutional liberty to say so ; and if the administration transcends the power intrusted to it by the people, I shall endeavor to point out their error, not in a contumacious or unkind spirit, but nevertheless firmly. To the standard of the constitution, and the Union under it, of all the United States, I shall cling as the only political hope of the country, our only defense against anarchy and despotism. WHAT MUST WE SUPPORT ? But you say "unanimity of support is essential to the DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 375 very life of the nation." Support of what ? Laws and acts subversive of the government? Laws and acts in direct and palpable contravention of the constitution ? Laws and acts outside of the constitution ? Where, in the fundamen- tal law of the government, the constitution, does the Pres- ident, one of the administrators of the supreme law, find his authority for his emancipation proclamation ? Where for his usurpation of the power to suspend the habeas cor- pus ? Where for the confiscation acts ? Where for his au- thority to arrest and incarcerate citizens ? These are all acts of the administration, not of the government ; they are acts subversive of the government ; acts that are " paralyz- ing and undermining " the government ; acts that are divi- ding the people of the North, alarming them for the safety of the constitution, the government, and arousing them to call their servants, the administrators, to account. It is on such a confounding of terms as this, of govern- ment and administration, that you charge " extreme and radical purposes " upon those who rally in support of the government. NECESSITY FOR OUR SOCIETY. You must excuse me, dear sir, if I say that your letter, to so great an extent based upon the popular fallacies of the day, is itself a proof of the necessity of just such a society as we have formed ; because, if minds like yours, intelligent, reflective, ingenuous, and conscientious, are so much at fault on the fundamental principles of our institu- tions, what must be inferred of the minds of others less in- telligent, who imbibe their opinions, and mold their actions, from the prejudiced and befogged intellects controlling the fanatical avenues to public opinion ? CHARACTER OF ABOLITIONISM. By the manner in which you allude to the " extreme ra- dicalism and infidelity of the Garrison stamp," I am glad to find we have a common stand-point from which to view a portion of the field. Look at that dark conclave of con- spirators, freedom-shriekers, Bible spurners, fierce, impla- cable, head-strong, denunciatory, constitution and Union haters, noisy, factious, breathing forth threatenings and slaughter against all who venture a difference of opinion from them, murderous, passionate advocates of imprison- 376 CONCLUSION OF THE ments and liaDgings, bloodthirsty ; and if there is any other epithet of atrocity found in the vocabuhiry of wick- edness, do they not every one fitly designate some phase of radical abolitionism? DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS IMPOSSIBLE. But you would have us make a distinction between these " radicals and infidels of the Garrison stamp," and the "• im- mense party which," as you say, " came into being and into power only on the grand purpose of resisting Southern aggression." Waiving the question you raise of the existence of any Southern aggression, (previous to the last Presidential elec- tion,) making resistance necessary on the part of the North, I ask you how can any distinction be made between parties in close alliance, carrying out together and sustaining the same policy? Did not the Republican party, (in whose ranks I recognize many excellent, intelligent, conscientious men,) did not, I say, that party, in full consciousness of the diabolical character of that " radical and infidel " faction, form a political alliance with it for the purpose of obtaining the power which they now hold ? The expectation in form- ing the coaliation was doubtless that you would be able to control the numerically smaller wing of the alliance. You thought this possible ; I did not. So soon as it was appa- rent that such an alliance had been formed, 1 predicted that the abolition w^ing Avould control the whole ; and if the party thus formed were successful, the hopes of the country for peace and Union would be wrecked ; for it is the very nature of fanaticism to leaven the whole lump. Was I not right? I ask you now to look at the state of the country. Is it not true that the abolition element has acquired the control of that "immense party" of which you speak? Are you not advocating and supporting the abolition policy of the administration? Is it not true that these very '^radi- cals and infidels of the Garrison stamp," whom you justly loathe, have framed and passed the most offensive abolition measures that tinge the whole policy of the administration? So notorious is this fact, that to ask is to answer the ques- tion. These, then, are the men with whom I find you affil- iated. May I not appropriately quote your own question, DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 377 and ask : " Can it be that the purest and most patriotic measures draw to their advocacy such persons, while they fail to attract the innumerable host who dissent," &c ? But I will not do you the injustice thus to judge you by the standard by which you would judge me, for your standard is defective. Every one of any experience in political movements is aware, that on both sides, in party excite- ments, there is every possible variety of character associa- ting together, not because of other or general aflSnities, but for the single purpose of carrying a common measure, in which all feel more or less interest. Their several interests in that common measure may be as diverse as possible; some from high principle, some for the triumph of an opin- ion, some to obtain office, some to obtain money. It is not, therefore, safe to characterize a cause by the character of some few who may be loud and forward in advocating it. Bad men may promote a good cause for bad ends. It is safest to judge of a cause on its own merits. EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION AND THE CORNER STONE. I am sorry to find you defending tbe President's emanci- pation proclamation. It is a measure which I have consid- ered from the moment of its promulgation unwise, uncon- stitutional and calamitous, productive of evil and only evil; a measure that, more than any other, has tended to divide the counsels of the North, and unite the South, and render restoration of the National Union next to hopeless. Your defense of it rests on a fallacy. You say " if it is a legiti- mate function of our government to destroy the fabric of the Southern Confederacy, afori{ori,is it not justified in re- moving that which their own highest authorities pronounce to be its corner-stone ?" To answer your question intelli- gently, it is necessary to know the nature of that corner stone, before we can pronounce whether the government would be justified in removing or attempting to remove it. If the stone should happen to be a providential fixture, un- alterable in its very nature by anything that man can do, a condition of a physical character, not to be affected by any act of man, you will agree with me, that the government would not be justified in making any such necessarily abor- tive and quixotic attempt. I presume from your question, you have adopted the prevalent misunderstanding of a pas- 25 378 CONCLUSION OF THE sage in Mr. Stephens' speech at Savannah, in which he speaks of the corner stone of the Confederate Government. You assume that this corner stone is shivery, and so our government is justified in its measures to destroy slavery. Although a great multitude, both in Europe