Wm. H. Moore; Cincinnati. Mark H. Newman, N. York^ wm. H. mooRE & CO., PUBUSHERS MD DEALERS IN THEOLOGICAL, MEDICAL, CLASSICAL, AND AND STAPLE & FANCY STATIONERY. With every facility for obtaining their stock on tlie best possible ternw, they are enabled to sell Wholesale or Retail at NEW YORK PRICES, Adding in some cases, the cost of transportation. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS. Public ^attention is invited to our assortment of standard "works of various kinds, including History, Biography, Travels, Poetry and Fiction, to which addi- tions are received every few days, of most that is new and valuable, issued from the American press. THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS BOOKS. '' The special attention of Clergymen, Theological Students, and purchasers of Religious Books, is requested to our assortment of works on Biblical Criticism, Ecclesiastical History, and in Theological and Religious Literature, for sale at the lowest prices. SCHOOL AND CLASSICAL BOOKS. '' Country Merchants, Schools, and Colleges, supplied on the most favorable terms, with School and Classical Books, (our assortment in this department ia very large,) and with every variety of Stationery — Letter and Cap Writing Paper, Blank Books, Steel Pens, Quills, Ink, Inkstands, Slates, etc. etc. lO' For a list of the Publicationa of W. H. M. & Co., see last part of this volume. DEBATE ON SLAVEEY. HELD <»« TB8 FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND SIXTH DAYS OF OCTOBER, 1845, IN THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, REV. J. BLANCHARD, PASTOR OF THE SIXTH PRBSBYTERIAN CHURCH, AND N. L. RICE, D. D, ■ PASTOR or THK CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, FOURTH THOUSAND. CINCINNATI: iWM. H. MOORED CO., PUBLISHERS, 110, Main Street between Third and Fourth. NEW YORK: MARK H. NEWMAN. I»IDCCCXLVI. /- bL I Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by WILLIAM H. MOORE & CO., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Oliio. CORRESPONDENCE, Cincinnati, July 3, 1345. Rbv. N. L. Eice, D. D.— The undersigned, believing with yourself, that the full, free, and kind discussion of grave and practical questions tends to benefit the community by diffusing light— and holding views of the teachings of scrip- ture, on the subject of slavery, different from those which you are accustomed to inculcate— respectfully ask whether it will suit your convenience soon, lo debate with some respectable and competent minister of the Gospel, who shall maintain the views commonly taken by abolitionists, the question ; Is the practice of slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation created by it a sinful relation ? Provided it may suit your convenience lo take part in such a discussion soon, "we shall be happy to make the necessary arrangements. George McCullough, Thomas Heaton, And'w Benton, James Calhoun, C. Donaldson, S. P. Chase, William Birney, J. McCullough, H. S. Gilmobb. G. Bailey, Cincinnati, July 5, 1845. Messrs. Heaton, Donaldson, &c. Gentlemen — Your letter of the 3d inst., inviting me lo a public discussion of the claims of abolitionism, with some "respectable and competent minister of the Gt>spel," is before me. Though unaccustomed to give challenges of this kind, I do not feel disposed to decline yours. It is, therefore, accepted, on condition that the debate be reported by one or more competent stenographers, to be employed by the parties, tlie copy-riglu immediately sold to a publisher in the ciiy, and published as soon as possible afier it closes. I prefer the following modificaiioa of your question — Is slave holditig in itself sinftd, and the relation between master and slave necessarily a sinful relation ? The limeof holiUng the debate I am disposed to fix as early as previous engagements permit. On this subject, as also concerning the oUier preliminaries, Tshall be pleased to confer with you at your earliest convenience. I shall expect to be informed, without delay, what minister you have selected. Pvespectfully, N. L. Rice. The gentlemen who sent the challenge agreed lo the following modification of the question proposed by them— /s slave-holding in itself sinful, and the rela- tion between master and slave, a sinful relation ? Key. J. Bjuanchabd was se- lected lo represent their views. CERTIFICATE. We have revised the following sheets for the press, and corrected iJiem in the proof, and have no hesitation to authenticate this book, as a full and fair report of the arguments presented and authoriiiee quoted, by us in our late discussion held in this city. J. Blanchabd, •• CincinnaU, Not. 24, 1845. N. L. R*cb. STEREOTYPED BY E, SIIEPARD. ADVERT ISEM ENT. The Publishers commend this work to public attention as a learned, spirited, and thorough discussion of the great moral question — whether the relation of slavery, divested of all circumstances not necessarily connected with it, is sinful. The debate grew out of the proceedings of the last meeting of the (O. S.) General Assembly of the Presby- terian church, in regard to slavery, in which Dr. Rice was a conspicu- ous actor, and the author of a series of resolutions, touching this subject, which were passed by that body. He was soon after invited to a debate, by some gentlemen of this city, and Mr. Blanchard was chosen as his opponent. Their respective friends regarded these gentlemen as their most able advocates, and each party, confident of success, relied on the skill and logical power hitherto exhibited by them, on similar occasions. The discussion was held in the Tabernacle, the largest room in the city, and was listened to by a crowded audience of great respectability, during the whole of the twenty-four hours it occupied. It was conducted on both sides with constant refer- ence to publication, and everything pertinent to the subject was urged in as concise a manner as the mode of debate would admit. Two reporters of eminence, A. J. Stansberry, Esq., of Washington city, and Edward P. Cranch, Esq., of Cincinnati, were employed. The report was written out by them, revised by the parties, and is here given with a complete index prefixed. In short, nothing that could, in their judgment, increase the value of the book, has been withheld by either authors or publishers. There is no subject at this moment receiving a greater share of the attention of Christendom than this — none certainly involving more important consequences to our civil and ecclesiastical institutions. It employed the energies of the first minds of Great Britain for nearly half a century. We are at length called on as individuals, as States, and as a Nation, to examine the arguments, and to renounce, or defend and ameliorate the system, as we shall or shall not find it consistent with justice and truth. Diversity of opinion concerning it has already divided several of our largest and most influential churches, threatens others, and is influencing in a greater or less degree the political affairs of every State in the Union. Is not then a calm, truth-seeking, ex- hausting discussion of this question, a thing which should be welcomed by every lover of trutb, of the State and the church *? Such being the topic and character of the discussion, the publishers, with confi- dence, anticipate a large sale for this volume, Cincinnati. Dec., 1845. INDEX. MH. BLANCHAHD'S SPEECHES. Abolition, first modern society 63 Africans slaves of Romans. 269 Alterations of Judaism by Christianity 460 Assembly, Presby'n Gen. of 1818 , 62, 91 Apostrophe — a Southern Tamar 47 Bailey, Dr. quoted 15 Bible, apostrophe to 304 Biiile made a slave-holder's smith-shop 424 Bible translation • 366 Bond-service, Mosaic, its reason 418 Cases difficult, considered 346 Church members hold slaves for gain 43 Churches of New Testament non-slave-holding 230 Colonization at Andover 457 Contrast between Hebrew bond service and slavery 41.5 Concluding address , • . . . 469 Cruelty in the slave-making law 66, 69 Cruelties of slavery 113—122 Declaration of Independence unpopular. 14 Emancipation in France and England 233, 234 " in West Indies 239,282 " of slaves for merit 207 «' old deeds of 233 Escaping slaves permitted by Dr. Rice 366 Extreme cases, vs. ordinary cases 175 Equivocal position of Dr. Rice 359 Force, physical, discountenanced 277 Do. do. justified in using 278 Fugitives from slavery 272 Fugitives countenanced by Dr. Rice 359 Gopher, two ends to its side 359 Gradualism, Rice's zeal for 270 Golden Rule, slave-holders' 351 Hebrew servants property holders 455 Hebrew servants were not slaves 328 — 336 Hebrew bond service considered 355 — 399 Immediate abolition defined 238 Interpretation, Dr. Rice's principle applied 421 Indian slavery milder than white 63 Justifying slave-holding justifies slavery 299 — 308 Kentuckians, address to 298 King of Kings' mark 347 Liberty secured to Hebrew servants 411 Legal relation 468 Laws of slavery quoted 71, 145 **• " aflford slaves no protection 71 Marriage without civil recognition 6i INDEX — MR. BLANCIIARD' B SPEECHES. V Marriage, how described '96 Marriage impossible in slavery 203 New England clergy 42"^ New Testamert argument 418, 433 Ordinance of 1787 16 Oithodox on one point 90, 2G9 Orphans, Kentucky law of 144 Paternity destroyed by slavery 47 Practices human, two classes of 10 Protection of slaves and children compared 122 and 144 Preachers ambitious. Sectarians described 2^9 Revivals in slave-holding churches 1^)2 Relations, two classes of 10 Relation of slavery analyzed 293 Rights inalienable, doctrine of 90 Relation of slavery sinful 177 Soul-drivers' complaint 300 S'avc, Hebrew word for 40S, 419 Slaves, number of, in Christendom 12 Slavery all contained in chattel statutes CS " in lav/ is slavery in fact 68 — 94 " does not respect color. , ^ 18 " Pa!ey''s definition of. . . 19 " other definitions of 21, 45 " the same in all nations 21, 2:2 " as a civil and social condition 12 " Roman and English, by Dulany 22 *' is " kidnapping sti'etched out" 179 " contrary to law of love 182 '* is " going with a multitude to do evil" 2-I8 '* sinful, or nothing in slavery is 299 " the best possible state of society 358 Slave-soldier in American Revolution 94 Slave-holding not redemption 172 Slave-holding sinful in itself explained 174 Stealing in Sparta, illustration 174 Teaching slaves forbid 110, 111 Villeinage 23 Voting, doctrine of 44 PEKSOXS AND PAPERS QUOTED OR ALLUDED TO BY MR. BLANCHARD. Aristotle, 21. . . Apelles, 42. . .Assembly Gen. of Free Church of Scotland, 224. . ."American Board," 458. . .Abbe Greguine, 236. . . Rev. R. N. Anderson, 164 Dr. Bailey, 15. . .Dr. Bullard, of St. liouis, 167. . . .Dr. Beecher, 274. . . .Robt. J. Breckenridge, 363. .. . V\"m. L. Breckenridge, 115. . .C. M. Clay, 270, 397. . .Judge Catron, !i4. . . .Judge Crenshaw, 45. . . . Dr. Cunningham, 222, 419. . .Dr. A. Clarlve, 456. . .Dr. Coke, 390 Clarkson, 275, 297 Dulany, 22, 23. . . .Rev. Jas. Duncan, 42, 203. . . . Dr. Duncomb, 42. . . .Edvvards Pres't. Giesler, 231 ... .Gregory the Great, Pope, 231. .. .Heyrick Elizabeth, 238. . .T. Kellogg, Prest. Knox College, 165. . .Dr. Jun- kin, IB2, 228. . .Professor Miller, 3G4 Maimonldes, 412. . . .Mon- tesquieu, 364. . . . Moore Thomas, 49. . . .Charles Hammond, 49. . . . Charles James Fox, 15 Ignatius, 15, 230 McGufTey, W. H. 182. . .Rev. S. Steele, 165 Prof. Thcrnwell, J. H. 181. . . . United Bretliren in Christ, 390. .. .United Associate Synod, 233.. . .John Yl INDEX — MR. RICE S SPEECHES. Newton. 179, 269. . .Dr. Wayland, 19 Robertson's Chas. V-....' Bishop Polk, 2;?5...Dr. Peckard, 23G. . .Granville Sharpe, 236... Thompson Scoble's Scales, 238. . . .Mr. Pickens, of South Carolina, 294. . .George McDuffio, 358. . .Washington, 3G4 Dr. J. L. Wil- son, 3G.5, 410. . .Otterbcin, 390. . . .Rev. Jamos Smylie, 4'3. . . . Slave Richard, sexton of Danville church, 62. . . .Slave Frederick, 94.. . . Slave Auausta, 113 Hon. J. R. Giddinas, 63, 109 Hon. .lohn INlcLoan, 65. . . Judo-e Shaw, 65. . . .J. G. Whittier, 95. . ..John Wes- ley, 97, 36-3... Dr. Hill, 110 Dr. Wilson. 111... Mr. Linsley, 112 . . .New Orleans Picayune, 113. . .Synod of Kentucky, 115. . .Pres. Youncr, 115. . . Dr. David Rice, 117. . .Rev, Francis Hawley, 118. . . Dr. W. S. Plummer, 164. . .Rev. Mr. Smith, of Sumpter county, Ala. 164. . .Talleyrand, 423. . . Jahn, 412, 455. . ..Prof. Stuart, 456. . ..Dr. Woods, 457. . .Dr. C. E. Stowe, 468. MR. RICE'S SPEECHES. Abhorrent principles of abolitionists 37, 38, 219, 213 Abolition principles have not abolished slavery. . .155, 156, 157, 253 Abolitionists not called to slave States 255 American Board of Foreign Missions — report and opinions. ..439, 443 Answer to araunicnt from one-bloodism, «fcc 125 Answer to Mr. Blanchard's second argument, slave- holding kidnapping 190, 193, 342, 369 Answer to Mr. Blanchard's third argument 19.3, (97 Apostles admitted slave-holders into church. .378, 389,407, 449, 451 Apostles never charged with abolitionism 259 Baptism of infant slaves 256 Blanchard's representation 25 Blanchard unwilling to carry out his principles 52, 53, 370, 372 Blanchard''s reply to second argument exposed 100, 282 Blanchard's statement concerning Rev. Mr. Nourse, disproved 101,102,10.3, 129 Blanchard's replv to third argument exposed 183, 186 Blanchard's admission 189 Blanchard's reasons for not quoting the Bible 248, 249 Blanchani's denunciation and pity; Scott, «St.c 322,323,324 Blancliard's contempt of German critics .340 Blanchard's written answers to several arguments 367 Blanchard's reply to Rice's last argument considered 371 Blanchard's argument on coldcn rule -37 1, 373 Blanchard makes law of God contradictors' 447, 443 Blanchard's argument founded on two false assumptions 45-2 Blanchard's statement concerning eexton of Danville church, 75,281 Blanchard's statement concerning Rev. J. C. Stiles 76, 155, 187 Blanchard's law of Gen. Assembly, and Rev. J. D. Paxton 77, 98, 99, 12(5, 127 Blanchard objects to going to Hebrew and Greek 249, 250, 333 Blanchard differs from Paul about relation of master and slave 310, 31 1 Bible is Rice's " beaten track" 250, 251 Biblical Repository 157 Consequence of slave-holding in itself sinful 33 Condition of slaves not getting worse 55, 5'3 Condition of slaves improving 58, 127, 128 Conyention at Detroit 194 INDEX — ^MR. rice's SPEECHES. Vli Constantine confirms manumission .251 Condition of negroes in free States 251, 2;»2 1 Cor. vii. 21; misrepresentation 287 Classes of servants among Hebrews 265, 266 Canaanites under curse, therefore slaves. . 341 Constaniine's laws concerning marriage of s'aves 370 Commentators and critics of timid minds — Gro- tius, Engles, Breckenridge •_ 375, 376 Commentators and critics 435, 439, 443, 481 Contradictions of abolitionists 440 Character of primitive Christians — reply to Blanchard 473 Constitution of Christian Church— reply to Blanchard 472 Cruel laws and cruel treatment don't prove rela- tion sinful 26, 27, 79, 80, 102, 124, 136, 137, 152, 153, 313, 314 Cruelty not essential to slavery 27, 28, 53, 54, 57, 100, 101, 129, 130, 142, 153 Debate — its origin 24, 337 Debate adjourned to Monday 31 1 Dr. Bishop's difficulties in teaching slaves 128 Direct argument for abolitionism not Bible argument 210, 21 1 Dr. Chalmer's views 240, 241, 242 Dr. Cunningham 240, 242, 243, 248, 324, 325, 339, 344 Dr. Clarke quoted 333, 436, 470 Edinburg witness; slander 129, 130 Elder in Kentucky 83 Feelings of slaves toward masters — anecdote 445 First argument against abolitionism 36, 37 Fifth argument against abolitionism 107, 197, 198 Forever — six years 41)4 Fourth argument — golden rule 86, 89, 105, 106 Final recapitulation 452, 475, 482 Free Church of Scotland, and Presb. Ch. in U. S. A 242, 281 Fugitive slaves, and abolitionists; advice 286, 369 God never gave permission to sin 259, 434 Great and good men misled by Paley 374 Gen. xvii, 12, 13, and xx, 14, and xxiv, 35 262, 263 Humane feelings towards slaves in slave Stales 133 Hundred men on island 2IG Hebrew slavery of six years 2s8 Haaar a slave 2C0, 2G2, 2S9 Hebrews bought wives — meaning of bought 266, 343 Hebrew bond-servants and apprentices 403, 404 Increase of slave gangs accounted for 28,29 Ignatius 1**^ Importance of the subject admitted 34 Immediate emancipation of doubtful advantage 81, 82, 215, 216 Jews whose fathers killed prophets 373 Jewish sheiks and clansmen 401 Kingdom of God righteousness, &-c 188 Law of Presb. Church concerning treatment of slaves 29, 141 Law for stranger among Jews 448 Laws of Moses tended to liberty 448 Levit. XXV. 39 " 264 Lexington and C. M. Clay. 284, 285, 2dG Vlii INDEX — MR. rice's SPEECHES. Looked through slave spectacles 374 Marriage of slaves truly valid 35, 54, 55, 74, 75, 189, 193, 213, 214, 313, 314, 370 Master and slave not on equality with husband and wife, 6i,c. 26, 56 Meaning of eied 2o7, 23 J, 2J1, 218, ^44, 378, 406, 407 443 Most unpleasant feature of abolitionism 470, 471 Negro murdered in Indianapolis 133 Note appended to Confession of Faith 451 Number of negroes in church 401 Opinion of Drs. GritUn and Spring concerning abolitionism 58 Our translation of Bible and word servant 344, 377 Paley's definition of slavery 32 Permission to Jews not justify slave-trading 342 Perpetuity of servitude among Jews 376 Position of Methodist Church 400 Prejudice from difTcrent complexion not in Rome 283 Professor Siovve's admission 60 Protection of slaves in Kentucky 76, 99, 100, 134, 135, 154 Protection of bondmen of Hebrews and of slaves 402 Question fully stated 25, 32, 81, 82, 83, 84 Reason for opposing abolitionism 34, 41 Reason why permission granted Jews to hold slaves SH Reasonable time ; admission 256 Rccapitalation of arguments 84, 85, 86, 157, 161 Recapitulation of Blaiichard's speeches 103, 104 Reply of abolitionists to argument for Jewish slavery 319, 3i^2 Report of Gen. Assembly of 1845 193, 195,212, 243,283, 284 Request all to hear Blanchard 280 Result of abolition principles in the South 33 Rev. David Rice's views 131, 1 .'J2 Pcev. Mr. Graham 2.52 Rice's position concerning Jewish servitude not equivocal. 373 Rice's definition of slavery 33 Rice opposed to slavery— in favor of colonization. .33-4, 195-6, 251-2 Rice's doctrine and the South 243, 315, 338 Rice opposed to violence ; freedom of press , 287 Second argument against abolitionism 39, 40, 50-52 Servants not property holders 405, 444, 470 Sixth argument against abolitionism 199, 217, 218 Slave laws of Jews 401 Slave ''mine'>'> 216, 403 Slaves liberated by legislatures , 215 Slavery abolished in New York, &c; 481 Slavery permitted among patriarchs and Jews 259, 263, 317 Slave-holding hinders millenium 315, 316, 337, 433 Speculating in human beings condemned .28. 56 Statement concerning Dr. Baxter noticed 188 Stealincr in Sparta 198 Synod of Kentucky 131 Third argument against abolitionism 59, 60 Wages; hired servant and slave 472, 473 Wesley's directions to missionaries to West Indies 400 West India emancipation 253, 255, 288, 289 Whofcthall be master? 311,313 DEBATE. [MR. BLANCHARd's OPENING ADDRESS.] "Wednesday, 2 o'clock, P. M. Gentlemen Moderators^ Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow Cit- izens: The question which we are to-day met to discuss, to my own mind, borrows a melancholy interest from the slave- cofiies which, in increasing numbers, are passing from the upper to the lower slave-country at this time. Three days since, sixty-four men chained together and separated from their wives and daughters, passed by our city on their way to the South. While we are debating and you are listening, anxious to know the truth on this important practical question, the slave-pens of a sister city, Louisville, are increasing their number and enlarging their dimensions, to receive slaves brought in from the upper country to send to the lower states for sale. This infernal traffic has been stimulated by the late movements in Lexington against the property and person of Cassius M. Clay; and by the kidnapping of white men on the borders of the State of Ohio, and a practical re- fusal of bail ; by which they now lie in prison in a sister State. That human beings should be now suffering such inhu- man usage in our midst, gives, in my mind, a painful inter- est to this debate ; and must, I think, produce a tender and 10 DISCUSSION melancholy sentiment in the breast of all who hear it, inde- pendent of the points in dispute. The question, however, must he considered and decided upon general principles, independent of, though it cannot be separated from, contemporaneous events. It ought therefore to be set forth with great distinctness, to enable us to appre- hend clearly and fully the bearings of the argument. It is this, "/s slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation he- iween master and slave a sinful relation? To explain and set this question distinctly before you, I observe that, so far as I know, all well informed persons, be- lievers in Christianity, hold, that there are two classes of human practices, as it respects church-discipline — one class, right, the other wrong : practices which ought, and practi- ces which ought not to be received by the church into fellow- ship. We hold communion with persons engaged in the various vocations of life. If a man is a farmer and tills the soil, we commune with him. If he is a blacksmith, we commune with him. If he is engaged in trade, and con- ducts his business honestly and uprightly, we commune with jiim — ^because those vocations arc good and right. But there are on the other hand, practices, such as smuggling, swindling, gambling, selling lottery tickets, &c., with which we hold no fellowship, but which ought to be met and questioned at the threshold of the church. Now the naked question be- fore us to-day, and for the three following days, is, to which class of human practices does the holding of human beings as property belong? Ought the church to object to it?— is it wrong, or is it right ? Again, there are two classes of human relations ; right re- lations, and wrong. Marriage, the Eden relation of life, we hold to be a right relation. It is the central source of lio-ht and warmth, intelligence and affection, to every branch and department of human affairs. It is a right institution — because it is God-appointed. It is universally recognized as right, and its solemnization every where marked by feasts and rejoicings. Over against this is another relation — the ON SLAVERY. 11 relation of false marriage or concubinage. This is a wrong relation. It is forbidden by scripture, and justifies its condemnation by the common sense of mankind, by the evils which it brings in its train. So there are right and •wrong business relations. The relation of partners in a le- gitimate trade is a just and useful relation — founded on a right principle, that of the mutual dependence of men. " God builds on wants and on defects of mind, The glory, peace and virtue of mankind." But there is also a false relation in business — such as that between smugglers, or that of the anti-social conspiracy, formed by men who are banded together to burn our cities, and, by general disorganization, to bring down society to their own level. I will not detain you by speciffying other human rela- tions. The point before us is ; Is the relation between the master and his slave, just or unjust? Is it a holy or a sin- ful relation? Since this debate was announced, fears have been express- sed by certain public prints that no real issue will be made by the disputants, but that the whole question will be made to turn upon extreme cases : — for there are extreme cases, even in morals. But such fears may safely be dismissed. For by a glance at the printed pamphlet wliich I hold in my hand, and which has been issued by my respected friend, since this discussion was proposed, — and, being an argu- ment on one side of the question, has thus become a part of the debate, — you will see that the gentleman opposed to me has no disposition to skulk behind extreme cases. He, as Kentuckians are wont to do, will come square up to the point in discussion, whether slave-holdirig — American slave- holding — or slave-holding in every nation, is sinful or not ! From the free quotations, which, in this pamphlet, he makes from the actual slave code of the country, you will see that we have not invited j-ou to a feast of moral principles to serve you with the scraps ; — to consume your time and our strength, haggling supposed cases of slave-holding; and 12 DISCUSSION amusing you with tricks of logic and special pleading — the mere gim-cracks of argument. The question is whether slave-holding, as jjracticed by Americans, Englishmen, Romans or Greeks ; — whether SLAVE-HOLDING ! is siuful ] and the relation which it creates and which exists between master and slave is a sinful relation ? Gentlemen ; every man wishes there may be a pure Chris- tianity. When Ethan Allen's daughter was dying, she asked her father whether she should believe what he had taught her, or believe her mother ? Though a skeptic him- self, he bade her believe her mother ; and whether we are professors of religion or not, we all wish there may be on earth, one holy and unspotted shrine — a pure religion where the heart may worship while the mind approves. Now, the question is, whether Humanity can look to Christianity and find protection ? Whether the oppressed can flee to the sanctuary of the Gospel of Christ and find a refuge there — or whether religion affords no protection to human rights ? In other words, whether the religion we profess is a humane or an inhuman religion ? The number of persons now held as slaves under nomi- nally Christian governments is not quite seven millions. This is exclusive of the serfs of Europe who have legal existence and so?ne rights. And as long as a human crea- ture has ojie human right legally made secure, he is not, he cannot be, a slave. These seven millions of human beings — these slaves, touching whom we are met to hold colloquy, are in the United States and in Texas : the South Ameri- can States, and in French, Spanish, Danish, Swedish and Dutch colonies of the West Indies. Our Southern States and the Brazils together, contain 5,000,000, more than five sevenths of all the slaves in Christendom. Now, these seven millions of human beings are citizens of no country. They are neither Americans, French, Danish, Dutch, Spaniards, or Swedes; neither are they found in families. I know that in the skirts of the system, i. e. in the slave -raising States, there exists a some- ON feLAVEIlY. 13 thing called families ; but in the staple-growing plantations, for the supply of which slave-holding exists ; and which are the market to which it tends ; they are not in families ; but they are illegitimate in their birth and in their death. — Their children are born out of lawful wedlock, and, dy- ing, they can make no wills. Nor can their children receive what is willed to them. It is common for them to have no patronymics, but, like dogs and horses, to be called by single names. Their condition is legally one and the same, with slight modifications, in all the countries where they are found ; and it has remained the same from age to age. It is a condition clearly and well defined. They are held by individuals, as individual property, for individual uses. They are all held by one and the same property tenure, and ruled by the same property power — that is, (and there can be no worse word,) they are slaves! Now, gentlemen, we are met upon the question, whether the holding of men and women, under this relation and in this condition, is a right or a wrong practice ; whether the relation subsisting between the owner and the owned is right or wrong. I propose here to advance certain considerations to show the vast personal interest which every one has in the subject under debate. In the first place, it concerns seven millions of human creatures, born to all the hopes and fears to which we our- selves are born. It is precisely that class in whom Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did, while on earth, and does now, (for his disposition is unchanged,) take the deepest interest. For surely the lowest and most oppressed conditions of man- kind received his most tender regards. For Christians, therefore, no question can be raised more fit to occupy their attention than this. But it equally concerns all others. Every person, present and absent, has a personal and deep stake in the decision of this question. For all wish a pure Christianity ; and all see that when they have convinced the 14 Discussion people of the United States that there is no protection in Christianity for human rights, they will have taught them that we have an inhuman religion. If we have no protection for our rights and liberties in tlie Gospel of Christ, then we have no protection for them except party politics, and all can see, nay, have already seen, what such protection must come to. In 1776, there was no sentiment so popular, North, South, East, and West, as that " God hath created all men free and equal." This sentiment, at the beginning of our na- tional history, was taken in charge by political parties who vied with each other in its praises. Now, leading statesmen and public prints deny its truth, and ridicule it as a " rheto- rical flourish." : The fact is, this fundamental idea of the American De- claration, has been running down for the last fifty years.— The last citadel of human rights is Christianity. If there is no protection, no refuge there, for the principles on which liberty is based, there is none anywhere. As a nation, as in- dividuals, we have no protection. But we have all a pecii^ niary interest in this question. It was well remarked by Joshua Leavitt, the able and experienced editor of a week- ly and daily paper, that the United States free population sustain the relation of conquered subjects to our 250,000 slave-holders, the same relation that a conquered people do to their conquerers. That, in short, the free States are gov- erned for the benefit of the slave-holders. The truth of this is clearly set forth in a late article of Dr. Bailey's, in the Morning Herald, of this city. Speaking of the slave-holders' demands, he says : " We must allow these men a representation for their slaves ; we must be called upon to stand guard over their runaway slaves ; we are expected to aid them in keeping down their discontented slaves ; we must expend forty mill- ions of the Nation's treasure in breaking up a haunt in Flor- ida for fugitive slaves ; we must tolerate a monopoly of ofTi- ces under the General Government by Southern men, because ON SLAVERY. 15 they have slaves ; we must sully the reputation and hazard the peace of the Union, in demands for compensation for shipwrecked slaves ; we must suffer the national legislation to be so shaped as, without any regard to the interests of freemen, to enhance the value of the labor of slaves ; we must violate all the compromises of the Constitution, and hazard the chances of a most wasteful, most disgraceful war with Mexico, for the sake of enlarging the area for slaves :" — - and I will venture to add to this delineation ; We must pay from the nations' revenue hundreds of thousands every year to carry the mail for slave-holders' accommodation. We must behold the District of Columbia, the seat of our na- tional government, become a national slave-mart — the chief slave-mart of Christendom — and our national jails made national slave-pens, built and kept up at the national expense — so that every citizen at his anvil or loom — every man that labors in his shop or on the soil, stoops at his toil beneath the double load of personal labor and national disgrace : so that every person who pays a tax, or casts a vote, or serves in the army or navy, or buys a yard of ribbon, or consumes any other dutiable article, or writes or receives a letter ; every one in short who has a body to feed and clothe, or a soul to suffer disgrace ; every American who has either prop- erty or character, or the hope of either, is directly and personally concerned with American slavery : for every such person is taxed for its support. Again. The rapid increase of the slave population makes the slave question a matter of personal concern to all. In 1790 there were in the United States 697,697 slaves : at the last census there were 2,483,436. At the present time the number is above, 3,000,000 ; or one sixth part of the whole population of the United States. Moreover, while the free population increases 1 per cent., the slave population in- creases 3 per cent. — the circumstances being equal, and ex- clusive of emigration. It is obvious from this fact, that slavery is fast out-growing its bands. The slaves are the ma- jority in two of the States already. These facts speak so 16 DISCUSSION eloquenlly that they need not be enforced by argument. If you hold your homes dear, you must consider, and ere long you will consider this question of slavery. To us wlio live upon *' the land lying between Pennsylva- nia on the East, Mississippi River on the West, and the Lakes on the North ; i. e. in the territory north west of the Ohio River," no question can be more interesting than this now in debate. By the ordinance of 1787, July 13th, sixth ar- ticle — " There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser' vitude intlie said territory otherwise than for crimes, where- of the party shall have been duly convicted." No soil on earth was ever so committed and pledged to liberty as this. In the language of Webster ; tliis ordinance " lies lower dian the local constitution" itself. Now the question is, whether the churches within this territory shall receive into fellow- ship as not sinful, a practice, which the States themselves have barred out as a crime 1 If slave-holding be not sinful, then that is no sin in the church which the State, in self protection, has agreed to treat as a crime. Can we debate out from under us the foundation of our social fabric? The ordinance of 1787 is the very root of all the institutions of Ohio, Indiana, and Illi- nois, from which they derive all their sap and vigor. To de- stroy it would be to destroy the titles of the people to their houses and farms. They hold their property by force of the territorial rights acquired anderthe ordinance of 1787. And if my brother succeeds in convincing the people that the car- dinal principle of that ordinance is an error, he will achieve a ruin more dreadful than if he should strike out the under- pinning of our houses and let them tumble to the earth. It would be a small evil to throw down our dwellings, compared to the terrible calamity whicli must result from destroying the first principle- and vital source of all the laws by which our houses and our persons are protected. Fellow citizens, we must bear in mind that we are not met to discuss the slavery of the negro, but the slavery of 'ma7i. The practical question we have before us is, whether ON SLAVERY. 17 slave-holding is s'mM. Not whether American slave-hold- ing alone is sinful. If we establish the doctrine that it is not sinful to hold slaves, then we shall commit no sin, if, at some future period, one portion of us shall drive the daughters of the otlier portion into the kitchen, and their sons into the field. We are discussing our own right to freedom, and the right of others to enslave us and our posterity. If any one thinks that the question now before us applies only to the African race, let him be reminded that white slaves have been no rarity in the history of mankind. Thousands of our Eno-- lish ancestors have been sold into slavery. Mr. Pitt, quoting Henry's History of Great Britain, has this passage, " Great numbers were exported like catde, and were to be seen ex- posed for sale in the Roman market." Before the CongTess of European Sovereigns at Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, there were 49,000 white slaves in the Barbary States alone. Moreover, those who prove slavery to be sinless, prove it from the Bible — and the argument, if it proves anything, justifies the slavery of white people as well as black. For the bond-men of the Scriptures, from which they draw their arguments, were colored like their masters. The Bible knows nothing of determining men's rights by the hue of iheir skin. (A voice. — Good.) No, Gentlemen : No, fellow citizens ! When he proves from the Bible that slave-holding is not sinful, he has justi- fied the men who, at some future day shall hold my child, and the children of other poor men, in slavery. If any one still supposes that white children cannot be enslaved, let him look at the case of Mary Elmore in Philadelphia, the child of Irish parents, who was taken when eight years old, and sworn to by eight men as the property of the man who seiz- ed her, and would have been dragged into hopeless slavery but for the interposition of God in raising up friends who proved her free-born. Read also the case of Sally MuUer, lately freed from slavery in New-Orleans: — a German girl, who was held and treated 18 DISCUSSION as a slave for twenty-five years, and was at last accidentally discovered by a woman who was an acquaintance of her parents, and was thus providentially restored to liberty. Ma- ny of you knew of the case of a woman upwards of 50 years of age, who landed in our city several years ago, from the South, on her way to Frederick County, Maryland, where she obtained documents under the county seal, proving her- self free. She was a white woman. Her father was a Spaniard and her mother a German. There was no trace of African blood in her veins — yet she had been held as a slave in the Southern States for forty years, and all her chil- dren were in slavery. And if whites are thus enslaved un- der laws professing to enslave only the colored race, what would be done could my brother establish, ais sinless, the slavery of man irrespective of color. As we determine this question, as a nation, so it is the appointment of God to determine it for us and our children. As we measure unto others, so will it be meted unto us. I propose now to consider, somewhat at length, the hinge- point of this whole discussion, viz : — slave-holding and the slavery relation. And, Fellow Citizens, if you find the discussion some- what dry, I must beg you will pardon me in advance; For there has been so much misapprehension, (I will not say intentional misrepresentation,) that some pains and patience are requisite, to strip the subject of false glosses and set the actual verities, slavery and slave-holding, distinctly before us. It is not my intention to invent a definition of slavery from which to reason, but to bring you to the thing itself, the living fact, — the actual reality as it exists. In a late published discussion of this subject, by two eminent Baptist ministers, my soul was pained to observe that the whole truth respecting slavery was compromilted, and the whole subject itself confused and darkened, by the admission of Dr. Paley's definition of slavery as the basis of their argument. No moral philosopher's definition is fit to be used in the ON SLAVERY. 19 discussion of practical questions, without first "ascertaining wiiether it represents the thing defined — the living- fact as it is. Dr. Paley's definition of slavery — "an obligation to labor for the master without the contract or consent of the slave," is most obviously and fatally erroneous. For, in morals, as in mathematics, "it is essential to a perfect definition that it distinguish the thing defined from every thing else" — which Paley's definition by no means does. It makes slavery, nothing but forced labor, or labor without " contract or con- sent." Such is the labor required of paupers, of convicts, of the sheriff's posse, of impressed men in national peril, and even of children during minority. These all labor without their "contract or consent." And to give a defini- tion of slavery which includes all these, is scarcely short of absurd. It is certainly erroneous. If slavery is only forced labor, then the paupers who labor in the poor-house are slaves. But the pauper asks for bread, and society asks for a consideration in the shape of labor, which is a just demanb. We set beggars to work, because idleness is a crime. Is that slavery? The person of a pauper is as sacred as yours or mine — and he is no more a slave. The State does not compel him to be a pauper. But if he comes to the community and demands bread, the community has a right to require his labor without his "contract or consent." So in case of the other kinds of labor named above. Neither the sheriff, the press-gang, the prison-warden, nor even the parent, wait for "contract and consent" when they require labor. And as Paley's definition includes all these, it is obviously false. For that which does not distinguish a thing from other different things, is surely no definition of it. No wonder that, with such a definition, Dr. Wayland should concede slave-holding to be not sinful. But there is a still stronger objection to Paley's definition. It leaves out the whole relation between the owner and his slave, and defines only one of the incidents of slavery, to wit : the compulsory labor of the slave. Slaves are slaves, 20 DISCUSSION work or no work. Mark how the very terms of the defini- tion show its absurdity. He says — " slavery is an obligation to work for the master without the contract or consent of the slave." The very terms show that the master is a master, and the slave a slave, before the " forced labor " begins. Now that which makes the master a master, and the slave a slave; that is slavery — that is the property-holding power — the ownership of mankind. He who ovvns a slave, owns a ma?i. He who sells him, sells a man. He sells not only his flesh and blood, but he sells his good qualities. If he has a good disposition or any good quality or superior talent, the auctioneer is sure to tell of it while he is under the hammer, and this enhances the price. Yes, he sells the soul of the man. If a man owns a plough and a horse, these will not furrow his field. He wants an intellect to guide the plough and direct the horse, and for this purpose he buys a slave. In buying him, he knows that he is buying the soul of the man. Dr. Paley's definition goes no farther than to give the master a right to the services of the slave. It puts one incident of slavery for slavery itself, and makes one right of the owner to be the whole of ownership — one spoke in this wheel of torture, the whole infernal machine. To illustrate the absurdity of this definition, suppose a slaveholder, robber, and murderer, on trial, and Dr. Way- land employed in their defence. He stands up to address the Court; solemnly adjusts his wig and gown, takes a volume of Paley, or some other learned doctor, from be- neath his arm, and reads the following definitions : " I do- fine slavery to be an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master without the contract or consent of the servant." — (Paley, B. 3. C. 2.) " Robbery, I define to be an obligation to relinquish property to the plunderer without the contract or consent of the plundered ;" "and I define murder to be an otiio"ation to yield up life to the murderer, without the con- tract or consent of the victim." Where, I ask, is the difference inXhe merit of these three definitions ? and what but a smile of compassionate contempt would such definitions excite, in. ON SLAVERY. 21 any court of justice where grave practical questions, like the one Ave are now discussing, were being tried ? Let us turn now from these pigeon-hole definitions, to those who have described slavery as a simple reality — a living fact. In introducing the following quotations, I have two objects in view: 1. to show that slavery and slave-hold- ing are the same all the world over ; and 2. to show what slavery is — to show that those who speak of different kinds of slavery — who suppose that one kind of slavery existed in the times of Moses, and another in our own times, are in er- ror ; I wish to show that there is but one kind of slavery — the property holding of men. My brother will tell you that, in Roman slavery, the master had the life of the slave in his power. This is a small item in the condition of a slave^ and it was rather a custom than a law. It did not exist after the time of Antoninus Pius, in the second century. It was abolished by the Cornelian law ; and was no part of the civil law of which Justinian was the founder and father, and which is never spoken of in the courts as dating back of the code of Justinian, A. D. 527. The Roman civil law first hardened slavery into a regular slave code, and the point I make, is, that nowhere on earth, has legal slavery been any thing else but what it is to-day among us. It may differ slightly in its incidents, in different ages ; but it is by no means certain that Roman masters were worse than American. Corrupt Christians are not necessarily merciful men. But however kind or Christian the master, the slave is property, and follows the laws of property. This condi- tion is a legal identity the v/orld over, and the tie which binds him to it the same. So was it among the ancient Greeks. Aristotle says, "with Barbarians the family consists of male and female slaves, but to the Greeks belongs dominion over the Barba- rians, because the former have the understanding requisite to rule : the latter, the body only to obey." He calls the slave a "living instrument in the hands of the master: as the instru- ment is an inanimate slave." That is slavery! I trust we 22 DISCUSSION shall become familiar with this ground idea. For in defin- ing a slave of his own days, Aristode has exacdy depicted the slavery of the present. The "Barbarians," thus declar- ed by this leading and most influential mind of antiquity to be slaves by nature, included all the ancestors of the present American people, viz : the ancient Germans, Danes, Anglo- Saxons, Britons, Picts and Scots. And the principle of the Greek slave code was precisely the same with that of Amer- ican slavery, viz: the jp roper ty-holding of men. The slaves were "living instruments" in the hands of their masters. These "Barbarians" however, in spite of the opinion of Aristotle, show themselves as capable as Greeks of holding slaves. I quote from Gibbon. "The Goth, the Burgundian, or the Frank who returned from a successful expedition, dragged after him a long train of sheep, oxen, and human captives. The youths of an elegant form were set apart for domestic service. The useful mechanics and servants em- ployed their skill for the use or profit of their masters." That is, they were property ^ subject to the incidents of prop- erty. Perhaps the Komans were the first who rigidly legalized and defined slavery. And as the Apostles planted churches under Roman law, and as American slavery, after European, h'As taken its ground idea and leading feature from the Ro- man civil code, it is necessary to enlarge a litde upon Ro- man slavery. "From the time of Augustus to Justinian," says a careful modern writer (Prof. Edwards), "we may allow three slaves to one freeman : we shall thus have a free population in Italy of 6,944,000 : and of slaves 20,832,000. Total, 27,- 766,000." The state and condition of these slaves is thus laid down by Dulany, a legal authority of Maryland : — "By the (Roman) civil law, slaves were esteemed merely as the chattels of their masters : they had no name but what the master was pleased to give them for convenience. They were not capable of personal injuries cognizable by the law. ON SLAVERY. 23 Tliey coultTtake neither by purchase nor descent, could have no heirs, could make no will. The fruits of their labor and industry belonged to their masters. They could not plead nor be impleaded, and were utterly excluded from all civil concerns. They were incapable of marriage, not being entitled to the considerations thereof The laws of adultery did not (among themselves) affect them. They might be sold, transferred, mortgaged, pawned. Partus sequitur ven- trcrn, was the rule indiscriminately applied to slaves and cat- tle. And this too, was not only the civil law, but the law of nations. Nostri servi swat qui ex nostris anciUis na- scuntur; and so was their incapacity of marriage on the principle above explained." — I.Harris and 3IcIIenry,5Ql. This statement, easily verified by reference to the Roman code itself, shows clearly the following facts : — •That Roman slavery was a practical and deliberate placing of human beings in the legal and social condition of the brute creation. Nothing can be added to the provisions of this code to herd human beings with brutes. It is not pos- sible to make them brutes, because they are men — but what human skill, armed with power, can do, is here done to dishu- Rianize and imbrute human beings. The Roman slave code, as you all see, was a complete re- peal of all God's laws regulating human society. In obeying God, it was neccessary to violate tlie slave-code : — and he who obeyed the slave-code trampled upon God's law. Is slave-holding sinful ? See how perfectly the American and Roman slave systems coincide ; — I read from the same authority who is contrast- ing English villeinage with slavery : — "Villeins were capable of marriage because capable of the civil rights annexed to it by the laws of England, and the in- variable principle of these laws being, that the issue should follow the state and condition of the father. If a villein took a free woman to wife, their issue were villeins. If a free man took a neif to wife, their iss-ue were free. Slaves were incapable of marriage by the civil law, because incapable of 24 DISCUSSION the civil rights annexed to it. And the rule of that law was that the issue a female slave, sliould follow the state and condition of the mother." — 1. Harris and McHenrt/^-p. 560. The serfdom, of Europe, was the lowest condition of human beings in civil society. Yet how infinitely below the serf of Europe is the slave! Yet this is Roman, Eng- lish and American law. There is a case reported in Mary- land, (Harris and McHenry,) where a testator died, and, by his will, freed his slaves and bequeathed them property. The question in court was, as they were slaves at the time of his death, could they take under the will? It was deci- ded they could not, and the property bequeathed to them escheated to the State. This establishes the point that the Roman code and the American code are identical and the slave-condition the same. I request you to bear in mind just where this discussion pauses. I will continue from this point. [^Time expired. l^MR. rice's first SPEECH.] By the correspondence which has been read in your hearing, you have learned the origin of this debate. It did not originate with me. I had no desire whatever to engage in a public discussion of the claims of abolitionism ; yet should the discussion of this agitating question be properly conducted, much good, I doubt not, will result. Multitudes of well meaning and intelligent persons who as yet have formed no definite opinion, need and desire information on the subject ; and surely it is not the true interest of any to believe that which is false, especially on a subject of so much practical importance. True, we are often told, espe- cially by political editors, that public discussions of moral and religious subjects, convince no one ; and yet none are more clamorous than they in favor of political discussions. By what process of reasoning they reach the conclusion that the truth is gainer by the discussion of political questions, ON SLAVERY. 25 but not of those of a moral and religious character, I leave them to determine. I am happy to meet Mr. Blanchard on the present occa- sion, not as an individual^ but as the chosen representative of the abolitionists of this city, selected by ten of their most respectable men. We have the right to conclude, that now full justice will be done to their cause ; that if the claims of abolitionism can be sustained, it will now be done. I rejoice that the debate, as published, will be circulated both in the slave-holding and in the free States — that now at length the abolitionists will have the opportunity of spreading their strongest arguments before the slave-holders, as well as be- fore the public generally. It is important that the audience keep distinctly before their minds the question we have met to discuss, to wit : Is slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation? I was truly surprised to hear the gentleman speak Joriy minutes without reaching the question, and twenty more without defining what he means by slave-holding ! I had expected to hear from a gentleman so longaccuslomed to discuss this subject, at least something in the way of argument, during the first hour, but it is passed, and the definition is not completed ! I am perfectly av\-are of the prejudices I must encounter in the minds of some of the audience, from the fact that I stand opposed, in this discussion, to those who claim to be par excellence the friends of liberty, and particularly of the slave. To remove such prejudices from the minds of the candid, I will state precisely the ground I intend to occupy ; and, if I mistake not, before this debate shall close, it will be considered at least a debateable question, whether the abolitionists are entitled to be considered the best friends of the slave. 1. The question between us and the abolitionists, is not whether it is right to force a free man, charged with no crime, into slavery. The gentleman has indeed presented the subject in this light. He has told you, that I am about 25 DISCUSSION to justify those who, at a future day, may enslave our chil- dren, ^uch, however, I need scarcely say, is not the fact. In the slave-holding, as well as in the free States, it is ad- irittcd and maintained, that to reduce a free man into a state of slavery, is a crime of the first magnitude. Far from de- fending the African slave trade, we abhor and denounce it as piracy. We, therefore, maintain, that American slavery ought never to have existed. But the slave-holding States have inherited this evil; and the important and difficult question now arises — how shall the evil be removed? The present owners of slaves did not reduce them to their pre- sent condition. They found them in a state of slavery; and the question to be solved is — how far are individuals bound, under existing circumstances, to restore them to freedom? For example, it w^ould be very wicked in me, whether by force or fraud, to reduce a rich man to poverty, but how far I am bound to enrich a man reduced to poverty by others, is a very different question. 2. The question before us is not whether the particular laws by which slavery has been regulated in the countries where it has existed, are just and righteous. What has the pre- sent discussion to do with Aristotle's description of slavery, which the gentleman has given us ? Or what has it to do with the laws by which in the Roman empire slavery was regulated? Does the gentleman really expect me, in prov- ing that slave-holding is not in itself sinful, to defend the slave laws of Rome? It is impossible not to see, that those laws have nothing to do with the question he stands pledged to discuss. Still he entertains us with Aristotle's definition of slavery, and with Gibbon's account of slavery in the Roman empire. Many of those laws, it is readily admit- ted, were unjust and cruel in a high degree. But by the same kind of logic it would be easy to prove, that the con,' jugal and parental relations are in themselves sinful; / do not place the relation of master and slave on an equal footing with those relations; bvt I do maintain that the gtnilcman has no right to use an argument against the ON SLAVERY. 27 former^ that icould bear with equal force against the latter. The Roman laws gave the father power over the life of his child, and the husband power to degrade and tyrannize over his wife ; and the same is true of almost all pagan countries. But shall we denounce the conjugal and parental relations as in themselves sinful, because they were regulated by bad laws? Those relations, we contend, arc lawful and right; but the particular laws by which in many countries they are regulated, are unjust. So the fact that many of the laws of Rome concerning slavery were cruel, does not prove, that the relation is in itself sinful. The gentleman's argument proves too much, and, therefore, according to an admitted principle of logic, proves nothing. Many of the laws by which in our country slavery is re- gulated are defective, and ought to be amended ; or unjust, and ought to be repealed. But are those laws essential to the relation between master and slave? They are not; for different laws have existed in different countries, whilst the relation itself has remained the same. Moreover, the laws in the same country or State have been materially different at different times. In Kentucky, for example, they have been gradually changed and improved; but the relation be- tween master and slave yet exists. They may be still fur- ther modified without affecting it. Indeed it is perfectly clear to the most superficial thinker, that the relation be- tween master and slave is not identical with the particular laws regulating it. The laws may be most unjust, and yet the relation may not be in itself sinful. 3. The question is not w^hether masters may treat their servants cruelly, either by failing to give them abundant food and raiment, by inflicting cruel chastisement, by separating husbands and wives, parents and children, or by neglecting to give them religious instructions. A master, a father, or a husband, may be cruel. There is no relation in human society, that may not be abused by wicked men. But is the master obliged to treat his slaves cruelly? Must he of necessity starve them, or abuse them? Is he compelled, 28 DISCUSSION because he is a master, to separate husbands and wives ? or to neo-lect their religious instruction, and leave their minds in pagan darkness ? No — he may treat them with all kind- ness, providing abundant food and raiment ; he may sacredly reo-ard the marriage relation amongst them; he may have them carefully instructed in the truths of the glorious gos- pel ; and yet he may sustain to them the relation of master. But the gentleman commenced his speech by telling us what a melancholy interest was thrown around this discus- sion by the fact, that a slave-gang recently passed near this city. Why not say, a melancholy interest is thrown around the marriage relation, because not a great while ago a man in Cincinnati murdered his wife and three children in a few moments ? Were I to employ my time in searching for them, I could furnish thousands of examples of inhuman cruelty in connection with the conjugal and parental rela- tions, in the free States, as well as elsewhere. Will the gen- tleman denounce these relations because they are abused % because wicked men take advantage of them to tyrannize over the weak ? True, cruelty is often found in connection with slavery; but it is equally true that many slave-holders treat their slaves with uniform kindness, as rational, account- able, immortal beings. We are not discussing the question whether cruelty of any kind is right. 4. The question before us is not whether it is sinful to speculate in human beings. The slave-trader is looked upon by decent men in the slave-holding States with disgust. None but a monster could inflict anguish upon unoffending men for the sake of accumulating wealth. But since Mr. B. feels so deeply on account of the multiplication of slave- gangs in Kentucky, it may be well for him to know, that this is one of the sad effects of the doctrine and practice of the abolitionists. They have sought to make the slaves discontented in their condition ; they have succeeded in de- coying many from their masters, and running them to Can- ada. Consequently masters, for fear of losing their slaves, sell them to the hard-hearted trader ; and tl^ey are inarched ON SLAV'ERY. 29 to the South. Thus they rivet the chains on the poor slave, and aggravate every evil attending his condition. Such is human nature, that men provoked by such a course of con- duct as that of the abolitionists, will, in many instances, resort to greater severity; and upon those who thus provoke men, rests in no small degree the responsibility of increasing the sufferings of the slaves. 