and America, entertain this stereotyped error, and it has, within a few days, been twice reiterated in the late non-intervention report of the Senate Committee of Foreign relations, yet it is none the less an egregious misapprehension of Mr. Stephens' remark, and a false assumption that the Confederate Cov- ernment have adopted any such corner stone. In the first place, if Mr. Stephens had made such an announcement in his speech, (which he has not,) that would not constitute law for the government. We do not look for the authority of the fundamental law of a government in a casual speech of any members of its administration, not even from the President, but in the fundamental law itself, in its written oflicially accepted constitution. Now, there is not one word in the Constitution of the Confederacy that gives color to any such idea as slavery being the corner stone of the gov- ernment. On the contrary, sec. ix, art. 1, clearly repudiates it. For if slavery is the adopted corner stone of their gov- ernment, common sense suggests that, in their fundamental law, they would and should use every effort to strengthen and support it ; and yet they forbid in that section and arti- cle that very policy, which would give strength and perman- ency to such a corner stone. Mr. Stephens, however, has made no such declaration, yet he is quoted everywhere as the source when this wide-spread erroneous apothegm has proceeded. It may be well to ventilate this matter more thoroughly. THE CORNER STONE IS THE INEQUALITY OF THE TWO RACES. Let US learn what Mr. Stephens actually did say. His language is this: " The foundations of our new government are laid, its corner stone rests upon "—what? slavery? no — '' upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man ;" that slavery, which he then defines to be " sub- ordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philo- sophical and moral truth." This language could not be ap- DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 379 plied to slavery. It would be a strange misapplication of terms to call slavery a physical, philosophical and moral truth. He had just been stating to his hearers that the ideas prevalent at the time our Federal Constitution was formed "rested upon the assumption of the equality of the races." This proposition he declares to be unsound, and that the new government was founded upon exactly the opposite idea. The error on one side, which he combats, is the assumed equality of the races. The opposite truth which he propounds, is the physical, philosophical and moral truth, that the two races are not equal ; and the in- ference he draws from this truth is, that this physical differ- ence determines the status of the inferior race. I coiifess I can not see how to escape that conclusion, except by de- nying the inequality of the races ; by denying that there is this physical difference between them ; for, if there is this difference, then one race, of necessity, is superior, and the other inferior ; and if the two physically unequal races are compelled to live together in the same community, the su- perior race must govern the inferior. Can you avoid this conclusion ? THE CORNER STONE CAN NOT BE REMOVED. What prospect of success, then, is there of any attempt to remove such a corner stone? Who has constituted the two races physically different? There can be but one an- swer — it is God. To attempt, therefore, a removal of this corner stone, which infinite wisdom has laid in the fabric of human society, is of so presumptious a character, that few should be rash enough to undertake it. The physical ine- quality of the races, then, is this corner stone, and not slavery. Slavery, which is a government, must be, in some form, the necessary resultant of this fact; and if you can re- move the corner-stone, to-wit, the ph3^sical inequality of the races,, you may thus destroy slavery; but since the "Ethio- pian can not change his skin," nor can any earthly power do it for him, so long as the two races exist together in the same community — you may change the master, or the rela- tive position of the races, but one or the other will still be dominant. Slavery in America can only be abolished by separating the races. Is it worth while to attempt to re- move a corner stone which God has laid? * 380 CONCLUSION OF THE The reasoning of Mr. Stephens has an apposite parallel in the reasoning of the elder Adams, on the theory of gov- ernment, as given in his " Life by his grandson," C. F. Adams, the accomplished representative of our government to the Court of St. James. "Unlike most speculators on the theory of governments, Mr. Adams begins by assuming the imperfections of man's nature, and introducing it at once as an element with which to compose his edifice. "He finds the human race impelled by their passions as often as guided by their reason, sometimes led to good actions by scarcely corresponding motives, and sometimes to bad ones rather from inability to resist temptation than from natural propensity to evil. This is the corner stone of his system," Let us put Mr. Adams' theory in the language of Mr. Stephens. " The foundations of civil government are laid, its corner stone rests upon the great truth that man has an i^nperfect nature; that the human race is impelled by their passions; that, therefore, subordination of the inferior to the superior, inherent in the very nature of government, is man's natural and moral condition. Civil government is based upon this great phj^sical, philosophical and moral truth." Would it be just to accuse Mr. Adams of basing government on slavery as the corner-stone, because he ad- mits the necessity of the subordination of the inferior to the superior? In other words, to make him utter the ab- surdity that " government is the corner stone of govern- ment." PRESIDENT LINCOLN AND MR. STEPHENS PROCLAIM THE SAME CORNER STONE. Perhaps you may think I have adopted Southern views on this point, and that the inequality and physical differ- erence of the two races are altogether Southern dogmas. I need not cross the Potomac to find the same great truth proclaimed in a quarter entitled to respect, and by one who politically outranks the Vice-President of the Confederacy, to-wit, the President of the United States. You will recollect the interview, on August 14, 1862, be- tween a committee of colored men and President Lincoln, invited by him, to hear what he had to say to them. His DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 881 object in summoning them before him was to persuade them to emigrate; and lie bases his argument to them on the very corner stone decLared by Mr. Stephens, to-wit, the physical difference or inequality of the two races. Presi- dent Lincoln's plan was to separate the races. " You and we," said he to them, " are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists be- tween almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are far from being placed on an equality with the white race. On this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I can not altar it if I would. It is a fact about which we all feel and think alike, T and you." THEIR DIFFERENT MODES OF DEALING WITH THE CORNER STONE. Thus you perceive that both President Lincoln and Mr. Stephens are in perfect accord in accepting and acting upon the same great truth. President Lincoln accents the phys- ical inequality of the two races as completely as Mr. Steph- ens, for where there is a broader difference than exists be- tween almost any other two races, it would be absurd to say they are equal, especially when the President justly adds that this difference is physical, that is, grounded in the original constitution of each race. The only difference be- tween the President of the United States and ]\L'. Stephens, is in the use to which they put this physical, philosophical and moral truth, this corner stone. Mr. Stephens proposes it in his Savannah speech as the basis of the new govern- ment; Mr. Lincoln adopts it as the basis of his plan of sep- arating the races, because of this physical difference. Mr. Stephens takes the stone, as a whole, upon which he would construct a government ; Mr. Lincoln would split the stone, and drag the parts asunder. Mr. Stephens accepts the fact, and adjusts his fabric to it. Mr. Lincoln also accepts the 382 CONCLUSION OF THE fact, and is perplexed witli inextricable difficulties in his attempts to dispose of the two portions of the common corner stone. THE president's PERPLEXITIES IN DEALING WITH THE CORNER STONE. It is well to notice these perplexities of the President's mind as they are manifested in his singular interview with this colored delegation. The great truth of the physical difference of the two races is so palpable that he can not controvert it, and he frankly declines to make the attempt; yet, while accepting the fact, he more than doubts the wis- dom of the fact itself, by raising the singular question of right and wrong upon its existence, and thus (no doubt un- consciously) impugns the wisdom of the Creator, for who but God could ordain a physical difference in the two races? The raising of the question, therefore, whether a physical fact is " right or wrong," as if there were two sides to such a question, directly implicates the wisdom of the Creator. The President, too, while declining to discuss this question of right and wrong, actually decides it to be wrong, by de- claring it to be a "disadvantage to both" races, in his opinion. The plain good sense of most of the remarks of the President in this interview, and the collisions of thought in his own breast, which he discloses, where truths and doubts come into constant conflict, point to some great ra- dical disturbing error, not in the President's mind alone, but pervading the popular mind on the subject of African slavery everywhere. THE GREAT ERROR OF THE WORLD ON SLAVERY. The great fallacy, so rife everywhere throughout the world, that slavery is the cause of our national troubles, rests on the almost universal persistent closing of the eyes to this fact of the physical difference between the two races. Slavery is not the cause of the sectional war, but a blind and mad resistance to a physical condition which God has ordained, and which man is in vain attempting to subvert. QUESTION OF SLAVERY. Take your stand on this great acknowledged fact, that the African and white races are physically different, follow DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 383 out this truth to its logical result, and the question of sla- very, or subordination of the inferior to the superior race, is clearly solved in all its phases. Do you ask how ? First : We must accept as a fixed fact that ordinance of God which he has decreed, that the two races are physically different, and not complicate the fact, with any modifica- tions, drawn from the prevalent visionary, infidel notions of an equality which has no existence, nor make any vain at- tempt to fix upon the mere relation of superio"r and inferior, or of rulers and ruled, moral or religious qualities which God in his word has not fixed to the relation. Second : We must leave to each and every State in the Union, where the two races exist together, whether in larger or smaller proportions, unmolested control over any adjust- ment of their relations to each other. Third : In the kindly spirit of the fathers of 1787, which they brought to the construction of our priceless constitu- tion, we should refrain from embittering the relations of the two races by an irritating busy-bodyism, a meddlesome in- terference with the manner in which the duties belonorino' to their relation to each other are or are not fulfilled, and taking the apostle's counsel " to be quiet and mind our own business." These three directions carried out in a christian spirit faithfully, would restore the Union on the only basis on which it can ever be restored. Whether enlightened rea- son can make its voice heard in this din of warring passions and interests, so that its "peace be still" can calm the storm that is desolating us, is a question I will not pretend to answer. It is to the true, sober, christian sentiment of the country, when disenthralled from its entanglement with the delusive socialistic and infidel theories of the day, that we look with any hope for our national salvation. I have dwelt at some length on this one point, because of its paramount importance. It is a noticeable and gratify- ing circumstance, that our President and the Vice-Presi- dent of the Southern Government, are in accord on a fund- amental principle. Union of opinion on one point, espe- cially if that point be fundamental, is hopeful, and prophetic of further conciliation, perhaps pacification, in the future. The great physical fact of the broad difference of the Afri- 384 CONCLUSION OF THE can and white races, which the President so justly and openlj recognizes, lies at the root of the whole controversy respecting slavery. Let us, then, study the condition of things resulting from this truth in the light of an intelli- gent christian philosophy, not viewing it through the dis- torted medium of abolition spectacles, but with the clear vision of an eye spiritually enlightened, and a temper of heart which accepts a providential fact with humility, rec- ognizing the highest wisdom in all God's ordinances, how- ever mysterious to us, endeavoring to adapt our ways to his facts, not his facts to our ways. In that temper of heart, you will clearly discern that this providential arrange- ment of conditions in human society, has for its end a pur- pose of infinite and eternal good to both races — a purpose clearly discerned in the light of Gospel truth, but wholly obscured in the smoke with which a proud but shallow infi- del philosophy, a false Christianity, and pretentious human- itarianism, have enshrouded the whole subject. PROBABLE ENGLISH INTRIGUE TO PREVENT RE- UNION. One word on your remark, that the South " spurns all overtures of conciliation." When, where, and by whom have any overtures been made? When, where, and by whom have they been spurned ? If you take the intemper- ate speeches, the passionate flings in editorial and anony- mous articles, in the Southern journals, as the exponents of the real sentiments of the Southern masses, are these the safe bases upon which to found 'your remarks ? If so, by parity of reasoning, the Southern masses should take the " radical and infidel " ravings of the " Garrison stamp," which are their counterpart in the speeches, editorials and anonymous articles of our newspapers. We have been ac- customed to condemn the South for its false judgment of ISTorthern sentiment, because formed from just such radical sources. These are very unsafe sources of information on each side in exciting times like these, on which to found in- tersectional sentiment. Let me hint at one danger from relying on such undiplomatic sources of information. Glance for a moment at the attitude of England toward the United States. We there see two well-defined parties, neither of them friendly to us as a nation; one the cotton interest siding with the Southj and the other her abolition coteries DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 885 • siding with the North; and so, England, balancing herself adroitly between these two parties in her own island, safe from any dangerous collision between them, harmful to her- self, through her administration can give aid in our deplora- ble strife to the one section or to the other, or to both, to prevent conciliation, as best may serve the great political purpose of England — the