5. The question before us, is not whether it is right for a man to treat his slaves as mere chattels jpersonal^ not as senti- ent beings. The Scriptures condemn cruelty not only to- ward man, but toward irrational animals. "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast." A man ought to be excluded from the church, who would treat his horse inliu- manl}'. Even the civil law would punish him for such cru- elty. Yet it is not a sin to own a horse. Christianity prescribes the duties of both masters and ser- vants. The servant is required to render obedience to his master with all fidelity " as unto Christ :" and the master is required to treat his slaves with all kindness, even as ration- al, accountable, immortal beings. Cruelty toward slaves, therefore, would prove the master destitute of piety, and would be a just ground for his exclusion from the privi- leges of the church. On this subject the law of the Pres- byterian church is clear and explicit. Sessions and Presby- teries were enjoined by the General Assembly of 1818, to prevent all cruelty in the treatment of servants; and to sub- ject those chargeable with it to the discipline of the church. Let the abolitionists prove, that any member of our church has been guilty of cruelty toward his slaves, and I pledge my word, he will be disciplined. Let it be tried, and if it be ascertained, that the Presbyterian church will not exclude men from her pale, who are guilty of such conduct, then I will denounce her. 6. The question is not whether a great amount of sin is in fact committed in connection with slave-holding. This is admitted. Wicked men wall act out their wickedness in every relation in life. Wicked husbands in ten thousand instances 30 DISCUSSION treat their wives most cruelly; and ungodly parents inflict great suffering on their children. No Wonder, then, that in this relation a great amount of sin is committed. But the ques- tion is not how much men can sin in this relation, but whether the relation is in itself sinful, whether a man is to be denounced as a heinous sinner, simply because he is a master. Abolitionists dwell upon, and magnify the sins of men committed in this relation ; but the relation may, and in multitudes of instances does exist without the oppression and cruelty of which they speak. Consequently the sin is not in the relation itself 7. Nor is the question before us, whether slavery is an evil, a very great evil, which should be removed as speedily as it can be done by the operation of correct principles. This I cheerfully admit. But there are many evils and oreat evils in connection with human society, which cannot be immediately removed. Whilst, therefore, I admit that slavery is an evil, I utterly protest against upturning the very foundation of society in order to abolish it. Shall we do evil that good may come ? Nay — shall we in the mad attempt to remove immediately one evil introduce others a hundred-fold greater ? The question, I repeat, is not wheth- er slavery is an evil, but whether we are to denounce and excommunicate every individual who is so unfortunate as to be connected with it. 8. The question before us does not relate to the duty or the policy of Kentucky or any other State concerning sla- A-ery. There is a broad distinction to be made between the duty of a State as a body politic, and the duty of individuals residing in the State. I might maintain, that it is the duty of the State of Kentucky immediately to adopt a plan of gradual emancipation, and yet contend, with perfect consis' tency, that so long as slavery is continued by the civil gov- ernment, individuals may own slaves without sinning. The duty of the State is one thing ; the duty of individuals quite an- other. Moreover, I might maintain what I firmly believe to be true — that slavery is a commercial evil in Kentucky, and ON SLAVERY. 31 that her true policy would be to rid herself of it as soon as possible — without at all admitting, that every individual who sustains the relation of master, is a heinous sinner, 9. In a word, we are not met to discuss the merits of any system of slavery^ Roman, Spanish, English, or Ameri- can. It is common now-a-days to declaim against "the sys- tem of American slavery." I confess myself unable to un- derstand precisely what is meant by this phrase. It is not at all clear to my mind, that there is any such thing as a system of American slavery. Slavery exists in several of these United States, regulated by different laws in the several States; but what is meant by the system, I do not know. I hope the gentleman, if he is disposed to employ the phrase, will clearly define it. But whatever it may mean, we have nothing whatever to do with it. The question be- fore us relates exclusively to individuals sustaining the rela- tion of masters and slaves. ♦ What, then, have we to do with Mr. Leavit's assertion that the free States have been governed for the benefit of the slave-holding States? Or what concern have we with Dr. Bailey's estimate of the taxes growing out of slavery? If we had undertaken to discuss the political bearings of slavery, these things might have been introduced with propriety ; but why have they been lugged into a discussion of the moral and religious character of the relation between master and slave ? The question stated by the challengers to this dis- cussion, and the question the gentleman stands pledged to debate, is — whether slave-holding is in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation. This question and this only will I discuss. It presents fairly the great question at issue between us and the abolitionists. It is stated by Rev. Thomas E. Thomas, a prominent aboli- tionist, in the following language: ^'That question, now in process of investigation among the American churches, is this, and no other: Are the professed Christians in our re- spective connections, who hold their fellow-men as slaves, thereby guilty of a sin which demands the cognizance of the 33 DISCUSSION church ; and after due admonition, the application of disci- pline ? " — Review of Junkin^ p. 17. Such precisely is the question. And here let us inquire, what is meant by slave-holding-? The gentleman told us, that in Wayland and Fuller's discussion, the truth was com- promised by adopting Paley's definition of slavery, viz: "An obligation on the part of the slave to labor for the master without consent or contract." To this definition Mr. Blanch- ard objects, — ^because, as he asserts, it does not distinguish slavery from other things. Paupers, for example, he told us, are obliged to labor ; so that according to Paley's definition paupers are slaves. This objection is wholly unfounded. Paupers are not forced to apply to the public for assistance. When they voluntarily do so, it is the right of the institu- tion to which they apply, to say on what terms they will grant the aid which is asked. The pauper acts voluntarily in asking aid, and he acts voluntarily in agreeing to comply with the conditions on which it is granted. Fie is not a slave, according to Paley's definition. The sherifl^'s posse, the gentleman told us, must also be slaves according to Paley, because the law compels them to serve at the call of the officer. This objection is no less futile, than the one just noticed. By becoming members of an organized society, each individual agrees to abide by the laws, and to lend his aid to enforce their observance ; in consideration of which he enjoys the protection of the la,ws and the advantages of society. But the gentleman tells us, that the master owns the maii^ not only the body but the soul, and that he sells the soul? What use, let me ask, does the master make, or what uso can he make of the slave, but to claim his labor — his servi- ces ? If there is anything necessarily included in slave-hold- ing, except the claim of one man to the services of another, will Mr. B. please inform us what it is? He has studied this subject for years with intense interest ; and therefore he is just the man to tell us what else there is in the relation be- tween master and slave. ON SLAVERY. 33 By slave-holding, then, I understand the claim of the mas ter to the services of the slave, with the corresponding obli- gation on the part of the master to treat the slave kindly, and to provide him with abundant food and raiment during life, and with religious instruction. Are there any circumstan- ces which can justify such a claim? Or is the claim in itself sinful, and the relation founded on it a sinful relation? Mr. Blanchard affirms: I deny. Let it be distinctly understood, that if slaveholding is in itself sinful ; it is sinful under all possible circumstances, and must be instantly abandoned without regard to consequences. Blasphemy, for example, is in itself sinful ; and therefore it cannot be justified by any possible circumstances. The gen- tleman informed us, that in two of the southern States the slaves constitute a majority of the population. Now if slave- holding is in itself sinful, and if the doctrine that all men are born free and equal, is to be carried out without regard to circumstances , those States are bound forthwith to liberate all their slaves, and grant them the right to vote and to fill any office within the gift of the people. Then a colored man might be the next governor ; and colored men might consti- tute their Legislature, and set on the bench as judges in their courts. Thus the entire administration of the government in those States would be placed in the hands of degraded men, wholly ignorant of the principles of lnw and govern- ment. Will the gentleman go for thia ? Would he be wil- ling to place himself under such a government ? Will he contend, that those two States are bound immediately to place their slaves on an equality with their masters ? He must contend for this, or abandon the principles of abolitionism. In denying that slave-holding is in itself sinful, I do not defend slavery as an institution that ought to be perpetuated. I am not a pro-slavery man. I am opposed to slavery ; I de- plore the evils connected with it. Most sincerely do I de- sire its removal from our land, so soon as it can be effected v/ith safety to the parties involved in it. Most heartily do I desire to see every slave free ; not nominally free, as are the 3 34 DISCUSSION colored people of Ohio, but truly free, as are many now in Liberia, who were once slaves. I go for gradual emancipa- tion, and for colonization ; but I will not agree to denounce and excommunicate every individual, who under existing cir- cumstances, is a slave-holder. I maintain, that circumstances have existed, and do now exist, which justify the relation for the time being. I oppose abolitionism, not because it tends to abolish sla- very, and improve the condition of the slave, but because, as I firmly believe, it tends to perpetuate slavery, and to aggra- vate all its evils. That such is its tendency, that such have been its effects, I think I can prove to every unprejudiced mind. If the doctrine for which I contend, were held only by slave-holders, or by men residing in slave-holding communi- ties, I might be led strongly to suspect, that by early prejudi- ces my judgment had been unduty biased; but when I remem- ber, that it has been held, and is now held by the great body of the wisest and best men ; that every commentator, critic and theologian of any note, however opposed to slavery, interprets the Scriptures on this subject just as I do; I cannot hesitate as to whether my views are correct. Sus- tained by such names, I go forward fearlessly in their defence. I agree with the gentleman in regarding the subject be- fore us as one of incalculable importance. It is important to the church of Christ. For if the doctrine of abolition- ists is true, we must refuse to hold Christian fellowship with slave-holders. The church in the free States must be sepa- rated from the church in the slave-holding States, as the Jews and Samaritans of old. Already has the work of di- vision commenced. The Methodist and Baptist chujches are divided ; and other churches are likely to meet a simi- lar fate. The importance of this subject is greatly enhanc- ed by its bearings upon our civil Union. Already is it bit- terly denounced by leading abolitionists ; and if their doc- trine prevail, the day is at hand when the northern and Bouthern States AviU form two distinct and hostile govern- ON SLAVERY. 35 ments. Surely, then, the subject demands of every Chris- tian, patriot and philanthropist a candid and careful investi- gation. In this discussion I have nothing to prove. Mr. Blan- chard has undertaken to prove that slave-holding is in itself sinful. It is my business to meet his arguments, and to show that they do not establish his proposition. Yet I in- tend, from time to time, to present arguments which, as I think, prove conclusively that the doctrine of abolitionism is untrue. Having now presented before the audience the question for discussion, divested of the mass of extraneous matter so constantly thrown around it, I proceed to reply to that part of Mr. Blanchard's speech which has not yet been noticed. He says, truly, that we all desire, or should desire, a pure Christianity. But whether abolitionism is pure Christianity, is at least a debateable question. To my mind it is clear that it is not Christianity at all. The question is not, as the gentleman says, whether humanity can appeal to Christi- anity for protection ; whether we have a human or an inhu- man religion. If this is the question, why discuss it? — Does it require a public debate to prove to the people of Cin- cinnati that we have a humane religion ? No ; the question is not whether the condition of the slaves ought to be im- proved, but whether the doctrine and the practice of aboli- tionists tends to improve it. But the gentleman tells us that the slaves have no fami- lies ; that their children are born out of wedlock, and are illegitimate, because the civil law does not recognize their marriage. This, however, is not true. The marriage of slaves is as valid in the view of God's law as that of their masters. Marriage is a Bible institution. Will the gentle- man point us to the portion of Scripture which makes re- cognition of marriage by the civil law necessary to its va- lidity? Or will he refer us to the portion of Scripture which prescribes any particular ceremony as essential to its validity ? By way of exciting our sympathies, he told us that the 36 DISCUSSION slaves have no patronymics^ but, like dogs and horses, are called Sally, and Bill, and Tom, &c. Will the gentleman inform us what was Abraham's sirname, ? Or what were the . DISCUSSION should be thankful if the occasion which has made them necessary, were forever removed. I am told I have yet ten minutes. I wish here to direct your minds farther, to the statement made by my brother, that in Kentucky, the slave has the same protection that the child has. Dr. Rice has told you that I misrepresented and perverted his meaning, last night. I acknowledge that a defective impression would have been left, if I had no more to say than I then said ; but I was drawn off by the introduction of the subject of cruelties ; the abolitionists having been, repeatedly arraigned, as slanderers of the South. I now wish to present exactly what Dr. Rice affirms con- cerning the protection enjoyed by Kentucky slaves. I read the whole paragraph from his pamphlet, p. 17. " If, then, it be true, as Dr. Beecher and the Editor of the Watchman would have the people believe, that the system of slavery cannot be sustained, unless the master have un- limited control over his slaves, it must soon be, abolished, and the abolitionists need give themselves little farther trouble. In Kentucky the slave has the same protection that a child has." Protection from what? I ask. Why, from the cruel dispo- sition of the master ; for, says Dr. Rice, " if it be true that slavery cannot be sustained unless the master have unlimited control over the slave," the ^^ protection" whch Dr. Rice declares that the slave has, is ^^from this unlimited control." If he does not mean this, let him explain his meaning. (A pause.) Now I desire to show that this proposition is as entirely without authority and sanction, in truth, as any other proposition in human speech. My argument will be but just entered on when I sit down. If, in Kentucky, there is no more protection for the child than for the slave, there is many a Kentucky Rachel will soon be weeping for her once free children, '^ refusing to be comforted because they are not." For such fate, every one knows, awaits the slave, and the slave, he says, is protected like the child. My bro- ON SLAVERY. 123 ther means (he can mean nothing- else, having- quoted in the same connection, the Kentucky slave code) that the slave has the same protection from bodily injuries as the child of free parents. I will quote Dr. David Rice on the subject of the power of the master to inflict bodily injuries on the slave. He says : " The slave is a rational creature, reduced by the power of legislation, to the state of a brute, and thereby deprived of every privilege of humanity, that he may minister to the ease, luxury, lust, pride or avarice of another, no better than himself." " The law leaves the chastity of a female slave entirely in the power of her master. If a master attempts their chastity they dare neither resist nor complain." Is this the protection which Kentucky extends to her domestic relations? Is this the protection of a free child in Kentucky? Let us now see what protection the Kentucky slave has in his earnings. I still quote David Rice : " All the slave receives, is the bare means of subsistence, and that is not bestowed until he has earned it ; and then, not in proportion to his labor, nor out of regard to him, but for selfish purposes." — David Rice. Is that the protection Kentucky law gives to Kentucky children in their earnings ? If so, may God send Kentucky children a speedy deliverance ! Rather, may He send Ken- tucky a ministry who will explain the gospel to be what it is, a defence of human rights ; and especially the rights of the laboring poor. I have now but one minute left, which I will use in giv- ing notice that I will compare the condition of an orphan child in Kentucky, without mother, father, uncles or aunts, or any other natural protector, — with that of the slave, in respect to protection from cruelty. And surely in such a case, the slave must have an equal protection with the child, if anywhere. But before I have fully done with this state- ment of my opponent, you will see that it is a most unhap- py declaration for him that made it. _ {Time expired, ^ 124 DISCUSSION [MR. rice's fifth SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators and Fellow-Citizens : No one, I presume, could learn from the speech of one hour, to which we have just listened, what is the subject under discussion. Those who heard, if not otherwise in- formed, would be likely to conclude, that I had undertaken to prove, that all the cruelties permitted by the laws of the slave-holding States, or practiced by wicked men, are right; and that Mr. B. was laboring to prove those cruehies sinful! If it was the purpose of the gentleman and his ten challen- gers to discuss that subject, why did they not propose the fol- lowing question: hit right to beat, abuse, and kill slaves? Why propose one subject for discussion, and then insist on discussing one radically different ? I do not intend to charge the gentlemen who invited this debate, with practi- cing deception; but certain it is, that their representative is spending his time on quite another theme. He might, with as much propriety, discuss the religious character of the grand Turk! What is the question before us? "/5 slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation between mas- ter and slave a sinful relation ? " Is every master a heinous and scandalous sinner, however kindly he may treat his slaves, and however conscientiously he may afford them re- lio-ious instruction ? Is a man to be condemned as a sinner, simply because he is a slave-holder? Have we heard one word from the gentleman on this subject ? He has occupied the time in declaiming concerning the cruel treatment of slaves which we, and indeed all decent men condemn as severely as he. Why has he spent an hour in denouncing what even the vilest men will not defend ? Is this community so de- graded ? Has public sentiment indeed become so corrupt, that all this denunciation is necessary to induce the people to detest inhuman cruelty ? Verily the gentleman pays you a poor compliment. I am resolved to keep the question under discussion dis- ON slavehy. 125 tlnctly before the audience. We are discussing simply the relation between master and slave. Is it in itself sinful ? Must every man sustaining this relation forthwith dissolve it without regard to circumstances, or expose himself to just condemnation as a heinous sinner ? For let it not be forgot- ten, that if the relation is in itself sinful, it must be immedi- ately abandoned without regard to circumstances or conse- quences. But if there are circumstances which justify it, for the time being, circumstances must determine whether in any given case it is sinful. Then it would not be proper to revolutionize society and tear up its very foundations in the attempt to abolish it. I am fully pursuaded, the gentleman will not discuss the question before us. Mark the prediction : he will not do it. Nevertheless, I will follow him in his remarks for a time. He says, he finds his principles justified by " the one-blood- is??i'^ of the New Testament. Are we to understand him as saying, that under all circumstances he would insist on car- rying out in practice his doctrine that all men are born free and equal ? Would he have every young woman in Eng- land claim to be in all respects equal to Victoria ? Does it follow from the fact that all are born equal, that all are to be reduced to the same condition in life? Would he denounce Queen Victoria, simply because she is Q,ueen of England? Is every king or emperor of Europe a heinous sinner, sim- ply because he exercises arbitrary power ? If not, where is the stopping point? How far may circumstances and the good of society justify restricting the privileges or liberties of individuals ? I claim no right to dictate to Mr. B. what course he shall pursue in his argument ; but I have the right, and it is my duty to expose his departure from the question before us, and his failure to adduce even the shadow of evidence of the truth of the proposition he affirms. I cannot, indeed, spend my time in singing psalms, as he suggests : but if he will furnish me with a few of the select songs sung by Bome of the colored fraternity during the late abolition con- 126 DISCUSSION vention in this city, I shall be glad to read them for the edi- fication of the audience. Perhaps Mr. Clark, the celebra- ted abolitionist singer, can furnish some of them. Shall I hope to obtain a few of them ? Mr. B. has told us truly, that when men contend for the truth their arguments will be consistent with each other. It does not follow, however, that his version of them will be so. Whilst I deny that my arguments are inconsistent with each other, I feel it to be my duty to apply his principles to his own statements ; which, if not inconsistent with each other, are contrary to truth. In one of his speeches last eve- ning, he made a statement which, in at least four particulars, turns out to be incorrect. He told us that the General As- sembly of the Presbyterian church, of 1818, passed a law making it obligatory on all the slave-holding members in the churches under their care to instruct their slaves, and pre- pare them for emancipation ; that Rev. J. D. Paxton, then of Virginia, obeyed the law of the church, instructing and emancipating his slaves ; that he was in consequence of pursuing this course, denounced as an abolitionist, and obliged to leave his church, and go to a free State ; and that no other individual had pursued a similar course. Now, in the first place, the General Assembly passed no such law. They recommended instruction with reference to emanci- pation. In the second place, Mr. Paxton was not the only individual who instructed and liberated his slaves. It is no- torious, that many others have done the same thing. In the third place, it is not true that he was obliged to leave his church because he instructed and liberated his slaves. He had some difficulty with his church, in consequence of some discourses on the subject of slavery, the precise character of which I do not know. In the fourth place, he did not go to a free State, but removed to Kentucky, and took the pastoral charge of the Presbyterian church in Danville — one of the largest and most respectable churches in the State. More- over, he is now pastor of a church near Shelbyville, in the same State ; and no minister in the State enjoys more full/ ON SLA'V'ERY. 127 the confidence of the churches, than he. So much for the gentleman's facts. ' But what was my inconsistency ? Why, I said that th^, abolition excitement had riveted the chains on the slave, and ao-oravated every evil connected with his condition ; and I said again, that, recently, the condition of the slaves has been much improved ; that there never was so much done to afford them religious instruction, as at this time. — This is all true, and all consistent. Abolitionism had its day ; and the excitement it produced, extended through the length and breadth of the land. It put it in the power of demagogues and designing men to break up the Sabbath schools in which the colored people were instructed, and to counteract, to a considerable extent, all efforts made by Christians to improve their condition. In Kentucky-, where there was a strong disposition amongst the people to adopt a plan of gradual emancipation, candidates for the Legisla- ture, however favorable to such an object, were unwilling to avow their sentiments, lest the opposing party, by branding them with abolitionism, might defeat their election. Such was the state of things, that any effort to improve the condi- tion of the slave population, seemed almost hopeless. But, thank God, a reaction has, to some extent, taken place. Christians have resumed their labors for the benefit ot the slaves. Prejudices have given way; and, in despite of abolitionism, the work of religious instruction is going forward. Southern and Western Christians are doing some- thing better than running slaves to Canada — an employment peculiar to abolitionists. Recently, a public meeting was held in Charleston, South Carolina, for the purpose of ma- turing plans for extending religious instruction more gene- rally to the slaves. One of the leading men in that Con- vention was Rev. C. C. Jones, who, though a man of no or- dinary talents, and of extensive learning, has devoted him- self, for more than twelve years, to the religious instruction of the negroes, and whose labors have been greatly blessed in the conversion of many of them. The Convention wa3 128 DISCUSSION also attended "by prominent political gentlemen, wlio lent all their influence to carry forward the benevolent enterprize. They have published, and circulated extensively, the report of their proceedings. In some of the letters addressed to the meeting, I was pleased to see statements of the number of slaves in the different churches who could read. So far as I know, there has never been manifested so deep an interest in the religious instruction of the slaves. This interest ex- tends through the West and South. Masters are found in the South, who erect churches on their own plantations, and pay from $500 to $800 to ministers of the gospel to preach statedly to them. Abolitionism has, indeed, done much to retard and hinder this good work ; and its influence is still felt; but I rejoice to know, that the Christians in the slave- holding States manifest so fixed a determination to give to the slaves the word of life. Dr. Bishop, we are told, had difficulty in instructing slaves in Kentucky thirty years ago ; and hence it is inferred, that the destruction of the Sabbath schools, a few years since, was not caused by abolitionism. Many and great changes have taken place in Kentucky in thirty years. Public senti- ment has been gradually elevated and purified by the gos- pel; and, in process 4)f time, there was a disposition on the part of Christians to see the slaves more generally taught the glorious truths of divine revelation. To this there was no opposition of sufficient strength to prevent them. But the abolition excitement arose, and put it in the power of every demagogue to get up so much opposition, that in a lit- tle time, every school, I believe, was closed. Thus were the efforts of good men, to improve the condition of the slaves, effectually hindered by the ill-judged course of abolitionists. By the way, some of the best laws of Kentucky, relative to the slaves, have been very recently passed. At the time to which I have reference, it is true, there was no law against teaching the slaves to read ; but prejudice once excited, was as strong as law ; and that prejudice was excited by abolition- ists. Even, in Cincinnati, scenes were enacted in connection ON SLAVERY. 129 with this excitement, and crueUies were practiced upon the colored population, which every respectable citizen must con- demn and denounce. Is it, then, surprising that, in Ken- tucky, the Sabbath schools were broken up ? But the gentleman dwells on the cruelty of wicked men toward the slaves, as if he were resolved to make the im- pression, that I have engaged to defend it, and he, in great benevolence, is laboring to convince you that it is sinful. — Surely, he regards the audience as very stupid, if he expects to convince them that all this declamation is to the point. I have been engaged in several debates, in which I thought my opponent pursued a singular course ; but I must confess, the gentleman excells them all ! [A laugh.] I have seen the book to which he refers as authority for the statement, that Rev. Mr. Nourse said he saw a minister publicly whipping a negro woman ; and it is not true that Mr. N. says he saw any such thing. He is made to say, that the Rev. Mr. told him that he saw Rev. Mr. do this thing. The amount of it is this : Rev. Mr. Nourse told Rev. Mr. Somebody, the Rev. Mr. Somebody saw Rev. Mr. Nobody do this cruel thing. I am done! — [a laugh.] — But, says the gentleman, these are 'printed documents. Un- fortunately, however, the fact that a story is printed^ is no evidence of its truth at this day. I have no confidence in this second-handed and third-handed testimony against the character of ministers of the gospel. They are no better than Romish traditions. Men print all sorts of things now- a-days. For example ; let me read an extract from the Ed- inhurg Witness^ a Scotch paper, professedly religious, the author of which professes to WTite what he knows. I have already referred to it. " What shall we think," says the writer, " of the state of society, where a minister of the gospel^ with credit to him- self, avails himself of the Sabbath for inflicting spet ial pun- ishment, as is usual, that field-labor may not be int( rrupted, and being engaged in flogging a poor negro, when the hour of worship comes, leaves his victim fastened to the ipo^t^ goes 130 DISCUSSION I • to the house of prayer, conducts the worship, dispenses the communion, comes back, and, with unabated zeal, goes on with his barbarous work ?" I Of such couduct, this writer says, ministers of the gospel can be guilty "with credit to themselves," and it "is usu- al." I pronounce the whole statement one of the grossest slanders ever invented by the father of lies. I defy all abo- litionists to produce the slightest evidence of its truth. Such are the potent arguments by which abolitionists seek to abol- ish slavery ! Can we wonder that the people of the slave- holding States, thus slandered and outraged, have lost all confidence in the abolitionists, and utterly refuse to hear them ? ' But the gentleman has brought forward the testimony of a Mr. Hawley, who brings serious charges against a certain minister, and against a Presbyterian elder. I place no con- fidence in such testimony. If he saw the things concerning which he testifies, he knew what was his duty as a Chris- tian. Why did he not inform the Session and the Presbyte- ry of the facts? Then had they refused to subject the offen- ders to the discipline of the church, he might, with proprie- ty, have denounced them. Mr. H. gives no names. I de- sire to know the names of the men. Then if the charges are false, they may vindicate themselves ; and if true, let them bear the reproach. Give us evidence that we have in our church such wretches, and I will prosecute them even to the highest court of the church. The gentleman shall not be troubled with the prosecution. But now suppose all these disgusting details of cruelty, to which we have been treat- ed, be true to the letter, does it follow that the relation of master and slave is in itself sinful? — that where no such cruelty is practiced, it is yet sinful? But a little colored boy in New Orleans, we are told, was cruelly beaten, and there was no law to protect him. Ad- mit the story to be true, I do not undertake to defend the laws of Louisiana. Are we discussing the question whether those laws are right or wrong ? There is no State whose ON SLAVERY. 131 laws are what they should be on all subjects. Those of Kentucky are not by any means perfect. Yet the gentle- man ought not, in his denunciation, to forget that even the law of Moses permitted the master to enforce obedience by chastisement. — Exod. xxi : 20, 21. "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished : for he is his money J^ Will the gentleman say, this law related not to slaves, but to hired servants? This will not mend the matter ; for it will prove, that even hired servants might be severely chastised. The truth is clear, that the master was allowed to enforce obedience by chastisement, whilst all the protection possible was extended to the slave. Will Mr. B. denounce the Bible, and be governed by nature's light ? If so, we may hope, that he will not be so inconsistent as to abandon the Declaration of Independence, and permit the negroes to be deprived of the right to vote in making the laws by which they are to be governed. Just now he seems pressed by the principles of abolitionism. He has read what the Synod of Kentucky said against what is called the system of slavery. Am I liere to defend any system of slavery? Does the question before us relate to the system of American slavery 1 When I deny that slave- holding is in itself sinful, do I thereby defend all the laws by which in any of the States it may be regulated 1 Or do I approve the cruelty of wicked men 1 I agree with the Synod of Kentucky, that there is much evil connected with slavery. I believe that the State of Kentucky would do wisely to get rid of it. I do desire that it should everywhere come to an end. But Mr. B. has referred to my venerated kinsman. Rev. David Rice, to prove that in Kentucky the slave has not the same protection from the cruelty of his master, which a child has from the cruel treatment of his father. It is true, that David Rice was an eminently wise and good man — one whose memory is dear to many an aged disciple in Kentucky. 132 DISCUSSION He said, slavery degrades human beings. Admit it; but is every slave-holder obliged thus to tread down his slaves, as much as the civil laws permit ? Or is a slave-holder who does no such thing, still chargeable with heinous and scan- dalous sin? But as to the protection afforded the slaves in Kentucky, does the pamphlet of Rev. David Rice treat of their 2)rese?it condition ? It was written when he was a young man, before the constitution was adopted. He lived to an advanced age, and has been a number of years in his grave. Plis pamphlet, therefore, can give no information concerning the state of things now. He spoke of slavery as it existed, not particularly in Kentucky, but in New York, and in other States. As to his anti-slavery views, it is proper to remark, that he was a member of the convention by which the con- titution of the State was formed. Standing in that position, he plead that slavery should be excluded by the constitution, and that Kentucky should be a free State. Would to God that convention had listened to him and adopted his views. My native State would have been greatly the gainer thereby. So the majority of the people, I presume, now believe. With my present views I would take the same ground, if placed in similar circumstances, which he took. But his wise counsels were not heeded ; and slavery was admitted. Our discus- sion relates exclusively to the duty of individuals living in those States where the evil has been admitted. David Rice, having failed to exclude slavery from the State, preached the gospel ever afterwards both to master and slave, just as did Paul and the other apostles of Christ. Never did he treat masters as criminals, simply because they were masters. Ho opposed the system, as it is called, but very properly dis- tinguished between the duty of the State and the duty of individuals living in the State, after slavery was admitted. I choose to pursue the same course. It is wrong, then, to quote that venerable man as teaching doctrines different from those I am defending. But abolitionism sustains itself by misrep- resentations of this kind. Whilst on the subject of cruelties, I remember, that very ON SLAVERY. 133 recently a black man was murdered in the streets of Indian- apolis, for no crime whatever. Had such a thing happened in a slave-holding State, we should not soon have heard the last of it. It would have stood prominent in abolition books, tracts and papers. But it happened in a free State ; and therefore, we hear little concerning it. The gentleman has not had occasion to speak of it ! Why are such things so lightly passed over, when they occur in a free State, and so bitterly denounced when they occur in the slave-holding States ? Let impartial justice be done. But, as we have had so many facts stated, showing the cruelty of slave-holders, it may be proper for me also to state a few. Some years since, as I am credibly informed, a citizen of Danville, Ky., sold a negro woman from her hus- band to a slave-trader. It was soon known in the town ; and such was the excitement that he was constrained to fol- low the slave-holder, and re-purchase the woman at consid- erable loss. He could scarcely have lived there, if he had not done so. Not a great many years ago, a prominent citi- zen of Lexington came near being mobbed, because he had cruelly chastised a negro woman. And Dr. Drake, of Louis- ville, whilst travelling through Alabama, not long since, met a sheriff and his posse returning from the penitentiary where they had safely lodged a man who owned a plantation and a number of slaves. He had been convicted of the murder of one of his slaves, chiefly on circumstantial evidence de- rived through his slaves, and was sentenced for ten years, if my memory serves me. Such facts show the real state of feeling in the slave-holding States. It is, perhaps, true, as the gentlemen says, that a white man is rarely executed for the murder of a negro ; and I may add, they are not very frequently executed for the mur- der of white men. The laws, it is admitted, are not strictly executed. His non-resistant brethren of New England, how- ever, are for abolishing all capital punishment. Yet, our western abolitionists maintain that slave insurrections are right, and that it would be a damning sin to suppress one of 134 DISCUSSION them ! May we not hope they will catch the pacific spirit of some of their eastern brethren? I must here say a few words in regard to the protection the slaves enjoy, from cruel treatment, in Kentucky. I did not say, as the gentleman seems to understand me, that the slave has all the advantages of a child, but simply that he is, by law, protected from cruelty on the part of the master. My remarks on this subject were made in view of the fol- lowing article in the Watchman of the Valley. ^'■Nothing wrong in the relation itself. — Dr. Edward Beecher, at the late meeting of the Massachusetts Abolition society, adduced the following law case : a man was tried in North Carolina, for shooting his own female slave. Judge Ruffin decided, that, according to slave law, the act could not be pronounced criminal, because the master must have unli- mited control over the body of his slaves, or the system CANNOT STAND. In regard to this decision, the judge con- fessed, that he felt its harshness, and that every person in his retirement must repudiate it ; but in the actual state of things it must be so: there is no remedy^' "According to the decision, then, of a southern judge, extorted from him by the inexorable necessity of his legal logic, in opposition to his humane feelings, the relation of slavery, as constituted by law, is, in itself cruel, authorizing the unlimited control of the master over the body of his slave, life not excepted. Why ? Because without such control, the system could not stand ; i e. the relation could not exist, as it is now legally constituted. No sin in such a relation ? Then there is no sin, a Carolina jurist being judge, for doing whatever is necessary (be it stripes, torture, or death,) to preserve this sinless, lawful relation !" Dr. E. Beecher, and the editor, were agreed that the rela- tion of master and slave could not continue, unless the mas- ter had the right to kill his slave ! Now let us look at the law of Kentucky, on this subject, passed in 1830 — long since Dr. Bishop had his difficulty. You see, this law affords evidence conclusive, that the condition of the slaves has im- ON SLAVERY. 135 proved, the gentleman's assertion to the contrary notwith- standing. The law is as follows : " If any owner of a slave shall treat such slave cruelly and inhumanly, so as in the opinion of the jury to endanger the life or limb of such slave, or shall not supply his slave with sufficient food and raiment, it shall and may be lawful for any person acquainted with the fact or facts, to state and set forth in a petition to the Circuit Court, the facts, or any of them aforesaid, of which the defendent hath been guilty, and pray that such slave or slaves may be taken from the possession of the owner, and sold for the benefit of such owner, agreeably to the 7th article of the Constitution." According to this law, you perceive, if a jury of twelve disinterested men can be convinced, that a master treats his slave cruelly, or fails to supply him with sufficient food and raiment, the slave is sold into better hands ; and the master pays the costs of the suit. Has the child more protection against the cruel treatment of a father ? May not a father chastise his child very severely without being exposed to the penalty of the civil law ? I do not undertake to defend the slave laws of Kentucky, but only to make good the state- ment called in question by the gentleman. I have now paid due attention to all the gentleman has offered. He says, I ought rather to answer the arguments he offers, than complain that he does not present others. The ques- tion under discussion is this : " Is slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation?" If he will mention one argument he has offered on this point, I will immediately reply to it. He and I agree that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and prac- tice, and that nothing can be condemned as sinful, unless it can be shown to be contrary to that rule. If I were debat- ing with an infidel, I might take different ground ; but, as a minister of the gospel, he is bound to abide by the decision of the law which he holds to be inspired of God. Has he adduced one solitary passage of Scripture to prove that slave- 136 , DISCUSSION holding is in itself sinful ? What single text has he quoted? Not one. Then what have I to answer ? His great argument, if argument it can be called, is this : Wicked masters treat their slaves cruelly ; therefore the rela- tion between master and slave is a sinful relation. By an argument precisely similar, as I have repeatedly stated, I can prove the conjugal relation in itself sinful. Many husbands treat their wives cruelly ; therefore it is a sin to enter into the marriage relation. But he charges me with placing the relation between master and slave upon an equality with that of husband and w^ife. I do no such thing ; but I maintain, that he has no right to urge against the relation of master and slave, an argument which, if sound, will sweep away every other relation. His argument proves too much, and, therefore, proves nothing. He cannot consistently urge it, unless he is prepared to go the whole length with Robert D lie Owen, and sweep away entirely the marriage relation. In every other relation men distinguish between the relation itself and the particular laws by w^hich it may be regulated, and the conduct of wicked men in the relation. Why does the gentleman so constantly insist upon an entire depar- ture from an admitted principle, when he comes to reason concerning the relation between master and slave ? In Hindostan the wife is in law and in fact more degrad- ed, than any slave on a southern plantation. Whilst com- pelled to yield to her lord implicit obedience, she is not per- mitted to enjoy the poor consolations of the Hindoo religion. She is believed to have no soul ; is degraded to the condition of a brute ; and when her husband dies, she is burned upon his funeral pile. No slave is so degraded in the eyes of his master, unless he be an atheist. Shall we, then, argue, that, since in Hindostan the wife is the degraded slave of the husband ; therefore, the relation is sinful ? Nay, not only in Hindostan, but over a large portion of the globe, the wife is thus degraded. Still the conclusion does not follow, that the relation is sinful, because regulated by unjust and cruel laws. This argument bears with equal force upon the parental ON sla\t:ry. 137 relation. Hindoo mothers expose their infants on the banks of the Ganges. Infanticide has been common in the islands of the South seas. The ancient Roman laws gave the father power over the life of his children. Shall we conclude, that, because the laws by which in different countries this relation has been regulated, are unjust and cruel, and because unfeeling parents have treated their children cruelly, there- fore the parental relation is sinful ? Were I to reason thus, my logic would be quite as conclusive as that urged by Mr. Blanchard. His logic is indeed very sweeping. It stops not with destroying the relation of master and slave, but car- ries before it all the relations of life. It strikes at the foun- dations of civil government. For it is a fact, that the dark- est pages of this world's history, are those wdiich record the oppression, the tyranny, and the cruelty w^hich have been practiced in the name and under the sanction of civil law. Nero practised all his cruelties by virtue of his office as a civil ruler ; and all the forms of tyranny on earth, are but organized governments. Shall we say, what an abominable thing is civil government ! how detestable the relation be- tween ruler and subject ! What crimes against God are committed under its sanction ! How fearfully the innocent are made to suffer under its strong arm ! Dowti wnth all civil government ! The relation between ruler and subject is a sinful relation ; therefore, Avash your hands of it at once ! To such results does this gentleman's principles of reasoning infallibly tend. His brethren, the abolitionists of the East, at least many of them, have carried out these principles, and do in fact denounce all civil government as in itself sinful, and every individual engaged in its administration, as a heinous sinner, because men have been oppressed and de- prived of their rights by its operation! The gentleman's logic proves far more than he would be willing to admit. It begins with destroying the relation of master and slave, and ends with sweeping away the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, ruler and subject ! All are swept away by 138 DISCUSSION one fell swoop. What glorious liberty men will enjoy, when these principles shall have been carried out ! Such arguments, every intelligent hearer must at once perceive, prove nothing; are absolutely worthless. The question before us is not whether bad laws may be enacted to regulate a certain relation ; or whether in that relation wicked men may be guilty of cruelty ; but whether the rela- tion itself obliges those who sustain it to act in this way. If Mr. B. can prove, that every master, or any master, is obliged to treat his slaves cruelly, I will forthwith yield the question. If he cannot, then circumstances must deter- mine whether, in any given case, the master is guilty of sin. The gentleman told you truly, that when a man is con- tending for the truth, his arguments will be consistent one with another. I am happy to be able, now, to apply his principle to himself, that you may see the very awkward predicament in which he has placed himself He has occu- pied his time, partly in relating isolated cases of cruelty, practiced by wicked masters, several of which have been proved untrue, and none of which have any applicability to the question under discussion; and partly in telling you what slave-holding is. How has he defined or described slave-holding? By enumerating the worst laws of ancient Greece and Rome, and of some of the southern States, and asserting that these laws are the thing itself He insists that those laws are essential to the existence of slavery — that the relation cannot exist without them. Let him only j)rove this, and I give up the question. If the relation of master and slave cannot exist without cruel laws and inhuman treatment, away with it. Let us, then, inquire whether these things are essential to the existence of the relation. But, first, mark how differently the gentleman reasons concerninof this relation and others. He insists that all the bad laws which are made to regulate the relation of master and slave, are essential to its existence ; but when I refer to the cruel laws by which other relations have been regulated, he at once distinguishes between the bad laws and the relation. ON SLAA'^RT. 139 When I ask, in view of the degrading laws, by which, over so large a portion of the earth, the marriage relation has been regulated, whether it is in itself sinful, he finds no difficulty in admitting that the laws are wrong, and the rela- tion right. Although he makes the recognition .of marriage, by the civil law, essential to its validity, yet he does not condemn the relation because the laws are bad. And when he is pointed to the bad laws by which the relation of parent and child has often been regulated, does he contend that those laws are essential to the relation? By no means. The civil law recognizes the relation and regu- lates it ; and he finds no difficulty in discriminating between the relation, as recognized by law, and the particular laws for for its regulation. But the gentleman may. tell you, that these relations are right, because instituted by God ; whereas the relation of master and slave is wholly the creature of law, and conse- quently all the cruel laws are part and parcel of the thing itself I reply, that organized civil government — the rela- tion between ruler and subject — is not properly a 7iatural relation, but is established by men. Will it be pretended, that all the oppressive laws, and all the tyranny connected with civil government, are essential to the relation between ruler and ruled? Civil government, we know, is, in a sense, of divine appointment ; and the relations belonging to it are right. Mr. B. finds no difficulty in distinguishing between the relation of governor and governed, and the ten thousand bad laws by which men have sought to regulate this relation. The truth is, that in regard to all relations, whether natural or constituted by the organization of human society, there is a broad distinction to be made between each relation, and the lav/s enacted for its regulation. Why, then, I ask, must the relation of master and slave be confounded and identified with all the particular laws enacted for its regulation ? Are we, for the special accomodation of abolitionism, to reason about this relation as we do about no other ? Does it require special advantages in order to sustain its claims? 1 40 DISCUSSION Let it be kept in mind, that if anything which is essential to the relation of master and slave, be taken from it, the relation itself ceases to exist. Now it is a fact, that accord- ing to the slave laws of Rome the master had unlimited power over the life of the slave. This, Mr. B. says, was rather a custoin than a law. I will read the law on this point, as quoted by the Biblical Repository, from the Jus- tinian Code. This is a New-England publication ; it comes from a region where, it is said, the spirit of freedom prevails. I read in vol. 6. p. 419. " All slaves are in the power of their masters, which power is derived from the law of nations ; for it is equally observable among all nations, that masters have had the power of life and death over their slaves ; and that whatsoever is acquired by the slave, is acquired for the mas- ter." Now Mr. B. contends, that all the slave laws are essential to the existence of slavery. Then if the power over the life of the slave be taken from the master, the rela- tion must cease to exist ; because one of its essential features has been destroyed. If, then, his principles are correct, Kentucky is actually a free State ; for there the master has not power over the life of his slaves; and, therefore, an essen- tial feature of the relation being wanting, the relation itself does not exist ! This argument applies with equal force to most, if not all, the other slave-holding States ; for in no one of them, I believe, has the master any such power. Con- sequently, we reach the conclusion, that they are all free States ! Again. The law forbidding slaves to be taught to read, we have been told, is essential to the existence of slavery. But in Kentucky there is no such law ; therefore Kentucky is a free State ! And it is a fact, that, years before New- York abolished slavery, a law was passed for having the slaves instructed. Though, according to Mr. B.'s logic, slavery was abolished when that law was passed ! yet it is a fact, that the relation between master and slave existed there for a number of years after the law was passed. I might give other examples, were it necessary. ON SLAVERY. 141 But the gentleman's argument also proves the Presby- terian Church to be an abolitionist church ; for her law for- bids all cruelty toward slaves, the separation of husbands and wives, Jo — he was before a slave. I have not reduced him from a state of freedom into a state of bondage. That would be kidnapping. But I purchase, at his own request, a right to his labor, for the express purpose of placing him in a better and a happier condition. Yet, our charitable friends, wholly indisposed to give even a sixpence to redeem any hu- man being, brand me for this as a robber, and a " kidnapper of soul and body!" Let me again revert to the case already mentioned, of a Presbyterian elder in Kentucky, who became heir to a large number of slaves, some old and nearly helpless, others, wo- men and children, incapable of supporting themselves. When the duty of immediate emancipation was urged, he inquired of the brethren in Synod what they would have him do. Was it his duty to turn them all out to provide for themselves? Was it his duty to give bond and security that they should never become a public expense? Was he bound to separate husbands and wives, and remove his slaves to Ohio ? No man in Synod could give him advice of this ON SLAVERY. 193 kind. I have presented lo the gentleman this plain case and called upon him to say what the elder was bound to do. He is silent. Why will he not answer? Because he cannot. I have also presented the case of a gentle- man in Boston, who fell heir to a plantation and slaves in the South ; and I have asked Mr. B. what was his duty? He is silent. Yet, according to his doctrine, those excellent men held their slaves by a "kidnapper's title," and w^re guil- ty of the sin of man-stealing ! They both resolved to live amongst their slaves, and endeavor to do their duty to them. Will Mr. B. " shew us a better way ?" Do you believe, they were guilty of the sin of kidnapping ? Common sense de- cides unhesitatingly, that they were not. The law of God denounces no man, because he cannot perform impossibili- ties. The gentleman's third argument is, that by admitting sla- very to be an evil. I, of necessity, admit slave-holding to be in itself sinful. And here let me turn aside to notice his ardent wish, that 1 had said to the last General Assembly, what I have said here, concerning the evil of slavery. The duty of the Committee, of which I had the honor to be the chairman, was simply to report on the memorials presented •to the Assembly. Of these petitions and memorials, ( and their number was much smaller than the abolitionist prints have represented them,) none, so far as my memory serves me, asked the Assembly to decide whether American slavery is an evil or not. Some of them desired that body to devise means by which the condition of the slaves might be amelio- rated, with a view to the ultimate removal of slavery. What was their reply? They said — " The apostles of Christ sought to ameliorate the condition of slaves, not by denounc- ing and ex-communicating their masters^ but by teaching both masters and slaves the glorious doctrines of the gospel, and enjoining upon each the discharge of their relative duties. Thus only can the church of Christ, as such, now improve the condition of the slaves in our country." The apostles devised no other plan ; and the Assembly did not claim to be lo 194 discussion' "wiser than they. And have those who have bitterly denounc- ed the action of that body, shown themselves wiser? A convention of Congregationalists and New School Presbyte- rian ministers met, not long since, in Detroit ; and they passed resolutions condemnatory of American slavery ; but what plan did they devise for the removal of it ? None what- ever. Yet some of them dealt out unmeasured condemna- tion to the General Assembly, because that body could not do what the Convention did not attempt ! Another class of memorialists, the abolitionists, asked the* Assembly to make slave-holding a bar to christian fellow- ship, on the ground, that it is a heinous and scandalous sin. They replied, that they could not do this, because the Apos- tles of Christ did not so act. They received slave-holders into the church v^^ithout requiring them to manumit their slaves. For this decision, the Assembly was denounced as " pro-slavery.''^ I must hero notice a very gross misrepresentation of the action to the Assembly. Because that body expressed their satisfaction at learning that increasing efforts are being made in the slave-holding States, to have the gospel preached to the slaves, they are charged with approving the withholding of the word of God from the slaves, as the Pope withholds it from his followers ! Now the gentleman cannot help seeing that this charge is not true. What was the action of the As- sembly on this point ? They said — " Every Christian and philanthropist should certainly seek, by all peaceable and law- ful means, the repeal of unjust and oppressive laws, and the amendment of such as are defective, so as to protect the slaves from cruel treatment by wicked men, and secure to them the right to receive religious instruction^ Now, what laws are those, the repeal of which the Assembly said, should be sought ? There never were laws in any of the slave-holding States, which forbid slaves to receive oral instruction. The laws referred to, therefore, were those which forbid their being taught to read the Wordof God. Yet that body is charged ON SLAVERY. 