permanent division of the United States. Keeping within the bounds of a quasi-neutrality, England can, on the one hand, furnish the South with muni- tions of war, and privateers to prey on Northern commerce; and, on the other, can get up abolition demonstrations at Exe- ter Hall and elsewhere, to strengthen and encourage the fa-* natical element of the North, as the vicissitudes of our unnat- ural war manifest, in one or the other section, any abatement of that ferocity of hate which she has for so long a period engendered and seduously promoted as the sure means of ac- complishing her political purpose of permanent separation} (1) Let me ask your atteutive reflection upon such indications of English designs and desires as the following: In an able article on the American Kevolution, in the Eding- hurgh Eetieio, of October, 1862, the reviewer says: "We therefore say, without'hesita- tion, that we wish the war to cease, and the independence of the South to be established." Lord Campbell, in the House of Lords, on the 4th of August, 1862, said: "It is not too much to say that no class or party in the country any longer desires to see the reconquest of the South, and the reconstruction of the Union." The reviewer says: "At the outset of the struggle, the tendency was strong in England to side with the North. On thp other hand, many felt undoubfed satisfaction at the breaking up of that great democratic govern- ment, whose institutions had been held up to them by their own reformers as a model of perfection," kc. The reviewer puts the question : " Is it the interest of the civilized world, and especially of our own country, (England,) that the American Union should be restored?" And he answers it by saying: " It can scarcely be said that the relations of the American Union to Europe, and to England in particular, have been so satisfactory as to make us anxious for its continuance." Further on he says: "The feeling in England is not founded on a desire of vengeance or personal retribution on any one, for insults which we have received. It rests on a much more calm and rational basis — that is to say, on the conviction that the unity of the gov- ernment at Washington alone made the blow tell ; it is hoped that when that unity is gone, all insults of the kind, if not so impolitic to be avoided altogether, will at least be harm- less, and of no consequence to England." In another place: "The independence of the South would open new markets for our manufactures, without the previous restrictions of Federal tariffs." These extracts, from the most intelligent exponents of public opinion in England, could be multiplied to any extent. I give one or two only from the Iforth British Reviexc, of February, 1862: " Most Englishmen, and ourselves among the number, have arrived at the conclusion, not only that the secessionists will succeed in their enterprise, but that this success will, eventually, be of the most signal service to humanity, to civilization, and to the cause of universal and enduring peace." Again: "We entertain, then, no doubt that the dissolution of the Union is an accom- plished and irreversible fact, and one of the very greatest facts of our day. We can see no grounds on which the continuance of that Union should be desired by any wise or good man." Again: "That the independence of the South and the dissolution of the great republic are accomplished and irreversible facts, seems to us undeniable. The nation founded by Washington is severed — the Union contrived by his wisdom, and consecrated by his name, is at an end. We have now to ask what beauty there was in it that we should have longed for its continuance ? What sacred purpose did it serve that we should deplore its end ?" These are specimens only indicating the bias of English sentiment, and showing that the English Government looks with exultation on the success of its plot of dividing our Union. Is this, then, the time for persistence in unconstitutional acts, which must inevitably create further rendings and divisions ? ^86 CONCLUSION OF THE DISCUSSION. It is not an unreasonable supposition, that English emissaries at the South, supported from the "secret service fund," are the authors of those assumed spurnings of conciliatory overtures which you look upon as coming from the Southern heart? While this supposition, natural in the light of her past history, is not only possible, hut probable, I need better evidence than has yet appeared, that the Southern masses, the great conservative body of the Southern people, are really disunionists. There is evidence on the contrary, that Union sentiment exists in the South, and would show its existence and activity, were it not stifled by the uncon- stitutional means which Northern, in alliance with English abolitionism, have brought to bear, to kill it. I stop rather abruptly, possibly to my disadvantage, for I am compelled to leave untouched points perhaps necessary to prevent misapprehension. There is, however, a sentence in your letter, which I can not pass unnoticed, grounded, it appears, upon a remark of Mr. Field, casting an imputation upon the respectability and purity of intention of those as- sociated with me in the effort to diffuse political knowledge. What Mr. Field may have said under the influence of that mendacious report of the Post, or what he may think of their characters, becomes of consequence only through your reiteration of his opinion. I notice it, therefore, (since you are in actual ignorance as well of the persons who were present, as of their social and moral position,) to say that neither could their respectability be enhanced, nor my own diminished, by my association with them. I can not close without thanking you for your frank letter and expressions of neighborly and friendly interest, which I cordially reciprocate. Truly, with respect and high personal esteem, your friend and neighbor, Samuel F. B. Morse. Edward N. Crosby, Esq. THE END. APPENDIX NUMBER I. Pleas before the Hon. Jehu T. Elliott, Judge of the 13th Judicial Cir- cuit, iu the State of Indiana, on Thursday, the IGth day of October, A. D. 1862, held at the court house, in and for the county of Jay, in the State of Indiana. Jay County, "( Heretofore, to-wit, on the 8th day of September, A. D. to-wit. j 1862, Jercmah Smith filed in tfee clerk's office, of our said Jay Circuit Court, in the State of Indiana, his complaint in the words and figures following, to-wit: State of Indiana, Jay county. In the Jay Circuit Court, October Term, A. D. 1802. Jeremiah Smith, the plaintiff in this suit, complains of John F. Bowden, the defendant in this suit, and says: Paragraph 1st, That heretofore, to-wit, on the 12th day of March, A. D. 1859, the plain- tiff contracted with, and sold to the defendant, the west half of the southeast quarter of section number nineteen, in township number twenty-four, of range fourteen, east, containing eighty acres, and lying in the count}' of Jay aforesaid, at and for the price and sum of sixteen hundred dollars, out of which the defendant agreed to, and then and there was to pay $166 50, for Avhich the said land was then mortgaged to the school fund of said county, and for the remainder of which pur- chase-money he gave the plaintiff his four several promissory notes of that date: one for $233 50, and due December 1st, 1859, and the other three for $400 each, and due on the 1st day of August, 1860, 1861, and 1862, respectively, all of said notes bearing interest from date, and col- lectable without any relief whatever from valuation or appraisement laws ; and the defendant also agreed, and was to pay the taxes of the current and subsequent years of said lands, and was put in possession of the said lands and premises by the plaintiff, and has remained in pos- session thereof from thence hitherto, and at the time of making said contract, the plaintiff executed and delivered to the said defendant a title-bond reciting said contract and sale, and binding and obligating the plaintiff to convey the said lands to the defendant, his heirs or as- signs within a reasonable time after the said purchase-money should be fully paid; and the said plaintiff says, that on the 15th day of October, 1861, by the judgment and consideration of this honorable court, he re- covered against the said defendant the sum of $1086 92 for the balance of the principal and interest then due and unpaid of the three notes first falling due of the said notes so given for said land, and also his costs in that behalf expended, taxed $ ; on which judgment, he af- terwards sued out execution, and which execution was returned by the sheriff "no property found whereon to levy," all of which fully and at large appears by the records of this court herein remaining; and the plaintiff further says that the last of said notes with its interest, is now due, and is unpaid, and every part thereof, and he files a copy thereof 388 APPENDIX. herewith, and makes it a part of this complaint: Wherefore, the plain- tiif prays judgment for five hundi^ed dollars, the amount of said note and interest, tog-ether with the costs of this suit, all collectable without any relief whatever from valuation or appraisement laws; and the plaintiff also prays that this court will, by its order and decree, direct the said defendant to specifically perform his said contract, and pay into this court, for the use of the plaintiff, the amount of the said first named judgment, with all the interest and costs that have accrued thereon, and also the judgment now prayed for on the said last named note, with all the interest and costs accrued thereon, within a sliort day, to be fixed hy this court; and in default of his so paying the same, that this court, by its order and decree, direct the sheriff of Jay coutity to sell the said lands and premises, to-wit, the west half of the southeast quarter of section nineteen, in township twenty-four, of range fourteen, east, lying in Jay county, Indiana, or so much tliereof as may be necessary, as lands are sold on execution, without valuation or appraisement, to make the said judgments, with the interest and costs, and accruing costs, and u)>on the sale and payment of the purchase-money by the purchaser, the sheriff to execute to liim a deed for the premises sold, and to put the purchaser into immediate possession thereof; and in case the said premises shall not sell for sufficient to fully satisfy all of said sums of money, that the sheriff be directed to levy the residue of any other property of the de- fendant subject to execution, without relief from valuation or appraise- ment laws, and grant to the plaintiff other necessary and propjr reliiif in the premises. Jer. Smith, plaintiff. [Copy of the note omitted.] And on the day and j'ear first aforesaid, now come the said i).u-tie3, and the said defendant files his demurrer to tlie said complaint, in the v'ol- lowing words and figures, to-wit: The defendant, Jolm F. Bowde;i, de- murs to the plaintiff's complaint, and for cause sets down the foUcving : 1. Said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a caiise of action. 2, That said complaint contains several causes of action im- properly united therein. John F. Bowden, defendant. And the said de- murrer IS submitted to the court, and the court having heard the argu ment of counsel, and mature deliberation being thereon had, overrule said demurrer, and said defendant having wholly failed to file and [any j further and other answer in discliarge of the rule heretofore taken against him, the court therefore render the following judgment: It is therefore considered by the court, that the said plaintiff recover from the said defendant the sum of four hundred and eighty-six dollars and — cents, (§486 00) the full amount of the said last mentioned proinissory note set out in said cause of action, and interest thereon, and also the sum of dollars, the costs paid, laid out, and expended by the said plaintiff in the prosecution of said action, collectable without any relief from valuation or appraisement laws. And it is further decreed by the court, that the said plaintiff execute and acknowledge a good and suffi- cient deed in fee-simple for the real estate described in said complaint, as required by said title-bond, with tlie proper covenants of warranty, excepting out of the operations of such warranty the incumbrance of a certain mortgage to the sinking fund, existing on said land at the time of the sale of said land to the defendant, and also the taxes on said land at the time of said sale, and subsequently accruing; and that said deed, wlien so executed and acknowledged, be placed in the hands of the clerk of this court, to be by him handed to the said defendant whenever he shall fully pay the balance of the said purchase-money due on said land described in the cause of action; and it is further decreed that said APPENDIX. 389 defendant, on or before the 4th day of July, 1803, pay into the clerk's office of this court, for tlie use of said plaintiff, the full and entire resi- due of the purchase nionej'^ due on said lands, including the said amount of sixteen hftndred and thirty-eight dollars and 13 cents, the amount of the judgment set forth on the last mentioned pr^omissory note mentioned in said complaint, as also the amount remaining unpaid of the judgment heretofore rendered by this court on the three first promissory notes given to secure a portion of the purchase-money for said real estate, rendered October ir)tli, 1801, for ten hundred and eighty-six dollars and ninety-two cents — interest to October 15th, 18G2 — and on the full pay- ment of said ^purchase-money as above said by said defendant, the said defendant shall be entitled to the deed of conveyance for said lands di- rected as aforesaid to be deposited with said clerk of this court. And on the failure of the said defendant to pay the full amount of the pur- chase-money remaining unpaid as aforesaid, by the 4th day of July, 1863, then, in that case, it shall be the duty of the sheriff of said county to sell said lands on a certified copy of this decree, if the same can be sold for an amount sufficient to pay the full residue of the purchase- money, and the costs of this suit; and if the same can not be sold for said amount, then said real estate shall be struck off and transferred to the said plaintiff in full discharge of his said judgments, interest' and costs, and the same shall be accepted and received by him in full satis- faction for the full amount of said purchase-money remaining due and unpaid, and said defendant shall be acquitted and discharged from the payment of the same I have inserted this complete record of my case against Bowden, pend- ing when the outrage, noticed at pages 183 and 184 of the book, was perpetrated on me, tliat all may come to the light. Any lawyer will at once see how grossly my rights were outraged by tiie decree of the court. For the benefit of others, I note the following things: 1. The demurrer admitted my complaint to be true, and the court de- creed upon the state of facts set out in my complaint. It was the duty of the court to enforce the contract, not to vary the contract, or make a new one; yet it required that I should execute and deliver a deed into court before the money was paid, when by the contract it was to have been made after the money was paid. 2. All the money Avas due and overdue; and yet tlie court extended the time of payment nearly nine months. The laAv allowed a stay of six months upon good security being put in, but prohibited, the court from giving time for the payment of the money; 2 II. S- 123, \ 378; and yet the court gave nine months without any security whatever. 