195 with approving the withholding of the Scriptures from the slaves ! [Mr. Blanchard here explained, that he did not charge the Assembly with seeldng to withhold the Bible from the slaves, but with approving the course of instruction pursued in the South, which embraced only oral instruction.] Very well. I now, then, ask my brother, is it right, or wrong, to give to slaves oral instruction, touching the way of salvation? to preach to them the word of life? He admits that it is right: he cannot do otherwise. Yet, he blames ma and the Assembly for approving and rejoicing in that which is right, — for rejoicing that the poor slaves are permitted, in any way, to be instructed in the gospel of Christ. The Assembly did not approve the withholding of the Bible from them. On the contrary, they urged the propriety of repeal- insf those laws which forbid their beinof tauofht to read it. But they did rejoice, that they heard the gospel, by the faith of which, they may be saved. But I really begin to fear, our abolition friends will not let the Southern slaves have the gospel at all. The laws forbid their reading it, and ih^ abolitionists will not go there to preach it to them, nor let us commend those who do. On the contrary, they teach prin- ciples Avhich, if carried out, would banish every minister from the South. Then, what would be the condidon of the slaves ? What would be their prospects for eternity ? But he says I am for removing slavery " pretty considerably soon." I admit that I have never preached, as have the Cincinnati Abolition Society, that every slave is bound to run away from his master, or that the slaves, in a body, are morally bound to get up an insurrection. No : I am not quite so much in haste to secure their liberty, as to " do evil that good may come." I am for removing the evil as soon as it tan be done consistently with the safety of the parties concerned. But I hold, that there are other duties besides that of giving liberty to the slaves, which I am not at liberty to disregard. I have never read the resolution which the gentlemaa 196 DISCUSSION says Prof. Thornwell advocated, and therefore can express no opinion concerning it. All I can say, is, that if he does not hold slavery to be an evil, I differ from him on that point. The doctrine of the American Colonization Society is that slavery is an evil : they propose one way to get rid of it: I shall be glad when I hear our abolition friends point out a better. But if slavery is an evil, the gentleman argues that slave- holding must be in itself a sin. That remains to be proved. It may be admitted, that " the system of American slavery" is a great evil, the removal of which should be sought in all proper ways ; and yet it may not be the duty of every slave- holder immediately to manumit his slaves. Some of those circumstances have been mentioned. Nay, circumstances may exist, in which a real injury would be done to the slaves by their liberation. A despotic government is a great evil, and the Roman government was most oppressive and arbitrary in its treat- ment, especially of the Provinces. Does it follow, of course, that every officer who aided in administering that govern- ment, was an atrocious sinner? The Russian government is a depotism, and was most cruel and oppressive to the Poles: therefore, every officer, civil or military, and every private man in that country, who takes an oath of allegiance to the government, is a great sinner, and ought to be excom- municated ! Such is the absurdity of the principle upon which the gentleman undertakes to prove slave-holding m itself sinful. It is most manifestly unsound. On the con- trary, I maintain, that when by buying and holding a slave, I can materially improve his condition, the golden rule, which bids us do to others as we would that they should do to us, requires me to do it. And although I hold slavery to be a o-reat evil, yet, in purchasing a slave, under' such cir- cumstances, I am committing no sin, but am doing what the law of God requires. I. But the gentleman quoted the passage : " Love worketh ON SLAVERY. 197 no ill to Ills neighbor." Very true : it does not. And do I do an injury to my neighbor in the case I have just stated? The tears of gratitude, on many a black cheek, tell a very different tale. What ! because I cannot do him all the good I would, do I injure him by doing what good I can? If I am not able, without disregarding other paramount duties, to buy him and give him his liberty ; or if circumstances are such, that m.anumission could not improve his condition ; 3'et, if I greatly better his condition in that relation, and do this at his own earnest request, do I violate the law of love ? — What profound absurdit}" ! Yet this is the force of the gentleman's argument ! I leave the audience to determine whether it proves slavery to be in itself sinful, and the rela- tion of master and slave a sinful relation. I have never pleaded that slavery ought to have existed, or that it ought to be continued. Never. All I insist on is, that the slave-holder should not be denounced as the worst of malefactors because he finds himself born in the midst of it. And especiallj^, that he is not to be called a kidnapper who does for a supplicating slave the best that, under existing circumstances, he is able. When I sat down;, I was urging against the doctrine of the abolitionists the fact, that the coarse which their faith leads them to pursue, is very different from the course of the Apostles who lived in the midst of slavery in its worst forms. I stated, that the faith of our abolition friends does not lead them to go into the midst of a slave-holding community, and preach and remonstrate as the Apostles did, against prevail- ing sins. They stay at home and publish papers containing libels on christian ministers, such as that on JVlr. Stiles ; and they feel at liberty to spread such libels merely because they find them in a newspaper, (just as if newspapers never lied!) and they can abuse and denounce all slave-holders, and teach that the slaves ought to run from their masters, however kind they may be ; that they would be justified in rising in a general insurrection and cutting the throats of their masters. But did Paul take this method of converting men from Paganism? 198 DISCUSSION Did he thus seek to abolish Roman slavery ? Never. I say, then, the fact that the practice of the abolitionists is in direct contrast to that of the Apostles, affords the strongest evidence that their doctrine is not the doctrine of the apos- tles. The man is even regarded as a good abolitionist, who denounces the whole Amercan Church en masse, as made of the vilest of malefactors! Is this the spirit of the Apostles ? By the way, the gentleman referred to the laws and cus- toms of ancient Sparta, where theft was not regarded as a crime, but rather as a virtue, if the thief were not detected ; and he asks, whether we ought not to preach in such a com- munity the doctrine, that theft is in itself sinful ? Ought we not to proclaim the command — " Thou shalt not steal ? " Pre- cisely so. The language of the law is clear and conclusive authority. And now all that I ask of him, is to produce a prohibition equally clear of slave-holding. Let him produce the law which says — " Thou shalt not hold slaves." I ask not for the precise words, but for a law which by fair inference forbids it ; and so soon as it can be produced, I will yield the question. Till he can produce such a law, his reference to Sparta will not help his cause. I repeat it, if the abolitionists held the principles of the Apostles of Christ, they would act as the Apostles acted. But mark the contrast. They remain at a distance, and de- nounce slave-holders ; the Apostles went amongst them, and preached the gospel to masters and slaves. They seek to ren- der the slaves dissatisfied, and to run them to Canada ; the Apostles commanded them to be obedient to their masters, and to serve them with all fidelity. They justify slave in- surrections. Point me to the passage in the epistles of Paul and Peter, which gave the slightest encouragement to slaves to form an insurrection against their masters. Yet slavery, far more intolerable than that which exists in our country, existed all around them. The fruits being different, the doc- trine is different, else our Lord was mistaken, when he said, " The tree is known by its fruit." ON SLAVERY 199 My next argument against the doctrine of the gentleman, is this: (And it is, like the last, a practical argument.) The actual tendency of abolitionism is to perpetuate, not to abolish, slavery, and to aggravate all its evils : and especially, to take away a preached gospel both from master and slave. The abolition papers abound in details of the most extreme cases of the cruel treatment of the slaves ; and those cases, such as rarely ever occur, are held up as common occurren- ces, as characteristic of slavery. When the people of the slave States see this unfair course systematically followed, its necessary effect is to irritate them in a very high degree : for a good man, as the gentleman has said, may be made mad by injustice. Such a course of conduct kills all confidence in those who would, as they profess, turn their brethren from sin. The Southern slave-holders, seeing such gross misrep- resentations of their character and conduct published to the world, regard abolitionists as base slanderers: and so be- lieving, is it strange that their homilies have no manner of influence at the South, unless it be the very reverse of that which is professedly sought ? It is vain for men who run off their slaves, and preach insurrection to those that remain, to attempt to influence the people of the slave-holding States. He who knows anything of human nature, must know that it is impossible. But they take care not to preach their doctrines in person. No, no. They say to their ministerial brethren, in the slave States, '• Brethren, be faithful — lift up your voice like a trum- pet — clear your skirts of the blood of the slave." Yes : and Avhy will not you come over and help us do it ? Ah, that is another affair. The brother said, he w^ould be willing to die at the end of his speech, if he could but persuade all this audience to become abolitionists ; but he is in free Ohio. I believe he has never gone over the river, to show how cheer- fully he would lose his life in this good cause. [A laugh.] But they tell us, if they go into slave States, they will be persecuted! Suppose this true : what then? Did persecu- 200 DISCUSSION. tion Stop the Apostles? Were not they persecuted? aye, and put to death, while testifying the truth? n But now, supposing- all the ministers at the South should turn abolitionists, before tomorrow morning, w^hat would be the result? We should see them come teeming over the Ohio, like squin-els, with the wind in their tails. In a few dn^'s not a minister would be left, and neither slave nor mas- ter would hear the gospel more ! Yet, if slavery is ever to be abolished in the slave-hold- ing States, the gospel, it is admitted, must do it. All our old churches in the older free States were formed and organ- ized by slave-holders, and in the midst of slave-holding. They admitted slave-holders, without hesitation, to member- ship in the church. The brother himself, I have little doubt, came out from such a church. All the churches began with just such doctrines as are now preached in the South and West. Yet, in many of the States, slavery has been abolished. Public sentiment was gradually moulded and elevated under the influence of the gospel, until the work was quietly effected. The gospel will abolish it in the residue, if abolished it ever shall be. And how ? By its soul-elevating, and purifying principles and spirit, brought to bear directly on the slave-holder: not by denunciations and slanders, hurled at him through tracts and newspapers. He will awake at the still small voice of love ; not at the thun- ders of excommunication. But if you take the gospel out of the Southern States, how are they ever to be delivered from the evil ? This is the direct tendency of abolition : it kills the only influence that ever will induce Southern mas- ters to liberate their slaves. [Time expired. ON SLAVERY. 201 Thursday Evening, 9 o'clock. [MR, BLANCHARd's EIGHTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies, Felloic- Citizens : I am not certain that I shall be able to detain you for thirty- minutes. I shall notice a few things which my brother has said, and then if I feel the pain in my head less, I shall pro- ceed, I should be more happy if my brother would waive the privilege, of seeming to accuse me of unwillingness to meet the question. As regularly as a clock, when he rises, he strikes the hour of the debate, and then tells you what I have not done, and what he fully believes that I will not do. Many of his arguments I have met. Yet, leaving these, he tells you I have ''not answered his argument from the golden rule," etc. I have prepared an argument on that subject, which I will deliver at the proper time. He tells you, also, for the third or fourth time, what Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Chalmers have said concerning abolitionism. I have also an argument on the general subject of authorities, these in- cluded. It would not be necessary to notice these affkma- tions of his about myself, but for that they may lead some simple minds to suppose that I am not here, as a Christian man, to meet and reply to every point vital to this debate. He does not appear to be doing much himself, or to have any sentiments which he is anxious to prove, except con- cerning myself For this, he told you, very logically and gravely, that I was " the most remarkable man for mis- representation of facts, whom he had ever heard speak," I think my friend is in danger of falling into the sin of scoff- inof and railinsf. He gave you, however, a reply to what I said upon his lauding those Southern Presbyterians, who, professing to teach slaves, withhold the Bible from them. He says he " does not praise their Bible-withholding, but he praises the oral instruction wdiich they do give ! " This is capital. 202 DISCUSSION But why docs lie not treat the Papists in the same way? Do they not give much good oral instruction? Why not praise them for that, and blink at their withholding the Bi- ble ? The steward of the ship in which I came across the Atlantic, was a Roman Catholic, yet a faithful, conscientious man. He had his Douay Bible, which he read often. He had also some excellent tracts, which he kept^ carefully, and read. He prayed daily ; and I would, after careful obser- vation, sooner take his chance of heaven than that of many a slavery-defending protestant minister. So also, a nurse, on board, had been taught, in infancy, by her Papist mother, to pray — " Our Father" and ^^now I lay me down to sleep" — as my mother taught me. Why does my brother conduct a paper against Roman Catholics, and yet laud slave-holding Presbyterians, who teach religion upon the same plan? viz: giving some good oral instruction, yet withholding the Bi- ble ? He tells you that he condemns the Papists for the er- rors which they teach. And is it not a damning error in Presbyterians to withhold the Bible from those whom Christ has commanded to "search the ScEiptures?" I dislike to bring forward the derelictions of my brother ; but there are Sv.me things which have Mien from him, which, if 1 pass unnoticed, I might be thought to counte- nance. I mean his sneers at the " colored fraternit}^," their " hymns," etc., etc. I spoke of the enslaving of smiling, helpless, unconscious "infancy," etc. My brother told you that I described a little babe smiling in its mother's arms, but that I ^^ did not say whether it teas handsome;" refer- ring, I suppose, to its colored skin. Now, I suppose that every babe is handsome to its mother at least; and I must take leave to say, that such sneers at the complexion of color- ed people, do no credit to either the head or heart of a min- ister of Christ. I am pained also, at my friend's apparent zeal to cast op- probrium on the Rev. James Duncan. I have told you that he was the father of Dr. Duncan, our late representative in congress, who, in conversation with me, declared his father's ON SLAVERY. 203 sentiments on slavery to be his own. The Rev. James Dun- can wrote and published his book on slavery, in 1824, eight years before the first modern anti-slavery society. He had ■just left a pastoral charge in Kentucky, some sixty miles below Cincinnati, and crossed to Vevay, Ind., where he pub- lished his book, with a soul burning with the wrongs and wretchedness endured by the slaves. His was an original mind, of giant mould. He preached from log cabin to log cabin, in the early western settlements ; always poor, yet learned, and studious, and laborious. He saw principles with amazing clearness, and uttered them with correspond- ing strength. He died on one of these mission-tours, preaching as he w^ent, at a house where he put up for the night, in the borders of Indiana. '•^Requicscat iii pace.^^ I hope my brother will let his ashes rest. If he must have something to find fault with, I will give him some of my pamphlets. Gentlemen Mod-erators — I v/ill give a further brief reply on the subject of marriage. My brother, with a pertinacity as strange as it is illogical, insists, that slavery is not de- structive of marriage. While he was speaking I could not but ask myself what blinding cause oppressed him ? and, in what corner of his mind the source of his error lay ? And I confess, I know not how or by what fallacy he is kept from seeing the truth, unless it be that slavery cannot travel up to God, and make his judgments coincide with the deter- minations of slavery. " God will not punish slaves for * taking up ' without marriage," (he seems to mean,) '' and therefore, in God's eye, they are married." But this is monstrous reasoning. Are they married as by slavery? that is the question. If not, (and he knows they are not,) then by denying that slavery destroys marriage will be mer- ciful. His argument gives to slavery the merit of God's mercy. Slavery adjudges slaves unmarried, and incapable of marriage. It holds the slave-pair in separation ; ready to be sold apart. He tells us, but they are vain words, that the husband and wife are not separated in slavery, unless the 204 DISCUSSION master chooses to part them. But if I come to own a man and his wife, are they not already separated so far as the nuptial tie bound them, and ready to be sold apart whenever I will to sell them ? Suppose I sell the w^oman, and the purchaser goes to get her ; has he anything to do but lead her off? Is there anything to be done to separate her from her husband ? Obviously nothing. She ceased, by the theory of slavery, to be her husband's wife, when she became my woman. The property principle is stronger in law and practice than the marriage principle, and prevails over it. And brother Rice is here to maintain, that when I have fairly bought the woman, she is mine. Slave-holding is not sinful. He gives me God's permission to hold her: and they are separated by the naked fact that they are property. True, God may not punish in hell the slave man and wo- man, who, being prohibited marriage, take up together, and are true to each other ; but no thanks are due to slavery that he does not, for if he followed either its laws or its practice, he would declare the parents unmarried, and illegitimate their children. What candor, or sense, therefore, can there be in declaring that slaves may be and are married, in the open face of the fact that marriage has never existed among slaves from the times of Aristotle down. I read from the learned Dr. Robertson's History of Charles V., p. .13, Note 9 :— Of slaves, he says — " They were not originally permitted tx) marry. Male and female slaves were allowed and even encouraged to cohabit together. But this union was not considered as a marriage ; it was called contubernium, not nuptiae or matrimoniuin.'''' And again : " All the children of slaves were in the same condition of their parents, and became the property of the master. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters, that they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery con- tinued, property in a slave was held in the same manner with that which a person had in any other moveable." So was slavery in Greece : so was it in Rome : so is it to- day in Kentucky. What was slavery then is slavery now. 1 ON SLAVERY. 205 And if my friend can now rise up and tell you, against autho- rities such as Dr. Robertson, — against the authoritative de- claration of all the slave-codes ever enacted, — against history itself, and against what you know to be the uniform practice, heretofore and now, — that marriage exists among slaves, and that slavery is free from the sin of marriage-breaking, I feel certain that few will believe him. I am aware that my friend calculates on the adherence of friends from Kentucky, of whom there are many present. But I trust that here even he will find himself mistaken. There is a force in truth to leave impressions which the mind cannot shake off, and especially in the truth that it is sinful to make merchandize of men. It will follow them to their homes, and live and burn in their consciences, when the prejudices of the hour are, with the circumstances of this debate, passed away; A money-loving, hardened man, in southern Pennsylvania, told me that when he put his hand to paper to sign a bill of sale for the transfer of a human being, his arm trembled and shook to his shoulder-blade. There is not a power, prin- ciple, or faculty included in the awful circle of humanity but shudders at the motions of this horrid property-power, as the trees of Eden trembled at the movements of Satan in the fall of man. You may go, Kentuckians, to your homes, but the truths to which you here listen, apart from any power of argument, by their own vital force, will abide with you as an omnipresent blaze, showing you everything about your negro-quarters in a light in which you never beheld them before, and making you one in understanding and heart with the promoters of liberty, and friends of the slave. — For the truth is God's, and God's unseen power is in it. I met Theodore F. Leftwick, a tobacco merchant, of Liberty, Va., upon a steamboat ; told him I was an abolitionist, and, knowing him for a southern man, asked him of his slaves. *' Thank God, I have none," was his prompt and warm reply. Though opposed to what he understood to be abolitionism, and pitying me because an abolitionist, he said that he had 206 ■ DISCUSSION some twenty-five slaves, who, if sold, would have brought an average of $500 each, when Joshua Leavitt was editing the N. Y. Evangelist ; that he was provoked with the pa- per, on account of the editor's denouncing slavery as a sin, but continued to take it on his wife's account, " until," said Leftwick, " I should be ashamed to tell you what harrowings of conscience, and what horrid images followed me, even in my sleep, till I resolved to free every slave I had. From that hour, I have slept as sweet as a child, and if I had had ten thousand slaves, I would have emancipated them every morning since ; though," he added, " I know, and my friends will tell you, that I love money full as well as my neighbors." Facts of this kind — and there are thousands, are their own argument. They are the voice of nature in the first born elements of man proclaiming war against the grinding tyranny of personal slavery, with God and conscience on their side. You may cloud the solemn truth that holding slaves is a sin with prejudice, or darken it by reproach ; or dazzle and confound it with the ecclesiastical subtleties of trained po- lemicism, and wire-drawn argument ; yet, there it stands, bold, honest, open, and uncompromising ; and its voice will be heard, and obeyed, when the flimsy and carping objections which may be heaped upon it are perished, passed away and forgot. In resuming, as I now do, the direct argument to prove that slave-holding is sin, I wish to observe that one of my friend's propositions, to wit : that the minds of men apprehend and admit general principles in morals, is generally, though by no means universally true. Even at the present day, when truth is eclipsed and overborne by the practical corruptions of society, it is yet true, with exceptions, that the soul con- structed upon the model of God's law, will bear witness to those moral principles which are the elements and substance of that law. The exceptions are those minds which are bias- sed by corruption or interest ; those who cannot see right prin- ciples through a guinea. It is by reason of this principle that slave-holders themselves testify that emancipation is a blessing ON SLAVERY. 207 and slavery a curse. And I present, as my next direct ar- gument the following : That holding innocent men in slavery is a sin, is proved by the action of those slave State legislatures and grateful masters, %vho have emancijpated slaves for meritorious ser- vices. Every such emancipation (and these have been many) is proof that the legislature and the individual emancipator, know that slavery is an evil, and liberty a good. Does it require argument to show that they know also that inflicting an evil upon unoffending persons, and withholding good M^hich is their right is sin ? This is precisely what slave-holders are doing to their slaves — and their slave-hold- inff is therefore sin. They make liberty a reward for the most meritorious services, and ^slavery the punishment for certain kinds of crime ; what then is the moral character of depriving a man of that which is in itself a reward, and inflicting upon him "what is in itself a curse 1 If I hang an innocent man, I am myself a murderer ; if I deprive an innocent man of his goods, I am a robber. What am I, if I deprive him of his liberty — a possession brighter than gold, and dearer than life ? A slave-holder ! I know it is said that, though liberty is of priceless value to them who have enjoyed and can appreciate it, it is less important to those who have always been slaves and know no other state. But it is slaves who are freed for meritorious services. Liberty is thus solemnly declared io be the. highest boon which can be bestowed on slaves. He then who holds slaves in slavery, holds them in deprivation of what slave State legislatures have declared a blessing and a good to them ; — and he holds them thus bereft, without pretence of crime on their "part. Slave-holders,, therefore, by granting freedom as a reward, admit that every slave- holder is funishing the innoceiit — and punishing the innocent is sin. But, they say: "We did not deprive the slaves of liberty but we found them so." 208 DISCUSSION This is true of those who were adults, or were horn he- fore the slave-holders ; but infants are not "found slaves" by their owners, but made so. But what is this plea of " find- ing- them slaves'?" My father, or father's father, enslaves men, and I take them and their descendants and retain them in slavery. I then admit that to enslave them in the first instance, was wrong, but adopt and prolong, and justify the crime! My father locks an innocent man in prison, and dying, wills me the key. I put the key in my pocket, and keep the man in prison. Where, I ask, is the difference between my father's sin and miine? Was not my father's act a sin ? " Certainly," it is said, " when slavery began, it was a sin in the enslaver." But if you were in prison, and knew I had the key of 3'our dungeon in my pocket, would you not justly hold me equally guilty with the man who put you there ? And what is American slavery but keeping up, on the persons of innocent men, a punishment fit only for criminals ? But I argue further, that slave-holding is sin, because it is going with a multitude to do evil. Slave-holding is not a solitary, but a social sin. It re- quires conspiracy and combination to perpetuate it. Suppose, for illustration, one hundred men, cast upon an Island, find themselves its only occupants. They have no civil polity, no mail, none of the appliances of government, and no distinction of ruled and rulers, but are individuals in a state of nature. Suppose, now, one out of this hundred wishes to enslave ten or twenty of his fellows, it is plainly impossible for him to do so, because no one has the strength of ten, and without interference by the others, it is impossi- ble for him to make them his slaves. My own native State has even been in this state of nature in respect to slavery. A slave-holder who had pursued his fugitive to Vermont, brought him before one of the courts, proved that the runaway was his property, and asked for the necessary authority to take him home. The Judge de- clared the testimony insufficient to sustain his title. Per ON SLAVERY. ' 209 spiring with vexation, the slave-holder asked his honor "what evidence would be sufficient?" "Nothing," said Judge Harrington, " nothing short of a bill of sale from the Almighty will enable you to take that man from this Court as your property?" The man-holder was obliged to relin- quish ail hope of his victim. He had not power, personally, and unaided by the laws, to re-enslave his fugitive. Thus, gentlemen, while men are in a state of nature, anterior to society, slavery cannot exist, and does not. Among the hundred Islanders, no one can enslave ten by his individual force. He must ally force with fraud, and bring cunning to the aid of cruelty. He must first mould and concentrate the individual force of the whole hundred into a government, and, by dexterous management, wield that for the enslavement of his ten. This is precisely what he does ; and thus, under the name of government, and the sacred forms of law, he achieves an object which, had he attempted it by his own single strength, would have cost him his life, as a despicable and impotent tyrant, and pirate upon the persons and peace of other men. This is ^^ going with a multitude to do eviW And this is slave-holding. The slave-holder does not rest his claim to his fellow man upon his own prowess or force ; but feels about for some system of slave-legislation, which he may take advantage of to compel his slaves to bear his burdens — thus wielding the power of the whole hundred to enslave his ten. What then is holding slaves by law, but " going with a multitude to do evil ?" Is not this precisely the case of the American slave- holder at this day ? But m}'- brother tells you, over and again, that the ques- tion is not whether kidnapping and enslaving men is right ; he therefore contends that such illustrations as that of one man using the power of an hundred to enslave ten, are not relevant. The question, he says, is whether holding these kidnapped persons and their descendants in slavery is sin ; or, in his own words ; v~'hether, holding persons in slavery, who are already enslaved, be sinful % That is true enough : 14 210 DISCUSSION, and that is the very question I am discussing. But I am showing also that American slave-holding— taking free in- fants from God's hands and placing them in slavery is kid- napping and slavery too. But to set the whole matter wholly beyond cavil ; sup- pose those Island citizens all die, after ten had become slaves to one ; that I am the son of that slave-holder, and I make that fact a pretext to hold in slavery the children of thosQ ten persons whom my father enslaved ? And that I take their infant offspring as fast as born and reckon and register them among my cattle and swine, as my property. Where then would be the least moral difference between my case and that of the present American slave-holders ? Can any one fail to see that, if I am the robber and plunderer of my species, he is no less ? The whole United States' power is but the hand-vice into which the slave-holder screws his. slave, and by which the slave " is held to service or labor," and the United States statute, a tether to bind the hands and feet of those whom the rapacity and violence of our ancestors have enslaved and pla- ced in our power. Slave-holding, is therefore explicitly for- bidden by God in the words : " Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." [_Time expired. [MR. rice's eighth SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens : In closing the discussion of this day, I confess that I have been disappointed, and so, I presume, have the audience. They were informed by the gentleman, that they would hear the Bible argument in favor of his views this evening: You have heard what sort of a Bible argument it has been. [Mr. Blaxciiard, interposing. — I said I would come to the direct argument.] Then the direct argument in favor of abolitionism is not a Bible argument, the gentleman himself being judge. [Great laughter.] ON SLAVERY. 211 The gentleman is now through ; we are closing a discus- sion of twelve hours ; he agrees with me, that the Bible is the only rule of right and wrong; yet, in the whole of that time he has brought but one solitary passage to sliow that his doctrine is true! The direct argument, it is evident, is not a Bible argument. This he has virtually admitted, and I thank him for the concession. The truth is, no abolitionist relies upon the Bible for proof of the doctrine, that slave- holding is in itself sinful ; and I am glad my friend has come to "the direct argument," and given us no Bible. The gentleman is quite disturbed that I should so fre- quently tell the audience what he has not done. Well, I do not doubt that it is distressing : I hope he will be as com- fortable as possible ; but really I cannot help it. The fact is, that he has argued twelve hours, and has not only failed to support his doctrine by the Bible, but has scarcely touched one of the main arguments I have offered against it ! He has, indeed, placed before us in glowing colors, the cruelty which wicked men sometimes practice toward their slaves. And he asks whether there Avas anything about that slave cofPiC with which he opened his side of the debate, which I condemn 1 He knows that I condemn traffic in slaves as severely as he does ; but does that prove the rela- tion of master and slave to be in itself sinful 1 I condemn the burning of Hindoo widows, but I do not on that account condemn the marriage relation as sinful. Does my opponent condemn the conjugal relation, because wicked men take ad- vantage of it to treat females cruelly, as he does the relation of master and slave for the same reason? The sufferings of the slave-gang are not caused by the relation^ but by the cruelty of slave-dealers. Does the fact, that Nero was a monster of cruelty, prove that the relation of ruler and ruled is sinful ? Will my brother on this account denounce civil government ? Yet the principle on which he reasons, requires that he should ; for the cases, as to the principle involved, are the same. But he asks, why I do not praise the Papists for the truth 212 DISCUSSION , they teach, as I approve tlie conduct of southern Chris- tians in having the gospel preached to their slaves ? I do give them due credit for every word of truth they teach ; but this does not hinder me from exposing their errors, where they err. But he charges the General Assembly with sanc- tioning the withholding of the Scriptures from the slaves. The truth of this charge I denied, and disproved. Now what did the Assembly say on this subject in their report? Did they not say, that every Christian and philanthropist should use all proper means to have the laws repealed, which forbid the slaves beinof tauo-ht to read the word of God? Where in that Report does the Assembly sanction the giving to them merely oral instruction in Christian doctrine? Nowhere. On the contrary, it exhorts masters to give them the Bible. And in the very face of these facts, my opponent charges the Assembly with sanctioning the withholding of the Bible from the slaves ! Has he not strangely misrepresented that body? I uttered no sneer, as the gentleman charges, against my colored brethren; — far, very feir from it: I was, indeed, amused at his eloquent description of the beautiful babe stolen by the hard-hearted master from the cradle ; and be- cause I was amused at him, he would make the impression that I was sneering at colored persons ! My friend is disturbed by my quotations from Duncan's pamphlet, republished by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, and he says, he does not approve of every comma^ and every semicolon^ in Mr. Duncan's pamphlet. Perhaps he does not; but I did not quote either commas or semicolons, but the ab- horrent sentiments, that the term slave-holder, like the word DEVIL, is a name to be uttered only with abhorrence ; that nothing proves so clearly the necessity of a hell, as the fact that there are slave-holders in the world ; that servile insur- rections arc justifiable, and the man who would raise his arm to suppress them, will be eternally punished in hell ! Will he attempt to escape the odium justly connected with these abominable principles, w^hich run through the entire worlc, ON SLAVERY. 213 by saying-, that he does not approve every comma and semi- colon in it ! ! ! Are these sentiments commas and semicolons ? But Mr. Duncan has deceased ; and he thinks, therefore, I ought not thus to comment on his sentiments. He could state facts injurious to the reputation of the venerable Dr. Baxter, without producing one particle of proof of their truth ; but it is quite improper for me to say a word about Mr. Dun- can's published sentiments ! Ah, it is one thing for your ox to gore mine ; quite another for my ox to gore yours. But the gentleman is kind enough io offer me some of his publications, if I will only spare Mr. Duncan's. I am ob- liged to him ; but I prefer Mr. Duncan's pamphlet, for the plain and important reason, that it has been endorsed by the Cmcinnati Abolition Society^ — an honor which, so far as I know, has not been conferred on any one of his. This pam- phlet is now no longer Mr. Duncan's; it is the Cincinnati Abolition Society's work, and contains their sentiments — sen- timents which every enlightened Christian and patriot must abhor, as adapted to excite servile insurrection, and deluge our land in blood. But the gentleman objects only to some of its commas Qw^ semicolons!!! My opponent once more reiterates the assertion, that slave- holding destroys the marriage relation. Marriage is a di- vinely constituted relation, the validity of which depends simply upon the authority of God. Has he proved that slavery annuls it? What would have been the proper course for him to pursue in proving it ? It would have been, first, to show, from the Bible, what marriage is, what is essential to the relation ; and then show how slave-holding abolishes this. But did he take this course ? Not at all. There was no reference to the Bible in his whole argument. I might meet his assertion by a simple denial ; but neither assertions nor denials will settle the point. But I have proved that Constantino passed laws forbidding husbands and wives, parents and children, among slaves, to be separated. Will the gentleman assert that these laws abolished slavery? — that it no longer existed in the Roman 214 DISCUSSION Empire ? This he will not pretend, for he admits that it existed for several centuries after they were passed. He must, therefore, admit that slavery may exist, that it has ex- isted' without destroying the marriage relation. Under the laws' to which I have referred, and Avhich I have quoted, husbands and wives could not be separated. They remain- ed together till death. Precisely such laws might exist, and I will add, ought to exist, in Kentucky, and other slave- holding States. The gentleman proves, by two arguments, that slave-hold- ing destroys the marriage relation. The first is, that the outward formalities of marriage, sanctioned by the Bible, are not observed. 1 have called upon him to state what for- malities or ceremonies are sanctioned by the Bible. His only reply is, that Samson had a procession and a feast of seven days ! Well, does the Bible teach that the procession and feast were essential to the validity of the marriage ? I hope not ; for if so, very few of us, I fear, are lawfully mar- ried. For myself, when I was married, I really had not time to enjoy a seven-days feast. [A laugh.] I was cer- tainly not aware that the Scriptures required any particular ceremonies as necessary to marriage ; and it would save the gentleman's time and his voice, (for he complains of hoarse- riess,) if he would point us to the Scripture which requires ceremonies of any kind. He says he has proved it ; but I presume he only means, that he has asserted it. His second argument is, that the civil law does not recog-- nize the marriage of slaves. Suppose it does not, I have asked him to show us where the Scriptures make recog- nition of marriage by the civil law necessary to its validity, and I have asked in vain. But, as I have proved, the laws passed by Constantine did recognize the marriage of slaves, and did forbid the separation of husbands and wives. Still Mr. B. asserts, that slavery necessarily dissolves the relation, or rather makes it impossible ! I My friend seems to think, he is pouring out truths which w^ill burn most awfully in the consciences of the Kentucki- ON SLAVERY. 215 ans wlio happen to be present; and he tells of us a man in Adams coimt}^, who trembled clear up to the shoulder, whenever he signed a bill of sale of a slave. [A laugh.] Well, he ought to have trembled, if he was selling them against their will, or into a worse condition. And there was a slave-holder in Virginia, who took Mr. Leavitt's paper, and he could not sleep, because he " kept saying^^ that slave-holding is a sin, (not because he proved it;) but when he had liberated twenty-four slaves, he slept soundly. So he keeps sayi7ig that slave-holding is an abominable sin ; and he expects thus terribly to burn the consciences of Ken- tuckians. [A laugh.] But one fact the gentleman stated about that man, struck me as very singular, viz : when Mr. Blanchard told him, that he was an Abolitionist, he said — " then I pity you ! " And yet the man had himself been made an abolitionist by Mr. Leavitt's paper 1 Why did he, then, pity Mr. B. ? Did he pity him because he was so much more enlightened than most men ? Do abolitionists thus pity abolitionists? This is certainly a very curious story ! But legislatures have sometimes liberated slaves ; and this fact is brought forward to prove slave-holding in itself sinful. It proves, I admit, that they considered slavery an evil, and freedom a very desirable blessing. But does it prove, that v/hen I buy a slave at his own request, so as to improve his condition, I have done a very wicked thing? Surely the premises and the conclusion are as far as the poles apart. Yet, this is the gentlemian's ^''direct argument" — or more propeily, his direct assertion." Or, does the fact referred to, prove, that the immediate emancipation of all the slaves of the slave-holding States, amongst the white population, would be a blessing to them 1 Liberty is, indeed, a blessing ; but it is a blessing which all men are not prepared to improve. It is more than doubtful, whether, should a constitution, such as that of the U. States, be adopted to-morrow in Mexico, the condition of the people would be any the better for it. And why? Because they are 216 DISCUSSION not prepared to live under a government so free as ours. Nor is it at all clear, that the inhabitants of Russia or of South America would be happier or more prosperous under a government administered upon the principles of our gov- ernment. Admit that a constitution so free as ours is the best in the world, does it follow, that every man who fills an office in a more despotic government is a heinous sinner? Whether the immediate emancipation of the slaves, with their present character, habits, and circumstances, would prove a blessing to them, is, to say the least, a debateable question. The gentleman, whether by way of illustration or as an argument I know not, imagines a hundred men cast on a desolate island, and ninety of them combined to reduce ten of their number to a state of slavery. Such conduct would indeed be most reprehensible ; but does this supposed case present the principle we are met to discuss? If it was his intention to discuss the question, whether it is right to reduce by force free men to a state of slavery^ why did he not say so? Why did not the challengers state this as the question for discussion ? Had they done so, I would not have thought of accepting their challenge, for a single moment. But the question, I must once more remind him, is, whether slave- holding is in itself sinful; and I will further remind him, that the wisest and best men, even in his own New-England, assert openly that it is not. If the matter is so perfectly ob- vious as his supposition makes it, how happens it, that those good and eminent men answer it in one way, and my brother in another? The question, as I have repeatedly remarked, is not whether it is right to enslave free men ; but since the Africans have already been enslaved, without my agency, and before I was born, how far I am bound immediately "to set them free, and how far I can do it consistently with other paramount duties ? What is the duty of men who own a large number of slaves in the southern States, where the laws forbid emancipation ? What is the duty of the man who purchased slaves at their own request, in order to improve ON SLAVERY. 217 their condition, and promote their happiness ? Why cannot the gentleman be induced to meet the cases I have repeat- edly presented, and dispose of them ? [Mr. Blanchard. I will] He promises fairly; but why has he not done it? I ven- ture the assertion, that he never will fairly meet and dispose of them. I do not say, he will not try. He repeats the assertion, that slave-holding is kidnapping; I have listened for the proof, but I have not heard it. This is the capital defect in his argument. One of the arguments I have urged against abolitionism, is, that its tendency is to perpetuate slavery, and to aggra- vate all its evils. I remarked, that if all the ministers of the slave-holding States should suddenly become abolition- ists, if they should imbibe the spirit of tho abolitionists on this side of the Ohio river, they would all forthwith aban- don their fields of labor, and seek the free States. And what, let me ask, would be the consequences ? Would such a course abolish slavery ? Would it not have the opposite tendency ? It would take from the masters the gospel, the only influence likely to dispose them to emancipate their slaves. The abolitionists remind me of one of your steam- doctors, who, to effect an immediate cure of a disease, kills the patient by one tremendous dose. They have succeeded, it is true, in running off a few slaves to Canada — a course which, without benefiting them, seriously injures those left behind. By aggravating masters, and making them suspi- .picious of their slaves, it makes them less inclined than be- fore to treat them kindly, or to grant them their liberty. Be- lieving such to be the tendency and the effect of abolitionism, I must oppose it. How different the course pursued by the apostles of Christ. Far from advising slaves to leave their masters, and from industriously collecting and publishing all manner of stories injurious to the character of slaveholders, they went amongst masters and slaves, proclaiming to each *' the unsearchable riches of Christ," and exhorting each tp the faithful discharge of their relative duties. 218 DISCUSSION ^ But what is worse still, the tendency of abolitionism is to take the gospel from the slaves also, and leave them without the consolations of religion, — the hopes of eternal life. Only let its doctrines prevail, and Rev. C. C. Jones and other ministers who are engaged in preaching to them the word of life, must cease their labors, and retire to the free States. Then what will become of the souls of the slaves ? Will they become the frcedmen of Christ % Paul, the apostle, said to slaves — "Art thou called being a servant, care not for it." His great concern was, that the soul — the immortal part should enjoy the liberty wherewith Christ would make it free — that the slaves might enjoy eternal liberty and happiness in heaven. But the great concern of aboli- tionists seems to be for their bodies — their freedom from the yoke of man, not from bondage to sin and Satan. In the day of judgment, multitudes of the slaves will stand on the right hand of the Judge, clothed in garments of spotless white. And to whom, under C4od, will they ascribe their salvation ? To those very ministers who are the objects of the vituperation and reproaches of abolitionists. And for whom, in that day, will those pious slaves thank God? Will they thank him for the labors of those men who stood at a distance, and abused their masters, because they did not set them at liberty ; or of those who, more concerned for the salvation of their souls, than for their bodily freedom, went and preached to them the glorious gospel 1 I leave the audience to answer the question. And now, in view of the tendency and effects of abolitionism, compared with the views I am defending, let me ask the candid and unpreju- diced, which doctrine is true — theirs or ours 1 The gentleman may attempt to refute the arguments I have offered ; but I doubt it: Certain I am, that the attempt, if made, will prove unsuccessful. I confess, I have been disappointed by the course he has thought proper to pursue ; and so, I doubt not, have the great majority of the audience. I did suppose, that what he calls his " direct argument " would ON SLAVERY. 219 be a Bible argument ; but I have heard nothing adduced from the inspired volume. To-morrow I purpose to enter more directly on the Bible argument, whether my opponent does so or not. I shall go to the infallible rule. I will measure strength with the gentleman on scripture ground, which after all, is the true ground. Let us leave the slave gang, and the cruelties of slave-dealing, and the oppressions and wrongs perpetrated by wicked men, and go " to the law and to the testimony." Let him shew from the Bible, that the Patriarchs did not hold slaves: let him prove from that authority, that there were no slaves in the apostolic churches ; that the Apostles excluded slave-holders from the church of God. Let him prove these things, and we will give up the question. After deba- ting twelve hours, this has not been done. Nothing bearing on the question we are discussing, has been adduced either from the Old Testament or from the New. Half the debate, if not more, is over ; his " direct argument" is nearly com- pleted, and no Bible argument has yet been heard from the gentleman. This is truly singular, if it be true, as he be- lieves and asserts, that I am in darkness, and he in the pure light of the gospel. Has it ever yet been found, that men who love darkness, insist on going to the light 1 And that men who love the light, are reluctant to come to it ? The gentleman thinks that we are in darkness ; his bowels of compassion yearn over us ; and he pours out his prayers in our behalf And yet, though we cease not to urge him to come to the Word of God, we cannot induce him to ap- proach it! ! When I came here this evening, I brought my Bible with me. 1 expected to need it ; but I have had no use for it in replying to him ; nor, judging from his past course, am I likely to have. [Time expired. 220 DISCUSSION Friday, 2 o'clock, P. M., Oct. 3, 1S45. [MR. BLANCHARD's NINTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow- Citizens : I regret more than you will, though you will regret it, that I have to beg the indulgence of the audience, for an over-worked voice, and frame somewhat enfeebled by pres- ent illness, and enfeebled health. I left my bed after 12 o'clock, to-day, for the first time, havinn- been all the while under the influence of medicine. But with great patience on your part, and prudence on mine, I hope, with God's help, to set my arguments before you with sufficient clearness, so that you may not regret the time and attention you have given here. I wish, while the audience is coming in, to reply briefly to one point which has been so repeatedly urged by my brother ; — I mean his argument from authority. The Scotch divines. Dr. Cunningham, and Dr. Chalmers, have been frequently mentioned, as having declared themselves against modern abolitionism: and because they, who have been long and worthily trusted as orthodox divines, have con- demned our views, it is presumed that we are in error. He relies upon the fact, also, that Dr. Chalmers said that the doctrine of modern abolitionists, that slave-holding is a sin, is a new doctrine. I shall say somewhat respecting this, after I have replied to both these points with distinctness and care. 1. I must ask you to remember, first, that these Scotch divines labored under two difficulties in coming to right con- clusions as to the duty of American Christians, respecting slave-holding. First, that, in Scotland, church-censures in- flict certain civil disabilities which do not follow church- discipline here. Till a year ago last May. the sheriff, under the State authority, was as frequently called upon to enforce the decrees of Presbytery, as the Presbytery officers them- ON SLAVERY. 221 selves, as may be seen by the Presbyterian Minutes. An- other difficuhy under which the Scotch divines labored, in judging of our duty, is, that the civil law interfered with the church discipline, in the British Empire. The English law of libel is such, that if a churchman, who is a drunkard, &c., is accused of it, he may bring his action for libel, and the truth could not be pleaded in defence. As long, there- fore, as the plaintiff has money, and respectability enough to sustain his suit, if you have accused a member of the estab- lished church of drunkenness, he can amerce you in dam- ao-es. thoufT-h there is no doubt of the truth of vour charsfes. This danger from the law of libel, with other like causes, embarrasses and weakens the discipline of the European churches : and this leads Scotch divines to think it more diffi- cult for American churches to discipline slave-holders than it actually is. But vvhen I shall read the opinions of the Scotch divines, they will be found to agree in principle Avith abolitionists, though, in practice, they differ. I will now read Dr. Cunningham on another subject, where human rights are concerned — I mean his opinion as to the right and propriety of the people to form " voluntary churches^'' such as our American churches, of all denomi- nations ; as the "Central Presbyterian Church,'* of which my brother Rice is pastor ; and as, excepting perhaps the Romish church, we have none but voluntary churches in America, it may, perhaps, be interesting to know that Dr. Cunningham, my friend's, oft-quoted authority, holds all such churches to be iitde better than infidel establishments. Nor is it strange that otherwise sound and clear men, who have been raised in an established or State church, a church regulated by the civil statute and ruled by a house of commons and ministry about as pious as our house of representatives, should have crude and defective notions of the duty of keeping the church communion pure from practical corruptions ; especially when these corruptions consist in an invasion of human rights, of 222 DISCUSSION which the structure of the government which they live under is a practical contempt. I now read Dr. Cunningham's opinion of '• voluniary churches,'' from his very abusive reply to Dr. Wardlaw, an eminent Congregationalist minister of Edinburgh, in the ''Church of Scotland Magazine,''^ August, 1835. "As Dr. Wardlaw has, on a variety of occasions, manifes- ted a want of simplicity and godly sincerity ; and as he has displayed considerable dexterity in quibbling and shuflling to evade a dilTiculty and get out of a scrape, I must take the liberty of warning the public that if he shall be bold enough to attempt to prove the truth of his calumny, it Avill not be enouo-h for him to show that the friends of the church (of which Dr. Cunningham was then a member) have often alledged against the voluntaries that they were associated infidels in the promotion of a common object ; that from this circumstance we have deduced inferences and derived pre- sumptions unfavorable to voluntary views, or that they have described voluntary principles and measures as having an infidel character and tendency. These allegations, it is ad- mitted have been very fully and very largely made, and, what is more, they have been established^ and no friend of the church need be ashamed or afraid of being charged with having made them." — \_See article in Church of Scotland Magazine, August, 1835, by Rev. W. Cunningham, Edin- burgh.'] Dr. Cunningham then, in 1835, thinks that he and his friends have " established " that " voluntary churches," " prin- ciples " and " measures," (Dr. Rice and the Central Presby- terian Church of this city of course included; — for that was lately formed by a " voluntary "colony, upon " voluntary prin- ciples,") " are of infidel character and tendency." Yet this same Dr. Cunningham is Dr. Rice's oft-quoted authority in this debate, which is upon the sin or innocence of withhold- ing this voluntary 'principle from slaves. When my friend will settle this charge of infidelity made against his church and himself, grounded on their voluntary action, by his fa- ON SLA-'/ERY. 2^3 vorite Dr. Cunningham, it will be time to quote his opinion as worth something on The subject of slavery. I consider him a good authority in neither. So much has been made of Scotch authority in this debate concerning American slavery, it may be desirable that I should show you the opinion of those Scotch ministers who have not breathed from infancy the corrupt atmosphere of a State Church. I read from " An address on negro slavery to the Christian Churches in the United States of America, by the United Associate Synod" of Scotland. This Synod in- cludes the greater part of the Presbyterian churches in Scot- land, which were out of the pale of the Establishment, pre- vious to the great division of May, 1843 ; and the formation of the " Free church of Scotland." It has 22 Presbyteries, and 350 Congregations. Following is their unanimous ac- tion on the subject of American slavery transmitted in the pamphlet address which I hold : I. " Resolved, That we hold as ' one of those things that are most surely believed among us,' that the treating of human beings as property, without an express permission of him who is the supreme proprietor, is utterly repugnant to the principles both of reason and revelation — equally incon- sistent with the law of justice and of love — an outrage on human nature, and an insult to its author." V. ^'Resolvedj That in proportion to the esteem and affec- tion with which we regard the christians and the christian churches of the United States of America, are the astonish- ment and grief with which we have heard, that among the members, and even among the office-bearers of some of the churches, are to be found proprietors of, and even dealers in slaves — that not only individuals but some ecclesiastical bodies, have engaged in a shocking, but happily hopeless attempt to reconcile these monstrous practices with the law of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Thus, the free unhampered Christianity of Scotland sees no moral dilference between being "the proprietor, of 224 DISCUSSION slaves " and '' slave-dealing." It styles both " monstrous prac- tices." And, now, though the Cunningham and Chalmers party, which cast off the State tether and became a " Fuee Church of Scoiland^^ only two years ago last May, are not, for reasons obvious and already given, the safest and sound- est authorities in questions of human rights; especially, since but few years are passed since Dr. Chalmers went up to London, (where not one of the established churches were open to him,) to lecture in favor of State church establish- ments, and against the " Voluntary principle." I will read the action of the Cunningham and Chalmers Assembly on the subject of American slavery. I read from the " Glas- gow Examiner" of June 7th, 1845, extracts from the Re- port on American slavery read by Dr. Candlish, and adopted by the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland," last May. " There is no question here as to the heinous sin involved in the institution of American slavery, nor can there be any terms too strong to be employed in pointing out the national guilt which attaches to the continuance of that accursed sys- tem, and the national judgments which, under the govern- ment of a righteous God, may be expected to mark the Di- vine displeasure against it. Neither can there be any doubt as to the duty incumbent on American christians to exert themselves to the utmost in every competent way for having it abolished^ Farther on, the Assembly say — " All must agree in hold- ing, that whatever rights, the civil law of the land may give a master over his slaves as ' chattels, personal,' it cannot but be a sin of the deepest dye, in him to regard or treat them as such : and whosoever commits that sm in any sense, or deals otherwise with his fellow man, whatever power the law may give him over them, ought to be held disquali- fied FOR christian COMIVrUNION." This is the doctrine of Dr. Rice's authority. Dr. Cun- ON SLAVERY. 