3. If not paid, the costs of a sale had to be incurred as decreed by the court, for I'owden's l)enefit; for if it sold for more than the debt and costs, he would get the overplus, and if it would not l)ring the debt and costs, I was decreed to take it in full discharge of the debt and costs. By the contract it was to be sold without valuation; the law said the court sliould so adjudge* and decree; it so adjudged, and then decreed that I must take it, not at two-thirds of its value, nor at its full value, but in full discharge of my claim, with the costs of a sheriff's sale added on, for Bowden's benefit. T!)is was public justice in October, 1802. It is worse now, and is get- ting worse every day. Alas! what is our country coming to! Tlie land was offered, an(l no bid for it. I sold it afterwards, at a loss of over $000. I give this to the public in sorrow for the condition it. shows our country to be in, and not in sorrow for the Iohs of the money. 390 APPENDIX. NUMBEPv II. We had a moot Legislature in Winchester, in the winter of 1860-Gl. It honored me with the office of Governor, and I delivered the annual message on the 4th of January, 1861. The following is the portion of the message relating to our national troubles, which shows what ray views and opinions were then, and I have seen no reason to change them. My fears then expressed, are being realized, alas, too truly! In- ternecine strife will now soon be upon us, unless we stop in our mad career. [From the Daily Indiana State Sentinel, January 7, 18G1,.] But while we have been in the reception and enjoyment of these man- ifold blessings from the Giver of all good, and while we have inherited from our revolutionary ancestors the freest and best government and political institutions ever given to man, and are in the full enjoyment and fruition of its incalculable blessings and advantages, the fell spirit of discord and disunion has been constantly, steadily and rapidly shed- ding its baneful influencs among us, severing the ties of fraternity, har- mony and good feeling, and sowing the seeds of hatred and ill-will broadcast over our heaven-favoi-ed land, till we are now in the midst of a dissolution of our National Union, and in imminent danger of being precipitated into all the horrors of civil, servile and internecine wars. One of the original thirteen States of this Union, in her sovereign ca- pacity, in solemn convention of lier people, has, so far as she can by her individual act, severed herself from the Union, and dissolved the polit- ical connection hitherto existing* between her and the United States of America. Other States are making rapid preparations to take the same action, and there is great probability, if not absolute ccitainty, that in a short time, fifteen of the thirty-three States of this Union Avill have withdrawn from it, and declared themselves out of it. The dire effects of this state of the political atmosphere is beginning to be felt already. Panic and alarm have seized upon the public mind from one end of the country to the other. Property of all kinds has de- preciated in value millions and millions of dollars. Our own beloved State lost $2,000,000 in four weeks by depreciation in the price of pork and wheat, two of her great staples. Commerce has become almost en- tirely prostrated, sinking with it the millions invested in ships, steam- boats and railroads, and throwing out of employment thousands of em- ployees, engaged in those industrial pursuits, and thereby depriving them and their families of the means of sustenance. Manufacturers .re suffering a like prostration. Banks and the monetary affairs of the country have also felt the shock. It would swell this communication to too great a length to give specifications as to all, hence I will give one as to the railroad interests of the country, as a specimen of all, I take it from the Avierican Railroad Journal^ the organ of that interest for the United States: "Commerce flourishes only in times of quiet. As far as our railroads are concerned, consequently, the effect of the present political agitation is simply disastrous, and to a degree that can hardly be estimated. The construction of these works in the newer States has already been thrown back five years. Is there any compensatory advantage gained on the other side? Nothing. Everything that tends to alienate the two sec- tions, tends to the same extent to destroy the traffic of our public works Is it not then the duty of all parties interested in their construction, or APPENDIX. 391 in their securities, to lend a hand to place the material interests of the country in harmonious relations? These transcend all of a political character. So long as they are maintained or preserved, the other can not possibly go wrong. Political obligations should be deduced from, and always subordinate to, considerations of personal or material ad- vantage. The moment these are disregarded, a course is entered upon which, sooner or later, must be abandoned, though not, perhaps, until mischief is done that can hardly be repaired." These disasters, dire as they are, are but the results of the incipient steps to, and the apprehensions of, the breaking up of our National Gov- ernment, and the dissolution of this Union; and they are but as a drop to the ocean of overwhelming calamities that will surely attend the full consummation of those dire events, should God in his wrath allow them to come upon us. May lie, in his infinite mercy, prevent their consum- mation! A peaceful dissolution of this Government is an impossibility. Were it possible, and the slave and free States separated peaceably, and or- ganized into separate republics, how long would they remain at peace? The discordant elements that have been operating for years to array these sections of the Union one against the other, and that have had them in quasi civil war for some years past, with the Constitution and the General Government in existence, would, when those restraints are taken fiwa}', at once plunge us into war. The pent ttp ill feeling and hatred that they have been so long creating and building up between these two sections of our Union, would spontaneously burst forth into the most bitter and relentless war, the results of which it is horrible to think of or contemplate. But if the Union can not be peaceably dissolved, and inasmuch as if could it would at once result in disastrous and ruinous warfare between the dissevered sections, let us contemplate a forcible dissolution of this, the best government ever given to man. A forcil>le dissolution is a dissolution in and by civil war. Civil wars are the most vindictive, cruel and ferocious of all wars. The institution of slavery being the pretext if not the cause of the troubles, efforts would soon successfully be made to make it not only a civil but a servile war. There being differences of opinions and viev/s all over the Union, as to the questions out of which these wars were brought about and prosecuted, these differences will soon bring about internecine strife. Thirty millions of the most enterprising, enlightened and powerful peo- ple on the globe will then be engaged in civil, servile and internecine wars, a combination of the three most horrid forms of war known to the human family. Once so engaged, the blood will become hot, and all the fiendish passions of which the human heart is capable will be called into action, and they will not cease to fight till perfect exhaustion compels them to. Strong and powerful as this people are, it will take ten or fif- teen years to so exhaust them. In the meantime military men — Cap- tains, Colonels and Generals— will have been manufactured, and when the country becomes depopulated and the besom of destruction of ten or fifteen years of devastating wars shall have overrun it, these military men will parcel out our territory, and the remnants of our people, into petty military despotisms. We once had a Washington to return our country, exhausted and prostrate from seven years of devastating war, to civil life and to the building up of free institutions; but we will never have another one. For more than five thousand years from its creation, the human family produced but one Washington. We need not 392 APPENDIX. expect another one soon, if ever. Hence, civil war and a forcible disso- lution of this Government will be the death knell of free institutions all over the present territory of the United States; blight the cause of free institutions thi'oughout the world; and prove what despots have always insisted was true, that man is incapable of self-government. For if we, en- lightened, wise and wealthy as we are, can not preserve the civil and religious liberty inherited by us from our revolutionary fathers, and the glorious form of government they framed to secure the enjoyment of that liberty, and govern ourselves thereunder, can we expect to ever find another people that can govern themselves? It is futile to think we can. If we, surrounded with the blessings and immunities that we have, can not preserve our institutions and govern ourselves under them, the world need not look for another people that can. Washington himself said that the preservation of our Union was es- sential to the preservation of our liberties. In his Farewell Address, he said: "The unity of the Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is the main pillar in the edifice of your independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very lib- erty which you so highly prize." it becomes our duty then, and the duty of every lover of his country, of every lover of the cause of liberty and free institutions among man- kind, to look the danger that is now at our door, fully in the face. As a dissolution of this Government will result in the loss of our liberty and the destruction of the hopes of free institutions throughout the world of mankind, and as that dissolution is now imminent, it behooves us all to cast about and see if any plan can be devised to avert the threatened danger. Can the union of these States bepreserved by force? AVhen comparatively small portions of our fellow-citizens disobey the laws, or resist the due and proper execution of the trusts and duties confldetl to the Government, the strong arm of the-Government can prop- erly crush out such resistance, and restore order and obedience to the laws of the country. But when whole States, or a large combination of States, resort to the revolutionary right inherent in all mankind, and place themselves in resistance to the constituted authorities of the Gov- ernment, the question assumes a different aspect, and requires a diCferen't mode of treatment. Ours is a union of free States, constituted of free men, who have the right to govern themselves. The real ligament of our union is frater- nity of feeling and a common desire to promote the welfare of each and all; while each State, in the original compact, reserved to itself the right to judge and determine for itself what municipal and social regulations and institutions would best subserve its interests. Can we preserve this fraternity of feeling by force and compulsion? Can we prove our com- mon desire to promote ihe welfare of any State or States by garrisoning our armies among them and filling their ports with our navies? Do Ave honor and respect their reserved right to establish and enjoy their own municipal regulations and institutions when we go to war with them about one of them, and that a vital one that effects their whole social or- ganization and material wealth? All of these questions must be answer- ed in the negative. It is a contradiction in terms to say that a free peo- ple can be held in durance, and governed by compulsion, and still be a free people. Coercion, then, being incompetent to preserve union and harmony APPENDIX. f>C)^ anionjr free and independent States, composed of free people nnd •>. thP umon of these States is absolutely essential to the p esc^- at on of our own liberties as well as of the hopes of mankind for ultimate free o-ov ::r"'r '-""^'"'^ the world, we must find some o.hr moan to prl' serve what is so essential to ourselves, as well as to "the rest of manki.^d"' , JVith great respect for the opinions of others, and diffidence ^n own dinl'^' '"?7 '-espectfully to sny that, a return Ttha tfr"?orna feeling that existed among the fathers who formed our Government and an exercise of the same spirit of conciliation and forbearance r.t;ctu Ino r' T" "^^'"i" 'r?' ''' ^" ""'«"' ^'' ^'^^ ^' ^^11 -3 in name and dispel the gloomy clouds that now lower over us. Whatever aiv of us may have done, or may now be doing, to alienate us one f,om oLn f^LitVfrT^-J^'^'r'^" ^^^^^'^'--p^"'--^ faulty conduct, if we have any, and not set ourselves ux> as the no.L?! 01^ conscience-keepers of our fellow-citizens of ai^.'of ^sister S ate" for any faults, real or supposed, that we may conceive they have Each our ''J^'T .^^^^ '^^'^^ «"lv for its municipal regulatio^i Ynd we for oil . Neither is accountable for those of any of the others. Wh ir.ome of our citizens incorrectly think differently, and conceive that J ovT ^ral, responsible for the political institutions of o'r^ttr' heT sl.ould remember that, even in the moral code, each is to give an^ccoS for himself and not for another- and that wo ^ni n , ^ ^ ^" account .0 attend ,o tl.e „,...king „ptf ouV "i^^ ttZ ^i , , ^"ZZX ,',° '" oo„r fellow citizens of o,I,er States of this U^i o^'" Ba „t j^.'^^t^^^ cal duties and obligations faithfully, ^hk we may e^ peaceable life in all godliness and honesty " ^ ^ ^ ^"^'^ ^^^ lamhnppy (obe able to say that our own beloved Indian, has in in her egis ative, executive and judicial departments, faithfully dis charged ad her constitutional duties and obligations to her sister Sites' but truth and justice require that I should confess in thf.nffi i ' . ,.is,i„ction between liberty of speeclfnnd'lCL' iouI„' 3' rpe^Sfr f;:?e':f^iqo'inrof-ir;t:.r^^ fere With, mo est or disturb the persons, families o;ropeity of a^^^^^^ by tf.e lintish down with speech, the'press, and the sword So they 394 APPENDIX. ditJ. But that course auJ conduct of theirs was revolutionary, and re- sulted in the overturning of the government and existing order of things. The argument is an argument for revolutionizing and upturning oui* government — the very thing that now so fearfully threatens us. It is not an argument or an example to sliow us how we should act to main- tain our governtnent and the existing order of things, but is an argu- ment and example for dissolution of our government and revolution — the very thing we profess to be anxious to avoid. Those who quote the Dec- laration of Independence, and examples and precedents from the Revo- lution, are (though, in charity, I think, unwittingly,) arguing for the- dissolution and revolution of this government, as the revolutionarj^ fath- ers were arguing for the dissolution and revolution of the then existing government. Washington and the fathers were then dissolutionists and revolutionists. By quoting them and tlieir action during that struggle, we thereby avow ourselves dissolutionists and revolutionists. By taking theiv conduct in that stiuggle for exemplars for us, we place ourselves in the category of revolutionists. The right of revolution, and of re- currence to the natural rights of man, exists when a proper case arises for the exercise of that right. But the maxims and principles proper to recur to in the exercise of that right, are not the proper maxims and principles to recur to in sustaining and