225 ningham after the adoption of this report, arose and expres- sed his " entire concurrence" in its sentiments. Thus, this same Cunningham, my friend's favorite author- ity, holds, that to ^^ regard'' or "treat" men as property, is a 5in which disqualifies for christian communion; and that American Christians are bound to " exert themselves to their utmost, in all proper ways, to have slavery abolished!" Yet, Dr. Rice is here to prove that " slave-holding is not sin- ful, nor the relation between master and slave a sinful rela- tion :" and as to zeal for the abolition of slavery, his report in his last General Assembly speaks for itself. You can all see that whatever inconsistencies Dr. Cunning-ham has broached since he was here collecting m.oney for his church from slave-holding churches, Dr. Rice is at least as far from him, as he is from me, on this subject: but it is not my business to reconcile him with his Scotch authorities. The abolitionists hold no stronger doctrine than is here fully avowed by the Free Church Assembly of last May, (1845.) and endorsed by Cunningham himself, to wit: that '•'•regarding men as projierty is a sin of the deepest dye^ and wliich ought to disqualify for Christian comraunion ;'^ and Christians are bound " to exert their utmost for the abolition of slaveryP I know that my friend seeks to avoid the force of this quotation, by making a vain and unmeaning distinction be- tween " holding men as slaves and holding them as proper- ty;" as though men could hold slaves any other way than as property. This distinction might blind persons farther off; but if there be twenty slave-holders from Kentucky, I am wil- ling to refer the question to them, whether they do not hold and regard their slaves as property, and whether they do not understand Dr. Rice as justifying their practice from the word of God ? Whether, in short, the doctrine of the Free Church of Scotland, just read, is not as unacceptable to professing slave-holders in the South, as anything which abolitionists have ever taught? The fact is, that they ridi- 15 <^26 DISCUSSION cule the idea of a man holding slaves and not regarding them as property. Since this subject has been up, a slave-holder present said to a friend of mine, that he knew of no slave-holders who would thank a man for putting in such a wretched plea, in defence of slavery, as that slave-holders do not regard theii negroes as property. "We hold our slaves because we want them ; and we use them as property because they are our property, and we wish to make what money we honestly can." Small thanks will Dr. Rice get for such a vindication of slave-holding, from his slave-holding brethren, unless they take the will for the deed — knowing that, whatever he says, he means to support their cause. I will now read another testimony that American slave- holders ''^regard men as properti/" and so are declared worthy of excommunication by my friend's Scotch authori- ties. I will first read the testimony proving that professing slave-holders do actually hold their slaves as property, and because they desire to have their services, and when I have read it I will tell you who is the author. "The Jews were expressly permitted to buy men; and that which I buy with my money, belongs to me for all the purposes to which it may be lawfully applied. A man may not use his horse as he may a piece of timber ; nor may he use his slave as if he were a horse. But if I buy a horse, he is mine ; and I may use his services lawfully. Jf I buy a man, he is mine, so far as his services are concerned ! " — Rice^s Lectures, p. 26. This is ^the testimony: and the author sils at that table! [Pointing to Dr. Rice.] Now, it is true, that he adds, in immediate connection with the above quotation, " and I am bound to treat him as a man." Yes: but as a "man" who "^5 minei^ whose services I may command on the ground that he is mine. If this is not " regarding men as property," then that idea can- not be put in human speech. But the doctrine of the Free Scotch Assembly, and Dr. Cunningham, is, that " regarding ON SLAVERY. 227 men as property is a sin of the deepest dye," and which disqualifies for church membership. Thus, the very au- thorities which Dr. Rice quotes as on his side, icould turn him out of the churchy if he would practice the doctrines of his pamphlet ; and they would be consistent with their own, for, says Dr. Rice, "i/" / buy a ivian, he is mi?ie!" Now, when we consider that Dr. Cunning-ham wrote what my friend quotes under most unpropitious circumstances ; — that he was born and reared amidst the corruptions of a state church, and a " by authority " religion ; — that he is now preaching in a tolerated and taxed church, when not lecturing his classes ; (for dissenting chapels are licensed in England as grog-shops are here.) Environed by such dark- ening circumstances, ham.pered in his ideas of church disci- pline by the law of libel, and holding men and measures to be of infidel character because they form voluntary churches, like Dr. Rice's, we may perhaps excuse him for not being exactly clear on the subject of slavery. Yet in the midst of their distant island location — ^blinded, too, by the misrepresentations of our slavery-ridden assemblies and high church courts, and tainted leading men, who tell them that American slaves are not held as property ; — this Scotch church declares, that the man who regards man as property ought to be turned out of the church. I have done with the Scotch divines. Gentlemen and felloto-citlzens : I will here state at large, for your satisfaction, and that it may appear in the book, why I have not, at my brother's urgent request, so vehemently repeated, taken this discussion at once into Bible criticism. I have an argument of three hours' length of the kind he calls for, which I have prepared with labor and care ; — an hour and a half on the Old Testament, and an hour and a half upon the New. But I would not present that class of arguments at the beginning of this debate ; because I con- sider that, the strongest part of my argument, and I wished to present the weakest first. Because all my arguments are Bible arguments, every principle which I advocate being 223 DISCUSSION found in the word of God. Because, moreover, I felt it my duty to God to manage this debate as wisely as I could for the truth ; and I therefore did not wish to 'take a solemn prac- tical question at first into Greek and Hebrew lexicons, grammars, critics, and commentators, one half of whose ideas are baked stiff in the oven of German hermeneutics. Before letting in what light may be had from these sources, (and a just use of them yields much.) I have thought proper to ar- gue the question of slavery, for a time, as it is, a solemn matter of fact, and upon the broad principle of common equity and common sense. And the event has proved the wisdom and necessity of my course. You have seen that the real point of dispute is, whether slave-holding be this or that. 'Prove,' he says, ' that slavery includes these cruelties — the prohibition to read — the complete power of the master, etc., etc., and I will be an abolitionist.' Here has been his main labor — to deny that certain things belong necessarily to slavery. Was not my long discussion to show what slavery is, therefore, neces- sary? Besides, one well prepared argument upon the Scrip- tures is enough ; and I take no advantage in putting it off to the last. He has the closing speech at every session, and the benefit, if there be any, of a last impression. I am wil- ling he should. He will, therefore, have full opportunity of presenting what he may have to say upon the teachings of Scripture. I have said that I felt bound to conduct this debate wisely for the cause of truth, and I am not unacquainted with the course commonly taken by the defenders of slavery. Shun- ning all clear ideas of slavery, they are accustomed to dip the people at once into the Mosaic institution, and haggle their minds with " doulos^^ and " ehedh^^ and •' kaunah" etc., etc. It was thus that Dr. Junkin, in the synodical debate in the first Presbyterian church in this city, last fall-, Junlcinized the minds of the people for two whole days ; and when he had done, I do not believe that the heads of his auditors contained two substantial ideas on the topics which he handled. ON SLAVERY. 229 Now I determined not to let my brother take this course. I resolved, before giving him an opportunity to display his learning, to give you a chance to judge of his candor and sense. I desired that the public should know; I myself wished to know, to what class of minds my brother belongs. This is a legitimate object sought in a proper way. He is active, unwearied in the propagation of his opinions, and it is material that we know what weight we ought to attach to them, as coming from him. I have, within these few years past, met a class of men, whom the late ecclesiastical agitations in this country and in Europe have thrown up into notice — of whom, I think, it may justly be said, that the world were better if the species were extinct: having few original ideas of their own, they are great gatherers and retailers of the ideas of others ; men of fourth or fifth rate minds, who, being of narrow intellect, and stimulated by a large ambition, seek, by sectarian services, to wind their way up to the to'p of some old ecclesiastical organization, founded by the piety of a former age, to reign amid the moral owls and bats that peer and chicker amid the twilight of its tower. When slavery is the subject, I have never known a man of this class willing to meet and discuss it, as it actually exists, upon the ordinary and well-known principles of right and wrong. Instead of this, they dive into the dusky re- gions of antiquity, like rats into cellars, and, guided to des- potism by an instinct as precise as that which guides that animal to cheese, they pick up all the instances of re- striction upon human liberty which belonged to dark and despotic ages, and twist them into a snake-coil of argument to bind down American Christianity to the toleration of slavery in an age of liberty and light. Slaves themselves, in heart, to authority, as are all caterers to despotism, they are great for lexicons, and profound in commentators ; classes of writers, who, from the number of topics which they treaty must necessarily take the most they write upon trust from other men ; and they never scruple to weigh the opinion 230 DISCUSSION of " Doctor This," and " Doctor That," against the clearest elements of equity, and the plainest principles of justice ! I do not say that brother Rice belongs to this class of minds. I would not bring a railing accusation against Sa- tan, much less against my brother. But I wished, for the cause of righteousness, that the public should know, and to know myself, whether he was or was not of this sort and grade of men ; and I knew that if he was, if I took him out of the beaten track of pro-slavery argument he would be utterly at loss what to do. Whether this has been true of him, thus far, I do not say. The book which we make will show. I have now done with this matter.. If he twits me hereafter with being unable to argue with him, he shall have what benefit that course will bring him. I shall go straight forward with my work. U I wish now to reply to the remark quoted from Dr. Chalmers, that the doctrine of abolitionists is a dogma of recent date ; and to show, if I am able, that the truth, that slave-holding is sin, has b'een struggling with the mind and conscience of the church ever since the time of Christ and the apostles. I have cited to you the fact, that Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, in the year 107, not to appropriate the church money for buying those slaves of heathen masters, who were converted to Christianity from heathenism. The reason of Ignatius's advice is obvious, viz : that if the church bought the freedom of all the slaves who^ entered it from heathen- ism, it might tempt the servile population to spurious con- versions, as they would join the church for the sake of gaining their freedom. But the fact proves this, that the churches founded by the apostles were far from being slave- holding churches, that the slaves who joined them were im- portuning the members to club the church money and buy their freedom. . No proof is needed to show that the owners of these slaves were not church-members. The idea of a whole church giving the money of the whole, to buy the bodies of ON SLAVERY. 231 one part of its members called slaves, fi'om another part called masters, is too absurd for even slaves to ask. I now resume my argument, (which was suspended at this point several meetings since,) to prove, that, whenever slavery has been abolished without blood, the doctrine that slave-holding is shi has abolished it ; that therefore Dr. Chalmers is mistaken ; and as this doctrine yields the fruits of truth, by destroying slavery, it is therefore true thai slave- holding is sin. I must now take you through a little history, and but a little ; as the notices of slavery in early church history are not extensive. We find in Giesler, that, about A. D. 316, Constantino ratified the manumissions of the church, and empowered those thus emancipated to take property by will, ; These two items of history do not show that the Chris- tian church in the years 107 and 316, understood the doc- trine of abolition precisely as now taught. But the first shows that the churches of the Apostles were non-slave- holding churches, and the second, that, in the day of Con- stantine, the church was forcing emancipation upon the State. For Constantino ratified church manumissions to make him- self popular with the Christian party. Whereas, at this time churches and ministers in the South, take the lead of the State in vindicating the principle of slavery. Leaving the age of Constantino and coming down through a period of 300 years, we find what doctrines and sentiments prevailed in the church respecting slavery, that is, upon what theori/ their practice of church-manumission was based. I read from Robertson^ s Charles F., p. 24, Note 20. > "When Pope Gregory the Great, who flourished toward the end of the sixth century, granted liberty to some of his slaves, he gives this reason for it : — " ' Cum Reclempfor noster^ totius conditor naturae, ad hoc propitiatus, humanam carnem voluerit assumere, ut divine itatis suae gratia^ dirempto (quo tenehamur captivi) vinculo^ pristinae nos restitueret libertati ; saluhriter agitur, si homi- nesj quos ab initio liberos natura protulit^ et jus gentium 232 DISCUSSION jugo substituit seriutis, in ca, qua 7iati fuerant, manu- mittcndis bencfccio, lihcrtati rcdclantur.^ " Which I thus translate : — ' Since our Redeemer, the buil- der of all nature, set apart for this, has voluntarily assumed human flesh, that, by favor of his divinity, (the chain by which we were bound being broken,) he might restore us to our pristine liberty ; it is a wholesome act, (salubriter agitur,) if men, produced by nature free at first, but subjected to the yoke of slavery, by the law of nations, may be restored, by act of the emancipator, to that liberty in which they were born.' This document bases the duty of freeing slaves upon the atonement itself, the center and sum of all Christian doctrine ; and practically, and almost in terms, declares that Christians ought to free their slaves, because Christ came to free them : and it distinctly declares the great doctrine from which the duty of immediate abolition flows, that " men are born freA r* Now considering that this man was a Pope, a human head of the church, and like other human heads, probably borne along by the body ; it is fair to suppose he rather represent- ed than led the anti-slavery opinion of the church in his day ; in short that he was pressed to what he did by the truth which prevailed among the membership. It surely would be a rare occurrence — one which has never yet happened, to see a single Pope setting himself against ihe opinions of both church and world. I say therefore, that this act of eman- cipation by Pope Gregory the Great, based on abolition prin- ciples, not obscurely expressed, shows that the gospel of Christ was a battering-ram before which slavery instantly gave way wherever it came, and that the sentiment that slave-holding is sin. Dr. Chalmers to the contrary not- withstanding, is as old as the church of Christ. I do not say or suppose that this gospel duty of manumission, at that day was perfectly practiced, or that those Christians were abolitionists in the exact modern sense. But I aver that slavery was abolished by the sentiment, then in the church, tliat slave-holding is sin, and by nothing else. ON SLAVERY. 233 From Gregory's time (6th century) to that of Louis X., A. D. 1315, the deeds of mamimission clearly recognize the abolition doctrine that slave-holding is sin. " A g-reater part of the charters of manumission previous to the reign of Louis X.," says Robertson, [note 20 to page 24,) " were granted, ^Pro amore Dei ; pro remedio ardmce ; pro mcrcede animce, et pro iimore omnipotentis Dei:'' " that is — " for the love of God," "for the remedy of the soul," " for the consideration of the soul," and f'for the fear of the om- nipotent God," etc. Nov/, the distance between freeing slaves for the soul's salvation, and freeing them to escape its damnation, is not so great but quickened consciences would soon travel it. Certainly, these deeds of manumission, every time one was issued or read in Church, (and great numbers are on record.) must inevitably and instantly have forced the inference upon the minds of Christians, that slave-holding was against " the fear of God, and the salva- tion of the soul." And they show most clearly that the operative principle which impelled to emancipation was the truth, which is now stated, in simple language, viz : " that holding slaves is sinP " These deeds, freeing slaves for the "fear of God," etc., run down to the time of Philip the Long, and Louis X., A. D. 1315, and 1318, when, we read in Robertson, "the enfran- chisement of slaves became more frequent." These two monarchs then issued ordinances, declaring, that, "^5 all men were hy nature free horn^ and as their kingdom was called the Kingdom of Franks, they determined that it should be so in reality as well as in name ; therefore they appointed that enfranchisements should be granted throughout the whole kingdom, upon just and reasonable conditions. These edicts were carried into dimediate execution within the royal domain. And servitude was gradually abolished in ahiiost every province of the kingdom." Thus, the self-interest of the world completed, what, in the Church, the fear of God began. The sentiment among Christians, that slave-holding was contrary to religion, first 234 DISCUSSION produced emancipations, and proved them "beneficial ; and the ordinance of these two monarchs with the example of immediate emancipation on the royai estates, completed the overthrow of slavery in what is now France. The abolition of slavery in Britain followed soon after, the particulars of which, says Robertson, " are found in the charter granted Habitatoribus Mo7itis Briio?iis, A. D. 1376." Before this time, children \vere sold into Ireland, at a regular market in Liverpool : and Henr}^, as quoted by Pitt, says, that "great multitudes were shipped from the British coast, and were to be seen exposed, like cattle, for sale in the Romish market." This charter of British abolition, in 1376, is an immediate abolition charter. " 1. The right of disposing of their [slaves'] persons by sale or grant was relinquished. 2. Power was given them of conveying their effects by will, or any other legal deed. 3. Their services and taxes to their liege lord are precisely ascertained. 4. And they are allow- ed the privilege of marrying, according to their inclination." That is, they ceased to be instruments in the hands of their masters, and became men under a government of law. A system of villeinage, however, continued in England near two hundred years after this, to the times of Henry VIII. ; which, though not slaver}'-, was yet grinding oppres- sion. Villeinage, therefore, like slavery, was abolished by the conviction of its sinfulness. I read the interesting and instructive account of its abolition from Coopei-^s Justinian^ p. 414: notes. " Sir Thomas Smith, who was secretary of state to Ed- ward VI., and then to Elizabeth, observes that he never knew any villeins in gross in his time ; and that villeins appendant to manors (villeins regardant) were but very few in number ; that since England had received the ' Christian religion^ men began to be affected in their con- sciences at holding their brethren in servitude.^'' (Dr. Rice's religion teaches that slave-holding is not sinful.) "And that upon this scruple, in process of time, the holy fathers, monks, and friars so burthened the minds of those ON SLAVEPvY. 235 whom they confessed, that temporal men were glad to man- umit all their villeins. But," he adds, " the holy fathers themselves did not manumit their own slaves^ and the bish- ops behaved like the other ecclesiastics. But, at last^ some bishops enfranchised their villeins for money, and others on account of popular outcry: and at length the monasteries falling into lay hands were the occasion that almost all the villeins in the kingdom were manumitted." The same things which were enacted in England, at the abolition of villeinage, are, in principle, now being enacted in this country. The religious teachers of the day instruct- ed the people in Christianity, and made them see that slave- holding and villeinage were inconsistent with it. But the priests, trusting in the reverence of the people for their reli- gious character, would not submit to a practical application of their own principles, till compelled to it by a public senti- ment, the reflection of their own teachings, rising from the people. " And the bishops behaved like the other ecclesi- astics." A year or more since, a man from this city travel- ling down the Ohio, said the boat took on board the Right Reverend Bishop Polk, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and brother, I believe, of our worthy President of the United States, with his sixty slaves, whom he was taking to his plantation. "A few miles below," said my informant, ♦' a swine-merchant came a-board, with a large drove of hogs." And in legal and social condition, the slave-gang of this " Holy Bishop" were precisely on an equal footing with that herd of swine ; and both sustained the same prop- erty relation to their masters. As to the question, whether any teachers of religion, at the present day, are driven by public opinion to act against slavery, it is most humiliating to reflect on what would be the course of our General Assemblies, and General Confer- ences, on the subject of slavery, if no petitions had gone, or should hereafter go up from the people to them on that sub- ject. The monks, friars, and bishops of England freed their bondmen under the same pressure that has, in our day, pro- 236 DISCUSSION cured the reading of anti-slavery notices, viz: *^ popular outcry. ^^ But the main-spring, which kept the whole of the machinery of emancipation in movement was the convic- tion, seated in the conscience of the nation, that slave-hold- ing was sinful. I now call your attention to the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies. Opposition to West Indian Slavery, was formally com- menced by Granville Sharpe, in the year 1772, and the first fruit of his labors was the decision obtained in that year, by the English Bench, that slaves became free by setting foot upon English soil. This was the celebrated case of the ne- gro Somersett. Peckard, Benezet, Gregoire, and others, had already written against the enslavement of the Africans, which, till now, was pursued as a lawful christian calling. In 1785, Dr. Peckard, vice-chancellor of Cambridge Uni- versity, gave to the Senior Bachelors, as a subject for a Latin dissertation, the question, " Is it right to make slaves of others against their will?''' Thomas Clarkson obtained the prize upon this thesis, and the investigation of his subject so wrought upon his mind, that he devoted his life to the destruction of slavery. A committee was soon organized, of which Granville Sharpe was chairman, which for a time la- bored alike against slavery and the slave trade. But they afterwards thought it would be wiser to drop direct opposi- tion to slavery, and oppose the slave-trade alone, as the most obnoxious of the two, and easiest suppressed. They were induced to this course by two considerations, — the great strength and endless ramifications of the slavery interest m England; and the idea that the slave-trade, once abolished, slavery would speedily die, as a stream when its fountain is stopped. That was a great error. When the Abbe Gre- goire heard of it, he wrote to the British abolitionists : " hi your late chaiige of policy^ 1 hear the groans^ and see the falling tears of coming millions.'^ This prophecy has been verified. ^ The slave-trade was abolished in England, under the ON SLAVERY. 237 Grenville administration, in 1807 ; from which time the British philanthropists took up opposition to slavery itself. But they labored for years under the incubus notion of grad- ual emancipation. They had not yet learned the truth of the proverb — " Give the sinner to-day^ and he and the devil will take care of to-morroio.^^ I majr as well stop here to say, there is nothing, there can be nothing but immediateism in morals. You have no right to tell a man he is sinning, and that it is his duty to repent next week. The only command which God ever gave to men involved in wrong practices, is in the present tense — " Cease to do Evil;^^ and whoever holds another language grants indulgence to sin. But while this is the only correct theory of reformation ; in practice, the law always allows " a reasonable time" for change. If slave-holders were now preparing to emancipate their slaves in six weeks or two months, and would actually do so, would not that be " imme- diate emancipation ?•' The slavery ceases when the emanci- pation is honestly and effectually begun. My first public lecture against slavery, was delivered while I was a student. It was in the little town of Haddonfield, New Jersey ; where I met, after the mob, a thing of course at that day, a New Jersey farmer and explained to him our doctrine of " Immediate Abolition." I urged that slave- holding is sin — ^because slavery repeals and resists the laws by which God has regulated human society : that it is a re- peal of the marriage relation. That it is not the taking apart a man and his wife that makes the separation. The Atlantic ocean has rolled between me and my wife, but I thanked God that I had a wife then. It is not distance which parts man and wife in the slave system, but slavery. They could remain married while an ocean is between them, but they cannot be married while they are slaves. I showed him that slavery forbids the required promises of parents to instruct their children to read the Word of God, and thus virtually forbids infant baptism itself That by the 238 DISCUSSION. law of several States, it is a punishable crime in parents to teach their children to read the name of God. When the old man (for he was a parent himself) began to see that my doctrine was truth, one present said: " Oh ! but it will never do to free them all at once ! " The farmer re- plied, " I don't see any particular danger of that ; but we all say the thing must be brought to an end ; and though a man has his knife on the grindstone and another at the crank, it never begins to sharpen till he begins to turn. If we are ever to get rid of slavery, I think its time to begin to turn." But I return to the British abolitionists. Their teaching of gradual emancipation not being founded in truth, influ- enced conscience little or none, and produced no emancipa- tion. But about the year 1824, a change occurred in their teaching, and a corresponding change in their tone. They still taught the same principle, that slave-holding is sin, but they varied their application of it, and demanded immediate repentance. A pamphlet issued from the press this year, written by Elizabeth Heyrick, of Leicester, entitled " Imme- diate not Gradual Abolition^^ which expressed, and perhaps helped to mould the anti-slavery movement into the form, and possibly gave it the name, of" immediate abolition^ The result of this agitation you all know. On the 3 1st day of July, 1834, at midnight, 800,000 human beings kneh down slaves, when the clock began to strike twelve, (if brother Rice had been there, he would have struck the hour of the debate,) [a laugh] and when the clock ceased striking, arose up men. ? There is no doubt upon what principles the British eman- cipation was brought about ; that it was the principle that slave-holding is sin, and immediate abolition a duty. Prin- ciples urged and carried forward by abolitionists, almost all of whom are still living, as Clarkson, Sturge, Buxton, Thompson, Scoble, Scales, and their coadjutors, with whose minds and hearts modern abolitionism may almost be said to have originated, and from whose operations, perhaps, de- rived its name. ON SLAVERY, 239 I will read the record of the event, which took place in the West Indies, at midnight, August 1, 1834, from Kim- hall & Thome's '^Emancipation in the West Indies^' p. 144: " The Wesleyans kept 'watch-night' in all their chapels on the night of the 31st July. One of the Wesleyan mis- donaries gave us an account of the watch-meeting at the chapel in St. Johns. The spacious house was filled with the candidates for liberty. All was animation and eagerness. A mighty chorus of voices swelled the song of expectation and joy, and as they united in prayer, the voice of the leader was drowned in the universal acclamations of thanksgiving and praise, and blessing, and honor, and glory to God, who had come down for their deliverance. In such exercises, the evening was spent, until the hour of twelve approached. The missionary then proposed, that when the clock on the Cathedral should begin to strike, the whole congregation should fall upon their knees, and receive the boon of free- dom in silence. Accordingly, as the loud bell tolled its first note, the crowded assembly prostrated themselves on their knees. All was silence, save the quivering, half-stifled breath of the struggling spirit. The slow notes of the clock fell upon the multitude ; peal on peal, peal on peal, rolled over the prostrate throng, in tones of angels' voices, thrilhng among the desolate chords and weary heart-strings. Scarce had the clock sounded its last note, when the lightning flashed vividly around, and a loud peal of thunder roared along the sky— God's pillar of fire, and his trump of Jubilee ! A moment of profoundest silence passed — then came the hurst. They broke forth in prayer; they shouted; they sang, glory, alleluia ; they clapped their hands, leaped up, fell down, clasped each other in their free arms, cried, laughed, and went to and fro, tossing upward their unfettered arms. But, high above the whole, there was a mighty sound, which ever and anon swelled, — it was the utterings, in broken negro dialect, of gratitude to God." This is the doctrine^ and this the practice, of immedi- ate abolitionism— principles which shall soread until the 240 DISCUSSION whole ecrth shall acknowledge their influence ; " truth shull spring out of the earth, and righteousness shall look down from heaven." And that prophetic song of the Bethlehem angels shall be realized in history, " Glory to God in the highest ; on earth peace, and good will toward man." Before this emancipation took place, all evil auguries were rife respecting the results ; hut, so far, only good has re* suited. By thousands, the poor creatures flocked to the churches to he joined in marriage ; no white man has been injured ; no sheriff or constable has been resisted in execut- ing the laws, and no complaints of the working of this fc^mancipation has yet been heard, except from a few, who weigh sugar and tobacco and coffee against the inalienable rights of immortal man. [Time expired. [MR. rice's ninth SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow Citizens: I shall have something, presently, to say, which will great- ly change the aspect of things in relation to West India emancipation. I have facts to adduce which will shew that it is not to modern abolition, or abolitionists, that that eman- cipation is to be attributed. My friend thinks the views of Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Chalmers, are entitled to no weight or consideration in this discussion, because, until very recently, they were opposed to free churches ! Truly, he puts forth singular logic, the amount of which is, that no man who is wrong on one pointy can possibly be right on any other ! Yet, in a few moments after urging this objection, he, himself, appealed to the opinion of Pope Gregory ! He objects to any reference to the opinions or testimony of such divines as Cunningham and Chalmers, yet immediately contends that the opinions of the " Man of Sin," (who was also a political despot,) in the sixth century, are worth a great deal ! If he quotes Pope Gregory, I think he should not, for shame's sake, object DISCUSSION to my quoting Drs. Cunningham and Chalmers, two of the best and most distinguished men of our own day. How, I ask, does a man's being in favor of a church es- tablishment, hinder him from seeing the evils of slavery? What is there, in his notions of church government, to blind his eyes on this question ? How is the logic of a man who is wrong on the subject of ecclesiastical establishments, necessarily bad on the subject of slave-holding? I should like to hear the process by which the gentleman has reached this conclusion. But when Dr. Chalmers states matters of fact, is he not to be trusted ? He is a wise man, and a man of veracity. Shall we not, then, hear and candidly weigh his testimony concerning an important matter of fact ? Now, what does he say, touching the history of abolitionism ? In his letter on this subject, recently published, he says : " But again, not only is there a wrong principle involved in the demand which these abolitionists now make on the Free Church of Scotland : it is in itself a wrong procedure for hastening forward that object, for the accomplishment of which we are alike desirous with themselves ; or, in other words, it is not only wrong in principle, but hurtful in effect. Should Ave concede to their demands, then, speaking in the terms of our opinion, we incur the discredit (and in propor- tion to that discredit we damage our usefulness as a church, of having given in — and that at the bidding of another party — to a factitious and new principle, which not only wants, but which is contrary to the authority of Scripture and Apos- tolic example, and, indeed, has only been heard of in Christen- dom within these few years ; as if gotten up for an occasion, instead of being drawn from the repositories of that truth which is immutable and eternal — even the principle, that no slave-holder should be admitted to a participation in the sac- raments." Now, if slave-holding is in itself a heinous sin — a gross violation of the law of God, as abolitionists affirm, the Scrip- tures must clearly condemn it, and clearly teach the doctrine 242 DISCUSSION advocated by them. And if the Scriptures do so teach, surely it is to be supposed, that wise and good men, at least many of them, have so understood them. Now, Chalmers asserts not only that, in his opinion, the principles of the abolitionists are false; but- he states it as a / sin of the deepest dye." — Clarkson^ s letter to clergy, p. 8. Mr. Rice distinguishes between slavery and slave-holding. But when Clarkson says that " slavery is si7i" he means that slave-holding is sin. Thus, on page 15, of this letter: " I come to a very serious and awful part of the subject ; that is, I am to prove to you that you are guilty of sin in holding them in bondage, or that slavery is sin in the sight of God, of the deepest dye." And again on page 22 : " It is sin in its root, sin in its branches^ and sin in its fruit. And yet, living where all 280 ■ 'discussion those evil practices are going on, you can see no evil or sin in slavery. May God, of his mercy, provided your day of visitation be not over, grant you to see slavery in its true light, before your "houses are left unto you desolate." — Matt, xxiii. 38. Now, remember that the question between Dr. Rice and us, is, "/s slave-holding sinful?^'' I have read you Clarkson's opinion on the point ; yet, my friend has printed, in his lectures, that Clarkson is " far from being an abolition- ist in the modern sense." But, beside our doctrine that " slave-holding is sin," we are for turning unrepenting slave-holders out of the church, and the refusing our pulpits to slave-holding ministers. Perhaps brother Rice means that Clarkson is " far from being an abolitionist in this sense." Let us see what he holds as to this practical application of our principles. I still read from page 22d, of his letter: "And now, gentlemen, (the southern clergy,) I am going to address you on a different branch of the subject and in a man- ner somewhat different from that before. I feel it my duty to warn you., if you be honorable men, that you ought to with- draw yourselves from the sacred office of ministers of the gos- pel of Christ, since your doctrines, as they relate to slavery, are at variance with the revealed ivord of God. You are doing no good, with your present sentiments, to genuine Christian- ity, but lowering the excellence of its standard, and leading your flocks astray." Amen and amen, to these just and honest sentiments. I ■wonder if my friend will confess that Clarkson is an aboli- tionist? [Time expired. [MR. hice's tenth speech.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow Citizens : [\ am happy to observe, that those of the audience who hear me, usually hear the brother who is opposed to me. I desire that all who have thought with me, and those, even, whose minds are fully made up upon the question, would ON SLAVERY. 5281 remain, in quiet and respectful attention, and listen to every word he has to say.] The truth never gains, nor seeks to gain, any thing by misrepresentation. There are causes, however, which never gain much in any other way; and, if I mistake not, aboli- tionism is of this class. 1 have remarked, that when any thing occurs bearing on the subject of slavery, the gentle- man is sure to get hold of that end of the story, which suits his views, and equally sure never to hear the other end. In the progress of this discussion, he told us of a colored man, a member of the Presbyterian Church, in Danville, Ky., who was sold by his master, a member of the same church, so as to be removed to a distance from his wife. So much of the story was adapted to promote abolitionism, and bring reproach upon a church of Christ. But he was careful not to tell the whole truth on the subject. Now it so happens, that there is in this house a minister of the gos- pel who resided in Danville at the time, and who received that colored man into the church ; and he informs me, that the church session did take cognizance of the case, and en- force the discipline of the church against the master. To tell only a part of the truth, is often the most effectual me- thod of telling a falsehood. The impression made upon the audience, by the gentleman's statement, was wholly at war with the truth in the case. I have little doubt that the other facts of the same character, which he has so eloquently de- tailed, are equally incorrect. He told you that the Church of Scotland had declared, that whoever regarded his slaves as mere property, ought to be turned out of the church ; but that our Assembly, at its late meeting, did not express this sentiment. I have already proved, that the Assembly strongly condemned the sin of regarding and treating men as mere property ; and he knows it to be a law of our church, declared by the Assembly of 1818, that any member of the church who is guilty of cru- elty toward his slaves in any way, especially by traffic for gain, and the separation of husbands and wives, shall be ex- 282 DISCUSSION eluded from the church. Is it necessary, that the same law should be declared every year, in order to satisfy the gentle- man? None are so blind as those who are resolved not to see. In attempting to reply to my argument, founded on the fact, that no man or body of men was ever known to be heretical on any one fundamental point of morality, or of Christian faith, and sound on all others, Mr. Blanchard re- ferred us to the Pharisees, who, as he informed us, were quite orthodox on all points except one, viz.: they rejected Christ, and regarded him as an impostor I Driven from that refuge, he now refers us to John New- ton, as a case in point. Newton, he informs us, wrote excel- lent hymns at the very time he was engaged in the slave trade on the coast of Africa. I do not know precisely the time when he commenced WTiting his hymns, but I do know, that he himself informs us, that the light entered his mind very gradually and almost imperceptibly; and at the time to which the gentleman refers, he was in such darkness, that he could afterwards scarcely determine whether he was a converted man or not. We know also how^ the early period of Newton's life was spent ; that his mind was enveloped in midnight darkness on the whole subject of religion; and that he was most hardened in sin, and degraded in moral character. Yet, this man, just emerging from the midnight gloom, is brought forward to prove that the Christian minis- ters and churches in the slave-holding States, may be ortho- dox on all other points of faith and morals, and yet funda- ^ mentally erroneous in regard to the horrible sin of slave- holding! — to prove, that such men as Chalmers, and Cunningham, of Scotland, and Tyler, of Connecticut, and the great body of eminently wise and good men, may be in the same predicament ! ! ! The brother says, that most of the slaves at Rome were Africans. . [Mr. Blanchard here rose to explain. I said that Africa ON SLAVERY. 283 was one of the chief sources from which they were drawn, but not that a majority came- from there.] Well, be it so, I will not inquire, whether all slaves born in Africa were black : whether they were or not, my remark will hold good, that there did not exist, at Rome, in that day, the same prejudice in regard to slaves which exists at this day and in this country. In the Roman empire, as he very well knows, slaves generally did not differ in com- plexion from their masters, and therefore they were required to wear a cap and a coat of a peculiar shape, to distinguish them from free citizens. The slave had only to change his cap and his coat, and wear the dress of a free man ; and he would stand on a perfect equality with other citizens. It could not be known that he had ever been a slave. But with us, the color of the slave creates a prejudice against him ; and so strong is that prejudice, that even a free colored man is not, in fact, free. He does not, and cannot, enjoy the privileges of a white man. There are insuperable difficul- ties in the way of his enjoying all the rights and privileges of a free man. As I have said before, I am in favor of the gradual emancipation of the slaves, and of having them placed, with their own consent, where these difficulties do not exist — where they will be free, not in name^ but in reality. I will here notice the statement of the gentleman, that in the Report adopted by the General Assembly, there is no intimation of a wish that slavery should ever be abolished at all. What is the language of that Report ? I will read it : " We feel constrained further to say, that however desiroj- hie it may he to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in the Southern and Western States^ or to remove slavery FROM OUR COUNTRY, thesc objccts, WO are fully persuaded, can never be secured by ecclesiastical legislation. Much less can they be attained by those indiscriminate denuncia- tions against slave-holders, without regard to their character or circumstances, which have, to so great an extent, charac- terized the movements of the modern abolitionists, which, so 284 DISCUSSION far from removing the evils complained of tend only to perpetuate and aggravate them. The apostles of Christ sought to ameliorate the condition of slaves, not by denounc- ing and excommunicating their masters, but by teaching both masters and slaves the glorious doctrines of the gos- pel, and enjoining upon each the charge of their relative duties. Thus only can the church of Christ, as such, now improve the condition of the slaves in our country." Did not the Assembly intend to say, and does not their language clearly express the idea, that it is desirable to ameliorate the condition of the slaves 1 and did they not immediately add, in precisely the same connection, and in the same sentence, " or to remove slavery from our coun- try?" There stand the words in the printed report; yet my accurate brother tells us, that it says nothing on the subject; contains not even an intimation of the faintest wish upon the subject ! I will not charge him with a deliberate purpose to misrepresent ; but the truth is, that he reads, and sees, and feels, and talks one-sided — he is one-sided all over. [Laughter.] The gentleman says, that my words look one way, and my actions the other — that I am anti-slavery in words, but pro-slavery in deeds. I now challenge him to refer to one single action of my life which shows that I am opposed to what I advocate in words, viz. : the gradual emancipation of every slave in the land ; or which can afford the least justification of his ungenerous charge. He cannot point to one ; unless, indeed, he chooses to consider the colonization of free blacks, with their own consent, opposed to emanci- pation. The gentleman is very indignant at the removal of Cas- sius M. Clay's paper from Lexington, which, he tells us, was done simply because of an unfortunate expression — a mere flourish, to turn a period. I know Mr. Clay. We were, for a short time, school-fellows ; and I regard him as a man of talents. But it is not true, that the tremendous ex- citement which resulted in the removal of his paper, was ON SLAVERY. 285 caused by a single expression — a mere rhetorical flourish. It is truly a singular method of rounding a period, to tell slave-holders that there are spikes in the streets, and only panes of glass between them and your "smooth-skinned" wives and dausfhters ! The obvious meaning- of such Ian- guage is — "take care, or the slaves will rise and murder your families;" and the direct tendency of such language is, to produce a servile insurrection. But Mr. B. has great facility in concealing the odious features of abolitionism. When in the early part of this dis- cussion I read the intemperate and disgusting language of Foster on this subject, he told us, that some considered him insane. And when I read paragraphs from Duncan's pamphlet, republished by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, containing sentiments equally abhorrent, he coolly remark- ed, that he did not approve of every comma and sevii-colon in it ! I replied, that the justification of slave insurrections and murders were something more than either commas or semi-colons. And then he urged me just to let "father Duncan's pamphlet alone ; he was a very good man, and is gone to his rest." I shall not deny that he had piety; but whether he had or not, he published doctrines not only false, but of the most ruinous tendency; and the Cincinnati Abolition Society have endorsed them. That society, there- fore, stands before the public, chargeable with sending forth the most incendiary publications. The gentleman himself was most active, as he has informed us, in having it repub- lished. He and his society, therefore, are fully responsible for all its abominable sentiments ; for in having it reprinted they did not disclaim one sentiment it contains. But this by the way. I am not here to justify the course pursued toward Mr. Cla}'-. I cannot justify it ; but no man, who knows any- thing of human nature, can be surprised at it. In the arti- cles which produced the excitement, it cannot be denied, that there were sentiments of dangerous tendency ; and it is worse than vain for the gentleman to attempt to coyer them 286 DISCUSSION over "by representing them as mere rhetorical flourishes with- out meaning. I was truly glad when Mr. Clay proposed to puhlish his paper, I did hope that he would calmly and prudently plead the cause of gradual emancipation, and that great good would result. Had he done so, I believe he might have gone forward without interruption ; but his language was violent and intemperate, and the result is known. Although I cannot justify the course pursued against him, I cannot condemn it without first condemning him as the aggressor. The gentleman says, I condemn abolitionists for helping runaway slaves, and yet I have said, I would not force them back. No — I have not condemned them simply for helping those who have run from their masters, but for sending emis- saries into the slave-holding States, to render the slaves dis- contented, and induce them to run. And I condemn them for publishing papers and pamphlets urging them to leave their masters, and even encouraging insurrection and mur- der. I condemn them for publishing addresses to the slaves, as did Gerrit Smith, and the New York anti-slavery nomi- nating convention, advising them not only to run from their masters, but to steal^ along their route, in the free as well as the slave States, " the horse, the boat, the food, the clothing," which they need ! Conduct and sentiments of this charac- ter are unscriptural and abominable. True, I do not regard it as my duty to be a catcher of fugitive slaves, or to force such to return to their masters ; but if I were to see a slave leav- ing a good master, I should advise him, as the angel advised Hagar, to return and faithfully discharge his duty. Most as- suredly I w'ould never be found engaged in the pitiful busi- ness of running a few slaves to Canada, to starve and freeze ; but the gentleman's fraternity will. [A laugh.] i I do not say, that every abolitionist will do this thing ; but I do say, that Duncan's pamphlet, endorsed by the Cincin- nati Abolition Society, urges it as the solemn duty of slaves to embrace the first opportunity to escape ; and Gerrit Smith and his party advise them not only to run, but to steal ! But ON SLAVERY. S87 there are amongst abolitionists so many parties, that I do not well know what is orthodoxy and what is heterodoxy amongst them. I do, indeed, most strongly condemn both the principles and the conduct of the abolitionists ; but I have also uniform- ly condemned all violence toward them. When Mr. Bir- ney's press was destroyed in Cincinnati, I as editor of a religious paper, condemned the course of his opponents in lanffuaofe as strong- as I could command ; and I took the same course in regard to the violence against Lovejoy, in Illinois. I go for freedom of speech and of the press, even though in some instances, evils grow out of it. The brother says that I am anxious to put slavery on a par with marriage. Such, however, is not the fact, as I have repeatedly explained. I have said that he has not the right to brino- an argfument agfainst slave-holdingf, which would be of equal force against marriage. An argument that proves too much, proves nothing. This all logicians maintain, and the gentleman will not deny. He says, farther, that I affirmed that the apostles treated the relation of master and slave, and husband and wife, alike. I never said so. I have said that they did not treat the slave relation as the abolitionists do ; but enjoined upon master and slave the discharge of their respective duties. I did not say they treated the two relations alike. Having thus misrepresented my views he attempted to ridicule them by applying to the husband, Paul's language to the slave — "Art thou called being an husband, care not for it," &c. It is often easier to misrepresent, and then ridi- cule the sentiments of an opponent, than to prove them erro- neous. Slavery is an evil ; and liberty, to those who can ap- preciate and improve it, is a blessing. So poverty is an evil ; and to possess a competency of the good things of this world, is desirable. The language of Paul to the slave, suffering under an evil, might be addressed to a man suffering from poverty — "Art thou called, being poor, care not for it ; but if thou mayest be made comfortable, choose it rather," As a 288 DISCUSSION . state of slavery is attended with many evils, its removal is desirable. So say I ; and so say all anti-slavery men, who arc not abolitionists. He reminds me, that when the Bible says that the slave shall go out, but his wife and his children shall remain and be his master's, it does not imply that the man was driven out of the house: he might "go out" of a state of bondage and yet remain in the house, and not be separated from his wife. But I did not say, that he was separated from his wife, but that although he went free, his wife and children remained slaves, the children following the condition of the mother, and not receiving liberty with the father. The gentleman attempts to explain the fact, that the wife of the servant who went out free, under certain circum- stances, did not go out with him, but remained in servitude, by stating it as one of the laws of Moses, that a servant bought of the heathen, if not converted in one year, was to be sent back to the heathen, but was not permitted to take with him his wife and children. There are two difficulties attending this explanation, viz: 1st. There is no such law as that of which he speaks. On what authority he has made the assertion, I cannot imagine. 2nd. The law of which I was speaking, relates to a Jew who had been sold for six years, not to a man bought from the heathen. If such a Jew married a servant of his purchaser, (one per- haps bought from the heathen) and had children by her ; at the end of the six years, he went out free ; but his wife, given him by his master, and the children born in the mas- ter's house, did not go out with him, but continued in servi- tude. Since, therefore, the law in question related exclusively to Jews, (not at all to servants bought of pagans) and to a term of service of six years, not of one, the gentleman's re- ply is a perfect failure. I shall not detain the audience to discuss the views of Clarkson on slavery ; because it is unnecessary. But let it be remembered, that the British Parliament adopted the plan of West India enaancipation, not at the suggestion of Clarkson, ON SLAVERY. S89 "but under the influence of a public sentiment created by tlie great body of Philanthropists and Christians in England and Scotland. Were they abolitionists ? Were slave-holders denounced, without regard to character or circumstances, as heinous sinners? Were the churches called upon to ex- clude all the slave-holders from their communion? These questions must be answered in the negative. The Christians and churches in England and Scotland generally, believed no such doctrine, and therefore resorted to no such practice. No man was excommunicated simply because he was a slave-holder. The slaves in the West Indies, then, were not emancipated by the principles of modern abolitionists, but by the principles of anti-slavery men whom they denounce. Under the influence of such men the British Parliament paid to the owners of slaves twenty millions of pounds, and placed the slaves under an apprenticeship of seven years. I ought to notice, for a moment, the gentleman's remark that I represented Mr. Duncan as crazy. I did not say so. He excused the intemperate language and abominable senti- ments of Foster on the ground that he v/as partially derang- ed. In reply to this, I said that his friend Mr. Duncan was at least as crazy as Foster, for his pamphlet contained precisely the same sentiments. But I hold neither of them to have been insane, nor do I charge the Cincinnati Abolition Society with being madmen because they sanctioned and reprinted Dun- can's book. All I said, and now say, is that the one writer was as much a "crazy man as the other, and both were about as sane as men can be, who hold the doctrines of abolitionism. I have proved by language too plain to be misunderstood, that Hagar was the slave of Sarah ; nor will all the gentle- man has said or can say by way of ridicule, prove that she was any thing else. That she was a hondiooman^ a slave, and that she fled from her mistress, because she punished her, are facts plainly stated in the Bible. If she was free, there was no sense in her running into the wilderness from her mistress. Nor was the angel a " ruffian " because he ad- vised and directed her to return. He well knew, that her 19 290 DISCUSSION. condition was far better in the family of Abraham, than in the wilderness. The running off of slaves does no: always better their condition. A man residing at Vicks- buro-h had a slave who left him, and succeeded in get- to ting safely to Canada ; but he was so far from experiencing the advantages he had expected, and which had been prom- ised by his abolition advisers, that he voluntarily returned to his master. Other fugitive slaves have done the same thing. Our friends may yet learn, that by tempting slaves to run away they often place them in a worse condition, than that from M^hich they have induced them to escape. I will close this speech with a very brief recapitulation of the evidence proving the bondmen bought of the heathen by the Jews, to have been slaves, in the proper sense of the word. 1. They were bought with money. When the gen- tleman reads in the newspapers, that a certain man in Ken- tucky bought a servant with money ; does he not at once conclude, that the servant bought is a slave ? 2. The mas- ter was permitted by Moses' law to enforce obedience on the part of the servant by chastisement ; and the reason given why the master should not be punished, if the ser- vant survived a day or two after the chastisement, was, that *'Ae ^5 his money .^^ Here the property relation is recog- nized, and is regarded as a protection of the slave, and as evi- dence that it was not the design of the master to kill him ; for it is not to be supposed, that in any ordinary case a man would deliberately aim to kill the servant who was his mon- ey. Such are the facts as they stand recorded in the word of God. The gentleman may, if he is so disposed, pronounce this law cruel and inhuman ; but he cannot erase it from the volume which he professes to regard as inspired by God. Is such language as we find here employed, applicable to hired servants ? Do men in Ohio reo:ard their hired servants as their money ? Do they claim the right to enforce obedi- ence by chastisement with the rod. 3. The word used, and translated 56 ri'ttTi^ and bondman is the proper Hebrew word for slave ; it is the word the Hebrews uniformly used, when ON SLAVERY. 201 they spoke of slaves. If the gentleman should deny this, will he please to tell us what is the proper word for slave in the Hebrew language? I affirm, that if the word cved does not mean slave, the Hebrews, though surrounded by slavery, had no word in their language by which they could desig- nate it. 4. The Hebrew has a word which definitely signi- fies a hired servant ; and that word is placed in contrast with the eved or bondman. The salcir is the hired servant; and the eved is the bondman or slave. 5. Finally those servants are declared to be the possession of their owners, snd inheritence of their children — language never employed concerning hired servants, but constantly employed with re- gard to land and other property. The fact, then, is clearly established, if language can es- tablish it, that God did recognize the relation of master and slave as, under the circumstances, lawful, and did give ex- press permission to the Jews to purchase slaves from the heathen, and hold them. To understand the language on which I have been remarking, as descriptive of hired serv- ants, is to disregard the plainest principles of language. The gentleman must admit, that God gave the. Jews per- mission, under certain circumstances, to form the relation which he denounces as in itself sinful ; or he must deny that the Old Testament is the word of God. {Time expired. Friday Evening, 7 o'clock. [MR. BLANCHAR,d's ELEVENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow- Citizens : At the commencement of my remarks, it is proper for me to say that I render cordial thanks to the brother opposed to me, for his kindness in consenting to adjourn this discussion till Monday. I have asked this, in consequence of my health, which is infirm from a cold contracted a few days before the debate began. 292 DISCUSSION In my last speech of the afternoon, I said that the aboli- tion of slavery in the British colonies, was the fruit of the principles of abolitionism : and my quoted proofs fully sus- tained my proposition. My brother objects that the abolition of West India slavery was not immediate, but that an ap- prenticeship of seven years was substituted for slavery. This is partly true, and partly erroneous. In Antigua, and the Bermudas, emancipation was immediate, and took in- stant effect, August 1st, 1834. It is true, that against the Avishes of many leaders of the abolition movement in Great Britain, Parliament refused to grant immediate abolition throughout the colonies, and substituted a clumsy appren- ticeship of seven years, Vv-hich, however, worked so badly, that they were glad to abolish it two years before the legal time expired. JNly friend also tells you that a hundred thousand dollars were paid as a compensation to the owners for their slaves. This," also, was not in accordance with the views of many leading abolitionists. They said that if slavery had been profitable, the slave-holders had enjoyed the profits of it long enough — if not profitable, abolition was no sacrifice to them. They, however, were willing to accept the bill enacted by Parliament, seeing it struck out at once, the principle of chattelism, and speedily resulted in perfect emancipation. I now call your attention to what I call the direct argu- ment (and all my arguments are from the Bible, or are intended to be) to show that the relation of master and slave is a sin- ful relation. I have showed (I think) slave-holding to be " in itself sinful," which was the first part of the question. The latter part of the question respects the relation. I wish therefore, to show that the relation, — not the practice, only, of slave-holding, but the relation of master and slave is sin- ful. I have duly advertised the audience of my one and a half hours' speech in the Old Testament servitude and a speech of similar length on the New Testament view of slavery. Mr. Rice will have an opportunity to reply to ON SLAVERY. 293 them, for he has the closing speeches, both afternoon and evening, in each day of debate. Now I beg you to bear in mind, m.y object, now in hand, is not to arraign every man who is sinfully or unfortunately connected with the slave system. But if I show the relation to be a sinful relation, it will follow that it is the duty of every church to tell its candidates for membership, to come out of it, that God may receive them. A human relation is that coiniexioti between two 'persons which creates mutual rights and obligations. As the relation of husband and wife. That is based upon a certain principle, and vests certain claims in the wife upon the husband, and certain claims in the husband upon the wife ; and these rights and obligations take root in the principle which lies at the foundation of the relation. Let us analyze this thing which is called a relation. There are three things constituting a relation. 1. The principle on which it is based. 2. The claims which it creates ; And 3. The obligations Jt imposes. If we consider any good and wholesome relation, say a partnership in business, we find first the principle in which it rests, is the mutual wants of men. One man may know more than the other ; the other may be physically stronger than he. Their relation rests on this natur- al foundation ; the mutual dependence of men upon one anoth- er, and because it rests on this true principle, the relation, thus formed, gives rise to certain claims which are just claims, and certain obligations, which are right obligations. Mar- riage is susceptible of the same analysis. The principle on which it rests, is the mutual affection of the opposite sexes. This is a natural principle. God laid the foundation of marriage in the constitution of man. He is the author of nature, or rather nature is the rule by which God works. The claims of the husband on the wife, and of the wife upon her husband are right and just, because they are rooted in a right relation. So of the relation and mutual claims of pa- rent and child. But look now at the relation of a gypsy to the child which she has stolen ; that is, the relation of 294 DISCUSSION false parentage. The principle of the relation is wrong at bottom. The relation is forced and unnatural. It is un- warranted by scripture, having no foundation in the word of God. Hence it can give rise to no just claims nor obli- gations, because the relation itself is void in equity, ab initio^ and, whatever claims exist, are rooted in a relation which is false. Now, take the relation of master and slave, and test it by this same analysis. Has God fitted one man to be properii/j and adapted another to be the propertif-holder of men 1 is one man formed for fetters and a yoke, and another with a whip in his hand, and a spur on his heel % Will my brother tell me, as the southern defenders of slavery argue in Con- gress, that the wise are the natural owmers of the foolish, and the strong of the weak. Mr. Pickens, of South Caroli- na, stated in his place, in Congress, that " when once, society is pressed dow7i into its classifications^ one class will always hold the other as ^property, iii some form or otherP Is that doctrine to find advocates in free Ohio? Sirs, if it be true tliat the strong are born to own the weak, wh}?^ not put the weak slave-holder into slavery, and make the strong slave his master? If the unwise and the untalented are the natural slaves of the wise and capable, the moment when, by causes inseparable from slavery, the owner becomes the slave's inferior, that moment your rule gives the slave of strong and vigorous mind and athletic muscles, dominion ov^er the master of weak intellect and emasculate person ; and I't is w^ell understood that slavery deteriorates both the mind and body of the owner class. If the silly and weak are to be enslaved by the wise and strong, God help the cripple, the idiot, and the weak-minded child ! No, gentlemen, no, never. I will never admit the doctrine of the inequality of man, by nature, while I am told in God's word, that " He has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earthP And if of " one blood^^ then equal^ because one. The doctrine that the relation of slavery is an unnatural ON SLAVERY. 295 relation, is not a new doctrine. It is laid down in the code of Justinian, which has been the fountain and spring-head of the civil law since A. D. 527. This code declares that slavery has no foundation in natural justice. '- Servitus EST CONSTITUTIO JURIS GENTIUM, qua quis doniinO CONTRA NATURAM suhjiciturP — {Just code, L. 1. Title 3.) — which, translated, is "Slavery is a constitution of the law of nations, whereby a man is subjected to a foreign master against natural right:' Every lawyer knows that " contra natur- am" means against natural equity. And slavery is said to be a creation of ^^ positive law^' because the relation has no archetype in nature, and hence, all the claims arising out of it, perish, because rooted in a vicious relation, and all its obligations are void, because its claims are unjust ; that is, the relation is wrong in itself. Now, again: The relation is sinful, because every act which it warrants, is something which my brother himself calls sinful. I know well what I say, and I Avill prove it. I say, the relation itself is sinful, because every act which it loarrants is a sinful act. What acts does it warrant? 1. It warrants the taking of a man's labor without wages. My brother has almost said that the master is bound in jus- tice to give his slave wages. He ought to say so. But what becomes of slavery when you compel wages ? It has perished and the slave becomes a hired servant. Slavery excludes wages, and if withholding Avages is sin, then is slave-holding sin. 2. Another act which this relation of master and slave warrants, is the separation of man and wife. My brother says, he is opposed to that. So when he has given the slave- holder a property power over mankind, by the permission of God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost ; (for he does this if he proves slave-holding not sinful ;) he then turns round and forbids him to use the power which he has thus given. The first property-holding act which the slave-holder puts forth, my friend tells him is an abuse of the rela- tion. I argue from that, that the power to hold slaves— the 296 DISCUSSION relation itself, is sinful. Can the fountain be pure, if all the streams flowing- from it are corrupt? Suppose a man has a spring on his land, from which flows water which kills the grass of the sod which it irrigates, and the cattle which drink of it. I tell him his spring is poisonous ; and he admits that all the water which comes from it is poison, but stoutly de- nies that the spring is a poisonous spring, and yet agrees to stop up the well and prevent its flowing, in order to prevent its doing damage. He certainly admits his spring to be poisonous. So I say that the relation which cannot be car- ried out in practice without abuse, is an abusive relation. It is abusive in itself. What sort of a relation is that which cannot be acted out without sin, unless it be a sinful rela- tion ? Assuredly, it is not a holy relation. A smuggler may be a man who has never yet handled contraband goods, yet, being connected with smugglers — standing in a crimi- nal relation, he ought to come out of it. He may say : " I have never run goods across the line." But you tell him ; " you are in a wicked relation, you ought to come out of it." So I say to the slave-holder ; lay down the mischievous pow- er which you have assumed. Come out of the relation, for it is a relation wrong in itself Who does not see that, that is a poisonous fountain, which, to prevent its pestilent and destructive eflects, must be perpetually and forever damned up ? My brother declares for the gradual abolition of slavery ; he would kill it ofl' by degrees. But why abolish slave- holding gradually, unless it is unjust? and if it be unjust, why continue it one hour ? Do you not see that in admit- tins: that it oun^ht to be abolished, he admits it to be wrong ? But he will have us to abolish safely. Let us lop ofl'one abuse after another. Let us pluck out one strand after an- other until this scourge of the human race is taken wholly away. But why, when he arises to demolish one bad thing in it, does he not strike off the whole ? is not the whole thinof bad ? Most evidently, the same reasons which require abo- lition at all call for it now. In the name of the God of truth ON SLA\TERT. 297 and in the living light of truth, I say, abolish it at once if it be wicked. Why should injustice live one hour ? There is another inquiry of serious practical moment here. Why do those men who say they are opposed to slavery, and de- sire its speedy gradual abolition, stand so well with incor- rigible slave-holders ? My brother boasts that he preaches to slave-holders, enjoys their full confidence, and yet that he is opposed to slavery. Yes, somebody has committed an immense amount of sin in the slave -system, if we could come at it. There is a forbidden part of the hog, but nobody has found out where or which it is. He is opposed to slavery. But, if he "is actually opposed to slavery, how does his doctrine happen to be acceptable to every one who is irre- coverably wedded in the slave-holding interest? The an- swer is : — Because it justifies slavery as a divine institution. It can be no other. You may read his allegation to the soul-driver at the head of the slave cofHe ; " that God permitted his ancient people to hold slaves." " Ah," says the driver, " that is the doctrine for me. I am one of Abraham's descendants in line direct. I am the good old patriarch's agent. My employer stands in the place of principal, and I as agent, and we shall both go to Abraham's bosom together." Oh ! gentlemen, the reason why his doctrine is so popular with the slave men, is, that they well know that if ministers give them God's per' mission to hold men as 'property, they will easily get man's permission to use them as such. That is the reason that my brother's popularity will carry the book South. Slavery never will be put down in this way. My brother is pro-slavery, and they know it. He gives them God's permission to hold slaves, and that is all they want of him. He tells them they may hold slaves without sin, but tells us that he is opposed to their using their slaves as their property. He puts a sad- dle on a man's back, and the bit in his mouth, vaults the slave-holder into the saddle, and as he places the reins in his hand, cries, " Easy, sir, I never meant you should ride." [A laugh.] 298 DISCUSSION I have also proved slave-holding relation sinful, because where slavery goes into a family at one door, every God- ordained relation goes out at the other. I know my friend tells you that it is not slavery that separates man and wife ; that they are not separated till the master sells the husband into Georgia, and the wife to Alabama. Is it the mere pla- cing a man and woman at a distance, that dissolves marriage ? Is it miles and leagues that tear and separate heart from heart, whom God has pronounced one ? No ! It is not dis- tance. It is slavery. A relation which has no sanction in Heaven, and will have noplace on earth when God's "king- dom is come, and his will done on earth as it is in heaven."' I say, therefore, that when slavery goes to a house, and constitutes the husband property, the wife property, and the child property ; every God-ordained relation has perished out of that house. All that is wanting to complete the ruin 13 the will of the master to separate them actually, as they are virtually taken apart by the slave-making statute. I have one more point to make, and then, after adverting to my friend's golden rule argument, I shall proceed in the course which I have prescribed. I will here make one observation, which is this : Though I might, as my friend suggests, flinch in the trial, if actu- ally called to lay down my life ; yet, I solemnly aver that I should esteem my life a profitable outlay, if by death I could convince every person in this assembly of the truth which I am here to sustain. I am at least sincere in this. Though I. will not say but that if put to the test I might shrink from the sacrifice, as many good men have done. But, Kentuckians, I call upon you ; I address you with the utmost solemnity as men, as men who are soon to die. 1 beseech you, let us reason together. Take what course you may in practice, I know you must abhor, you cannot help abhorring slavery in your understandings and hearts. Its foul deformities are so obvious in every joint and limb and feature, that when once your attention is fairly directed to them, you can never, go where you will, arid do what you may, ON sLAVEr^Y. 299 shake off your impressions of disgust. Do not make me your enemy because I tell you the truth. I speak in the spirit of humility. I am willing to wash your feet. My master did the like, and I am content if I may but be as he. I am sincere and solemnly earnest in the position I take. I am willing to sacrifice to it whatever I must. I did not em- brace this cause when a young man, and incur obloquy on account of it, because I loved ignominy and reproach. I was not then reckoned inferior to my equals in age, in scholar- ship and the hope of usefulness, and I have not been in- sensible to the desire of popularity with good men. But in the course I have taken I followed what I thought my duty, I and I well knew what I was to meet in discharging it. While yet a student, I was preaching in a church where the salary was a thousand dollars, and where to oppose slaveiy was to be unacceptable. But I told them I was an aboli- tionist. I knew no pettifogging distinctions by which to reconcile the conscience to slavery, while condemning it in words; and I determined to take the consequences of a straightforward and honest utterance of correct principles, derived, not from collating the opinions of men, but by listening ' to the voice of God. Do not therefore, make me your enemy because I speak plainly, and tell you the truth. My labors are almost done in Cincinnati. I am about to leave the church of my first labor and first love, to live in an mterior town of Illinois, w^here I have little to expect from your ap- probation or esteem. But I beseech you, Kentuckians, to remember David Rice; to remember Barlow, and listen with candor and patience while I seek to show you, that, if slave-holding is not sinful then I can justify all those acts which my brother calls the ^'-abuses of slavery'^ and prove them innocent and good. My first projwsition is this ; if slave-holding is not sinful, then kidnapping is right. For what is the moral difference % Suppose one man snares and steals your game, and another man knowing the fact, eats it ; where is the difference in their guilt ? Now the kidnapper is the hunter for the slave-holder, 300 DISCUSSION if slave-holding is not sinful, the slave-trade is not sinful, for certainly the slave-holder is a particeps criminis. He is a partner in the concern, for what are kidnapping and the slave trade to slave-holding, but the jackal to the lion. They are the lion's providers, and the slave holder has the lion's share of ihe spoil, the largest part of the profits. You will not find a slave- driver but will tell you the slave-holder is as wicked as he. " They curse us, and abuse us, and w^e must bear the odium of this business," says the slave-driver, " but when they want slaves to fill their gangs, they accost us politely and offer us a second glass: — yet they affect to call us pirates, and while they are regaling themselves with their segars, their mint juleps, the product of the labor of their slaves, they can talk about 'the wicked soul-driver.' Now where is the equality and justice of this." Tell me, in God's name, is it not true either that slave-holding is sinful, or the slave trade justified? He heaps abuse upon his own ser- vants. He betrays the hand that feeds him. We furnish oil for the wheels of the system, and they curse the hand that brings it. Truly the slave-holder " Atones for sins he is inclined to, "By damning those he has no mind to." There is no reply to a soul-driver, speaking thus, but to confess that he utters truth. But you not only justify kid- napping and the slave-trade, by denying that slavery is not sinful, but also all the other ^^ abuses of slavery ^^ as my brother calls them ; such as the parting of man and wife. This is my second point, under this head. God has made one man to be the husband of one woman. " For this cause he shall forsake father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife" — not to his wives. But the slave-holder, who has the husband or the wife for his property, can say, give me the husband or the wife, and none can gainsay him, simply because property is his property; this, slavery authorizes him to do, and defends him in doing ; thus putting asunder whom God has joined. Now, to rebut this, you are gravely told,J'this is an abuse of slavery, not slavery itself." But, ON SLAVERY. 301 I ask, by what rule docs a man who receives slaves, under- stand the nature of the purchase or gift made him. Sup- pose a man, dying, bequeaths slaves to his heirs, and they wish to know, being strangers to slavery, what is the nature of the gift; what do they do? They can go nowhere but to the slave code. And what do they see in the slave code ? Why, the chattelizing statute ; and they then say, we get these slaves as our trope rty, by these laws. My brother Rice, standing by, tells them, that it is not wrong — not sin- ful — to hold them. Now Dr. Rice gives them these slaves as their property, and yet, in his argument here, he annexes a condition to it, destroying its value as property, viz. : that they shall not sell the man without his wife and children, &c. Such ethics remind one of Hudibras's philosopher, who, " By metaphysics, could divide, A hair 'twixt North and North-west side." A sort of moral bodkin which he can thrust in between the theory and practice of the same thing, which are all of a piece, and separating them where there is neither fissure nor seam, justify, christianize, baptise the principle of slavery into the name of God ; and yet condemn every part of the prac- tice as an abuse. [Applause.] Sirs ; this is the very anchor ground of the friends of slave- ry, and I mean with God's help, to test it thoroughly and well, and see if it is safe. My third point is this : — If slave-holding is not sinful^ then the separation of parent and child is not sinful. The same argument lies to show this. My brother gives the slave-holder permission to hold his hu- man property^ but affects to deny the right to use it. His ground is, slave-holding is not sinful, but certain laws, regu- lating slavery, are : but the slave-holder says he does not understand this sort of gift. You teach us that it is " not sinful to hold slaves as property." Seeing then that slavery itself is right, why couple it with a condition which destroys its value ? Why, like Macbeth's witches ; " Keep the word of promise to the ear, " And break it to the heart :— " 302 _ DISCUSSION "Why abuse men by giving- them a right in theory, which you deny them in practice ? Why insult the slave-holder 1 God knows he has a hard enough time of it with all the evils of the system working with his own corruptions, and those of his slaves. Let us rather pray for them, — and be faith- ful to them. Why not be frank and say to them "You are certainly sinning; come now out of your sin and find peace." This is the way we treat other vices. Shall we cower be- fore this difficulty? Has this one evil a claim above all others ? Nay, rather why abuse slave-holders by giving them God's permission to hold slaves as property, and de- nying them the use of that property ? Suppose, in illustration, that a man sells another a herd of cattle, and after sale, annexas a condition that he shall never sell the dam without a whole string of young cattle, would not the buyer justly hold himself insulted, and imposed upon 1 Would not such a sale be but a different phase of the one principle on which Dr. Rice's whole argument rests ; vindicating slave-holding, yet pretending to oppose separating families ? Do you not see the palpable absurdity of the doctrine which he has been teaching ever since this debate opened ? A slave-holder may be honestly opposed to sell- ing slaves away from their families, and while his circum- stances are good, he may be able to act up to his principle. But by-and-by his sons gamble, his daughters die after ex- pensive sickness, and he is reduced to poverty — and he says to himself, " There's Betsey, I must sell her, and there's Jane, I must let her go also :" and so his slaves go one by one, to pay honest debts, and keep off starvation. Now, can you excommunicate him for this, and yet tell him he had a prop- erty right to those slaves. Why should you turn him out of a church conducted upon Dr. Rice's principle, that slave- holding is not sin ? Now were I a member of such a church he should never be put out by my voice. I would plead for him till I died. I would say, "Hands off!" You are wrong : You have first taught him that he had the right, and now you would punish him for using it. You are guilty ON SLAVERY. 803 of the most arrant hypocrisy in so doing." Meet the ques- tion like men. " Slavery or no slavery." Come out honor- ably and tell the slave-holder. " Sir you cannot commune with the church while you hold slaves : or else cease from the wretched pretence that you would excommunicate for sell- ing slaves irrespective of family ties. It is not wrong to do so, if SLAVE-HOLDING IS NOT SIN. I would then say to the slave-holder ; I will then help you. I will part with my coat. I will sell my property and divide it with you ; you shall not want while I have, provided you first do justice by freeing your slaves.'* No : this does not suit them. They choose to " put evil for good, and good for evil, light for darkness and darkness for light." They forsake the way of just and holy and 'plam pri7iciples, for the sake of a wicked practice — plain princi- ples for the sake of a wretched practice which one class are un- willing to condemn because another is unwilling to give up. I show, in the next place, that if slave-holding is not sin- ful, the working of men ivithout wages is right. What does Dr. Rice say in his pamphlet. " If I buy a man he is MINE, so far as his services are concerned ;" though he adds, " and I am solemnly bound to treat him as a man," that is, as MY man I Treat him how 1 Why, if he is mine, he must work for me. His services are mine because he is mine. (See Rice's Lectures, page 17.) This is put forth by him as a well considered doctrine, be- cause it was first delivered at the first Presbyterian church, and afterwards published. I should not have stood here against him if he had not delivered those lectures. I refu- sed when they first came to me, to enter on this discussion with a Presbyterian minister, because I felt for the honor of Christianity — the Christian ministry, and the ark of my God. But when I saw him come out in public as the charioteer in the very front of the car of despotism, as it rides over the wrecks of human beings, I determined to withstand him and his error if I died in the gap: [Applause.] If slave-holding be not sinful, though it seems hard that the 304 DISCUSSION hand made hard with toil should not feel the cash it earns, yet it is not wrong to withhold wages from the laborer, but right perfectly right. When a boy, I. heard of the effects of the em- bargo law in eastern towns and cities. The hammer of the smith was idle. The chisel of the artizan was not heard upon the wall. The cry of the children was heard for bread, when three mouths were to be fed and but two mouthfuls to give them. It seemed hard that the laborer could not be fed by his toil : for the wages principle — that " The laborer is w^or- thy of his hire," blazes from every page of God's Book which is a wall of fire around the rights of the poor. But there is no hardship, no injustice in withholding wages — if slave-holding be not sin. My brother has told us that slaves do not earn more than they receive. They should be the judges of that them- selves. We have no right to judge for them what is best for their interest. If I know how to manage property better than my neigh- bor, does it give me a right to take the management of his property ? If I know how to manage his wife or his child, better than he ; does that entitle me to take possession of and manage them ? My friend's doctrine is that they should be paid no wagps, except what masters see fit to allow them, excluding hiring and fixed wages ; but the Bible says, " the laborer is ivortky of HIS HIRE." The daughter of Pharaoh did not dare com- pel a Hebrew servant to nurse Moses for her without promi- sing her wages. This common, house-hold equity ; this sim- ple justice to the laboring poor, blazes on every page of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, yet he vaunts his ea- gerness to bring this discussion to the words of Holy Scripture, as if that blessed book contained no justice for men compelled to work without hire! Oh thou bles- sed charter of human hope ! Thou sweet pole-star to the voyager of life! (addressing the Bible which lay on the stand before the speakers,) thou bright beam of the ineffa- ble effulgence of God ! would they dive into thy glorious ON SLAVERY. S05 brig-htiiess to draw from this charter of human liberty, their title deed of slavery ? Gracious and compassionate God ! they vaunt that they will thrust their hand into this blessed book, (holding- up the Bible,) to fetch hence fetters for our feet, and manacles for our minds ! And are these the vaunted triumphs of all my brother's Hebrew and Greek ? " Oh star-eyed science, hast thou wandered there, To bring us back these tidings of despair !" Then, let the laurel and olive branch be laid aside, and all the insignia of erudition be changed : let the scholar put off his cap, and the professor his gown. Henceforth, let the scepter of science be a whip, and her chaplet a chain ! But shall they prosper who do such things? Never! Never ! ! That impious hand which is thrust into God's word to bring out chains and fetters for our race, shall yet be as the hand of Jeroboam, at the altar of Bethel, when he stretched it forth against the prophet of God. And the day cometh, when the light daily increasing from this blessed page, piercing and dispersing the mists they have cast around it, shall so dazzle and confound their vision, that they shall grope at Reason's noonday, and, like Elymas the sorcerer, " go about seeking some one to leadjhem by the hand." Oh, if she were but here, who once washed her Master's feet, she would wash out their foul aspersions from this His book, with her tears, and wipe them away with the hairs of her head! Let us emulate her wisdom and copy the piety of her example. I now, inly imploring aid, proceed in proving that, if slave- holding be not sinful, then there is no abuse, nor law, nor anything sinful about it. And my next point is, that, if slave-holding he 7iot si7ifuJ, the master has a right to lohip the slave inhumanly, till he submits, as the Kentucky synod, already quoted, states, slavery takes away from the slave all right to hold property, all chance of character, all the ties of family, and all the motives by which God meant to propel the human machinery of free agents, and substi- tutes force in their stead. Thus far, all is sinless, says Dr. 20 306 DISCUSSION. Rice. But he is opposed to anything cruel or wrong in the masters' treatment of slaves, or in the laws regulating slavery. I know that in words, lie does not mean to stop the wheels of God's administration over mind and intellect, and cut off His action upon man as a free agent ; but this is what he does in giving permission to hold men as slaves, thus strip- ping their souls of God's motives. He only proposes to take away the water that turns the wheel, not to destroy the wheel itself; not to brutify the slave, but strip his soul of human motives. Aye, but when you have taken away ail other motives to exertion, and still wish action, you have left only force by which to produce it. And when you have put the whip in the place of God's motives to human action, what can you do with your man but the same that is done to a horse — whip him, or sell him ? The man is become an animal. Bartholomew Las Casas, under that doctrine of expediency which has been the dry-rot and curse of the church ever since ; reasoning against Indian slavery, was induced, it is said, to sanction the enslavement of the Africans, because he thought the curse of Canaan had fallen upon them, as the progeny of Ham. All the other comimentators who have defended slavery upon Bible principles, have adopted more or less of his ideas. They all hang to each other, each copying from his predecessor, like the Welsh- men in the story, who, in passing a bridge, saw the moon shining in the water, and fancying it a green cheese, they took hold of each others legs to form a string to reach it, and when the upper one gave way, they all fell into the water together. Sirs, you can do nothing with a slave, after you hold him, but whip him, till he obeys. A Baptist minister said, in con- vention, " sir, ive have to he cruelJ^ If I were a slave, you would have to be cruel to me. A command against my conscience I would not obey. I would die in the furrow, before I would be driven like the ox. A man in the lowest slavery, still retains a spark of that Promethean fire which ON SLAVERY. 307 distinguishes men from brutes. As long as he retains the intellectual image of his God, slavery has not entirely- stamped it out; and hence cruelty follows, and is part of slavery, as murder is of robbery on the highway. I make one point more. If slavery he not sinful^ it is not sinful to murder slaves^ under certain circumstances. This you may consider a strong assertion. But I desire to be put upon trial upon it ; and I pledge myself to make it good. Suppose there are given me fifty slaves. I am mer- ciful. I wish to do the best I can for them. God has cast my lot in Mississippi or Alabama, whither, Cassius M. Clay tells you, all the rascally slaves are sold — all those who cannot be kept under proper discipline in the upper country. My heart bleeds for the conscientious slave-holder, whose lot is cast in the extreme South. It is true, though that does not excuse them, that British policy kept standing, if it did not originate, southern slavery. It is true, also, that con- scientious slave-masters are in terrible difficulty. In Mary- land and Virginia, a part of the value of slave-property con- sists in slave-breeding for the South. So, in a late paper, says the junior editor of the L40uisville Journal. Now, then, suppose I have fifty slaves in Alabama or Mississippi, ihe Botany-Bay of the American slave-system, and my slaves are men who are made brutes by slavery, and rendered fierce by oppression. I say to them, some morning, 'come, boys, to work.' One is lazy and idle, and refuses to work. When I order him to march, he stands up, and, in presence of the gang, gives me words. I have been kind to him ; but he resists. I threaten him with the whip ; for if I do not en- force obedience, in this instance, I breed insurrection. Be- sides, the slave-holders around me would not allow of such dangerous mercy. They will say, I am a poltroon, and a deserter of southern institutions. They will not endure my neighborhood, unless I use force. Say I, ' You must sub- mit ;' and my slave replies, " I will not." What have I left but to raw-hide him till he yields ? Well, I roll up my sleeves and go at it : the negro runs into a stream or thicket, 308 DISCUSSION turns round, and curses me to my teeth. What am I to do ? The penal code does not help me. There is no other Botany- Bay, no Georgia or Carolina, south of me, whither to sell him. I have undertaken the care of rascals myself; there is no peni- tentiary for slaves : they are not allowed to go there — if they were, they would be so thickly crowded that their arms and legs would stick out through the prison grates. The criminal code, therefore, does not allow imprisonment to slaves. There is no resort left but to kill him, uriless he surrenders ; and slave-holders do it ! I can show you plenty of instances, where masters have killed their slaves, under similar cir- cumstances ; and there is no candid slave-holder, of informa- tion, but will tell you, that it must and may be done. They call it pure self-defence, though the negro has not raised a hand ! The system drives you to that extremity. The root of the evil lies not in the killing, but back of it. You can- not keep up discipline without it ; and hence, to murder is right, according to the laio of slavery, and the teaching of Dr. Rice, that slave-holdiiig is not sin. If you give me God's permission to be a slave-holder, then you give me his permission to take all the steps necessary to enforce the powers with which you have clothed me, and " Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill." When once you have, by your teaching, saddled the sys- tem of slave-holding upon me, you lay me under obliga- tions to carry out that system, by such means as the system furnishes and allows. All the wrong roots there. My brother complains that we apply to him the word " pro- slavery." And he complains of Dr. Bailey, the editor of the Herald, whose " Facts for the People," he says, contain but few facts. As to Dr. Bailey, I will lay my judgment in pledge with your good opinion, on the fact that there is not an editor in Cincinnati, or elsewhere, (and I -mean no dis- paragement to the gentlemen of the press, when I say it,) more disposed to do justice to his fellow-men, and there are few men more able to do it than he. Is he a liar and a pub- lisher of lies because he calls men '•^pro-slavery w6W,"_who ON SLAVERY. 309 give the slave-holder God's permission to hold slaves, when that permission includes all things necessary to carry out the system ? I must beg permission not to take up the argument on the golden rule, here, as my strength is exhausted. I wish to say that the word pro-slavery is not a slander upon those men who advocate slavery as right. Suppose a colony of men go to settle in Oregon Territory, and you wish to set up slavery there. All you have to do is to give to the colo- ny the law by which " slaves shall be deemed and taken in the law to be chattels personal," and you give them all the slavery which has ever existed since the time of Aris- totle: — all the slavery that existed in Rome during the twelve hundred years of that mighty Republic. You send over the Rocky mountains, the very same system wdiich ob- tained in Britain when our British ancestors were shipped like brutes to be sold in the Roman markets. The samo identical system which has existed in the United States of America, sinee-4lie first ill-freighted bark brought twenty slaves to our shores, in the year 1620, the very year of the landing of the Pilgrims upon the Plymouth Rock. It was in that year that Dutch merchants, under the protection of England, sowed the first seeds of that dreadful system in our country, whose fruitage now poisons the very air. You have, I say, only to give your Oregon colony the chattel law, and to teach them, as my brother does, that slave-hold- ing is not sinful, to introduce into Oregon the whole system of Greek, Roman, British and American slavery. Does not my brother know it? Yet he preaches these doctrines. He reite- rates them to-day. Why suffer your judgments to be abus- ed, Qfe, Iventuckians ! In the name of God, and your holy dead, I invoke you to hear the man who is now among you, toiling to persuade you to abandon this accursed and ruin- ous system. Stand by your countryman, Clay, w^hose only offence is the fault of Kentucldans, a slight excess of ardor, and desert the man who, in the garbof God's minister, would give you God's permission to enslave your race. Humanity 310 DISCUSSION with her bleeding- bosom, and fettered hands, and brow, brand- ed with the brand mark of brutes, implores you to spare her the degradation, and yourselves the sin of upholding a sys- tem like this. To my unfortunate brother, who feels slan- dered by the term " pro-slavery," I have no advice to give, but to throw down his idols, and return to his God. Let him forsake his way and his thoughts, and let him return unto God who will have mercy upon him, and to our God Avho will abundantly pardon. \_Tlme expired. [ Ji R . rice's eleventh speech.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens : I should be grateful if those who entertain the views I advocate, would abstain from applauding. A good cause does not require aids of this kind to sustain it ; a bad one may. I do not intend to imitate the example of the gentleman by telling you how much I have 'prayed^-mrih.i^ subject. It is right to pray ; but whilst listeningjlo his numerous in- correct statements, especially those bearlpjg' on the character of ministers of the gospel, I could ncMhelp thinking, he would better pray less and examine i^fe. And I would venture to suggest, that whilst praying for light on this sub- ject, he would do well to look a little into the Scriptures, through which light is to be obtained, and by which alone the question before lis can be satisfactorily settled. I have another objection to telling the audience how much I pray, viz: I have observed that generally those who talk most of their praying, give least evidence that they have prayed so as to ie improved thereby. *• Mr. B. asks, what is a relation ? He answers by telling lis, that a relation, a lawful relation, implies mutual rights and obligations ; and he infers, that the relation of master and slave is sinful, because, as he affirms, the slave has no rights, and the master no obligations. In this case, as in many others, he differs from Paul the apostle. He evidently ON SLAVERY. 311 "believed, that this relation has connected with it mutual du- ties and obligations; and, therefore, in his epistles he points out the duties of the master, as well as those of the slave, and enjoins upon each the discharge of their respective du- ties, and upon each to regard the rights of the other. Ac- cording to the doctrine of the gentleman, however, the master has no rights and the servants no duties. I hope to he pardoned for being, on this subject, as blind as Paul, and as foolish as Peter ! He asks rather triumphantly, who are to be the slaves, and who, the masters — whether those superior in intellect and physical strength may rightly reduce their inferiors to servitude. And here, before answering this question, it occurs to me to say a word or two with regard to the adjournment of the debate till Monday afternoon. The gentleman complains of illness ; and, therefore, in accommodation to him I have reluctantly consented to the arrangement. I say reluctantly ; for although eighteen hdurs have been consumed, the gentle- man has not yet touched the question he stands pledged to debate. What he has thus far advanced, is, almost the whole of it, as distant from the question, as the moon from the earth. He has abounded in assertion^ but failed to ad- duce anything like scriptural evidence in favor of his propo- sition. Last evening, he gave us notice, that he would offer "the 6Zire<;/ argument for abolitionism:" we looked for a Bible argument^ but in vain. Now if a man cannot prove slave- holding sinful in nine hours^ I think he would better quit. [A laugh.] I regret that he has made the request, particu- larly because many who have come from a distance, expect- ing the debate to close on to-morrow, will probably be obliged to leave without hearing the most interesting part of it. As to the question, whether superiors may enslave those inferior to them, I reply: 1st. It has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. As I have repeatedly remarked, we are not discussing the question, whether it is right to enslave free men. The question before us, which the gentleman 312 'discussion stands pledged to discuss, relates to our duty to a class of men reduced to slavery by others. Is it the duty of those who inherited this evil, to rid themselves of it by an imme- diate emancipation, without regard to circumstances ? This is the question. And if the brother felt himself able to sup- port his affirmative proposition, would he Jbe continually speaking to something else? I presume not. He cannot avoid seeing and feeling that there is a difficulty in main- taining his side of the real question : and he therefore tries to divert our attention to a different issue. Is this candid 1 But with what propriety does he ask the question, since he himself has said, that the negroes, if liberated, might with propriety be prevented from voting, and subjected to laws made for them ; because in some respects they are inferior to the whites ? If he does not advocate the depriving them of the right to vote and to hold civil offices ; he certainly considers such a course not wrong, since he proposes to leave it to poii- licians to do as they think proper. He holds, that supe- riors may not enslave inferiors, nor" under any circum- stances hold them in bondage ; but they may deprive them of some of the dearest rights of freemen ! The propriety of his question will not appear, at least, till he is more consistent. To prove the sinfulness of the relation between master and slave, he tells us, that every act authorized by the relation, is a sinful act. To prove this assertion, he selects one particu- lar : he says, that the slave-holder exacts the service of tho slave without allowing him wages. I have repeatedly presented for his consideration the case of the Presbyterian elder in Kentucky, who had become heir to a large number of slaves, of different ages — some old and infirm, others women and children. He asked the Synod what he ought to do. As for paying them wages, he said, taking them altogether, " they are eating me up.''^ They were an expense to him. Will the gentleman tell us, how much he owed them ? Dr. Cunningham, who had paid par- ticular attention to this subject, says, truly, that the worth of li^^^X. depends upon circumstances ; and he states, that in ON SLAVERY. 13 Great Britain there are many persons who are obliged to la- bor twenty hours out of the twenty-four, and even then they cannot secure a support for themselves and their families. I presume, the gentleman had not heard of these facts. He is slow to hear what makes against his favorite doctrines. I affirm, that if any slave-holder in Kentucky should require his slaves to labor ticenty hours in twenty-four, he would be drummed out of the State ; he would be regarded as a mon- ster of cruelty. It is absolutely certain, that the slaves in our country do receive generally better wages, than multi- tudes of the free laborers in England and Scotland. The amount justly due, as wages, must depend upon many cir- cumstances. I can truly say, that if a family of slaves were offered me to-morrow, as a present, on condition that I should take care of the aged, feed and clothe the children, pay doctor's bills. &C., I would not, as a mere matter of pecu- niary consideration, accept the gift. ( I mean as a matter of profit and loss.) If I were obliged to maintain the old who are past work, and the children who are not yet able, and to pay the doctor's bills for the whole, I would not take the family as a free gift. Doubtless great injustice is often done in the slave relation, as in the married relation. Oppression and cruelty may be practiced in both, but that does not prove either of the rela- tions to be in itself sinful. Paul thought (but he was no ab- olitionist,) that the relation might continue and yet the mas- ter give to his slave "that which is just and equal." He does not require the relation to be dissolved ; nor does he re- quire wages to be paid in money. The brother says, the slave-holder has a right to separate husband and wife. How does he prove it ? By the Bible 1 No: but by the Rev. Mr. Blanchard's assertion! No doubt, the master can do it ; he has the physical power to separate them. So he may beat his slave to death, or knock him down with an ax ; but who recognizes his moral right to do so 1 No man ever asserted it. If the gentleman's assertion be true, Constantine must, S14 DISCUSSION after all, have been a great fool in making laws that no mas- ter should separate husband and wife. It is vain for Mr. B. to assert that every slave-holder can do what in some countries the law of the State forbids, and what in this country the law of the Presbyterian church expressly prohibits him from doing-. Men own horses ; and the gentleman will scarcely deny that a man's horses are, in the fullest sense of the word, his property. But does it fol- fow, that he may treat them as cruelly as his passions may prompt him to do? May he cut them up by peacemeal, al- lowing them still to live ? The Bible teaches, that " a right- eous man regardeth the life of his beast ;" and even the civil lau- punishes a man proved guilty of cruel treatment of his horse. And yet the gentleman would have us believe, that because a man claims the services of his fellow man under certain circumstances, he may treat him as a brute, may inflict on him all the suffering he can endure ! Such logic may satisfy those who are already ardent abolitionists j but cannot convince the unprejudiced. Why only look at it. He urges, as an argument against slave-holding, that which, if valid, would destroy the mar- riage relation. He says, that slave-holding is a deadly sin, because a master may separate a wife from her husband. Granting that he can, (though certainly the relation does not authorize him to do so,) cannot a husband prevent his wife from going to church ? Has he not the physical power ? And cannot a father, so long as his son is under age, prevent him from attending any place of worship? or from joining any church? Certainly, the husband and the father may thus tyrannize over the wife and the child , but is this a valid argument against the relation of husband and wife ? — of parent and child ? What does his argument amount to ? It amounts just to this, that if a man has power over another, he may abuse it as much as he pleases. The gentleman is arguing against principles which are avowed by no man under the sun. ^ Then he asks, '' But why seek to free a slave, if the rela- ON SLAVERY. 315 tion is not sinful V In reply,' I ask, 'why seek to relieve a man's poverty, if poverty be not sinful?' Wonderful logic, this. Again, he asks, " why is it, if Dr. Rice is so much op- posed to slave-holding, that his doctrines are so popular among rampant slave-holders ? " A little while ago, he told you, that my doctrines were most unpalatable at the South — that slave-holders could not endure them ; and, behold, he now asserts directly the contrary. Ought not a man, who will assert, in the space of two hours, two propositions, the very reverse of each other, to have till Monday to adjust his ideas ? [A laugh.] He inquires how, if I am opposed to slavery, I can preach to persevering slave-holders in Kentucky — how it happens, that my doctrines are so acceptable to them. I ask him, how he can preach the truth to sinners in Cincinnati ? [A laugh.] He really seems to think that no man can preach the truth to sinners without being stoned. I think it proba- ble, that when the stones flew so thickly around him, as he told us they once did, that he provoked opposition by some such incoirect statements as he has repeatedly made here. By the way, I will not say how much I have been praised, or how much popularity I have sacrificed, for what I believe to be the truth, as the gentleman has done. I have nothing of the kind to communicate. There is in the house a number of Kentuckians, who came to this place to hear all the gentleman had to offer in proof of his doctrine, that slave-holding is in itself sinful ; but they have been disappointed. They have heard him 7iine hours, and have heard him advance nothing like a scriptural argument. They would doubtless hear him patiently, if he would reason ; but I venture to say, they will regard all his declamation and attacks upon personal character, as the idle wind. But slave-holding, he thinks, must be in itself sinful, be- cause it hinders the coming of the Millenium. Facts, how- ever, contradict his assertion ; for it is well known, that the 316 DISCUSSION churches in the slave-holding States — those, for exaniple, in Kentucky, are quite as prosperous as those in Ohio, or any of the free States. This the abolitionists cannot deny. I could easily point to many churches in Kentucky, far more prosperous than that to which the gentleman ministers in this city, which, if I am correctly informed, he has preached almost to death. The brother insists, that slave-holding is kidnapping con- tinued — kidnapping " stretched out." This is but a repeti- tion of his former argument. He seems about to begin de novo. Then, he says again, that it abolishes marriage, but brings not a word from the Bible to prove it. Perhaps he is going to "keep saying" it, like his friend, Mr. Leavitt ! [A laugh.] But I shall now leave such arguments as these, and return '' to the law and to the testimony." The brother has pronounced a most eloquent eulogium upon the Bible. I cannot pretend to repeat it; yet he attempted to cast no little odium upon me because I insisted upon going directly to the Bible. How shall I please the gentleman? He would fain excite prejudice against me, because I said that if I buy a man he is mine. But what does the Bible say to slaves ? " Obey your masters in all things." If the man is his master, then he is his servant. And I simply said, if I buy a man, he is mine, so far as his services are con- cerntd. This is Paul's doctrine, but if Paul^were on earth to-day the abolitionists would excommunicate him ! [A laugh.] "Oh thou most blessed book," exclaims the gentleman. Yes: and oh that the gentleman would but get into the blessed book. [Renewed laughter.] But he won't, and I can't get him there. He comes no nearer than to cr}^, " oh blessed book." The gentleman says, if the slave is his master's, then he may beat him at pleasure, and exercise all cruelty toward him, just as he may the log of wood he owns. But, unhap- A_^,^ , ON SLAVERY. 317 pily, the Bible admits the one, and forbids the other. " Oh, blessed book!" A man's child is his; may he knock its brains out? If the gentleman's argument is good for any- thing, he may kill it, or do anything else to it he pleases. I cannot detain, to answer such logic. I now, resume the Bible argument ; and as there are many persons present now, who did not hear me this afternoon, you will bear with me whilst, for the satisfaction of such, I briefly recapitulate. It is a truth which the gentleman will scarcely deny, that God, who is infin-itely holy, and '* of purer eyes than to look on sin," never did, and never could, give men permission to form a relation in itself sinful, or sinful in the circumstances in which it is formed. In other words, God cannot grant to men permission to commit sin. Now, if I prove, that God did recognize the relation of master and slave as lawful, and did give express permission to the Jews to purchase slaves; it will follow, inevitably, that the relation between master and slave is not in itself sinful. I go, then, directly to the "blessed book," as Mr. B. very appropriately styles it. 1. I have proved, as I think, beyond a doubt, that Hagar was Abraham's slave ; for in the first place, the Hebrew word shifha^ translated "maid," properly means a female slave. Gessenius defines it, ancilla, famula, wdiich words in the Latin tongue, mean a female slave. The Septuagint trans- lates it by the Greek word, paidiske, a word of the same meaning as ancilla and famula in Latin. In the second place, I showed, that in the 4th chapter of the epistle to the Gallatians, Hagar is called a ^'■bondivoma7ij^ (^paidiske) in contrast with Sarah, who v/as free — eleuthera. If she was not a slave, there was no contrast such as Paul draws, be- tween her condition and that of Sarah. Thirdly, Abraham told Sarah, her maid was in her hand, and she could do with her as she pleased ; and when Sarah punished her, she fled from her, and was found in the wilderness. Those who have hired servants, do not claim authority to punish 318 DISCUSSION them; nor do they rw7i from their employers. The angel of God found her in the wilderness, and admonished her to return and submit to her mistress. Would he have done so, if the relation of master and slave had been in itself sinful ? Would Mr. Blanchard give such advice to a fugitive slave? Did God denounce Abraham as " a kidnapper," because Haofar was his slave ? 2. Abraham, as I proved from the 17th chapter of Genesis, had servants bought with his money ^ as well as servants horn in his house ; and so far from requiring him to liberate them, or denouncing him for holding them, God required him to administer to them the ordinance of circumcision. More- over, Abimelech gave bond-servants of both sexes to Abra- ham, and he received them. Is not the receiver as bad as the thief? If they were kidnapped, (as my friend maintains,) and were "found in Abraham's hand," he was worthy of death. Once more, Abraham's pious servant told Laban, that the Lord himself had given his master men-servants and maid-servants, as well as camels and asses. Was it a sin in Abraham to hold what God had given ? 3. I gave the Hebrew words which signify slave and hired servant viz : eved^ a slave, and sakir^ a hired servant. The Hebrew servant, sold for six years, was not to be treated as an eved^ a slave, but as a sakir^ a hired servant. I read in Leviti- cus, ch. 25, the express permission given the Jews to buy bond- men and bondmaids from the heathen ; and if the gentleman denies, that the word cved^ here translated bondman^ means slave^ I earnestly request him, as I did this afternoon, to tell us what word in the Hebrew language does have that mean- ing. Moreover, not only were these bondmen bought with money ; but they are called the 'possession of the man who bought them, and the inheritance of his children forever. The Jew, sold for six years, might also voluntarily become a servant for life, having his car bored. But if they were bought^ were they not his for the purpose for which he bought them? ON SLAVERY. 319 4. There were also hired servants ; and the hiw required that their wages should be promptly paid, but said nothing con.- cerning- the wacjes of bondmen. The bondmen were distin- o o guished from the hired servants, in that the former were per- mitted to partake of the passover, but the latter, not being permanently connected with the family, were not. 5. As a further and conclusive evidence that the bondmen spoken ot in the law of Moses, were slaves, I proved that the master v/as permitted to enforce their obedience by chastisement, which was never done in the case of hired servants ; and that the master was not subject to punishment if his servant lived a day or two after the chastisement, because '^he zvas his mo- ney J^ I have stated, and I repeat it, that all commentators, critics and theologians of any note, understand the word eved to mean a slave, and the bondmen of the Jews to have been real slaves. Indeed, stronger language to establish this fact, could not be used. The fact, then, is clearly established, that God recognized as lawful, the relation of master and slave in the case of the patriarchs, and that he gave express permission to the Jews, to form the relation by purchasing slaves from the heathen. The conclusion is inevitable, that the relation is not in itself sinful. How do the abolitionists attempt to escape the force of this evidence? I will pay my respects to their replies to it. 1. They say, the servants bought by the Jews, sold them- selves. To this I reply — 1st, It cannot be proved. Whatev- er might be true of adults, it is certain that childi-en did not sell themselves ; and they were permitted to purchase " chil- dren of the strangers." 2d, If the relation is in itself sinful, they had no right to sell themselves into it ; nor had any man the right to purchase them, and thus to form a relation in itself sinful. No consent of parties can make that right, which is in itself wrong. A woman may consent to be a concubine ; but her consent will not make the relation thus constituted, lawful. Sd, But Rev. T. E. Thomas, a zealous and 320 DISCUSSION influential abolitionist, says — " The advocates of slavery can devise but one answer, accordant with their views ; namely, that the heathen round about were slave-holders, that they had captives taken in war, and whom they might sell to the Jewish purchaser. We admit that some servants of this sort might be bought of the heathen^who claimed to be their masters, and shall prove, presently, that even such persons could not be held by the Hebrews, without their consent." Review oj Jimldn, p. 23. It is admitted, then, the slaves did not always sell themselves j but were, at least sometimes, sold by their masters. 2. But it is said, the Jews could not purchase servants without their consent. To this I reply, that no Christian would be willing to purchase an adult slave without his con- sent, nor to sell an obedient slave to a master with whom he is unwilling to live. If a professing Christian were known to purchase adult slaves, contrary to their wish, and to com- pel them to live with him, I admit, that he would thus man- ifest a spirit so inconsistent with Christianity, as to deserve the discipline of the church. But suppose I buy a slave at his own earnest request, do I buy him without his consent ? Yet abolitionists denounce the slave-holder who has formed the relation with the consent, and at the request of the slave, whilst they are constrained to admit, that the Jews purchased in this way ! 3. It is alleged, that the term of service of the servants bought of the heathen, was limited. Of this class of ser- x'ants, Mr. Thomas says — " They were never purchased for six years; but always till the jubilee.^' For argument's sake, we will admit the truth of this statement ; and now, let me ask, what proportion of those purchased in this way, would live to enjoy the freedom proclaimed at the jubilee ? Suppose a man thirty years of age, bought by a Jew immediately after the jubilee, he would be a slave forty-nine years, and would become free at the age of seventy-nine. Of what advantage would his liberty be to him at that age. How many live to ON SLAVERY. 32l four-score years ? But it may be said, his children will, at any rate, be free. Suppose we admit this, it does not affect the question before us. We are discussing the question, whether slave-holding is in itself sinful, and the relation be- tween master and slave a sinful relation. If it is in itself sinful, it is a sin to hold a man in that relation one day, as trul}^ as to hold him forty-nine years ; and if it be lawful to hold a slave five years, or fifty years, he may be held a longer time, if there be no law against it. But the argu- ment 1 am considering, admits that the relation might law- fully exist till the year of jubilee. This admission is all I ask ; for it concedes that the relation is not in itself sinful. I thank no man for making this concession ; because it is perfectly easy to prove the fact, whether it is admitted or not. 4. It is alleged, that the bondmen of the Jews received wages. I demand the proof; and I venture to say it will not be produced. The law [Levit. xix, 13) required the wages of the hired servant to be promptly paid ; but where does it say a word concerning the wages of the bondman 1 But let it be remembered, that unrequited labor is only one of the sinful features of slave-holding, mentioned by abolitionists. If the relation was sinful, the fact that the slave received wages, would not make it right. 5. It is said that though the Jews might buy servants, they might not sell. Admitting this too, for the argument's sake, will it follow that the holding of a slave is sinful? The controversy between us and the abolitionists, is not about slave-selling, but about slave-holding. But where is his proof that they might not sell ? The law expressly per- mitted them to buy slaves, and did not forbid them to sell. There is, indeed a law forbiding a master to sell a Jewish servant to strangers; but they might sell to their brethren. Exceptio probat regulam : the exception confirms the rule. 6. It is alleged, that some of the old patriarchs had sever- al wives, and the same arguments which prove slave-holding not in itself sinful, prove that polygamy and concubinage are 21 322 DISCUSSION right. It is admitted, that some pious men, at an early day, had a plurality of wives ; but let the gentleman, if he can, produce the divine permission given to any man to marry more than one wife. Polygamy and concubinage are wrong ; but God never gave permission to any man to form such re- lations. But I have proved, that he did give the Jews ex- press permission to buy and hold slaves. I am under no obligation to assign the reason why God gave the Jews permission to purchase and hold slaves. I have proved the fact ; and that is sufficient to prove the doc- tine of the abolitionists false. Yet I will give what was, as I suppose, the reason. Doubtless he intended that in this way degraded heathen should be made acquainted with that blessed religion by which they might be made happier on earth, and might secure eternal life. Those who were pur- chased by the Jews, were not, I suppose, thereby reduced to slavery. They were already slaves to degraded and cruel heathen masters, held in a state of bondage compared with vv^hich slavery under the Mosaic law, was almost free- dom. God's permission to the Jews to purchase them, was therefore, benevolent ; for their condition was greatly im- proved by the change. In view of this whole argument we are forced to the sol- emn conclusion that one of two things are true : either God gave permission to men to form a sinful relationj and to be- come according to our brother, kidnappers and man-stealers — or, it is not true, that the relation of master and slave is in itself sinful. The gentleman who imagines himself peculiarly illumin- ed, pours upon me his denunciations, and calls upon all Kentuckians to abandon such a man. In the fulness of his compassion he commisserates my blindness and moral de- gradation ; and his abolition brethren may sympathise with him. But after all, I am inclined to think, he will find him- self in the condition of a certain monomaniac of whom I have somewhere heard. A visitor asked him how it happened ON SLAVERY. 323 that he had become an inmate in the Asylum. He answer- ed — " The world said, I was deranged ; and I said, the world was deranged ; and they outvoted me." [A laugh.] Suppose the question put to vote, how many of the emi- nently wise and good, in past time and at the present day, would be found with the gentleman ? Doubtless, he feels deep commisseration for such men as poor blinded Dr. Scott, the Commentator ! for his views concerning Jewish servi- tude precisely accord with mine. I will read a single ex- tract from his commentary on^Levit. xxv, 44, — 46. " The Israelites were permitted to keep slaves of other nations ; perhaps in order to testify, that none but the true Israel of God participated of that liberty with which Christ hath made his people free. But it was also allowed, in order that in this manner the Gentiles might become acquainted with true religion, (Gen. xvii, 10 — 13. xviii, 19,) and when the Israel- ites copied the example of their pious progenitors, there can ,be no reasonable doubt, that it was overruled for the eternal salvation of many souls," &c. Poor ignorant Dr. Scott! how our abolitionist friends must pity him ! Bishop Home, too, the author of the celebrated "Intro- duction to the study of the Scriptures," in 4 volumes — one of the most learned men of his day, takes precisely the same view of the subject. He says : (Vol. 3, p. 419. " Slavery is of very remote antiquity. It existed before the flood, [Ge?i ix, 25 ; ) and when Moses gave his laws to the Jews, finding it already established, though he could not abolish it, yet he enacted various salutary laws and regula- tions. The Israelites indeed might have Hebrew servants or slaves, as well as alien-born persons, but these were to be circumcised," &c. After stating the various ways in which slaves might be acquired, he says : — " Slaves received both food and clothing, for the most part of the meanest quality, but whatever property they acquired, belonged to their lords : hence, they are said to be worth double the value of a hired servant. {Deut. xv, 18.) They formed marriages at the will 324 DISCUSSION of the master ; but their children were slaves, who, though they could not call him a father, {Gal. iv, 6. Rom. viii, 15,) yet they were attached and faithful to him as to a Hither, on which account the patriarchs trusted them with arms. If a married Hebrew sold himself, he was to serve for six years, &c., but, if his master had given one of his slaves to him as a wife, she was to remain, with his children, as the property of her maslcrP The compassionate brother no doubt is all this while pity- ing blinded Dr. Scott, and blinded Dr. Home, and poor blinded Dr. Chalmers and poor stone-blind Matthew Poole, (the author of the Synopsis and Annotations,) who fell into the same heresy : and while he is weeping, he may as well include, at once, all the best critics on the Old Testament who have enlightened and blessed the church of God. I defy the gentleman to show a single commentator, critic, or theolo- gian of any admitted pretensions to scholarship, who does not give the same exposition which I have given of the pas- sao-es in relation to servitude amon^ the Jews. That an over- whelming majority of the wisest and best men the church ever saw, agree with me in this view of those scriptures, I am prepared to prove. The brother wants very much to show that Dr. Cunning- ham is an abolitionist, and is with him in sentiment. I will therefore quote a little from his testimony, just to show that he is as blind, as stupid, or as corrupt, as I am, and as all other Bible critics and commentators. "They [slave-holding Christians,] submit to what they can- not help. Slavery is sinful as a system, but not necessarily in those who stand related to it. A very little consideration of the whole state of things, then, would show, that this is re- ally the ca^fi. A man may be a slave-holder innocently. Every man Of right feeling, who has true notions of what man is, as made in the image of God, and of man's duties and obligations, would, as much as possible, avoid ever com- ing into such a relation. * * * But then we ought to make distinctions, and enter into the position in which w^e perceive ON SLAVEilY. 325 they are placed. The slave laws are, beyond all question, most infamous. They do treat them as " brute beasts" or "chattels personal." On the majority of the community there rests a fearful amount of guilt, which could scarcely be exaggerated, &c. The law makes the slaves chattels per- sonal. The necessary consequence is, that a man becomes, whether he will or not, the possessor of slaves. They are his, and he cannot get rid of them. * * * The sum and sub- stance of what is commonly asserted by the church, is just a denial of the abolition principle that slavery is sinfuJ in such a sense, that mere slave-holding in all circumstances is a crime, and an adequate ground for expulsion from the Lord's table : and they have heyond all question^ the example of the apostles and apostolic churches to justify themP Again — " I have not the slightest hesitation in repudiating Ameri- can abolitionism." You observe, when speaking of abolitionists, he speaks of them as on "the other side." Is he one of them? Or does he not hold my principles precisely ? I told you that the slave laws were many of them infamous. Dr. Cunning- ham says the same. He says, the law makes them chattels personal ; but, he also says, concerning many masters, their slaves are theirs, and he cannot get rid of them. \Time expired. Friday Evening, 9 o'clock. [MR. BLANCHARD's TWELFTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow- Citizens : My whole speech, fortunately, will be in reply to the one just fallen from my brother, without departing from my prescribed course. It will be, throughout, upon the scripture argument, after about five minutes' reply to what he said before he himself came to the scriptures. 326 DISCUSSION '^ When he said that the Sixth Presbyterian Church, of which I am pastor, '■'-was preached almost to death" I felt sorry that such a remark should have escaped him, first, because my success as a pastor has nothing to do with the truth of my arguments here, and therefore the charge was entirely gratuitous ; and secondly, I do not like to say a word in my own case, in reply to such a remark, nor would I (for my work, as a pastor, is with God,) but for the sake of a beloved church, which has been faithful to me : and for the sake of those theological students in the audience, w^ho might be misled, by his remark, to suppose that opposing slave-holding is against pastoral success. When I took charge of the church, seven years ago last March, I was inexperienced and unpopular with those who hate all religion, except that which, like the piety of Mr. By-ends in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, " always jumps with the times." We had then but one hundred and twenty members, and have since been bereaved of several leading members by death. We have, through the mercy of God, enjoyed frequent revivals, and as the fruits of about seven years' labor, have received more than four hundred mem- bers. Through the rapid multiplication of new churches of the same order to which colonies we have largely con- tributed, the number of dismissions have been large, so that our present number is about two hundred and fifty, or about double that with which we commenced. A debt o{ five thousand dollars^ incurred in the purchase of a house of worship, during the times of pecuniary pressure, was, on the first day of January last, entirely cancelled, being paid down, or assumed by responsible men, and the church and congre- gation were never more united, prosperous and happy, than at present. I shall not bring my brother's want of pastoral ability to refute his arguments in this debate, nor go into Kentucky to enquire whether he has preached his former churches into death or into life. ' My brother thinks me guilty of an inconsistency in saying that his doctrine was acceptable to slave-holders ; and saying, ON SLAVERY. 327 also, that it was unacceptable to tliem. I did utter both those remarks, and both are true, and both consistent. The explanation is simply this, that like all defenders of error, his arguments are inconsistent with, and destroy each other, one part being acceptable to slave-holders, the other, not. What he said, declaring that " slave-holders have no right to hold their slaves, as property, for gain," they will not thank him for saying ; but the vilest of them will own him as their champion, while contending that "slave-holding is not sin." So that, as I said, what he teaches is unaccept- able to slave-holders, and what he teaches is acceptable to them. Again : He says that I, in the figure of the rats, represen- ted, that to go to Hebrew and Greek is to go into darkness. But he is mistaken. I said no such thing. This is what I said. That there is a class of rnen who seek to climb by sectarian services to the top of old ecclesiastical establish- ments founded by the piety of past generations : — that these men are slaves to authorities, weighing men's opinions against plain justice : — that they dive into the lumber-room of anti- quity to fetch out what instances they can find of the curtail- ment of human freedom in dark and despotic ages, before the empire of force had yielded to that of reason ; and twist them into a coil of precedents, to bind American Christian- ity to the toleration of American despotism in an age of lib- erty and light. That is what I said ; and not that Hebrew and Greek, the original tongues of the scriptures, were a source of darkness. Much good may his Hebrew and Greek do him ; I apprehend he will have need of all he is master of, before he gets through this debate. He further remarked that there could not be found one respectable commentator who did not hold that slave-holding is not sinful, *' he will confess that he could find none." I have an argument upon commen- tators which I will introduce in its place. Meantime I ob- serve that Dr. Adam Clarke, whom Methodists at least will respect, in commenting upon the Ephesians vi, 5, says, that; " In heathen countries slavery had some sort of excuse. S28 DISCUSSION Among Christians it is a crime, and an outrage for which perdition has scarcely an adequate 'punishment /" There is one commentator at least who does not quite agree with my brother. Mr. Rice rose. I will beg leave to correct the gentleman . I said he could not find one respectable commentator who ever gave a different interpretation to the passages of scripture which I quoted, from mine. Mr. Blanchard. Perhaps you are right. I will how- ever, give other commentators in their place. I thought I would read this just here by way of spice. [Great laughter.] Now, Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellow-Citizens. I am happy to be in a situation to follow my brother pari 'passu, in his scripture argument. His first main argument was from authorities. That I shall hereafter consider. His sec- ond was from scripture language, and that I am to consider now. In the scripture argument for slavery, there are two texts so much relied on by slave-holders, and their apologists, that (if any part of the Bible could be) they might be called " the slave-holders, texts ;" as their whole Bible argument hangs on their understanding of them. If these are taken from under them, their whole argument drops to the ground. They are Leviticus, chapter, xxv, 45, and Exodus, xxi, 21. It is not pretended by them that the general principles of the Bible give the slightest countenance to slavery. They therefore do not attempt to show, by reference to the whole scope of the Bible, that slavery is consistent with its prin- ciples, for the principles of the Bible are justice and righteous- ness. But they rely upon individual texts and parts of texts, which, taken out from the connexion, seem to teach that slavery was not a sin under the circumstances there found. Though their texts by no means prove their doctrine when an enlightened and just criticism is applied to them. As I have observed, their whole argument radiates from these two texts as from a centre, while all their subordinate and infe- ON SLAVERY. 329 rior inferences, drawn from other texts, as well as from these, are founded upon the same false view of the Bible, and are chickens of the same brood of error. I will come now; though contrary to the usual course pursued in forensic ar- gument, (which is, to prove your proposition before stating and answering objections ; so as to arm your hearers with truth, before staggering them with errors which you have not yet prepared them to meet.) I will come first to the very heart and core of their "Bible argument," reading the texts on which they mainly rely, and on which they are harping from July to June. The first is Levit. xxv, 45. " Moreover, of the children of the strangers {i. e. Canaan- ites,) that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you ; which they beget 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: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule, one over another with rigor." I have an hour and a half speech, to prove that these bondmen or bound-men were not slaves. But I am now simply replying to his arguments. His position is that this passage proves that the Hebrews held slaves, and that by God's permission. I wish here, in the outset, to protest against being under- stood, even if I admitted the Hebrew bond-servants to be slaves, as also admitting that their slavery could sanction ours. (But I do not admit that those bond-servants were slaves, and my main argument will be, to prove that they were not.) For even if they had been slaves, they were Canaanites, a race of men accursed of God, having filled the measure of their iniquities, and doomed to extermination from the earth. Surely, if God saw fit to enslave these people for their crimes, and commanded his people to exe- cute this wrath upon them, that would not justify an Ameri- can in enslaving indifferent, unoffending persons. This must be clear to every understanding. If the court issue a war- 330 DISCUSSION rant to the sheriff of your county to hang a convicted crim- inal, that warrant does not authorize any man to go out and hang any man in any other county who has been illegally seized. Supposing the Canaanites were really enslaved, with God's permission, for their sins, it does not give Dr. Rice, or his slave-holding friends, a right to enslave any person in the State of Kentucky, be it negro, mulatto, or white woman, the child of German, Irish, or Italian parents. I do not therefore admit, that, if those Hebrew bond-servants were slaves, that it does any thing towards maintaining his argument, that " slave-holding is no sin." This argument depends on the assumption, that God never can permit, for any purpose, punitive or otherwise, that which is wrong in itself But God certainly permitted the Jews to divorce for hatred ; and divorce for hatred is wrong in itself See Deut. xxiv. 3. " If the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and send- cth her out of the house," &c., her former husband may not again take her to wife. Thus by the Jewish code, authorized by God, and given by Moses, men were al- lowed^ to divorce their wives for hatred, so far as re- gulating and restricting a vile practice allows it. Does ihat justify American husbands in turning the mothers of their children out of doors, in every family quarrel, weeping and friendless, because hated? Admit his inference from Jewish bond-service — (Jev/ish slavery if he will) to American, and you admit a principle by which every husband who hates his wife may drive her from his door. The teaching of Christ is explicit on the subject of divorce for hatred, showing that it is contrary to the original constitutions of God. When the Pharisees, asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" His reply was '■^ From the beginning it was not 50." " What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder." " Moses because of the hardness of your hearts gave you that precept." Mat. xix. Yet in Deut. xxiv, 3, it is said, " And if the latter husband hate her and write a bill ON SLAVERY. 331 of divorcement and giveth it in her hand and sendeth her out of his house ; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife, her former husband which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife," &c. We see therefore that divorce for hatred was permitted — and yet the same thing is not permitted now, but expressly for- bidden as smful by Christ himself. So if, in despotic coun- tries, and in ages when as yet the law of force had not giv- en way before the empire of reason, slavery had been per- mitted ; it does not help the argument for American slave- holding. But again. This text, itself the very sheet anchor of the slave-holding doctrine, is misinterpreted to make it yield those inferences in favor of slavery which they draw from it. It positively does not mean, and can be shown not to mean what they say and suppose it to mean. My brother told you that my argument on a certain point, proving to much, proved nothing ; I grant that if an argu- ment proves too much, it proves nothing, I deny however, that mine was of that class. But let us apply that logical test to his main argument from Levit. xxv, 45. " Of them shall ye buy bondmen," etc., " and they shall be your pos- session." Is not the slave-trade justified here ? Now if their understanding of this text be correct, that those bondmen bought, were slaves ; was not the business of buying them from the heathen tribes, the slave trade? And if this verse proves that God permitted slavery, does it not also prove that he permitted the slave trade ? This certainly is proving too much ; more even than Dr. Rice wishes to prove, that God permitted, nay commanded them to drive a slave trade with heathen nations — a traffic which consigns the trader caught on the African coast to be hung as a pi- rate ? If you take this text in their sense ; it is a complete justification of the slave trade; far more clear than it is of slavery. For: ''Of them shall ye buy," etc., not them ghall ye hold. Certainly his interpretation of this text 332 DISCUSSION ])roves too much, and, therefore, by his own quoted canon ])roves nothing. For my brother himself roundly denoun- ces the slave trade as an "infernal traffic." Mr. Rice. I did not denounce the buying of slaves: we are under obligations of humanity often to do that ; but the spe* culating in them for money — the tearing apart of families, ifcc- Mr. Blanciiard. You hear the brother's explanation, and I desire you should allow it all the force which it de- serves. I now resume the argument — with this remark, that, if you buy a slave only to set him free, your act is not slave-holding ; it is an act of redemption. When the United States bought Americans from the Algerines, it was not slave-trading. We bought them to set them free. Now the whole ques- tion is simply this : were those bondmen which were bought by the Jews, slaves in the hands of their Hebrew masters or not? If they were not, then there was no slavery among the Jews, and his whole vaunted Bible argument is founded in and drawn from a mistake. But if they were slaves to the Jews, then the text justifies, not only slavery, but the slave trade, the original kidnapping, middle-passage, auction mart, coffle and all. He can no more escape from this than he can from the gripe of death. So truly as that text justi- fies holding slaves, in Kentucky or Virginia or Tennessee ; so truly is it a warrant for the slave trade by which those slaves are procured ; for its leading idea and object, is to di- rect the Jews to buy their bondmen of heathen nations, nations which were to them what Africans are to us. And when Sir John Hawkins, under Elizabeth, commenced the slave trade, it was founded and defended upon this very text. And, according to Dr. Rice's interpretation, Haw- kins was right. They reasoned fairly, from my friend's premises ; for if it authorises the holding, it authorises the trading, in slaves. Bui it does neither — blessed be God — it does neither ! Nor does his argument hold good if it did both. Tliere is not in the text a sprinkling of American slave-holding and ON SLAVERY. 333 American slave trading-. The American slaves were stolen in the persons of their ancestors, and are held by the title by which men hold stolen goods. I remember, when a student, the account given by one who had been in the slave trade. He said he had heen a seaman before the mast upon the African coast, in a vessel engaged in this traffic ; and that their custom was to take out boxes of muskets, powder, gun- flints, and whiskey, and distribute them among the petty kings along the coast ; and, at night, they could see the flaming villages, fired by these chiefs, in their savage ma- rauds upon each other's territory, for slaves to freight the vessel in the offing; that they coul'd sometimes hear the shouts of the conflict, and see the naked and afli'ighted wretches by the light of their flaming dwellings, flying from immediate death, or, what is worse, an eternal slavery in an unknown land. These wretches, captured in this revolting manner, in wars, stimulated and set on by the traders, were the ancestors of our slaves. That is the way, and such the title we have obtained to them. More than this, multitudes are now ki.dnapped, thus, brought direct to the United States, and " broken in" upon our plantations, being intro- duced in contempt of the law making it piracy, through Florida, and, at points along the coast of the Gulf of Mex- ico. The number thus introduced has been variously esti- mated, by speakers in Congress, but never lower than 13,- 000 per annum, besides the multitudes smuggled into Texas from the Island of Cuba, or openly received in some instan- ces, as has been stated, in contempt of law. Thus all our slaves were stolen from Africa, directly in their own perso?iSj or in the persons of their ancestors, oMd douhly stoleii when iifants at their birth: for human beings are boun free. Now, vvdth these facts kept in view, what does my broth- er's text say ? " From the heathen ye shall steal ? No ! " From them shall ye buy bondmen," etc. Thus his own text, with his own interpretation, will not justify American slave-holding ; for our slaves were stolen — stolen in their persons or their parents — stolen by the aid of boxes of mus- 334 DISCUSSION kets, powder, gimflints, and savage cliiefs made drunk and employed as agents to steal them. Now his text has not a word about stealing. And my brother himself, does not go quite so far as to say that it is no sin to steal slaves ; he only contends that it is right to hold them after they are stolen. Thus, even his own text with his own interpretation yields no justification to American slavery, without grossly per- verting his own meaning of it. But I now proceed to my brother's entrenchments — to his main grand proposition: Did God permit the Jews to hold slaves ? I deny it. And if he fails here, his whole argu- ment fails ; for it all depends on God's permission to the Jews to hold slaves. This whole question turns on the status^ the civil and social condition of the Hebrew " hondmcn^^ named in his text. Were they slaves or not? I shall not here stop to go into Hebrew criticism with my brother. It is easily shown, taking a common Hebrew Bible and Gesenius's Lexicon, that the phrase, {hev. xxv, 46.) " they shall be your bond- men forever^'' does not mean, that each man of them should be a slave during his life ; but, " they," i. e., that sort of people, "shall be your bondmen forever" — that is, that sort of people shall always supply your bond-servants. Thus it is in the Hebrew — " Forever of them shall ye serve your- selves.^'' ' You shall always get that sort of servants from that sort of people.' The Hebrew word, translated " buy," meaning, "^"e^," '■'• ohtain^^ '■'"procure^^ '■'■ buy.'''' I shall not, however, stop, to translate Hebrew, or read commentators ; but shall inquire directly, mlo what state were those ser- vants, thus procured of the heathen, brought, when they CAME AMONG THE JeWS ? And, in the first place, they were brought into a country, and among a people, who possessed, like Ohio, a free con- stitution. They were brought from slave States into what I shall show was a free State: it was as if the people of Ohio were allowed to procure servants from the people of Ken- tucky, and when thus procured, they were free, after paying ON sla\t:ry. 335 their redemption-money, by serving you six years. The soil of Ohio has never been legally defiled by slavery. If a slave is bi ought here by his master's consent, he is, from that moment, a free man — though that unhappy clause re- specting fugitives from service still exists — a provision per- fectly anomalous in such a government as ours ; and though certain odious and unconstitutional State statutes have been enacted to carry it out. If a Hebrew bought a bond-servant from the heathen, and brought him into the Jews' land, and if he was not kept in slavery there ; their taking slave-men into a free land is not, cannot be, any justification for taking free men into a slave land. By the Jewish constitution, the status into which the servant was brought, was nothing like the status into which the African slave is brought, when introduced into our country. The pith and point of the whole question turns on what was this status? It is of no use, in this question, to peddle commentaries, and criticise words and marshal and march such witnesses as mere verbal critics, who are such thorough-paced slaves to authority, whose ideas have been baked so stiff by half a century spent in their study, that they can hardly go to bed without the con- currence of a committee. [A laugh.] But, for the settle- ment of this question, we must go to the history of the times, and consider the facts connected with the whole case, and draw just conclusions from known principles and ad- mitted facts. It is wholly a practical question. The testi- mony of mere verbal commentators, and lexicographers, and grammarians ought not to decide in a question like this. Men of mere learning, for the most part, are timid drudges, useful and indispensable in their place, but they should not be brought to decide questions of this kind. They cannot be expected to study them profoundly as broad practical questions affecting the human race should be studied. It is not in their profession. They are commentators upon the language of scripture, and they are obliged to consider every question that can arise relating to the interests of man- S36 DISCUSSION kind, in all time and in all eternity; and to consider per- fectly an infinite range of topics, they must have a mind like God's. It would be a miracle, if they could enter into a thorough practical consideration of every subject which they are obliged, as commentators, to write about. They are men who, like almanac-makers, take the tables which have been prepared by other men, and adopt them as authority in their own works. It is no reproach to them to say so. They would not feel it such. And for my brother to stand here quoting them as absolute authority, upon ihe great moral and practical question of slavery, is, in my view, " operose agere nihilP The whole question turns on the single question what was the status of these Hebrew bond-servants 1 And I shall show you that, whatever it was, it was not slavery. My first argument, and one which I beg you to weigh with great attention, is this. If they were slaves^ the translators of our Bible ivould have called them so. They have never in one instance, translated the Hebrev/ word ''■ebedh?^* (which my brother pronounces ebed, though he says, in his pamphlet, that abolitionists have little learning, and per- haps, I have no right, and ought not to criticise him) by tlie Engl isli word .sZ(2re5. Our version of the Bible was issued by royal authority, in the year of our Lord, 1607; the year of the first settlement of the United States, at James- town, Virginia : in an age of Biblical study, and by forty- seven men learned, not only in books, but in affairs. Now in only two places in the Old and New Testament, have the translators used the word slaves. One is Jeremiah, ii, 14, in which instance it is put in Italics, showing there is no cor- responding word for it in the Hebrew. And the other is Revelation, xviii, 13, (where the original Greek is not " Dou- los^^ but '' Somaton''' the genitive plural of '^ So?na" — "a human body.") Where "slaves and souls of me/i'^ are spoken of as the traffic of the mother of harlots. [frime expired. ON SLAVERY. ^337 [MR. rice's twelfth SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow Citizens: I perceive that my friend is determined to occupy my time as far as possible in correcting his statements. He first mis- represents even my pronunciation of a Hebrew word, and then sneers at my mispronunciation ! The gentleman complains of my remark concerning the state of his church. I should not have said a word concern- ing it, had he not told us, that the churches in the slave-hold- ing States were Avithering under the influence of slavery: my reply was designed to prove by facts that his represen- tation is not correct, but that, on the contrary, there are multitudes of churches at the South and West more flourish- ing than his. It was a fair reply, because those churches are involved in the sin, (if it be in itself a sin,) of slave-hold- ing, and his church is under the influence of the purest abo- litionism. The Second Presbyterian church in St. Louis, for example, which was organized in 1836, as a small colony, has grown in the space of seven years to the number of about 450 members ; and in the mean time, has sent out one or two colonies to organize new churches. Thus it is proved by facts, the best kind of evidence, that slave-holding is not so heinous a sin as to wither the piety of the churches, and provoke God to withhold his spirit and blessing. My brother says he would not have invited the present discussion, but for my lectures recently delivered in this city ; but he took care not to tell you, that those lectures were delivered in consequence of the violent attacks made upon report of the last General Assembly by the Watchman of the Valley^ and the Morning Herald, abolitionist papers of this city. The attack began on the part of the abolition- ists themselves ; yet now he would represent himself in this debate, as acting only on the defensive ! Mr. B. attempts to escape from the contradiction in which he involved himself, by saying, that a^ar^ of my doctrine is quite acceptable to pro-slavery men in the South. This fact, 22 338 DISCUSSION however, is a poor argument to prove it false ; for he will ad- mit, that many parts of even the Bible itself, are acceptable to ungodly men. What thief or drunkard objects to the dec- laration that " God is love ?" or to the truth, that God for- gives " iniquity, transgression and sin ?" But shall we reject the scriptures because they contain truths which even the most ungodly men do not object to ? The gentleman would condemn my views on the subject of slavery, because, as he affirms, southern slave-holders are pleased with a part of them. Then must he not for the same reason, condemn the gospel itself? The gentleman says, he did not object to an appeal to the Greek and Hebrew scriptures to settle this controversy ; but he said, that certain men go back to the dark, despotic ages •to support slavery. But the audience have not forgotten, that he represented those who insist on going to the original languages, as bats that flutter about the tops of high towers, and as rats that retreat into dark cellars. They remember, too, how he sneered at Dr. Junkin for pursuing this very course, and told us that he ^^ JunJdnized^^ the people who heard him, with his Greek and Hebrew, till they had no sense left ! [Mr. BlanchaTcD explained — I said that he JunJcinized them, till they had not two substantial ideas left in their heads on the subject he was discussing \] The gentleman, then, from his own account of the mat- ter, said, the audience had not two ideas on the subject of slavery, because Dr. Junkin appealed, in his discussion of it, to the Greek and Hebrew ; and yet he now admits the propriety of doing the veiy same thing ! He quoted Dr. Adam Clarke's opinion of slavery "for s'picey But all the spice was created by his own mistake ; it would have been more poignant, and would have had a bet- ter relish, had it been a reply to what I had said. It is true that Dr. Clarke did denounce slavery as my brother says ; yet as a commentator, he was compelled by the force of truth to give the same explanation of slave-holding among ON SLAVEilY. 339 the Jews, which I have given; and his testimony is the more important from the fact that he was a most decided anti-slave- ry man. He was one of the men who go back into the dark and despotic ages of antiquity, and though he sought nothing there to justify slavery, he found the same proof with me that it was permitted by God himself. The opinion of such a man greatly strengthens my argument. My friend says, that the " pro-slavery men," (as he calls those who differ from the abolitionists) do not reason from general principles, but run to isolated texts of the Bible. Now this audience knows better ; for they have listened at- tentively to a long argument I offered from the golden rule — an argument to which, as yet, he has attempted no reply. My brother forgets. We do go^to general principles, as well as to Bible texts. And Dr. Cunningham, to whom I have so often referred, does the same. For example: " A man may be placed in sucn-a condition as that the only act of humanity he can discharge, is just to buy a man, and make him his slave. He acquires a legal right to him, and may do injury according to the law ; but this does not follow. *^ * * A minister who lived in a slave State made it his busi- ness not to acquire property in slaves, but to hire them. One woman he hired. Her owner's circumstances became embarrassed. This woman came to her master not her owner, and told him, she had reason to think she would be sold, and besought him to buy her. He replied, that he did not wish to buy slaves. The woman, who was a religious person took it so much to heart that she could not do her work, nor take any meat, lying about her kitchen, crying and howling, till at last he was obliged to borrow money and buy the woman, as the only way in which he could really perform an act of humanity towards her. * * * It is utter folly and sheer madness to be denouncing every man, sim- ply because he stands in the relation of a master to a slave, as aman-stealer ; &c. * * * What has been the great source of all the evil, is, that the abolitionists, finding they could not answer the scriptural argument, have made it their busi- 340 DISCUSSION ness just to slander and calumniate the American churches.'* This is the writer who my brother says, agrees with him. He makes his appeal to general principles of benevolence, to justify a man's purchasing a slave to better his condition. This case I have presented again and again, but I cannot induce my friend to touch it. The gentleman affects great contempt for German critics, men, as he informs us, of timid and narrow minds, who *' can hardly get to bed without a committee ;" and he ridi- cules verbal criticism as a means of arriving at the truth. I had really supposed, that words were signs of ideas ; and that the only method of getting the ideas of an author, was by understanding his toords. Will the gentleman be good enough to inform us, how w^ can get at the ideas presented in the Bible, except by inquirii^ into the meaning of the words used? I did quote one, aira only one, German lexicogi-a- pher, viz : Gesenius, whose reputation as a learned man and a'standard authority, is too well established to be affected by the ridicule of Mr. Bla.nchard. He only exposes himself by affecting to Jgiugh at such men. But since he has so lit- tle respect for the authorities I have quoted, / challenge him once more to 'produce one respectable covimentator or critic who gives to the scriptures toivhich I havt referred, a differ- ent interpretation from that which I have given. He has studied and discussed this subject for years past ; and there- fore he is just the man to produce such authorities, if they exist. I will now pay my respects to his answer to my argu* ments, so far as he has attempted to answer them. He says, in the first place, admitting the bondmen of the Jews to have been slaves, this fact does not authorize American slave' ry. We are not discussing the question, whether American slavery is right. The question proposed by the friends of the gentleman, relates simply to the morality of the relation between master and slave. Let us settle the principle, and we Can then apply it. But he attempts to escape the difficulty in which he is involved by the clear declarations of the Bible ON SLAVERY. 341 by bringing forward a particular kind of slavery, of which the question before us, says nothing. But why would not the fact, that the Jews were permitted to hold slaves, justify others in doing the same? Because, as Mr. B. says — those whom the Jews were permitted to purchase, were under the curse of God. Admit this state- ment to be strictly true ; will he maintain, that the Jews were at liberty to form a relation in itself sinful, because the per- son sustaining the relation of slaves, were under the curse of God ? If so, he goes very far toward fully justifying American slavery ; for Canaan, from whom the Africans de- scended, was not only cursed of God, but expressly doomed, to be " servant of servants." Does this fact justify men in making slaves of the Africans ? If so, surely the question must be given up. If not, how cati the fact that the Canaan- ites were cursed, justify th^Je\fs in holding them as slaves? To say in one breath, that slave-holding is in itself sinful, and consequently sinful under all circumstances ; and in the next, that in cases where nations are under the curse of God, men may be justified in reducing them to slavery, is to be chargeable with a flat contradiction. The gentleman's second answer is, that God may permit that which is in itself sinful, and thatj^e did so in granting to the Jews permission to divorce tKeir -^ives, "because of the hardness of their hearts." I answer, God did not give such permission for the sake of hard-hearted men, but for the sake of their wives, whom their wickedness lead them to treat cruelly. The husband might greatly sin in making a divorce desired; but it was not in itself wrong that the oppressed wife should be released from her obligations to a cruel hus- band. The doctrine, that God may give men permission to do that which is in itself sinful, appears to me near of kin to blasphemy. I find nothing in the Bible to counten- ance such an idea ; nor have I ever before heard it advanced. But he tells us that God permitted slavery in the sense of not hindering it. But was that my argument ? Did I con- tend that God only permitted the Jews to form the relation 342 DISCUSSION. of master and slave by not hindering it? T said, and 1 proved^ that He gave express 'permission to form the rela- tion ; and therefore it could not be sinful. Has he replied to this argument, and proved that such permission was not given ? He has not, and he cannot. The argument, there- fore, remains unanswered. But if, as the gentlemen contends, God may permit a rela- tion in itself sinful, why cannot abolitionists do the same? Are they holier than God? Do they feel themselves in conscience bound to oppose and denounce what He permitted, and to purify the church from that which He permitted to remain in it? But the brother says that buj^'irTg slaves is slave trading^ which " Dr. Rice " himself d'^nounces ; and if God permit- ted it, he sanctioned the slave trade! Not at all: to buy a slave, wdth a view to improv^his condition, is not slave trading. Speculating in slaves^ for the sake of gain, is slave trading. Can the brother' s^liscriminating mind dis- cover no difference between them.? The difference is as obvious as between light and^darkness. Those purchased by the Jews, as I said, were generally already in slavery — in cruel bondage ; and God, as I suppose, permitted the Jews to buy them in order iha^^ir condition might be mitigated, and that they miglu^om'e"**to ..the knowledge of the true religion. Again, he says, my argument fails, because the Africans were all originally stolen ; and, if we buy them, w^e are guilty of the sin of man-stealing. I reply, that if this prin- ciple is sound, there is not a man in Ohio who can, honestly and innocently, hold the farm he owns: for the land was, most of it, originally taken by force or fraud from the In- dians. Besides, did not the heathen masters of whom the Israelites were permitted to buy, obtain their slaves by w^ar and violence ? And if so, where is the difference between their case and that of our negroes? Abolitionists labor hard w^hen they get near the Bible. Again, if the relation be in itself wrong, the manner of forming it can never make it ON SLAVERY. 343 right. And, by admitting that the sinfulness of slave- hold- ing depends upon the manner of our getting slaves, the gen- tleman virtually gives up the question in dispute, and admits that the relation is not wrong in itself, but is only made wrong by circumstances. But the brother reminds us that God never said, the Isra- elites might steal slaves. That again, is not the question we are debating. Who, in his senses, would debate it? Every body knows that to buy, is to obtain something, by giving a consideration for it. Is this stealing? But he tells us, the Jews bought their wives. This argu- ment has been anticipated and answered. When a man bought a woman for a wife^ she became his wife ; but when he bought a man or woman for a ser-uant^ s"uch persons be- came his servants. What, then, has the fact that men some- times purchased wives^ to do with the subject before us? Again, Mr. B. seeks to evade the argum^ent by informing us, that the Hebrew word, translated " Z»zi^," sometimes sig- nifies simply, to acquire, no matter by what means. I admit it ; but unfortunately for his repty, the bondmen of Jews, we are distinctly informed, were bought ^^wiih moneyP Now I. suppose, to get, to obtain a thing " with money," is to buy it ; and when it is bought, it is mine for the purposes for which it is bought. The gentleman says, if a man buy a slave for the purpose of liberating him, he commits no sin. The abolitionists, I believe, show very little disposition to liberate slaves in this way. But did God give the Jews permission to buy slaves, on condition that they should liberate them ? He passed a law that if a man smote out his servant's tooth or his eye, he should let him go free for the sake of his tooth or his eye. Would God have passed a law requiring a servant to be lib- erated on a certain condition, if he were already free ? But God said of the servant, he is his master^ s mane?/. Would this be true, if he had only redeemed him from slavery, and liberated him ? Why, the gentleman's doctrine makes the Bible speak contradictions and nonsense. It represents God 344 DISCUSSION as commandino" a man under certain circumstances to liber' aie a free man I Such are tlie arguments by which the gentleman expects to persuade Kentuckians to abandon the man who denies that slave-holding is in itself sinful ! But the argument which he seems to think conclusive on tliis subject, is this : If the word evecl meant slave, the transla- tors of our English Bible would have so rendered it. This is indeed a miserable evasion. They translated it servant and bonds ervajit. Does not Mr. B. know, that the Latin word servus, from which the English word servant is derived, sig- nifies slave, and that the word servant, when our translation was made, had its literal and proper meaning. But if the word servant does not mean slave, will he tell us the mean- ing of bond-servant, by which the word eved is translated ? Does it not mean slave ? His last argument is blown to the winds ; and I now cheerfully leave the audience to decide, whether his replies to my arguments from the Bible, are of any force. Have they overthrown one position I have taken ? I will now read another extract from Dr. Cunningham's letter. He says — " In three of the leading slave States, con- taining one- fourth of the whole slave population of the Union, there are only eight settled Presbyterian ministers ; and the churches in the country are very much in the same position as the missionaries we send to the West Indies, and ichom ice strictly enjoin not to open their mouths on slavery. This, in 1834, we regarded as the right way of dealiiig with that question., in certain circumstances ; and the case is similar in America. Noticithstanding, there have some people, in ten years, gone into the opposite extreme of re- fusing to hold communion ivith churches that practically do what ive expressly enjoined our missionaries to do. This is clear proof that there is gross ignorance, or great prejudice. The churches in the slave States must take their choice, be- tween virtually letting this matter alone, or taking it up, and being expelled." i^ The gentleman has been anxious to make the impression, ON SLAVERY. ; 345 that the Church of Scotland had adopted, substantially, abo- lition principles. But Dr. Cunningham informs us, that, in 1834, she forbade her missionaries to the West Indies to open their mouths on this subject ; and thus he exposes the incon- sistency of the abolitionists who urged that church to hold no fellowship with ours, unless she would exclude all slave- holders from her communion. I am now done with that part of my argument, which is derived from the Old Testament. I am also prepared to hear the gentleman's hour-and-a-half argument, with which he has so repeatedly threatened me ; and it is my purpose fairly to meet and refute it. Having done this, I purpose to inquire into the teachings of the New Testament; and I will not only prove from the New Testament, that slave-holding is not in itself sinful, but that every respectable critic and commentator sustains fully my interpretation of the passages in which the subject of slave-holding is brought to view. INIr. Blanchard, I am aware, holds commentators and critics in great contempt ; but perhaps this intelligent audience do not view them in the same light. I expect to prove, that the primitive churches took the same view of slavery, and pursued the same course of conduct in regard to it, that we do. Finally, I expect to prove, that the views we take, are those which have abolished slavery wherever it has been peaceably abolished. [Time expired. Monday Afternoon, 2 o'clock. [MR. BLANCHARD's THIRTEENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow- Citizens : While the house is getting still, and to close up what of this debate precedes my Old Testament argument ; I will notice some of those points which my brother has brought forward in this discussion, and to which he seems to attach importance. I have written down for the sake of condens- 346 DISCUSSION ing, brief replies on several points wliicli I will read : — not because I deem the points important, but that I may not seem to leave anything without attempting a candid and clear an- swer. The following are all the points hitherto unanswerei that I can recollect, which I have considered deserving of no- tice ; excepting some personalities which it is not worth while to reply to. 1. He asks : " When an elder of the church was implor- ed to buy a slave to save him from being sold from his fam- ily ; did the elder sin in buying that slave?" Answer. If he bought him to free him ; No — that is re- demption. If he kept him as his slave ; Yes : he did sin : because he has no right to keep slaves or concubines in order to keep them from being abused. Slavery and concubinage being unscriptural relations. 2. He sinned because he still held the slave under all the horrid liabilities of slavery. Ho might die the hour after he bought him, and the slave is sold from his family for a division among merciless heirs ; or he might become a bankrupt, and the slave is sold by creditors. Thus to do an uncertain good to one suffering slave, he com- mits the sin of sanctioning the whole slave system by him- self holding slaves. He thus does a general evil that a par- ticular good may come. Being a pious man, his example leads a thousand young men, who had scruples, to become S'lave-holders. They go into slavery, fall before its tempta- tions, and sink to endless ruin, holding on to this one pious man's skirts. If he bought the slave to keep him as his property he certainly sinned. 2d Case, " A pious elder asked his synod what he should do with some 70 slaves or more, who were a bill of cost to liim, altogether earning less than they consumed?" Answer. Free them by all means, or, in a httle while, they will run him so in debt that the sheriff will sell them in lots or individually, to satisfy creditors, and suit purchasers. Surely 70 persons earning less than tliey cost must soon eat up his estate. If he can remove to a free State, do so. If this is not convenient, let him do as an infidel sheriff in Vir- ON SLAVERY, 347 gmia did — call his slaves into the house — tell them solemnly they are free — that he will pay them fair wages for fair work — and that they must maintain tlieir own wives, child- ren and old people ; and he will fmd they will earn more for "cash" than for " lash." Then let him take the " True America7i^^ and begin to persuade his neighbors to do like- wise. 3. When urged with the fact that slave-holders have no title to their slaves but that which they bought of kidnappers and traders ; and therefore in justice do not own them. He says ; that argument would destroy our title to lands which were by force or fraud wrested from the Indians. Answer. Law and justice give stolen property to the true owner, when he can be found. But if no owner is found, occupancy and possession give title. If an Indian can show as good a title to a piece of land as a slave can to his head, hands, feet, and person, which God gave to him^ and not to another man, let that Indian have the land, by all means. If he can show an equitable right to it, though less strong, than the slave's right to himself, still let him have it. But it is a capital error, in Mr. Rice, to bring the title ac- quired to the land of dead Indians, whose heirs are un- known, to justify the holding of living stolen men, who are always present to claim themselves ; and who do claim themselves every time they say, in human speech, ^^ my head;' " my hands" " my body,'' &c. ; thus showing, that, under God, whose mark and image are upon him, the man belongs to himself There was a law in England, which provided that the king's goods should be marked with the figure of an arrow — and if goods having this mark were found in the possession of a man, without the king's author- ity, he was, by that single mark, convicted of having stolen the king's goods, and punished accordingly. Every human being has God's mark upon him, and belongs to God first, and, under God, to himself The mark of the King of Kings is his own image, and the man who has in his pos- session a human being, is, by the mark of God upon him, 348 DISCUSSION convicted of robbing tiie Almighty — that he may oppress his fellow man. 4. INIy opponent still reasons about " Hagar," as though she ^Yas not only the bondwoman^ or hound-woman of Abra- ham, but the actual slave or property of Abraham. Answer. If Hagar was Abraham''s property, and if she was sent back by the angel as Abraham's slave, then Dr. Rice is bound, by every principle of justice, and by this angel's example, to help to take and send back runaway slaves to their owners. But he has told us that he has seen slaves running away, but never would do any thing to send them back — thus showing, that he, in heart, does not believe in his own argument — that he knows that Hagar was not a slave, and that Kentucky slaves are not justly the property of their masters. For if they are the just property of their masters, then Dr. Rice is wicked to see them running off, without trying to send them back. For, "If thou seest thine enemy's ox, or his ass, going astray, thou shall surely bring it back to him again." Exod. xxiii, 40. He draws a distinction, however, between not preve7iting the escape of a slave, and aiding him to escape — condemning abolitionists for the latter, while he practices the former. But the dis- tance between " 7iot preventing,^' and actually aiding^ es- caping slaves is so short, that I commend my brother to the careful watching of the southern slave-holders, lest, in a lit- tle while, he be found actually helping slaves to run away. [A laugh.] 5. Again. A Massachusetts man went to South Carolina to live with certain slaves who fell to him, as the best plan he could devise to do them (the slaves) good. Was he a sinner ? Answer. If he went there, and honestly told the negroes they were free, and avoided the appearance of evil, by let- ting his neighbors know that he was no slave-holder, but had simply come to help the negroes out of difficulty, he was no sinner ; but if not — if he simply set down among them as a slave-holder — he was a gross sinner. For he left a ON SLAVERY. 349 free State, where he and his family were surrounded by the influences of freedom, for a slave land, and a practice of slavery and its corrupting influences. He made himself and family props to support the rotting fabric of slavery, to the injury of millions, with the precarious and uncertain hope of benefitting a few slaves. 6. He says Constantine made a law forbidding to separate husband and wife, and yet slavery still existed. He argues thence that separating husband and wife is not an ingredient part of slavery. Answer. In forbidding the separation of families, Con- stantine was destroying slavery. He was driving his legis- lative axe into the very meat and bones of slavery. He was a wise legislator and knew what he was doing. He knew that a repeal of the family state was of the essence of slavery ; and therefore began his work of destroying slavery by stopping family separation. If Constantine had added legal personality and wages, his law would have been an immediate abolition law. As it was it stabbed slavery to the heart. "Then," replies he, "Kentucky Presbyterians do not hold slaves in full, for they do not separate families, and the law of the church forbids it." Answer. Kentucky Presbyterians do hold slaves in full, for they hold them by a tenure which denies marriage and parentage to them, which Constantine did not. They hold them in a state of virtual and real separation, hourly ready for actual separation ; and their slaves are constantly sepa- rated by sheriffs for debts and by administrators for a divi- sion, which division the heirs have . a right to order, and Presbyterians, when dead, cannot prevent. Witness the slave coffles or gangs annually driven from the upper slave States to the lower, and w^ho pass by our city. They used to land here, but blessed be God, such is the state of feeling now, that they do this seldom or no more. The law of the church against it is but an inoperative conscience-plaster. Kentucky Presbyterians holding slaves, are slave-holders. S50 DISCUSSION 7. Again, he says. " True moral principles strike every lionest mind, as true, and, by their own force, command assent." And he asks, " if the doctrine be true that slave- holding is sin, why does it not so strike every mind? " Answer. It does strike every mind when themselves or their families are concerned. No sane man is willing that himself and posterity, in all time, should be slaves. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Let the slave law strike one of Dr. Rice's children, and the wicked- ness of it would certainly strike him. 8. He told you I was willing to '^ keep the slaves from voting, after they are emancipated." What I said upon that point was, that I leave their political rights to political men, to be determined by exact political justice. Abolition has done with them when they are free as unnaturalized foreigners, who are free, though they cannot vote. Tell an Irishman, before he is entitled to vote, that he is a' slave, and my word for it, Patrick will show that his fist is free, at least. [A laugh.] If he made any other points which my present arguments do not answer, I am willing he should have all the benefit of their going unanswered, and that they may have, with you whatever weight they deserve. I hope now, that my broth- er will not continue to complain of me, as if I were unwil- ling to answer him to the best of my ability. Of course, it is not to be expected that I would set my ability in competi- tion with so grave and learned a Doctor of Divinity, but I mean not to be outdone by him in candor, and an honest de- sire to vindicate the truth. I must now be excused from noticing further his line of argument, and be permitted to go straight through with my own. Yet, if my brotlier is very anxious that I should an- swer any questions I may possibly turn aside for a few min- utes, to do so. I will notice briefly his ''golden rule" argu- ment, and then consider the Old Testament bond service. This argument of Dr. Rice m.ay be found in his printed pamph- let, pages 39, and 41. He says of Christ's command re- ON SLAVEUY. 351 quiring us to do to others as we would they should do to us ; — '' Evidently it requires us to treat others^ as we would reasonably expect and desire them to treat uSj if we were IN THEIR SITUATION." (Lect. p. 39.) That is, the "golden rule" only requires the slave-holder to treat his slave as he might reasonably expect to be treated if he were in that slave's condition. The fact that the slave is a slave, is taken for granted to be right, so far as the owner is concerned. Then he says on page 41. That the golden rule requires a man to become a slave-holder, who buys a slave to keep him from suffering a worse fate. " The truth is in such cases the golden rule makes the Christian THE owner of a SLAVE." {Lect. p. 41., I think I shall be able to show you that this exposition, which deserves to be called the '■^ slave-holder'' s golden rule^'' in the first place, proceeds upon a plain denial of God's gold- en rule. 2nd, That it contains a logical error. 3d, That it contains a gross immorality. The reason on which the rules rests, which. requires men to do to others as they would have others do to them, is, that men are equal. But this slave-holder's rule contradicts this fundamental truth of God's word, that " God has made of one blood all the nations of men^"* and if of one blood, they are of equal blood. This exposition of Dr. Rice, assumes that there is one blood of the slave-holder ; another blood of the slave ; and they are of different conditions instead of being by nature on the same footing. It assumes the inequal- ity of the human race to be right, lohich is the very questioTi in dispute. It goes upon the supposition that one man is naturally a slave-holder, and another a slave. The question lies back of this. Abolitionists claim that injury is done in making a man a slave, or, in assuming towards a man the re- lation of his owner, and keeping him a slave. Dr. Rice as' fumcs that men are by God's law divided into two classes, master and slave ; and says that the whole duty required of the master class, by the golden rule is, to treat slaves " ai we might reasonably expect to be treated, if we were slaves I S52 DISCUSSION Suppose that my father, caught a boy and put him in a dun- geon, and gave me the key. I put the key in my pocket and keep the boy in the dungeon. My father in this case is the kidnapper and I am the slave-holder. Dr. Rice, we will say, is defining my duty under his golden rule towards that imprisoned boy. Doctor, I ask, " what, say you, is my duty to the boy imprisoned by my father?" He replies ; — " Do unto others as you would have others do unto you if you were in their situation.''' " Well, but. Doctor, how do you understand that rule ? Shall I let him out ?" " By no means" says he; — "All you are required to do, is to keep him there for life, and treat him just as kindly as you might reasonably expect to he treated if you were in his place. That is, as men who are shut up in dungeons may reasonably ex- pect to be treated by those who keep them there." Is there a man on earth capable of knowing right and wrong who would not instantly feel that such an exposition of the golden rule carries a monstrous fraud in .it, if applied to himself. It denies that " God has made of one blood (and equal because one) all nations of men." Dr. Rice's religion is the religion of a privileged class. And it is so with every religion which is based on radical error. Puseyism, and Popery, xists in such 440 DISCUSSION. a manner that every person implicated in it can, on scriptural grounds, be excluded from Christian fellowship. In the language of Dr. Chalmers, when treating on this point in a recent letter — the committee would say, ' Distinction ought to be made between the character of a system, and the character of the persons whose circumstances have implica- ted them with it. Nor would it always be just if all the recoil and horror, wherewith the former is contemplated, were visited in the form of condemnation and moral indig- nancy upon the latter.' '• Dr. Chalmers proceeds to apply this distinction to the subject now under consideration in the following manner, in which sentiments substantially Drs. Candlish and Cunning- ham, with the whole General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, unanimously concurred: 'Slavery,' says he, 'we hold to be a system chargeable with atrocities and evils, often the most hideous and appalling, wdiich have either afflicted or deformed our species. Yet we must not, there- fore, say, of every man born within its territory, who has grown up familiar with its sickening spectacles, and not only by his habits been inured to its transactions and sights, but who by inheritance is himself the owner of slaves, that unless he make the resolute sacrifice and renounce his prop- erty in slaves, he is therefore not a Christian — and should be treated as an outcast from all the distinctions and privileges of Christian society.' " Such substantially are the views of your committee, and the more they study God's method of proceeding in regard to slavery, polygamy, and other kindred social wrongs, as it is unfolded in the Bible, the more they are convinced that in dealing with individuals implicated in these wrongs of long standing, and intimately interwoven with the relations and movements of the social system, the utmost kindness and forbearance are to be exercised, which are compatible with steady adherence to right principles." This report was drawn up by Dr. Woods, one of the ablest and most godly men who live to adorn ^the American ON SLAVERY. 441 church of Christ ; or, at any rate, ho was chairman of the committee. Such is the ground taken by the American Board. They approve, as you perceive, the opinion of Dr. Chalmers, that the principles and practice contended for by modern abolitionism, are novelties in the church. I propose now to read a few extracts from the speeches made by members of the Board, as published in the New York Observer, that we may know their sentiments on the question before us. I will, first, read from the speech of Dr. Bacon, of New Haven ; and I do so the more readily, be- cause in the notice taken of the action of the Connecticut Association, by the Watchman of the Valley^ Dr. Bacon was paraded boastfully as an abolitionist, and the representation I had made of the action of that body was thereon pronoun- ced incorrect. We will now hear Dr. Bacon speak for himself. " We are all agreed that the system and the laws that sus- tain it are an abomination in the sight of God and the na- tions of the earth. But these memorialists contend that no man having the relation of a slave-holder, can give evidence of piety. But if there is one thing plain on the face of the New Testament, beyond all dispute, it is that in the churches formed by the apostles, there were believhig masters, slave- holders, and I will never consent to put the Bible under my feet to accommodate the views of any man. " I would like the report better if it contained a distinct avowal that slave-holding is not a sin in itself, in such a sense as to disqualify a man for church membership, and on the other hand if these missionaries fail of doing their duty m inculcating the truth on this subject, they should be call- ed to account by the Board." I will now read a little from Professor Stowe, a first rate abolitionist, and one whom the brother will hardly call weak minded or timid. He has bitterly denounced the report adopted by our General Assembly; but, with singular in- consistency, he warmly defends that of the American Board, which embodies the same great principle, that slave-holding 442 DISCUSSION is not in itself a sin whicli should exclude any one from the church of Christ. " Dr. Stowe said he had conned this report over and over again, and he had heard all the objections to the report, and he knew they all proceeded from ignorance of it. With this prefatory remark he read the report, after which he con- tinued to say that it was the desire of the committee to ex- press the most decided and fullest condemnation of slavery in all its bearings. And as to the evils enumerated as con- nected with slavery, every member would say they demand- ed immediate discipline. The point where they differed from the memorialists was on the question, whether slave-holding is a sin per se. Here they did differ." Dr. Williston, and Dr. Tyler, of the Connecticut Associa- tion, asserted the doctrine put forth by the Assembly. "Rev. Dr. Tyler said, after all the discussion, he was more and more convinced of the wisdom of the report. This he inferred from the directly opposite character of the objections urged against it. It is objected to by the gentle- men from the South because it denounces slavery, and by our abolition brethren because it does not. I therefore think we have hit upon the happy 7nean where the truth lies. He then showed the views of the committee to be, that the apos- tles did admit slave-holders to the church, and for us to de- cide against it would be to impeach the apostles. We are conscientious in this opinion. Dr. T. then reviewed the re- port and expressed the hope that it would be unanimously adopted." Dr. Wisner takes the same ground : " Dr. Wisner lamented this discussion. He said that it was evidently directed, not at slavery in mission churches, but at southern slavery. He spoke of the general discord produced by this subject, and said he had hoped this Board would be left free from it, especially when there was already another Board organized for the very persons who were urg- ing this on us. Let the Union Missionary Board take its own course, in its own way j and may we not be permitted DISCUSSION to pursue ours in the way that our charter prescribes. If a rumor had come to us, that in the churches in some mission field intemperance was prevaiHng, would this course have been pursued by these persons. What would have been done? Discuss the merits of drunkenness and temperance societies ! No sir. I am constrained to believe that the ob- ject of all this is abolitionism in its general bearings, and not the good of the poor Cherokee. But can we satisfy these gentlemen? One of the last speakers "told us there was no common ground unless we go the whole length. Common ground, if we come over to them ! And this com- mon ground is to give up the Bible, and rely on some prin- ciple back of and independent of it. Can we find this com- mon ground? Yes, by asking these brethren what they claim and come to it. But next year there will be another common ground. Yield, and you must yield. I would as soon undertake to fill the bottomless pit as to satisfy men who have their minds fixed on this one absorbinof idea." Such are some of the views entertained by distinguished members of the American Board. Much as the brother said against commentators, he will scarcely say, that these are weak-minded and timid men. The same views are entertained by Doddridge, Dr. Mc- Night, Bloomfield, Scott, Gill, and in a word, by every respectable commentator and critic, and theologian, I ever read. I will now take up my opponent's last speech, and reply with as much rapidity as possible. I had asked the gentleman whether the Hebrew word eved^ rendered bond-servant, did not mean slave, and if not, what Hebrew word did express an idea which could not but be fa- miliar to the JcAvish mind, since the nation was surrounded by slavery in its worst forms : that is, when an Israelite wished to speak of a slave^ what word he used ? I have at length, been favored with a reply. He says, he supposes they used some words analagous to the Greek phrase in 1 Tim. vi, 1, doulos hupo zugon^ -'servant under the yoke." 444 DISCUSSION That is, he supposes the Hehreios had no word for slave^ a thing known throughout the earth and having its title in ev- ery tongue. No man can believe this, unless he is resolved to take leave of common sense. I will venture to say, the gentleman cannot get a Hebrew scholar in the land to sus- tain him in his opinion. It is given up, then, either that the ■word eved means slave, or that the Hebrews had no word for that idea. He did, indeed, tell us in a previous speech, that the Hebrew servant sold for six years, is called eved ; but such is not the fact. On the contrary, that class of ser- vants is contrasted with the eved. The gentleman tries to get out of the difficulty, in which he involved himself, by attempting to prove by the fact that Saul's servant had a little piece of silver in his pocket with- out his master's knowledge, that there were no slaves among the Jews, by saying, whatever the slave has, his master can take away from him. Yes — we knov/ that the slave laws permit him to do so ; and so the civil laws would permit a father to take away every cent his son might have labored for, and saved, even the day before he came of age ; but what does that prove ? That masters never allow a slave to have a sixpence in his pocket % Or that if a slave has so large a sum by him unknown to his master, he is no slave 1 Or that my son is a slave, because I can take from him all his little savings'? But the gentleman asserts, that the Hebrew bond-servants might be and were property-holders ; and that Sarah was afraid that Ishmael, Hagar's son, should be co-heir with her own son Isaac. I call for the evidence of the truth of this assertion. Let him if he can, point to the provision in the Jewish law, authorizing bondservants to hold property. (I am not speaking of poor Israelites, but of bondmen bought of the heathen, or the strangers living amongst the Jews.) If there is any such provision in the law, my brother is the very man to find it. Let it be produced. As to Sarah's fear that Ishmael might be heir with Isaac ; has the gentleman forgotten, that Ishmael was Abraham's ON SLAVERY. 445 son ? That was the ground of her fear, and not because Ha- gar was free. The gentleman would make the impression, that the slaves generally bear a mortal enmity against their masters, and are ready to embrace the first opportunity to run from them. By way of replying to this representation, I will tell you an anecdote. Some years ago, a gentleman who had been a resident in Alabama, and who owned a number of slaves, on his way to Philadelphia, met on the steam- boat a very zeal- ous abolitionist preacher. In conversation he assured him, that in a multitude of instances, slaves were very strongly attached to their masters, and could not be easily induced to leave them. The abolitionist replied, that slave-holders might tell such stories : but he believed not a word of them. "Well," said the southern gentleman, "you shall have the opportunity of testing the truth of my statement. One of my colored men, reared in the family, is on board. I will call him up ; and you shall be at full liberty to take him with you to Ohio." The man was called; and his master said to him : " This gentleman is a minister of the gospel. He is opposed to slavery, and desires you to go with him to Ohio, and be free." The negro considered the proposition seriously for a few moments, and then replied: "Ah, massa, I know you; I don't know dat gentleman. I'll stay with you." So he went to Philadelphia, and lived happily in the family of his old master, where I saw him a short time after this occurrence. And I can point you to negroes in this city, now livmg in the family of their old master, who is no abolitionist, and whom it might be difficult for the abolitionists with all their zeal, to induce to leave him. Facts like these do afford an edifying evidence of the truth of the assertions of abolition- ists, that the slaves bear a mortal enmity to their masters, and only want an opportunity to escape from them. The gentleman tells us, that all slaves among the Jews were free at the end of six years. Now it is a litde hard that abolitionists in their great zeal for whatever is black, 446 DISCUSSION should run directly against each other. Yet so it is. Hear Mr. Thomas, a very staunch abolitionist. He says — " It is but candid to admit, before leaving this topic, that Gentile servants seem to have been in a condition, in some respects inferior to that of Hebrew servants. 1. Tiiey were never purchased for six years ; but always till the ju- bilee. 2. No mention is made of Hebrew servants, even when their ears were bored, laboring for the children of their master ; whereas if the master of a Gentile died be- fore the jubilee, he was inherited by the children, and re- tained until his whole time of service expired." (Lev. xxv, 46.) Revieio of Junkin, p. 90. Thus does an abolitionist of the first water flatly contra- dict the gentleman, and assert that Gentile servants were never bought for six years, but always till the jubilee. Now if we admit this statement of Mr. Thomas, though it is not true ; what proportion of the bond-servants bought of the heathen, would live to be free ? The man of thirty years of age, bought immediately after the jubilee, would be eighty years old, if he should live to see the day of free- dom. To a considerable proportion of those servants the period of bondage would be during life. But the principlcy as already remarked, is not affected by the duration of the servitude. If the relation of master and slave is in itself sinful, it was wicked to have it continue five years, as truly as during life. So we are forced to the conclusion, that, if abolitionism is true, God gave the Jews express permission to commit sin and oppress their fellow men for forty-nine years ! He says the Jewish law struck out the chattel principle. But what does he mean by the chattel principle ? Is it em- braced in the permission to buy servants, possess them, be- queath them, and compel them even by chastisement, to serve 1 Were not all these elements in the bond service of slaves whom the Jews were permitted to purchase from ths Gentiles ? If he says, that is liberty, I have no earthly ob- jection. If a man who can be bought, and held, and forced ON SLAVERY. 447 to serve, and bequeathed as an inheritance to children forev cr, is a free man ; — very well. Then the slaves in the Uni- ted States are all free ; and the abolitionist society have nothing to do ! Such, however, is not my notion of liberty. As to access to the courts, which, he says the Jew- ish bond-servants had, (because they passed by the place where the court was held) might not the slaves in our coun- try have the same rights without destroying the relation? If they are treated with cruelty, and can prove the wrong, they can have redress even now, at least in Kentucky. But does the enjoyment of this r^ht, destroy the relation, or prove they never were slaves, but only hired servants? Again — the logical gentleman told us, the Hebrew bond- servants were not slaves, because, in the first place, they could refuse to be circumcised ; and then they could not be held as slaves ; and, in the second place, if they were circumcis- ed, they became Jews, and their term of service continued only six years. And, in proof of this last statement, he re- fers to Jahn, a learned Papist, This is, indeed, a curious jumble to come from so learned a gentleman as my oppo- nent. It is true, that adult persons might refuse to be cir- cumcised, and thus avoid being bought by a Jew ; for it was not the purpose of Cxod, that the servants of his people should be pagans. But, as slavery in its worst form existed amongst all the nations around the Jews, multitudes of the slaves would desire to exchange their severe servitude for that amongst the Jews, which was comparative freedom. But Jahn does not say, that the bondmen bought of the Gentiles, were free at the close of six years. He does, prob- ably, say, that they, on being circumcised, enjoyed all the privileges of the Jewish church. This is true. But he says, the Jewish bondmen were slaves, in the true sense of the word. It matters little, however, what Jahn says. The question for us to determine, is — what says the law? The gentleman's statement places two of the divine laws in flat contradiction to each other. One law, forbids the Jewish servant, cold for six years, to be treated as a bond-servant 448 DISCUSSION Levif. xx\\ 39 — 43. And the reason given is: ''For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt." The other law, if we are to believe Mr. B., re- quires the bondmen, bought of the heathen, to be circum- cised, and then requires them to be treated precisely as a Jewish servant, because they have become Jews ! I'hat is, the law forbids the Jewish servant to be treated as the bond- servant ; and then makes the bond-servant a JcAvish servant ! ! There is not a scholar of any standing to be found, who will confirm the gentleman's assertion, that the bondmen among the Jews went free at the end of six years. JEven his own friends, the abolitionists, will not assert it. The brother, however, tells us, that there was one law for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land. And by the stranger he understands these bondmen who came from the heathen, and who, according to him, were not slaves. Strangers might, indeed, reside among the Jews, either as " proselytes of the gate," or " proselytes of righteousness ; " and to these there v/as the same law as to Israelites, though, to the former, not the same privileges. But they were not servants at all, but were wholly a different class from the bondmen bought with money, who were never called "strangers." He represents the laws of Moses, concerning servitude, as designed to keep the servants, bought of pagans, within bounds, till they became converted, and joined themselves to God's people. This, however, is but a flight of his imagination. For servants, when purchased, were to be circumcised immediately. There is not one intimation, that pagans might be bought as bondmen, and circumcised, if, after a time, they became converts. All the laws of Moses, he asserts, tended toward liberty. This is true, though not in the sense which he gives the language. Those laws, so far from forbidding the existence of the relation between master and slave, did give express permission for it to be formed. But by its formation, the condition of the slaves was greatly improved. Their liberty ON sla\t:ry. 449 was far greater under the Jewish law; and, which is still better, their minds were delivered from the degrading slavery of ignorance, superstition and vice. There were some of the gentleman's very eloquent ap- peals, which I cannot fully answer. He represents himself as pleading the cause of his colored clients, consisting of three millions of his fellow men, who cannot be heard. I can only say, that if ever any people on earth had occasion to offer the prayer — '• deliver us from our friends," they are that people! [A laugh.] The only good as yet accom- plished, by the advocacy of the gentleman and his friends, in their behalf, has been to rivet their chains upon them! But now, after so long a time, my worthy friend has been forced to reply to my argument from the New Testatment. We will now see how far he has succeeded in replying to it. He tells us, first, that if the word doulos, translated servant^ does mean slave, our translators were most unfaithful, for they never once so rendered it. To this argument I have, once and again, replied, that the word servant, derived from the Latin servus, means literally a slave, and that it had this meaning when our translation was made. You observe how carefully he avoids meeting this question. I have replied, in the second place, that those translators, on whose knowl- edge and fidelity he pronounced so eloquent an eulogium, did translate this word servant, in passages where the gen- tleman himself admits, that it means slave. In 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2, we have the word despotes, Avhich, according to his own admission, means a slave-holder; and yet the corresponding w^ord, doulos, which, he acknowledges, in this passage, means slave, is translated servant. But I am not particular about the word slave. I am quite as well pleased Aviih " sew ant P But the question is, what kind of servants were ihoje ad- dressed by the apostles, whose masters were believing mem- bers of the church 1 I maintain, and 1 have proved by ar- guments he has not met, that they were slaves. He asserts that they were hired servants. All I ask of him, is to nro- duce his evidence. 29 450 DISCUSSION But the g-cntleman seems to think, he has discovered a method of proving-, triumphantly, that the Hebrew word eved and the Greek word doulos do not mean slave. He says let us test the question, whether slave is a correct translation of the words eved and doulos, by substituting that word for servant; and with an air of triumph, he quotes the language of David — " O, Lord, I am thy slave," malcs in the early church, as that there were no slaves there ! Who denies (what that text imports) that in the privileges of the Christian church and in the blessed hopes of the gos- pel, there are no distinctions — that at the table of the Lord the richest man takes his seat by the poorest of the poor? But a king is a king still, though his meanest subject is on a par with himself in the things of religion. The equality of all men on the great platform of Christian privilege and hope, does not prevent great inequalities in their civil condi- tion. I go for both — for defending their equality in Chris- tian privileges, whilst I would not interfere with the order of society in things touching this life. The equality of a .Tew and his slave in their right to the passover, did in no wise destroy their relation to each other as master and slave. The gentleman has repeatedly asserted the sinfulness of slave-holding in itself, on the ground, that the master takes the labor of the slave luithout wages. Now, on this subject, what says God's law? That law, as I have proved, ex- pressly required that the wages of the hired servant (saUr) should be promptly paid; but it says not a word about the wages of the bond-servant (cved) bought from the heathen. How shall we account for this fact ? The reason is obvious, ON SLAVERY. 473 if the doctrine for which I contend is true ; but the thing is wholly unaccountable, if Mr. B.'s principles are correct. The law did not require wages to be paid to the bond-serv- ant, because the master had already paid for his labor what, under the circumstances, it was worth, and because the mas- ter was bound to provide his slave food and raiment, and shelter, in sickness and health, until death. This support was the servant's wages — quite as much, by the way, as most men obtain for their labor. Mr. B. proves, that the primitive Christians were not slave- holders, from the fact that they were generally poor people, in the lower walks of life. Admit the truth of the state- ment; does it follow that the apostles excluded slave-holders, as such, from their churches ? Surely the premises are at a great distance from the conclusion. But he tells us, that the first converts at Jerusalem sold their houses and lands, and had all things in common ; and he asks, what became of their slaves? I answer — 1. He has himself informed us, that the Jews, after the Babylonish captivity, had no slaves. If his statement is true, the ques- tion is answered. 2. But Paul and Peter teach us, as plain- ly as language can teach, that there were in many of the churches, as at Ephesus and Colosse, both masters and slaves ; and they give such directions to both, as cannot ap- ply to employers and hired-servants. They exhort the slaves to obey their own masters " with fear and trembling," not only the "good and gentle," but also the froward. 3. If there had been slave-holders amongst those converts, they certainly would not have sold their slaves for money for the church. Any Christian would have cheerfully given up his other possessions for the general interest, but not the ser- vants of his family, whose happiness he is solemnly bound to regard, and whom God requires him to instruct in the things pertaining to their salvation. Doubtless every Christian master would, if he consistently could, liberate his slaves ; but certain it is, that the servants of the family are amongst the last of a pious m.aster's possessions with which, 474 DISCUSSION Avhen in difficult circumstancesj he would part. The si- lence of the inspired record concerning slaves, therefore, af- fords no evidence that slave-holders were not received into the churches organized by the apostles. , The gentleman asserts, that the word doulos does not mean slave. This is merely assertion; but we call for evi- de/iice. I called upon him to tell us what word in the Greek language does mean slave, if this word does not. He has not given us the information. A similar question was asked concerning the Hebrew eved ; but the gentle- man could find no other word signifying slave. Indeed he told us, virtually, that there is no word either in the He- brew or Greek language, which does definitely signify slave ! a statement contradicted by every Greek Lexicon, by classic usage, by Bible usage, and by all Greek and Hebrew scholars. Stuart, McNight, Barnes, and a host of others, commentators, critics and theologians, say unhesi- tatingly, that the literal and proper meaning of doulos., is slave. But Mr. B. presents a supposed case which he regards as entirely conclusive. " Suppose," says he, " a church member had come to one of those churches and claimed as his servant a man who had run from him, and had become pious and had married in the place. Which relation would the church regard, the conjugal or the property relation?" How this supposed case proves, that there were no slave-holders in the apostolic churches, I know not. It is not difhcult, however, to answer the question. The church, so far as it had authority, would, of course, sacredly regard the marriage relation, and so would every pious master. It would not be difficult, however, if the master were not pious, to satisfy him, if he were a reasonable man, by paying him what liis slave was worth. Precisely in this way did primitive Christians liberate the slaves of men, when they liberated them at all. Instead of combining to run them off from their masters, as do many modern abolitionists, they united to purchase them. Our abolition- ON SLAVERY. 475 ists, however, are quite too conscientious to imitate their examj)le ! Having now answered so much of the gentleman's speech as required notice, I proceed very briefly to recapitulate, that the audience may have distinctly before them the ground over which I have travelled. The question before us, as 1 have repeatedly stated, is not, whether it is wrong to force a free man into slavery ; nor whether all the particular laws by which, at different times and in different countries, it has been regulated, are just and righteous ; nor whether it is right or wrong for a man to treat his slaves cruelly, to separate husbands and wives, &;c.: nor whether a man may rightly regard and treat his slaves as mere chattels personal, not as rational, accountable, immor- tal beings ; nor whether a great amount of sin is often actu- ally committed in this relation ; nor whether slavery, as a system, is an evil, the removal of which should be sought by all proper means ; nor whether it is the true policy, and the duty of the several slave States to abolish slavery immedi- ately or gradually ; nor whether " the system of American slavery," or any other system, is right, but simply whether the relation^ divested of all abuses, is in itself sinful. To prove, that slave-holding is not in itself sinful, but that there have been, and may be circumstances justifying it, I have advanced the following arguments : 1. The great principles of the moral law are written on the human heart ; and, when presented, they do commend tb.emselves to the understandings and. consciences of men. The truth of this proposition is universally admitted. Now it is a notorious fact, that the doctrine that slave-holding is in itself sinful, has not commended itself to the understand- ings and consciences of even the great body of the wise, and the good. Therefore it is not true. The feeble effort made by the gentleman to reply to this argument only proves it unanswerable. 2. The history of the church and of the world cannot furnish one instance of a man or a society of men heretical 476 DISCUSSION on one fundamental principle of morality, or article of Chris- tian faith, and yet sound on all others. But it is admitted, that the ministers and churches in the slave-holding States are as orthodox on all the principles of morality and doc] trines of Christianity, as blameless in their lives, as be- nevolent, and in all respects, except the matter of slavery, as exemplary Christians as any in the world. If, then, the doctrine of abolitionism is true, we have presented before us two spectacles, such as the world never before saw, viz: 1 . The great body of eminendy wise and good men pronouncing one of the very grossest violations of the moral law, such as kidnapping, man stealing and robbery, not in itself sinful. 2. A large number of Christians and Christian churches rotten on one fundamental point of morality, and perfectly sound and conscientious on all others ! The gentleman at- tempted to answer this argument by giving the Pharisees as an instance of men sound on all points of faith and morality, except one ! But this he soon abandoned. Then he re- ferred us to John Newton, just at the time when his mind was emerging from the midnight gloom of ignorance and deep depravity ! Such are his only answers ! 3. It is a fact, admitted even by the gentleman himself, that there are Christian slave-holders, and Christian churches, whose members are involved in slave-holding, accepted and blessed of God, often enjoying seasons of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And it is a fact, that many of the best ministers in the free States, if converted at all, were con- verted in those churches, in answer to the prayers of those Christians. Nay, it is a fact, that all, or nearly all, our older churches were organized in States where slavery then existed, and admitted slave-holders to their communion. Now one of two things is true, viz.: either God hears the prayers and blesses the labors of the most scandalous sin- ners, or abolitionism is not true. The gentleman attempted to evade the force of this argument, by saying — 1. That those revivals are granted in answer to the prayers of those who are not actually slave-holders. But the reply is obv|- ON SLAVERY. 477 ous — that those who countenance slave-holding- Christians and hold fellowship with them, are no better than they. 2. But he told us, those revivals were granted in answer to the prayers of goodly men who were opposed to slavery, such as David Rice, of Kentucky. But the reply is no less obvious — that he was not an abolitionist ; and if he had been, the Bible affords not an instance in which God has, for the sake of the pious dead, poured out spiritual blessings upon professors of religion who were gross sinners, and con- tinued in their sin. All seasons of revival recorded in the Bible, were seasons of general reformation, 4. The faith of the abolitionists induces them to pursue a course widely different from that pursued by the apostles of Christ, in regard to prevailing sins, particularly in regard to slavery. Abolitionists stand at a distance, and denounce and villify all slave-holders ; the apostles never did so. On the contrary, they preached the gospel both to masters and slaves, enjoining on each the faithful discharge of their re- spective duties. Abolitionists seek to render the slaves dis- contented, and to induce them to leave the service of their masters ; the apostles pursued an opposite course. In a word — the apostles, though assailed with many odious charges, were never represented as abolitionists, or as seeking to interfere with the relation of master and slave. They, in their epistles and discourses, so far as they are recorded in the Bible, never denounced the relation itself as sinful. They sought to reform men, not by abusing and denouncing them in papers, pamphlets and public meetings, but by going amongst them, and kindly reasoning with them. The course of the abolitionists is precisely opposite to this. Now if it be true, as the apostle James teaches, that men show their faith hy their icorks — it follows, that, since the w^orks of abolitionists are widely different from those of the apostles, and opposed to them, their faith is equally different from the faith of the apostles. 5. The tendency and necessary effects of abolitionism prove it false. What are its tendency and its effects ? They 478 DISCUSSION are the following . — 1. To irritate slave-holders to the highest degree, and thus to rivet the chains on the slave, and make his condition far worse than it would be ; 2. To take from slave- holders the preached gospel, the only influence by which they ever will be induced to liberate their slaves. The abolitionists will not go and preach the gospel to them. If they hear it, therefore, they must hear it from the mouths of ministers w-ho are denounced and calumniated by aboli- tionists. 3. The tendency of abolitionism is to take from the slaves, as well as their masters, the glorious gospel, which only can elevate their character, make them happy even in bond- age, and make them eternally free and happy in heaven. The abolitionists will not go and preach the gospel to them. If they ever hear it, then, they must hear it from ministers denounced and villified by these pretended reformers. For •whom, I again ask, will the millions of Christian slaves before the throne of God, thank the Judge on the great day — for the ministers who went and preached to them the word of life in their bonds ; or for those who, at a safe dis- tance, abused and calumniated their masters? If such is the tendency of abolitionism, (and facts already stated prove that it is,) and if we are to judge of the principles of men by their fruits^ what shall we think of it 1 6. The golden rule — "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" — as I have said, requires us to improve the condition of all our fellow-men, so far as w^e can do so, \vithout disregarding other para- mount duties. But inasmuch as, in a multitude of instances, it is impossible for masters to liberate their slaves, w'ithout ncCTlectinof paramount duties — and in other instances the only way in which they can consistently improve the condi- tion of a slave, is to buy him and hold him as a slave — it is clear that the golden rule does not prove slave-holding in itself sinful, does not require masters to liberate their slaves without regard to circumstances, but in some instances, makes men slave-holders. 7. The truth is self-evident, that God never did, and never ON SLAVERY. 479 could give any man permission to do that which is in itself sinful, or to form a sinful relation. But it is a fact, clearly proved by the express language of the Old Testament, that He not only recognized the relation of master and slave a;^ lawful amongst the patriarchs, but did give express permis- sion to the Jews to buy bondmen and bondmaids fromi the gentiles, and from strangers dwelling am.ongst them. There- fore, slave-holding is not in itself sinful. Amongst the Jews, as I proved, there were several classes of servants — as hired servants, whose wages were to be regularly paid ; Jews who had becnme poor, and sold themselves for six years, who were to be treated as hired servants ; the bondmen and bond- maids, owned by the patriarchs, or bought by the Jews, from the heathen, who were slaves during life. To this last class I directed your attention particularly. That they were slaves, I proved by several arguments: 1. They were bought with money. 2. They were the "possession" of their masters. The word 'possession^ is one of the strongest words in the Hebrew language, to denote that which really belongs to a man. 3. They descended as an inheritance to the children of the master, just as did ordinary possessions. 4. The master claimed their labor, and could enforce their obedience by chastisement ; and the reason why, if a ser- vant died, after a day or two, when he had been chastised, the master was not to be punished, was — that he was his money. 5. The word evccl^ translated bondman^ is the proper Hebrew word to signify slavc^ and stands in contrast with sakir^ the hired servant. The gentleman himself has not been able to find any other word in the Hebrew^ language, which does signify slave. The conclusion is inevitable, that God did give express permission to the Jews to buy and hold slaves ; and so is the language of the Bible understood by all respectable commentators, critics and theologians. Consequently, one of two things is true, viz: either God gave the Jews ex- press permission to commit sin, or slavc'-holding is not -in itself sinful. 8. I have proved, as I thmk, the fact that the apostles 480 DISCUSSION of Christ did receive slave-holders into the churches organ- ized by them. That they did so, I proved by several argu- ments, viz: 1. The word kurios, translated master , signifies an owner, master, or — and as applied to designate the rela- tion between master and servant, signifies a slave-holder. 2. The word despotes, also translated master, is admitted to mean properly a holder of slaves ; and w^e read of believing despotai, {m-dsteis,) "faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit," of "good and gentle" despoiai. 3. The word doulos, translated servant, means literally and properly, a slave. This is proved — 1st, by the lexicons, which uniformly so define it; 2d, by classic usage — the Greek writers themselves so used it ; 3d, by Bible usage — the word dovios being there constantly used in contrast with the word eleutJieros — free. 4. Exhortations are addressed by the apostles to masters and servants, which are not applicable to employers and hired servants, but are precisely applicable to masters and slaves. 5. I have not asked you to depend upon my assertions, touching these important points, but have referred you to a number of the best commentators, critics, and theologians, such as Poole, Scott, Henry, Home, Bush, Barnes, Stuart, McNight, Doddridge, and others; and I have challenged the gentleman to produce one respectable commentator, critic, or theologian, who agrees with him in his views of the scrip- tures quoted, or who gives a different exposition of them, from that which I have given. He has not done it, because he cannot. You have heard his replies, so far as he has attempted to reply to these arguments; and you have observed how care- fully he, from the very commencement of this debate, shun- ned the Bible, as if deeply conscious that it would condemn the principles he was advocating. He felt that an apology to the audience for pursuing such a course, was necessary; gnd he tells you, he avoided the Bible, because he knew, if hfi nyent into a scriptural argument, we should be troubled with eved and /^ow/os, lexicons, commentators and critics; ON SLAVERY. 481 and he very much feared I would confuse the minds of the people in this way ! ! ! [Mr. Blanchard rose to explain. I said I did so be- cause if you took the brother from the slaveholders' texts in the Bible, you put him out of his track.] The gentleman is right. It is true, that I cannot discuss great moral and religious questions, without the Bible — the only infallible rule of right. On such subjects my "track" takes me directly to the " Blessed Book," the fountain of truth ! I repeat, I did not ask you to depend on my assertions concerning the meaning of that book, I gave the gentleman standard authorities in great abundance. Poole, Henry, Scott, Gill, and many other eminently, wise and good men, who, if they were here now, would be denounced and excommunicated, because they were not abolitionists ! But the gentleman, though bold in his assertions concerning the Bible, has not one sound scholar to agree with him. If Poole, and Henry, and Scott, and Gill, and Home, and Dick, and Chalmers, and Cunningham, and Woods, and Stuart, and Tyler, and Spring, and Wayland, and Bacon, and the whole Church of Scotland, are ignorant of the Bible, and all in error concerning the facts there recorded about slavery and slave-holders ; I am quite content to be denounced in such company ; and I am clearly of opinion, that if they, and such as they have failed to understand the Bible on this subject, we cannot expect much light from the gentleman and his coadjutors. I repeat what I have said before, that I oppose abolition- ism, not because it tends to abolish slavery, and improve the con- dition of the slave, but because it tends to perpetuate it, and ag- gravate all its evils. Never as I firmJy believe, will slavery be abolished by your abolition lectures, your newspaper ttiii pamphlet denunciations of slave-holders, without regard, to the character or circumstances ; or by attempting to exclude them from the Christian church. In New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, it has been abo- 31 482 DISCUSSION. ) lished, but not by the principles of abolitionists. So long as the system continued, masters and slaves were members of the same churches, and sat at the same table of the Lord. Ministers of the Gospel, faithful to their high commission,such men as many who are now denounced by abolitionists as pro- slavery, proclaimed the Gospel both to masters and slaves ; and through its elevating and purifying influence upon the public mind, slavery was gradually abolished. And thus it must be abolished, if abolished at all, in the present slave-holding States. But my time has expired ; and now, in closing this dis- cussion, I cannot but express my gratification in view of the patient and respectful attention which has been paid to this discussion by so large a portion of my fellow citizens, who have heard it. I leave you to determine in view of your responsibility to God, on which side of this import- ant question the truth is found. And to you. Gentlemen Moderators, my thanks are due, for the time you have been willing to spend in presiding over this discussion. 3lv77-i VALUABLE SCHOOL AND MUSIC BOOKS, PUBLISHED BY 110 MAIN STREET, CIJVCmMTI. A National Geography, for Schools ; Illustrated by 220 Engravings and 33 Maps ; with a Globe Map, on a new plan. By S. G. Goodrich, author of Peter Parley'^s Tales. The awkward separation of Maps from the descriptive text, in geographical works, has long been regarded as a formidable evil — especially in those designed for the youthful student. With a view to obviate this, the author of the present work issued a book on Geography, about twelve years since, in which the maps were placed in contiguity with the reading matter. This experiment led the writer to form the design of the present work, which was undertaken some years since, but laid aside for other engagements. The following are deemed to be some of the prominent features of the present work : — 1. It is designed as a school-book — as a book for teaching; and nothing in the work is allowed to interfere with this design. 2. Simplicity, perspicuity and convenience, have been carefully studied in the arrangement of the whole work. 3. In respect to maps, a new and useful device has been adopted, which we entitle a Olobe-Map. It is a substitute for an artificial globe, with the advan- tage of being easily handled, and constantly before the eye, during the early stage of the study. It is believed that the utility of this simple contrivance, in giving correct notions of the face of the earth, and imprinting lasting pictures on the mind, -of the form and situation of its leading physical features, cannot be easily over-estimated. 4. As a means of rendering the progress of the pupil at once agreeable and effective, the author has endeavored to invest the subject with every degree of interest of which it is capable. He has sought to keep the attention alive by vivid descriptions. This -work is manvfactured in the best style, as regards paper, printing, and binding: and sold at retail for 50 cens per copy. Parley's Geography, for Beginners; With eighteen Maps, and one hundred and Jifty Engravings. This work is by the same popular author as " The JVational Oeography." His design has been to make this work a pleasing guide through the early stages of geographical study. It will be observed, therefore, that the first steps are rendered easy, and no great task is required, till the meaning of geography is acquired, and until certain leading ideas — as the shape of the earth, the use of maps, &e. — have been clearly formed. Price only 95 csnts pibr copy. PRIMAMY EDUCATIOIV: AS CONNECTED WITH THE USE OF Sx\NDERS^ SERIES OE SCHOOL BOOKS, COMPRISING SANDERS' PRIMARY SCHOOL PRIMER, pp. 48. « SCHOOL READER, 1st BOOK, pp. 120. « SCHOOL READER, 2nd BOOK, pp. 180. « SCHOOL READER, 3rd BOOK, pp. 250. « SCHOOL READER, 4th BOOK, pp. 304. « SPELLING BOOK, pp. 168. The number of Elementary School Books extant, renders it necessary to state, briefly, some of the general advantages which this series possesses over others. The opinion too gen- erally prevails, even among teachers, that there is no room for improvement in books of this character — that anything contain- ing columns of words, or reading matter, is suitable for a spel- ling or reading book. It is in consequence of this idea, that so little care is taken in the selection of such books for schools, and that so few, after passing through years of drudgery, come out good readers and spellers — the first essential accomplishment for a good scholar. If those entertaining this opinion will have but the candor to suspend it, until they have perused the following pages, it is be- lieved they will be convinced that they have fallen in with a common error, and that it is not without strong reasons this se- ries is offered to the public. The series forms, as far as it is carried, a complete system. Every step the child takes, raises him a little higher, and gives him a firm foot-hold for his next advance. It commences with the alphabet, and ends with the most difficult forms of spelling and reading, and yet the ascent is so gradual as to hardly attract the attention of the pupil. He finds each lessoa SO full, that with but little attention on the part of the teacher hd becomes perfectly familiar with it before he is required to try his strength on the next, and it is believed he must be sadly wanting in native power of mind, who, having under proper instruction, passed regularly through to the end of the series, does not close the last book a good speller and a good reader. A general de- scription of the manner in which this plan is carried out, is here given. THE PRIMARY SCHOOL PRIMER. This is designed as the first book for the learner, and to serve as an introduction to the First Reader^ and not to the Spelling Book. It has carefully been prepared with special reference to being used as a school book. It is, therefore, bound in a sub- stantial manner, with a stiff cover and cloth back. A particu- lar reference will here be made to it, since the principle oa which it is constructed, presents the plan uniformly adopted throughout the entire Series. The first two lessons after the alphabet, p. 14, embrace all the common words of two letters, in the English language — being thirty in number. The syllables, ba^ bo, bu, or bla, blo^ blu, &LC.,3iVenot inserted. When the child can read, spell, and pronounce at sight — things indispensable — these words, three of them are arranged in a sentence for reading ; thus, '■'-we go inr But lest he be unable to give the words of this little sentence a ready utterance, from having seen them with so many others, they are for the purpose of calling his attention, arranged pre- viously in a spelling column, in the same order as they occur in the sentence. The same arrangem.ent with words of tAvo let- ters, is continued for two pages — the sentences increasing in length to the number of six words. After this, words of three letters arc in the same manner gradually introduced, and so on with words of four letters. By this means, when the scholar is required to read a sentence, he is prepared to give an easy and natural utterance to each word, and learns to read, without acquiring those strained and unnatural habits, which cost him his very breath to practice. IVloreover, experience has proved, that by this arrangement, with the co-operation of the teacher, the progress of the scholar is greatly facilitated. In other Series, the learner usually first spells a long list of words, which, for the most part, forms no portion of the lesson he is soon required to read. The consequence is, to accomplish it, he is obliged to make the greatest possible effort, and the more he struggles, the worse his reading. Such a practice will inevitably beget a forced and stammering manner. It is impos- sible to prevent it. On the other hand, if he can read his les- son without eflbrt, (which he is able to do, when he is familiar with each word composing it,) he will acquire a fluent style that cannot but be admired. One of the principal advantages of this system, is its simpli- city. Instead of its being a mysterious uncertainty, ''Where all is nsw, and all unknown," the child clearly sees the very process by which he progresses. The book is composed wholly of words of one syllable^ with the exception of a few lessons at the close. THE SCHOOL REA.DER, FIRST BOOK. From what has been said with regard to the Primer, it will be understood that this book, as well as those that follow it, are constructed on the same plan — the difficult words being arrang- ed for spelling before each reading lesson — the reverse of most other series. The ^xsi fifty pages of this reader, are made up of words of 07ie syllable, notwithstanding the quantity con- tained in the Primer. After this, words of two syllables are gradually introduced, which, with few exceptions, continue through the book. In order that correct tastes and habits in reading be early acquired, the subject of each lesson is brought fully within the comprehension of children : and though the lessons are designed to interest^ yet not the less to instruct. THE SCHOOL READER, SECOND BOOK. The first fifly pages of this book are made up almost wholly of monysyllables and dissyllables. The lessons are but one grade above those of the First Reader. The most difficult words, as in the preceding book, are formed into spelling lessons before the reading. The unnecessary repetition of these words has been carefully avoided, and they have been selected in the order they occur in the lesson. In primary instruction. Pictures hold an important place, as a means of facilitating the progress — attracting the attention — and enlisting the interest of the scholar. But their use, like other good things, is liable to great abuse. The practice of constantly crowding before the eyes of children luminous pic- tures, excites the fancy to excess, and soon withdraws the atten- tion wholly from the lesson. After having been thus stimula- ted for a time, the mind becomes dormant, and the child mani- fests no disposition to peruse even lessons which are thus illu- minated^ much less, those not. To use them in a proper man- ner, has been particularly regarded in these books. The most attractive pictures, however, held up to the view of the scholar will be found in the lessons themselves — attracti^-e, not frorn iheer novelt?/, but from the healthful instruction, both moral and >ntellectual, which they afibrd. THE SCHOOL READER, THIRD BOOK. An additional feature characterizes this as well as the Fourth Reader, which is, Definitions. Each difficult word, when it first occurs in a reading exercise, is defined in immediate connec- tion with the spelling-, before the lesson. It will be remembered that in other Series now in use, the scholar is required to "spell and define" the difficult words after the lesson, but they are not defined. Now, the plan of actually defining before the lesson, is not only to be preferred on account of its convenience, but al- so as it saves the expense of purchasing dictionaries for that purpose. Besides, if the scholar be referred to a dictionary for the definition, why not refer him, also, to the same source for the spelling? Moreover, if it is important, as all admit it is, that he understand what he reads, ought he not to be required to learn the signification of such words before he reads? For cer- tainly, if he does not understand the parts, he cannot understand the whole. What can be more absurd than requiring a child to go through a whole series of elementary books, without meeting with a sin- gle definition, except the precious few of two hundred at the close of the spelling book? Why, he merely accumulates a cloud of words, of which he never knows the use! To de- fine the simple words that are made use of in the First and Sec- and Readers, would be "darkening counsel." Moreover, to re- quire it, would be asking too much for those only capable of reading in such books. But scholars, prepared for a book of this rank, are capable of learning for themselves, with proper facilities presented, the meaning of those words with which they are not already familiar. For them to pass indifferently over, words, unacquainted with their import, every judicious teacher- must deem it improper in the extreme. Yet when no means are provided for them to learn the definition, except by reference to some foreign souixe, how often is it regarded a sufficient apolo- gy, with the teacher, for treating the subject with utter neglect! But when the definitions are given, as in this and the Fourth Reader, there is no longer any disposition to pass them by. In defining, the literal or gcneroJ meaning is given. This is, the sense the word generally bears. When it is learned, the figurative and other shades of meaning are at once understood by the connection in which the word stands. But when the figurative sense is very foreign from the literal, that meaning- is also given, as near as can be, independent of the connection. To define only the sense in which a word happens to be used as is done in books now prominently before the public, is worse than not to define at all; for what is given as figurative^ is taken as literal. Besides, it is attempting to give that meaning which can 07ily be learned properly by the connection. THE SCHOOL READER, FOURTH BOOK. This book difl^ers, in an essential particular, from any other 4th Reader, or book sustaining that relation ever published. Part 1st embracing thirty four pages, is devoted to instruction in the science of reading, or Elocution. It is divided into short lessons, with questions appended. The instructions are more elementary, more practical — and accompanied by more numer- ous exercises — than are found in the ordinary works on Elocu- tion. It is designed that while each lesson is made use of, as a reading exercise, it be also studied as a Grammar lesson. The Rhetorical principles given are those of our American au- thor, Dr. Porter. He has laid out a new path, or done for Elocu- tion, what Campbell and Whately have performed for the more ab- struse branches of Rhetoric. Instead of a set of arbitrary rules which might serve to direct the scholar in giving the proper tone and emphasis to this or that piece set for declamation, and as effec- tually murder every other of a different style and subject, he has by a long course of study, and close observ-ation, sought for the universal principles of Eloquence, and as far as the nature of the subject would admit, reduced them to a respective scientific form. He does not profess to give to the public a "Rhetorical Guide" that may make a man a good speaker ; but to analize the nature of Eloquence, and to lay down distinctly, and illustrate fully, the principles that every real orator follows, and whether he knows it or not always has followed, and never has violated without a failure proportionate to his offence. The Elocutionist who pro- ceeds on the ordinary plan, acts as wisely as would a Grammari- an, who instead of searching out the inherent principles of a language, to which all its best writers, whether knowingly, or unknowingly conform, should frame a set of arbitrarymaxims of his own for the use of all who would speak or write w^th pro- priety; — or as sensibly as a logician who instead of setting forth the mode in which universal TediBon acts — the principles by which all correct reasoning must be conducted, should, in the plcnlitude of his caprice, manufacture a Reasoner's Guide, with- out any reference to, or it may be, altogether foreign to the intel- lectual structure ; — or further, as well as the musician, who gives instruction for learning this, or that piece, instead of teaching- the science of his art and rules for execution, that are of universal application. By the former plan, one, it is true, may learn to perform many pieces admirably, but his musical knowledge be- gins and ends with them. All the directions he has received, are confined to the "lessons," and if he attempts to extend them to others, it is with a certainty of frequent blunders, and a want of all confidence, even when he is right. Just so it must be with any capricious system of Elocution. It may serve to di- rect the reader in giving the proper tone and emphasis to words and sentences on the particular pages to which it refers, but there its utility ends; and if its rules be thoroughly learned, as all elementary knowledge should, so that they be incorporated in the mind, and become, as it were, habits of the understanding, which the scholar in after life follows unconsciously, and with- out knowing whence they came, they cannot fail to vitiate his taste, make his delivery stiff and unnatural, and in a good degree render abortive the best natural powers. The success that "Porter's Rhetorical Reader," has met with, shows how well his design has been carried out. It has become a standard text book all over the Union. It has been recom- mended by many of the most distinguished professors in our American colleges, and has already passed through two hun- dred and thirty large editions. In part 2nd,the notation^ for the proper inflection, emphasis, &c., is only employed in cases where there is a liability to err, or in passages peculiarly illustrative of some Rhetorical princi- ples, which it is desired the scholar should be led to observe. The continuous use of a 7iotation, in unnecessary as well as ne- cessary cases, is as wise as would be the erection of "Guide Posts" at every corner of the fence — from their frequency they are passed unobserved, even where it is needful that they be re- garded. It is a grossly mistaken idea, and one entertained only by the most superficial teachers, that the modulation of the voice should be regulated entirely by notation, instead of the sense. In fact the sense is the only notation of any use in ordinary ca- ses. Anything like a substitute is pernicious. The constant use of it is not^unlike the puerile practice, (formerly in use, but now utterly repudiated by judicious teachers,) of affixing to a defining vocabulary a notation, designating the parts of speech to which the several words belong — requiring the scholar to distinguish them, not from a knowledge of what constitutes a noun^verb, t^c, but sheer ly from the notation. In the 1st and 2nd Readers the words that compose the spel- ling lessons, are divided into syllables — in the 3rd and 4th, only where there is a liability to mistake, and at the same time the pronunciation is denoted. To do it in all cases, would be per- forming for teacher and scholar what they ought to do them- selves, and to suppose them incapable, after such assistance ag has been afforded, would, to say the least, be paying them no very high compliment; moreover, without such practice, they might be rendered incapable of ever doing it with propriety. Besides the ordinary questions on the subject of the lessons as in other books, there are others paramount in importance — ques- tions as to the proper inflections, emphasis, &c., which are ne- cessary to give full expression to the sense. Annexed to these questions, are references to the instructions of Part First, where the principles now required to be applied are fully elucidated, thus giving them great practical value. GENERAL FEATURES. Print.— This is open, clear, and distinct. That in the Prioner is large— In the First Reader^ it is a size smaller — in the Sec- ond Reader^ the same as in the First. That of the Third, smaller, but not so small as in the Fourth Reader, which is the ordinary size. This feature must be deemed a matter of much importance. That the print in a Second, should be as small as in a Fourth Reader, which is the case in other series, must be regarded as no inconsiderable objection. Proge-ession. — An equally serious objection, urged against every series published, is that the progression is too rapid. This is especially true in passing from the Second to the Third Reader — the Third being quite as elevated, both in style and subjects, as the Fourth Reader. The consequence is, the schol- ar is soon lost, as it were in an interminable maze. This fault, which is no minor one, has never been regarded as applicable to this Series. The gradation is both easy and natural — the subjects, while they are instructive, are calculated to win the at- tention of the learner, and allure him on, step by step, to that which is more advanced. Nothing can have a more pernicious influence on the mind of youth, than reading that which they are unable to comprehend. The practice not only begets in them habits of indifference, but, more than that, they acquire a perfect disgust for reading of any description, however interest- ing. CtivRACTER OF THE Lessons. — Purity of sentiment and thought, must be considered of no small importance. While this has been regarded, elegance of expression, chasteness of style, and adaptedness to instruct in reading have by no means been overlooked. 8 Variety. — Another feature, not less important, which char- acterizes this Series, is the great variety it embraces, both in sub- ject and style. The manner of reading must be adapted to the style of the composition. If narrative, it must be read in the narrative style — if argumentative, then in the argumentative style. Hence the importance of variety. For, if the style of the composition be uniform, that of the reading must necessarily become unitorm and monotonous. This is invariably the result in the use of histories for reading books — a practice already too prevalent. Spelling and Pronunciation. — Throughout the Series, the Spelling and Pronunciation is uniform — being in conformity with Webster. SANDER'S SPELLING BOOK. This book is designed to be used in connection with the Readers — being taken up soon after the scholar begins the First Reader. It contains many classes of words for spelling, which are often omitted in others, as proper names ; the States with their abbreviations and capitals; the books of the Old and New Testaments with their abbreviations ; words which are pro- nounced nearly as well as others quite alike, &,c. The instructions in the Elements of Orthography are more com- plete and easily comprehended than those commonly found in spelling books— being accompanied with a scheme for parsing", by which they are practically applied. In most of the lessons a plan is adopted, by which the scholar is able to learn, to some extent the meaning of the words which he spells — a word in one column definiag, in part, one in an op- posite column. Thus, — a bate de crease com prise in elude al lure en tice con cur ag-ree By this arrangement the words are contrasted in signification, and hence, the differences between the words, in meaning, can easily be pointed out, as well as the resemblance. The words however, can be spelled in the ordinary manner, if desired, since the}?' are as well classified as if not thus arranged. i The spelling and pronunciation, are as in the Readers, in accordance with Webster's Dictionary. Therefore, the follow- ing inconsistencies, with many others of a similar nature, which abound iti books conformable to Walker, are avoided. The spel- ling within the parentheses, is as adopted in this book. When there is none thus annexed to a word, the spelhng in this book is the same as that in others. Villain, villany (villainy), villanous (villainous) — embassy, ambassador (embassador), ambassadress (embassadress) — em- bark, embarcation (embarkation) — dependant (dependent), inde- pendent — roll, unrol (unroll), enrol (enroll) — will, wilful (will- ful) — stillness, fulness, (fullness) — recall, enthral (inthrall) from ihrall — illness, dulness (dullness) — install, instalment (install- ment) — enter, centre (center) — neuter, nitre (niter) — sober, sa- bre (saber; — diameter, metre, (meter) — high, height (hight) — highness, heighten (highten) — perilous, marvellous (marvelous) — novelist, duellist (duelist) — equality, equalling (equaling) — scandalous, libellous (libelous,) — cooler, woollen, (woolen) im- moveable (immovable), removable, irremoveable (irremovable) — approvable, irreproveable (irreprovable) — ratable, saleable (salable)^ — curable, sizeable (sizable), blameable (blamable)-- ensure (insure) — ensurance (insurance) — endict (indict) — en- dorse (indorse) — enclose (inclose) — aught, nought (naught) — • rackoon (raccoon) — visiter (visitor) — instructer (instructor) — • riband (ribin) — expense, from the Latin expensum, offence (of- fense) from the Latin offensus^ offensive — correction, connexion (connection)— stupify (stupefy), stupefaction — flax, axe (ax) — • honour (honor), honorary — musick (music), musical, &.c. &c. From the foregoing, it is evident that this spelling, to say nothing of pronunciation, is not only more uniform than in books founded on Walker's Dictionary, but also more nearly agrees with present practice. General Rules for spelling, which are quite uniform in their application, are given on the last two pages of the book, to which reference is to be made while spelling the preceding lessons. By a proper attention to those rules, the spelling of large classes of words, which is of- ten mistaken, will be readily acquired. The efforts of the Author, in preparing this Series, have thus far met with a hearty response from the friends of education, in the generous patronage they have extended to the works — hav- ing be n adopted in the schools of Cincinnati, Brooklyn, Pitts- burgh, Rochester, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Dayton, Colum- bus, Thirty Counties in the State of New York, etc. etc. etc. It may here be mentioned, moreover, that the best evidence of their merits, is evinced in the attempts that have been made, and are making, to imitate them, in some cases by issuing new books, but mostly in remodeling old ones. 10 RECAPITULATION. Some of the particulars wherein these books, as a series, ex- cel, are as follows: 1st. The Primary Books contain more reading, composed of easy words — there being ninety pages made up of monosyl- lables. 2nd. The most difficult words of the reading are formed in- to spelling lessons. 3rd. The Spelling Lessons precede the reading in which they occur. 4th. In the Third and Fourth Readers, the most difficult words are defined, in a general and literal sense. 5th. The Progression from one book to another is more reg- ular^ gradual, and philosophical. 6th. The lessons are better adapted to interest and instruct, and at the same time suited for the purpose of teaching read- ing. 7th. The Practical and judicious use of Pictures, calcula- ted to assist, not retard the efforts of teachers. 8th. The Practical and Elementary instructions in the Rhc- torical principles of reading and speaking, being those of our American Author, Dr. Porter. These are deduced froin Na- ture itself, and calculated fully to elucidate what is requisite to read, or speak, with propriety — not to serve as a mere arbitrary Guide, having no foundation in nature. 9th. In the exercises for reading, the Rhetorical notation is adopted only where there is a liability to err, or in passages pe- culiarly illustrative of some Rhetorical principle. 10th. Questions are placed at the end of the reading lessons, as to the proper inflections, or other modulations of the voice, requisite to be used in reading with propriety. 11th. References are made to the Rhetorical instructions of the former part, and the scholar is required to apply the princi- ples there stated to the lesson before him. 12th. Words are divided into syllables in the 1st and 2nd Readers, but in the 3d and 4th only where there is a liability to mistake — thus requiring the exercise of .the scholar's judg- ment in ordinary cases, and rejecting the puerile practice of al- ways doing it for them. 13th. The Print is more full, clear and distinct, gradually diminishing from the largo print of the Primer to that of or- dinary size, as found in the Fourth Reader. 14th. A greater variety will be found both in subject and style, than is usual in books of this character. 11 15th. The spelling and pronunciation is uniformly that of Dr. Webster. ■ The Publishers deem it proper to stale, that no books have been received by tha Public with greater favor than those of Sanders'— they are adapted to all classes, from the abecedarian to the most advanced classes in our Schools and Academies, and it ia believed the lessons will be found much more regularly progressive, and instructive than those of any other Series extant. The Speller, it may be safely said, has no equal in value and intrinsic merit, among the numerous works of its class, claiming the patronage of the American people ; the same, may with propriety be said of This Primer, both are used exclusively in the Public Schools of Cincinnati, and the entire Series in those of Pitsburgh and Dayton, and have been extensively introduced ia each of the Slates of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and Michigan. Ia the Empire State, (N. Y.) so distinguished for her excellent system of Common Schools, and well endowed Academies, Sanders' Series have received the recommenda- tions of the principal Deputy Superintendents, and^Teachers' Associations, and been generally adopted. TESTIMONIALS From hundreds of Practical Teachers of the highest respectability in all parts of the Union are before us, giving unequivocal testimony that Sanders' School Books are superior to any of a similar kind. We subjoin some specimens— From the Rev. B. P. Aydelott, D. D., President of Woodward College, and Presi dent of the Board of Examiners and Inspectors of Common Schools, Cincinnati. Sanders' Series of School books, consisting of six volumes from "The Primary School Primer" to the "Fourth School Reader," were placed in my hands for examination. They are very neatly executed in all that belong to the printer, engraver, and binder* The matter has evidently been selected with great care, both in respect to the inlel lectual and moral instruction of the pupil. It would be invidious to compare this Se- ries with others before the public, but this may with propriety be said, that I know noi upon the whole abetter set of school books. The great number of new text books continually brought before the public is much complained of, but it is only by such, continuous effort we can ever arrive at that perfection, at which it is alike our duly and our interest to aim. A vast improvement has certainly taken place in this department of education with- in the last thirty years, and I believe it will rarely be found that any school book, •which has attained to a respectable circulation, is not in some respectg better than any that has preceeded it. Copy. (Signed) B. P. AYDELOTTE. Woodward College, Jan. 3, 1843. From the distinguished instructor F. G. Carey, A. M. Principal of Pleasant Hill Academy, near Cincirmati. '" When I received 'the series of school readers by Sanders, my impression was, 1?hat there was no demand for any further addition to the many already in use. And un- der this impression I took up this series, and, after a critical examination, am constrain- ed to say that it was entirely removed. I unhesitatingly give this series of books my decided preference, and as the best evidence of my regard, have introduced it, togeth- er with Sanders' Speller, into my institution. Some of the points among the many that might be mentioned that prefer its claims to superiority, are, 1. It is more regularly progressive in its character, and consequent- ly better adapted to the mind in its various stages of advancement- an element of the first impojtance in a series of school books. 2. The contents, embracing selections of a high literary character, and decided moral tendency, from a great variety of authors, prjucipal)^ American, are more deeply interesting to the young than those of most 12 readers. 3. The lessons on the elementary principles of our language, and the few plain rules and exercises for reading correctly, as well a-s rhetorically, prefixed to the 4lh Reader, are of great utility. The Speller is in no respect inferior to the Readers, and upon the whole I would re- commend this as the best series among the many that has come under my review Pleasant Hill, July 21, 1843. F. q. cARE'y. From the Rev. John C. Young, D. D. President of Centre College, Danville, Ky. From the examination which 1 have given to Sanders' Series of School Books, I feel warranted in recommending them to the public as works of merit. In some important points I consider them superior to any books of thekirid which I have ever seen. Danville, Ky., Sept. 6th, 1843. JOHN C. YOUNG. From Rev. W. J. Broaddus, D. D., Principal of Female Seminary, Lexington. Having examined with some care, the series of School Books published by W. H. Moore & Co., it gives me great pleasure to reccommend them to the friends of youth and of education. For the mechanical execution of these books, the publishers are entitled to much commendation, while great credit is due to the enterprising gentle- men who have taken so much pains to furnish our youth with so efficient aid in the Rudiments of English Literature. .Female Seminary, Lexington, Ky., June 2Sth, 1843. "W. J. BROADDUS. From Rev T. N. Ralston, Principal of Female Collegiate High School, I have examined the Spelling Book and series of School Readers by Charles W. Sanders, and I cheerfully express the opinion that they are not excelled by any ele- mentary works of the kind with which I am acquainted. Lexington Ky., June 16, 1843. ^ T. N. RALSTON.} At a meeting of the School Directors of Oxford, Butler county, O., Feb. 1, 1843, it was Resolved, That agreeably to tlje reccommendation of "The Advisory Committee," consisting of— Rev. Dr. Junkin, President of Miami University, '* J. W. Scott, Prof of Chemistry and Nat. Philosophy in Miami University, '' Joseph Claybaugh, D. D., President of Theological Seminary, and others; the following named books be used in the common schools in said district, viz. Sanders' Primary School Primer, Sanders' Spelling Book, Sanders' School Readers, 1st; 2d, 3d and 4th books, &c. From C. C. Giles, Principal of Female Seminary, Hamilton, O. Hamilton, March 2nd, 1843. ' Mr. Sanders, Sir.— I have examined your series of School Books with some care and I am much pleased with them. I do not know of any books better calculated to convey a correct and familiar knowledge of the English Language. Their progressive character, I consider a great improvement. I shall introduce them into my school as soon as circumstances will admit. C. C. GILES, j From the Principal of Public Schools of the Fifth and Sixth Districts, Cincinnati, Cincinnati, November, 1842. J Mr. Sanders, Sir.— I have examined your Series of School Books, and believe them to be well calculated, by their philosophical arrangement, simplicity, and appropriate ness of language, to interest and improve the youthful mind. The Spelling Book, in my opinion, contains many excellencies, superior to anyone of the kind that has come to my knowledge. The series, I think, admirably well adapted to meet the wants of Common Schools. J. B. WYMAN. We cheerfully concur with Mr. J. B. Wyman, in the above expression of hia views in regard to Sanders' Series of School Books. Darius Davenport, Principal of 9ih and 10th Districts. Cyrus Davenport, Principal of 7th District. John Hilton, Assistant in 7lh District. H. J. Adams, Principal of lllh and Pith Districts. Hiram P. Randall, Principal of 4th District. Samuel R, Evans, Principal of Public School, Fulton. 13 FromH. B. Edifards, Principal of First District School, and Oliver Wilson, Prin" cipal of the Second District School, Cincinnati. Mr. C. W. Sanders,— We have examined the School Readers you left with us, and believe ihey possess superior claims to the altenlion of teachers and otliers connected with elementary education. The moral lessons contained particularly recommend the work. H. H. EDWAKDS, November 23, 1842. OLIVER WILSON, From Professor J. TV. Hopkins, Principal of Preparat ory Department, Woodward College, Cincinnati, October 5th, 1842. I have examined ' Sanders' Third and Fourth Readers,' and take pleasure in saying that 1 believe them equal in every respect to any works of this kind now in use in the western country, and in many respects superior. The progressive arrangement of the exercises cannot be easily improved. The selections are very good, and calculated not only to interest and please the pupil, but many of them will no doubt produce lasting beneficial efTecis upon the hearts of those who may study them. If any worka of this kind are worthy of patronage, these certainly are. RespectfuUv, JOHN W.HOPKINS. From Rev. P- B. Wither , A. M., Principal of the Methodist Female Collegiate Insti' tute, Cincinnati, October 20th, 1842. Mr. Panders,— Dear Sir,— I have examined with as much care as circumstances would permit, your series of School Books consisting of the Primary School Primer, impelling Book, and the First, Second, Third and Fourth Readers; and think them well calcula- ted to accomplish the end for which they were severally intended— indeed I consider them superior in several important respects to any similar works with which I am ac- quainted. We shall introduce them after this quarter into this institution. I am, dear sir, very respectfully yours, &c,, P. B. WILBER.' From Professor J. Herron, Principal of English Department, Cincinnati College^ Cincinnati, November 22d, 18-12. Mr. C. W. Sanders— Dear sir, I have examined your series of School Books with great interest, fJir I believe they combine more excellencies than any now in use, and if generally adopted, will prove conducive to that uniformity in spelling and pronun- ciation so much to be desired in the English language: and I feel warranted in using them in the English Department of the College, and in recommpnding their general use. ' JOSEPH HERRON. Tile Editor of a Public Journal, published at Bath, Steuben County, says: We have had the pleasure of examining this series of School Books, which have al- ready become so deservedly populnr ihroughotil the state, having been recommended by the Deputy Superintendents of thirty five dilTerent counties. We cannot more fully express our views than to insert the loUowing letter to the Author, from R. K. finch, Esq., the able Deputy Superintendent of common schools for this county :— Bath, September 19ih, 1842. Mr. C. W. Sanders, Dear Sir,— I have a-t length found time to give your Spelling Book a patient and critical examination, and am prepared to say that 1 consider it a work of superior merit, and one that is better adapted to the wants of our common schools, academies and other seminaries of learning, than any other work of the kind. Both the matter and arrangement entitle you to the claim of originality, so far at least as originality is possible on this subject. That part which treats of the vowels and other elementary sounds, Vs peculiarly correct, lucid and well calculated to give the learner a gwd understanding of the whole subject. This I consider one of the best features of the book, as it remedies a serious defect which has hitherto existed, and one that has been seen and deplored by every intelligent teacher. In order to obtain a thorough knowledge of our language, the pupil must be carefully instructed in its first principles. He must learn not only the Rules of Orthography and Orthoepy, but must also be made acquainted with the use and practical application of these rules. Until the publication of your book we had no imroduciory work which furnished practical le.«!8on3 like those found in your orthographical analysis. The pupil was usually re- quired to commit to memory a number of abstract rules without illustration, which were entirely useless because not understood, and generally forgotten in less time than was occupied in learning them. I might also mfniion your explanation of the Prefixes and Suffixes, together witli your articles on infections as characteristic excellencies. Your reading lessons I consider well selected and well arranged, and valuable not ouly fgf their style, but also for the eerious) morality they inculcate. But I caauot at 14 present enter farther into panicularg. I shall shortly recommnncl its introduction into the several schools under my superintenJpiicy, when I can set f )rlh its rripriis more fuliy. Hopitis? you will find ample conipensaiion for your labor in the consciousness of having contributed to the general good, and in that liberal patronage which a generoua and enlightened community cannot fail to bestow, I am, dear sir, with much respect, your ob'l serv't. R. K. FINCH. From the Principals of the Public Schools, City of Neio York. Mr. C. W. Sanders, Dear Sir,— I have examined your series of Elementary School Books, and consider them highly calculated to please and improve the youthful mind. The reading lessons have evidently been selected with much care, and are of such a character as are calculated to cultivate the morals, while they entertain the mind.— The arrangement of the lessons in the last of the series of Readers must particularly commend itself to all persons engaged in teaching, on account of the questions and Spelling Lessons attached to each; this, and the many other improvements iniroduced in the whole series, will not fail to recommend them to the favorable opinion of Teach- ers generally. Yours, very respectfully, J. W. KETCHUM. New York, Jan. 12ih, 1843. Principal of New York Public School No. 7. We cheerfully and fully concur in the opinion e.^pressed above. L-'onard Hazeltine, Principal Public School No. H Charles S. Pell, Principal Public School No. 8. N. VV. Starr, Principal Public School No. 10. J. Patterson, Principal Public School No. 4. Abm. K Van Vleck, Principal Public School No. 16. Wm. Belden. Principal Public School No. 2. A. V. fctout, Principal Public School No. 13. Prom T. F. King, Deputy Superintendent of Schools for Kings county, N. Y. I have received the series of School Books edited by Mr. Sanders, and have given them that attention which ihe importance of the subject demands. After a careful and critical examination of the series— regard being had as well to the moral tendency Df the several reading lessons as to their literary qualities— I have no hestilaiion in pronouncing them the best series which have been presented to me for inspection, among the numerous works which I have examined with a view of introducing a uni- form series of school books into the common schools of our county. .^t a meeting of the school officers of the common 'schools of the city of Brooklyn, Sanders' series of Books were adopted as the reading books in the several schools, Brooklyn, March IGih, IS42. T. F. KING. From Pierpont Potter, Esq., Dep. Sup. of Common Schools for Queens county, N. Y. I I have examined the several school books published by jMr. Charles W. Sanders and I am confident that they are equal, if not superior, to any bonks of the kind that I have ever perused. After an experience of more than sixteen years as a teacher, I am decidedly of opinion that Sanders' Spelling Book is supf-rior to any work of the kind that has ever yet been published within the United States. Jamaica, 16th November, 1841. PIERPONT POTTER. J Pro7nIT F. Wilcox, Principal of Select School, Neicark, N. J, Nov. Ilil, 1841. Mr. C. VV. Sanders. Dear r-ir,— From personal converse wiih nearly half a hundred Practical Teachers, I have heard but one opinion respecting your "Series of School Books"— all say they are frood,and many unhesitatingly pronounce them (particularly the Spelling Book and Piinior) the best before the American public. As I have re- cently submitted them to my own clashes, by the way, ihe best ordeals of all for school books, I now feel confident 'to give ihem a hearty approval. Their chief excellencies are, 1st. Uniformity in Orthography and Orthoepy. 2d. The introduction of a '-Stcmdard Series," a thing greatly desired by parents and teachers, and much needed by the youth of a whole nation. 3d. A comprehensive chapter in the Spelling Book on the elementary principles of our language, a part of education now much neglected, though I hope soon to be re- vived. The classification of words according to their syllabication, accent, termina- tion, synonymous meaning, sounds of letters where cli sounds like k, or sh—c, like s. fee the whole being more complete than 1 have ever before seen in one volume. 4th. The prosre.'sslve order of ihe Reading Lessons from easy familiar monosyllablea to dissyllables, trisyllables, and more amended composition, thus adding a free aui 15 Intelligent habit of readin?. Also, their blending annusement with instruction, and Iheir obvious tendency to improve the life and heart of those for whom they are de- 5ih. 'something might be said of the type, paper, binding, &c., though these will speak for themselves. Very respectfully, yours, H. f . WILLOA. Mr C W. ganders, Sir,— I perfectly coincide with Mr. Wilcox, in the above written opinion respecting your "Series of School Books." Mr. W. has justly remarked that Ihey "blend amusement wiih instruction;" and while I am writing, some little boys near me are wholly absorbed in the perusal of these, as they style them— "real pretty books " The introduction of lessons in vocal music, and of simple popular tunes, is also an admirable feature of your plan, inasmuch as the harmony of sounds is naturally calcu- lated to cause the sometimes harsh and jarring feelings of children to flow together and mingle in sweetest concord. Yours, A. N. DOUGHERTY, Jr. Newark, New Jersey, November 2Gth, 1S41. St. Louis English and Classical High School, April I3th, 1844. Mr. Sanders, Dear Sir —I have examined with some care your Primer, Spelling Book, Firsi, Second, Third and Fourtli Books of Reading; and in expressing an opinion upon their merits, need only say that I concur with the general testimony of those whose re- commendations of the series are already made public. It is my intention as soon as expedient to introduce them into my school. KespectfuUy, ^ EDWARD WYMAN, Principal. From A. Chute, Principal of Public School, St. Louis. Mr. Sanders, Sir,— I have examined your series of School Books, and unhesitatingly assert, that in my opinion they are decidedly preferable to any thing ol the kind yet offered to the public. . ,.,„„„ ,,,T,-TnnT^ St. Louis, April 8lh, 1814. _ ANGUS CHUTE. From J. R. Dayton, Principal Public School, Quincy, III. Quincy, April 30th, 1844. Sir,— I have examined with considerable care your "Series of School Bocks." Tho progressive arrangement of the exercises cannot fail greatly to facilitate the progress of the pupil. The reading lessons are admirably calculated to instruct and to please and to render the task of learning to read, a pleasant and intellectual exercise. Their practical utility will introduce them to the favorable notice of parents and teachers. J take pleasure in adding the testimony of my approbation, to the numerous recom- mendations they have already received. Resp'y yours, J. R. DAYTON. At a meeting of the Board of Committee of the Middletown (Conn.) City School Society, hpld on the 26th of July, 18-15, it was unanimously Voted— Thm it is expedient to introduce into the several schools in this school society, Sanders' series of School Books for the use of the schools as they may be wanted. HAMILTON BREWER, Secretary. From the Principals of Public Schools in the city of Buffalo. Having examined with interest '• Sanders' Series of School Books," so far as pub- lished, we deem tliem worthy of our unqualified approval, and in view of their great merits, we cheerfully unite in recommending them to tlie favorable consideration of all who feel an interest in the cause of primary instruction. The facilities they afford the scholar in acquiring correct habiis of reading, and at the same time a thorough knowledge of the first principles of our language, render them truly a valuable series, and one that should find a place in our best public schools. Hiram Chambers, David Galusha, A. Dean, D. P. Lee, t-^amuel S. Guy, Seth Heacock, Loring Danforth, Wesley Brown, A. Mathieson, J. i-^. Brown, Enoch S. Ely, W. H. H. Eddy. Buffalo, August, 1841. Board of Education, qf the city of Rochester, August 25 1841. The President, from the committee on the selection of books, reported that the com- mlltee recommended the following to be adopted as a uniform series of elementary test 16 books fbi tTie use of public schools, and that the same be procured in all the schooto u Boon as practicable, viz. Sanders' Primary School Primer, Sanders' School Reader, Third Book. " School Reader, First Book, <• School Reader. Fourth Book, " School Reader, Second Book, " Spelling Book, Porter's Ilheiorical Reader, &c. "Which on motion, was unanimously adopted, and ordered printed. I certify the above to be a true copy of a report presented and adopted at the Board of Education of the city of Rochester, August 25, 1841. I. F. MACK. Superintendent of common Schools in the City of Rochester.' Extracts from notices of Sanders' Se7'ies, received by the publishers, bearing date July 1845. "I believe them to excel in several respects any series before the public."— Princ«- pal of a High School. "One striking exeellence of these books is the attractive character they offer to young minds, by which they are allured to their task, rather than compelled; while at the same time if the plan of the author is carried out by the teacher the pupil will be taken through a rigid mental exerc\se.''—Pri7icipal of an Academy . "1 am pleased with the arrangement of the lessons both in spelling and reading. There is an easy transition from the simple to the more difficult, and taking the series as a whole / think it the best I have ever seen. Tlie tone of the lessens is high and well calculated to impress favorably the mind of the young."~Principal Female In- stitute. "I think these books excel all other School Books of their kind now in use. I would particularly notice the very easy manner in which the pupil is led along from the Alphabet to a finished style of reading." * * * — Principal Primary School. •'Particularly do I approve of the Spelling Book as altogether the best in use,, Teacher in District School. PORTER'S RHETORICAL READER. The Rhetorical Keader, consisting of instructions for regulating the voiced with a Rhetorical notation, illustrating inflection, emphasis and modulation, and a course of Rhetorical Exercises. Designed for the use of Academies, and High Schools. By Ebenezer Porter, D. D , late President of the Theological Seminary, Ajidover, Mass. Two Hundred and Fortieth Edition, with an Appendix; 1 vol. 12mo. Spp, pp. 304. *** The popularity of this work is almost without bounds, as the number of editions through which it has passed, sufficiently testify. FVom Rev. John Todd, Author of "Students, Manual,'' "Index Return," S;c. I have but one opinion respecting it, viz : that in the hands of a competent teacher, there is no work of the kind, which will compare with it as a medium to teach youth to read understandingly, and of course correctly. For simplicity, for clearness of illustration and for beauty of composition, this selection stands almost unrivaled. I hardly know where so much genuine eloquence of thought and of expression can be found in an uninspired volume. And I should hail the lime with unaffected joy when it should find its way into every District School in the land, as the standard book for reading. Prom a Notice by the editor of the Boston Recorder. In this respect, (adaptation to rhetorical purposes,) this selection has a very decided advantage over all other selections of reading lessons that we are acquainted with. JFVom the New York Journal of Commerce. We have no hesitation in saying that this is the best work of the kind, for the pUTj poses mentioned, within our knowledge. 17 From S. R. Hall, Principal of Teachers^ Seminary, Plymouth, N. H. I have used the Rhetorical Reader ever since it was first published, and consider its influence on the habits of reading in the seminary as decidedly beneficial. As a friend to educaiion, I eamesLly desire the inlroduclion of the work, not only into Academies and Hi-'h Schools, but into well regulated district schools throughout the country, From the Boston Advocate. * The numerous editions through which ihis work hag passed, and the many reputa- ble insliluiions in which it is employed, sufficiently evince its well merited popularity. The principles which it inculcates are simple and philosophical, the language in which Ihpy are set forth is neat and perspicuous. The selections exhibit good judgment and fully indicate the author's regard for the moral as well as the menial improvement of pupils. To this point, liille auentioa is paid by many who prepare books for youth. NEWMAN'S RHETORIC. r A Practical System of Rlietoric— A practical system of Rhetoric, or the principles or rules of style inferred from examples of writing ; to which is added a his- torical dissertation on English style. By Samuel P. Newman, Prof, of Rhetoric in Bowdoin College. Twelfth edition, 1 vol. 12 mo. pp. 312. - - - - 62 l-2c. f The above work has been republished in England and introduced into the schools of that country. Mrs. Phelps (now IMrs. Almira H. Lincoln) author of the popular trea- tise on Botany speaks in ' TVie Female StudenV as follows : For a clear and interesting explanation of the elements of Taste, and of its three most essential qualities, refinement, delicacy and correctness, I would refer you to the valuable system of Rhetoric by Professor Newman. The author has taken up the Bubject in a philosophical and practical manner. He at once informs the student that the art of writing well is not to be obtained by a set of rules, but that ' the storehouse of the mind must be well filled, and he must have that command of his treasures which will enable him to bring forward whenever the occasion may require, what has been accumulated for future use.' He dwells particularly upon the necessity of mental discipline, especially the previous cultivation of the reasoning powers, and observes that 'the student who, in the course of his education, is called to search for truth in the labyrinth of metaphysical and moral reasonintrs, and to toil in the wearisome study of the long and intricate solutions of mathematical principles, is acquiring that disci- pline of tlie mind which fits him to distinguish himself as an able writer.' The chapter on Literary Taste is well written, and calculated to give just ideas of the peculiar merits of different authors, it also illustrates the proper use of Rhetorical figures. The chapter on Style is an interesting exposition of the qualities of a good style, and the modes of writing which characterize different individuals. This little work leads the pupil to a knowledge of the rules and principles of Rhetoric, in an easy and simple manner, and has the merit of more originality than many school books which profess to be improvements. ■R. G. Parker, A. M., Principal of the Franklin Grammar School, Boston, and author of "■Progressive Exercises in English Composition," (a volume that has now reached its forty-fifth edition,) in notes appended to pages 1)8 and 99 of his work says, "The student is referred to a treatise upon Rhetoric, by Professor Newman, of Bow- doin College, recently published. The author of these exercises regrets that he had not the assistance of that valuable treatise, when he was preparing his volume. It was not until the present (third) edi- tion was more than half through the slereotyper's hands, that he saw the work of Pro- fessor Newman. * * His work on Rhetoric presents an illustration of the various kinds of style which should be studied by all. His valuable treatise cannot be too highly recommended." Other notices of similar import might be given, but the general'popularity of th? work renders it_unnecessaTj'. 18 OLMSTED'S RUDIMENTS OF NATURAL PHI- LOSOPHY AND ASTRONOMY. 1 vol. 18mo. pp. 283. Price 62i cents. This small volume, recently given to the public by Professor Olmsted of Yale Col- lege, contains a plain, practical and instructive outline of the most important facta and principles both of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, adapted to learners of every age, but especially designed for common schools, and the younger classes of academies. It has met with remarkable success at the East, having been introduced as a class-book into the public schools of Boston, N. York, and other principal cities, and into many academies and private seminaries. An edition is now in preparation, in raised letters, for the use of the blind of the Massachusetts Asylum, under the direction of the cel- ebrated Dr. Howe of Boston. Among numerous recommendations, of the highest au- thority, in possession of the publishers, the following extracts are oflfered as specimens. From Cyrus Mason, D. D. Professor in New York City University, and Rector of the University Grammar School, and Lewis H. Hobby, Esq. Head Master. We are not accustomed to give testimonials of our approbation of books used in the Grammar School; but we are constrained to make an exception in favor of the Rudi- ments of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy. We have used this book Irom the day of its publication, with increasing pleasure to ourselves, and advantage to our pupils. It is preeminently adapted to the work of public instruction, clear, methodical, com- prehensive, and satisfactory, incapable of being used by a master who dues not under- stand it, or of being recited by a pupil who has not comprehended its meaning. la the preparation of this book, Professor Olmsted has made himself a benefactor of Ika echouls of our country." F)-om the Philadelphia North American. {From the pen of Rev. Albert Barnes.') ' This is the title of a book [Rudiments, &e.] which has evidently been prepared with much care, and which is intended to be adapted to promote a very important object in schools and academies. Professor Olmsted has prepared, on the same gener- al subject, a Treatise on Natural Philosophy, in 2 vols. Svo., a Treatise on Astronomy in one vol. 8vo., a School Philosophy, and a t^chool Astronomy, which have been re- ceived with ereat favor by the public, and which have passed through numerous edi- tions. The "little work whose title is given above, completes his plan, by adapting this kind of instruction to primary schools. The writer of this notice knows of no work of this description, at once so comprehensive and so clear, so full of important principles of science, and so attracti\e to the youthful mind. Its introduction into the schools of this city, and the schools and academies of this commonwealth, he would regard as a circumstance auguring most .favorably for the promotion of the best; interests of education. Indeed, many a man who graduated at College, and who has entered on his professional life, would Qnd it a work in which he would be greatly inter- ested and profited." From the New Engla^ider. «'An acquaintance with Professor Olmsted's larger treatises on Philosophy and As- tronomy, together with i he hieh reputation of the author as a scholar and practical teacher, led'us to expi ct in these Rudiments a work of no ordinary merit, but we must be permitted to say, that upon a careful perusal of the work we find our expectations more than realized. Olmsted's larger Philosophy and Astronomy are used as text- books, we believe, in a sreat majority of the colleges and universiiies in our country, and are enjoying an unexampled popularity, but, if we are not much mistaken, his Rudiments will become a text-book for more minds, and exert more influence on the intelligence and progress of the American people, than any of his preceediug works.". FomRev. Henry Jones, Principal of Cottage School on Golden Hill, Bridgeport, Ct: "Professor Olmsted, far from presenting only a forbidding outline of abstract propo- sitions, has every where laid down, in simple and agreeable language, the specific facta which constitute the materials of his science; and following the inductive and the only natural process, has drawn from these facts the general laws which are Iheir only le- gitimate expression. Hence, this little work proves to be at once the most intelligi- ble, the most instructive, and the most entertaining class book which it has ever beeu my fortune to use." 19 GALE'S PHILOSOPHY. Elements of IVatnral Philosophy; embracing the general principles of Me- chanics, Hydroslalics, Hydraulics, Pneuinaiics, Acoustics, Optica, Electricity, Galvan- ism, Magnetism and Astronomy; illustrated by several hundred engravings. Designed for the use of Schools and Academies. Eleventh Edition. By Leonard D. Gale, M. I)., Professor of Geology, Mineralogy, &c., N. Y. City University. 1 vol. 12nw). Sheep, pp. 280, price - - - ..-.--- 62 1 2c, *** Used in various portions of the Union, and recently introduced into the Public Schools of Cincinnati. GRAY'S CHEMISTRY. Elements of Chemistry; containing the principles of the Science, both exper- imental and theoretical. Intended as a text-book for Academies and Colleges. Illus- trated with numerous engravings. By Alonzo Gray, A. M., Prof, of Chemistry, etc., h> Marietta College. (Seventh edition, revised and enlarged.) 1 vol. 12mo. Sheep, pp. 400, price 75 cents. What qualities should a text-book of Chemistry, adapted to our schools and acad*. mies. possess ? It should be short, for the time necessary for its study in detail cannot be given to it; and asain, all its principles, and all its important facts, can be expressed within the compa.s3 of an ordinary 12mo. The principal part of the book should be devoted to mineral chemistry, and but a small portion, camparatively, to vegetable and animal, for all the principles of the science are involved in the former, and the latter are shifting in their aspects from day lo day. It should be perspicuously arranged, and in such a manner that no subject shall be alluded to unless it has been previously described. It should abound with illustratio?is and experiments, and the latter should be clearly described and neatly figured, and of such a character as to be little expensive in their performance. And lastly, it should be correctly printed, and with a type sufficiently large to be read without fatigue. These qualiiies Mr. Gray's book possesses in a very high degree, more-so, certainly, trhan any otiier with which we are acquainted. The work of Turner is the only one that will compare with it, for clearness of arrangement and feriiliiy of illustration, but that is too extensive to be introduced into our schools and academies. Large portions of it are usually omitted in the colleges where it is studied. The author, after a very full and lucid exposition of the imponderable elements and the laws of chemical alfiniiy, has very judiciously divided the ponderable elements into, 1. Non metallic, and their primary compounds. 2, Metals, and their primary compounds. 3. Salts. To these succeeds a very succinct, but sufficiently copious, exposition of vegetable and animal chemistry, and the work concludes with a chapter upon chemical analysis. Thus the whole subject is exhausted, and by this simple classification, and by arranginj the different substances which are ranked under each class, in such an order thai he Is never obliged to assume as known, what has not been previously described, he has made this science, usually so perplexing to the student, a task v)f very little labor. And by the lucid style in which the work is written throughout, and by the numerous and well executed wood cuts with which it abounds, he baa conferred an important and permauenl.beneiit on this branch of educatioa« 20 From Joseph Ray, M. D., Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy^ Woodward College, Cincinnati. WooDWABD College, Sept. 22, 1842. I have examined with some altenlion a new worlc on Chemistry, by Alonzo Gray, and from what I have seen I believe to be an excellent text-book on this subject, it presents the nomenclature and leading facts of the science in a clear and distinct mao- uer. We are now using it in this Institution. JObiiPH KAY, JVl. U. From Thomas J, Mathews, Esq.., Professor of Mathematics Miami University ^ Oxford, Ohio. Having examined to some extent, the book referred to in the above statement of Prof. Kay, I take pleasure in staling that I fully concur with him in opinion as to the merits of the work, as being adapted to purposes of instruction in schools and colleges. THOMAS J. MATHEWS. Prom J. A. Warder, M. D., Professor of Chemistry, Cincinnati College. To THE Trustees of Public Schools op Cincinnati: Gentlemen,— Since the commencement of my present course of Chemical instruction, 1 have met with "Gray's Elements of Chemistry," which I have kept upon my study- table ever since, in order to refer to it leisurely, as I proceed. It atfords me great plea- sure to speak favorably of it as an elementary work, and so far as I have progressed with the examination, it appears remarkably free from errors, which are so often the bane of elementary works for schools. In this respect, especially, it is a desirable volume, it is also clear and full as is necessary for popular instruction. The arrange- ment is one which in many respects I consider preferable to that of most authors. Understanding that you are looking for a text-book, I lake the liberty of recommend* ing it unhesitatingly to your notice. Yours, truly, J. A. WARDER, M. D. Prom Louis Marie Pin, Professor of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy, St.. Xo- vier's College, Cincinnati. Long since I have been looking out, but in vain, for a work on Chemistry so judi- ciously arranged as to be used for a text-book in Colleges. Several valuable works have been written in this country on that subject, but they are too lengthy for that purpose. The shorter ones which were compiled for ihat end are, most of them, so injudicious, and even so inexact and full of blunders, that they ought to be considered as utterly unfit for the intent. But lately uliere appeared a work that does honor to the compiler: it bears the title, '-Elements of Chemistry; containing the principles of the science, both experimental and theoretical, by Alonzo Gray, A. M," It is arranged and divided vviih judgment and understanding. In a moderately- short compass, because matters are selected wilh sagacity, it comprehends neverihelesa all that can be taught in a collegiate class. It gives to the student the advantage of not having loo much to commit to memory, and the teacher tliat of explanation and amplification. It is a precious work. I am satisfied that had I perused every article it contains, I could add yet to the present recommendation which is a general one, thai they are all as correct as can be expected. It is with satisfaction that I acknow- ledge the merit of the aDove, and dare recommend it to High Schools and Colleges aa the best thai I know of in the English language lor their purpose. It is now the text- book at our College of St. Xavier. LUUIS.MAKIE PIN. Robert Peter, M. D. , Professor of Chemistry, Medical Departmeiit, Transylvania University, say a: "I think it admirably adapted to the purpose for which it was intended, viz. as a text-book for Academies, High (schools, and Colleges. It possesses the advantage of being concise, clear and comprehensive; and, in a small size, gives as correct a digest of the extensive science of Chemistry as any other book of its kind I have ever ex- amined." ♦** This work of Professor Gray, is generally used in the Institutions of New York and New England, and is becoming extensively introduced in the Western Slates. 21 HITCHCOCK'S GEOLOGY. Elementary ficology, by Edward Hitchcock, JL. 1^. »., President of Am- herst College, Geologist lo Lhe folate of Massdchusells, etc. etc. Third stereotype edi- tion. 1 vol. 12mo, cloth, pp. 350. illustrated, ftl,25. THE PUBLISHERS BEG LEAVE TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC TO THE FOLLOWING UNSOLICITED NOTICES OF THE ELEMENTARY GEOLOGY, FROM GENTLEMEN EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO JUDGE OF ITS MERITS. From Gideon A. McmCell, LL. D., F. R. S-, F. G. S., 4-c. London. Author ofihe Wonders of Geology, ^c. "I have obtained a copy of your Treatise on Geology. It is an admirable work. It has been my carriage companion for some time." From Prof. B. Silliman, LL. D., of Yale College. f "I am greatly in fault in not having answered your kind letter of Aug. 20lh, Vfith a copy of your valuable work on Geology, I took the work with me to the west in iha expectation of lookin'' it over and although I failed to read it satisfactorily, I glanced at it enough to convince me of its high value, and shall recommend it in my Lectures. ^ From Prof. J. W. Webster, of Harvard University. "I have just received a copy of your ' Elementary Geology,' for which I beg you to accept many thanks. I am thankful that you have found lime to present- us with so excellent a view of the science, and shall recommend the work warmly to the class attending my lectures. F-om Prof. C. Dewey, of Rochester, N. Y. .' "I introduced your Geolojry into our Academy. It is so vastly better than any thing in the English language with which I am acquainted, that I boast over it. It is ad- mirable for the College course." From Prof. Henry D. Rogers, of the University of Pennsylvania. "I thank you sincerely for a copy of your work, and yet more for presenting us with an Elementary Treatise on Gi'olosy in a f)rm so well adapted to the wants of instruc- tors. Having for several years past fell the want of just such a book for my class ia the University, I hailed its appearance with real satisfaction." From Prof. W. W. Mather^ Geologist to one qf the Districts of New York, and to the State of Ohio. "I have examined your little work on Geology with much interest and satisfaction. It presents a large mass of matter in a small compass; is lucid, concise, and its mate- rials are arranged in the most convenient form for the student. It seems to form a happy medium between the more elementary books for schools, and ihoseforthe more advanced students of geology. Its copious references to various works on geology, wiJl be a great advantage to those who choose to go to the original sources and dive deeper into the various subjects discussed. Froin Prof. J W. Bailey, of the Military Academy, West Point. "1 have recently perused with much pleasure your Elementary Geology, and con- sider it a most valuable contribution to science, and highly creditable to yourself and our country. lam glad we have such a work lo wliich to refer students. U I had known of your publication sooner, I should have adopted it as our text-book; but tho Class had already provided themselves with Lyell's work. 1 shall recommend its adoption next year, if as is almost certain, I meet with no work in the mean lime bet- ter suited lo oiir peculiar wants at this Institution." From Prof. C. B. Adams, of Middlchury College. "Your elementary book on geology has alforded me great pleasure; and I hav©; sinco our Pataloguo waa primed, adopted it as a leil-book. " 22 The following notices of the work, from among the many that have appeared^ havc been selectedfrom some of the leading periodicals of the country,} From the American Journal of Science and Arts, for October, 1840. "The readers of this Jouraal and those who know the progress of American Geology, are well aware of the important services Prof. Hitchcock has rendered to this bran'ch of science, through a period of many years, both by his laborious explorations and his written works. In the present instance, he has attempted to prepare a work which shall fill a vacancy long felt by the instructors of geology in this conntry, a work which, while it gives a good view of the progress of the science in other countries, draws its illustrations mainly from American facts. From the rapid glance which we have been able to bestow upon this performance, we should think that Prof. Hitch- cock had succeeded in imparting this feature to his book." From the American Biblical Repository for October, 1840. "The appearance of this volume from the pen of Prof. Hitchcock, will be peculiarly gratifying- to many in the community. It is designed to be used as a text-book for classes in geology, in Colleges and other Seminaries of learning, and also, to supply the wants of the 'general reader, who has not the leisure to study the numerous arrti extended treatises that have been written on different heads of this subject. The plan of it, we think, is admirably adapted to the first of these uses, and nearly or quite as well suited to the second." From the North American Review, for January, 1841. ' "Professor Hitchcock has been too long and favorably known to scientific men, both of the new world and of the old to make it necessary for us to say, with what ample qualifications he undertakes the task before him. His work is no 'secondary formation,* based on the published works of European writers, but in every part bears the impress of acute and original observation, and happy tact in presenting the immense variety of subjects treated in the following Sections into which the book is divided. "The fifth Section is devoted to Organic Remains. It occupies one fourth of the whole work, and is illustrated with the best cuts in the book. We venture to say that there is not in our language so neat and compressed, yet so clear and correct, aa account of the 'Wonders of Geology.' " NEWMAN'S POLITICAL ECONOMY.^ Elements of Political Economy, By Samuel P. Newman, Lecturer on Po. litical Economy, Bowdoin College. 1 vol, 12mo. ...... 75c. *** The best security for a free government^ and generally for the public peace and morals is, that the whole comanunity should be well informed upon its political, as well as its other interests.— Lord Brougham. f^'This work of Prof. Newman has been approved and adopted by the board of Public Schools, for Uie city of Cincinnati. SAWYER'S MORAL PHILOSOPHY.' Elements of Moral PMlosophy on the basis of the Ten Commandmentfl, containing a complete system of Moral Duties; by Leicester A. Sawyer, A. M., Preeu dent of Central College, Ohio. 1 vol. 12mo. Just published. *** The Publishers invite the attention of Teachers to this recently published work on 'Moral Science,' not doubting that it will be found a treatise of peculiar merit, well adapted to meet the wants of students in our Academies, Select Schools and Colleges. They take pleaflure in presenting the following favorable notice from Rev, B. P. Aydelotte, D, J)., far many years past President of Wooduaid_Collegei Cincinnati. Cincinnaii, September 8th, 1845. "^ >"^I have carefully read Sawyer's Moral Philosophy to the 112th page, and examined hie system througliout. The style is clear, sententious, and at times ornate, though always in good taste. It abounds in valuable truths frequently conveyed in an axio- matical manner— well calculated to fix them in the memory and recal them for use. In some of the more profound and abstract reasonings of the work, many good men may differ from the author, but all such will admire his kind candid truth-loving spirit, and rejoice that he has based his whole system just where all sound ethics must be— on THE Bible. Such a work cannot but be a valuable addition lo our text books for Colleges and Educational Institutions generally. B. P. AYDELOTTE. BUTLER'S ANALOGY. The Analogy of Natural and Revealed Kcligiou to the constitution and course of Nature. By Joseph Butler, LL. Dw „Late Lord Bishop of Durham. Fif- teenth Edition, 1 vol. 12mo • 75c. P *+* The Analogy of Butler enjoys a reputation scarcely second to any other book than the Bible; to praise it would be a work of supererogation. As a specimen of an- alogical reasoning, we suppose it has never been equalled.— ZVeto England PiirHaai. MUSIC BOOKS. THE YOUNG CHOIR. By W. B, BRADBURY AND C. W. SANDERS. Twentieth edition. r The' IToung Choir contains 144 pages. The Music and Poetry are adapted to Sabbath Schools, Day Schools and Primary Classes. Mr. M. H. Newman, Sir— I have examined your valuable little musical publication, *The Young Choir,' and feel gratified to be able to express my unconditional approbatioa of the same. It is just the thing wanted for juvenile classes; and I hopeit may be widely and extensively patronized. Respectfully yours, S. B.POND. Late Vocal Leader of the New York Sacred Music Society. THE SCHOOL SINGER, OR YOUNG CHOIR'S COMPANION. BY W. BS BRADBURY AND C. W. SANDERS. Twelfth edition. '' ^ This work is designed for Public and select Schools. It is of a medium size, con- taining 204 pages, with music and Poetry calculated lo cheer and encourage the youth- ful learner in ihe pursuit of knowledge. 40c. f Of the number of Singing Books which we have had the pleasure of examining, none so fully meet our views of what should constitute a juvenile singing book as the one before us. The book is about two-thirds as large as an ordinary church singing book, and contains one hundred and seventy-Jive songs for the young. The music is simple and spirited— just such as is calculated to interest and inspire the youthful heart. The elementary part of the work is clear, concise and thorough. We hava ■witnessed with great pleasure the growing interest manifested in the education of the young in the delightful art of singing. Certainly no one branch of education could 24 more conduce to our peace and happiness as a people. We had the pleasure of UsteM' ing to one of Mr. Bradbury's concens, at the Broadway Tabernacle- where about five hu'ndred of his youthful performers warbled forth specimens of these beautiful melodies in such a manner as to wind both the songs and the singers closely around our hearts. —New York Tribune. From the Evening Post, Edited by Wm. C. Dryant^ the Poet, "We take pleasure in commending this work to the notice of all interested in the education and happiness of the rising generation. Parents, Teachers, Superintendents and Trustees of Schools, if you want to make your children happy, let them learn 4o sing. They are all singers by nature, let them be so by education. The melodies of "The School Singer" are of the most brilliant, soul-stirring charac- ter, the harmony rich— the poetry chaste and excellent. We were one among the thousands who listened with feelings of inexpressible delight, to the performance of many of these songs, by about five hundred of Mr. Bradbury's young Singers, in the Broadway Tabernacle. THE PSALMODIST. A choice collection of Psalm and Kymu Tnnos, chiefly nctv; adapted to the very numerous Meters now in use, together with Chants, Anthems, Motetd^and various other Pieces for the use of Choirs, Congregations, Singing Schools and Musical Associations, most of which are now for the first time presented to the American Public. By Thomas Hastings and William B. Bradbury. Published by , WM. H. MOORE & CO. \ Price ■Unusually liow. 110 Main St., between Third and Fourth, CincinnaU.' ' The reputation of Mr. Hastings as a man of extensive acquaintance with the science of Music, and a gentleman of excellent taste also, and that of Mr. Bradbury as a thorough going practical musician, and the author of several very popular publications, cannot fail to procure for the Psalmodist a ready and extensive sale. The preface to this work contains a remark, which for its justness and propriety, we cannot refrain from quotinsr, as it is exactly in accordance with an opinion we have long entertained. *'Music