maintaining an existing order of government. The constitution and principles of the government are the proper things to recur to for that end. As well might the law and prec- edents in burglary cases be cited in an action of covenant (for the con- stitution is a covenant) as revolutionary principles and precedents be cited to determine rights and duties under the existing Government of the United States. Let us then recur to the constitution, and not to revolutionary princi- ples or precedents, to determine what we shall do to preserve tiiis Union. Let us see what is in the bond, and then faithfully and honestly perform all the obligations it imposes upon us. Let us conciliate our brethren who think that the case is made that entitles them to exercise the right of revolution, in the true spirit of fratei-nity and atfection. Let us ap- proach them in the same spirit of compromise and concession that the constitution itself was made in. Hear what the Father of his country said of it: '-The constitution which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity and mutual deference and concession, which the pecu- liarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." Whatever the peculiarity of our political situation at this time, renders indispensible 10 restore harmony and unity among us, let us, in the spirit of amity, at once concede it. Let us implicitly follow the advice of the Father of his country in his Farewell Address, and hereafter "indignantly frown upon every attempt to alienate any poi'tiou of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which link together the various parts." Let us not "characterize parties by geographical discriminations, North- ern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may en- deavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire inlluence, *vithin particular districts, is to misrepresent tlie opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentitious ; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound by fra- ternal affection." Thus said Washington in his last political will and testament to tliis nation. Thougli we may not have followed his advice Jieretofore, let us resolutely do it hereafter, for all time to come. The APPENDIX. 395 fjiilure to obey these injunctions l)as brought us to where we are, as Wash- ington said it would; a return to the obedieace of them may bring us out of our present difficulties. ***** ^; The importance of preserving this Union, and the imminency of the danger which threatens it, makes it the first and principal duty of all of us to save it if possible. Should you, in your wisdom, be able to ac- complish so glorious a work, it will be enough for one session of the Leg- islature; and the country will cheerfully wait for two years for any minor correction of existing laws that may be needed, if you can secure for them the continuance of our glorious Union. And my whole heart is so thoroughly enlisted in this work, that I extend my hand to all of you iji the spirit of political and patriotic fraternity, as members of one and the same great and glorious Union, one and inseparable now and forever. .Jer. Smith. Janunri) 4, 18(31. NUMBER III. The abolitionists have been resisting for years the comsUlulion^ which really constitutes and creates the government. And yet they are now claiming to be the exclusive Union men, the exclusive loyal men ; yes, the "intensely loyal." They have for years rested the " powers that be,'' to wit, the constitutional covenant to return fugitive slaves; and now they are croaking in every church, on every Lord's day, about the 13th chapter of Romans, and the duty of christians to support the government meaning that they must be in subjection to abolitionism; for that Avilli {\xQm \s tlie government. The American Anti-Slavery Society long ago passed these resolutions, and have ever since been acting upon tiiem : ^'' Eesolved, That secession from the United Slates Government is the duty of every abolitionist, since no one can take office, or deposit his vote under its constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abetter to the slaveholder in his sin. '■'■Resolved^ That years of warfare against the slave power have con- vinced us that every act done in support of the American Union rivets the chain of the slave — that the only exodus of the slave to freedom- unless it be one of blood, must be over the remains of the present American Church, and the grave of the 2^resent Union. ^^ Resolved, That the abolitionists of this country should make it one of {he primary objects of this agitation to dissolve the American Union.'^ In 18o0, William L. Garrison truly said: "The Republican party is moulding public sentiment in the riglit direction for the specific work the abolitionists aie striving to accom- plish, viz: The dissolution of (he Union, and (he abolidon of slavery throughout the land.'' 396 APPENDIX, lu 18-50, the New York Tribune said: "the AMERICAN FLAG. " Tenr down the flaunting lie ! Half mast the starry flag! Insult no i=unny sky With hate's polluted rag ! Destroy it, ye who can ! Deep sink it in the waves ! It bears a fellow man To groan with fellow slaves." Are not these and their followers pretty Union men? and have not the.v a full right to brani those who have always been for the Union, and '-friends to the constitution," as "disloyal ?" They pretend to be great friends of "freedom." Yet they passed in the last Congress an illegal aind unconstitutional act, and in August, I8G0, provost marshals, illegally and unconstitutionally exercising au- thority under the President, published circulars, copying in the 24th section of that act, making it a penal offence to harbor, concenl or give employment to a conscripted citizen, who did not answer the call of con- scription, and thereby, by the terms of that act, became a deserter ; and warning free American citizens that it v/ould be strictly enforced. For tlie last twenty-five years, when fugitive slaves were thus harbored and employed m violation of a constitutional law of Congress, these abolitionists wholly disregarded the 13th of Romans, and their christian duty "to support the government," and made resistance and sedition upon re- peated occasions. The result of all this is, that, in September, ISGo, white conscripts who were chained together in couples, were marched more than a mile publicly along Broadway, New York, guarded by armed soldiers. White men dragged in chains from their families, their homes, and their States, to aid in freeing negroes, at the South ! Similar sights were seen in Philadelphia, as reported by the Philadel- phia Age, which said: " Over the iron m inacles that bound the wrists of sevex'al, were thrown handkerchiefs, and the downcast look and sorrowing eye of the con- scripts told how deeply" they felt the degradation they were compelled to suffer. These men had committed no crime. Their names had been drawn from the fatal wheel; and, in the agony of doubt, whether they should remaia with their loved ones in these sore times of want and trial, or eagerly march to fill the ranks of the army in this " war for the African and his race," they had not promptly reported to the Pro- vost Marshal's office, and were called deserters. This sight, we are in- formed, is no extraordinary one. It is of frequent and almost hourly occurrence. Compelled to suffer the grossest indignities, thousands are daily tortured with the galling thought, that in this land of freedom, they must meet the fate of slaves." Ujnless these monomaniacs are soon put out of power, avc will be irre- trievably ruined and destroyed as a people, when our proper epitaph will be: HERE LIE A PEOPLE, WHO, I.N A VAIN ATTEMPT TO FREE SLAVES, LOST THEIR OWN UBERITES. \ ^"^-^"^J^SMli^ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS -n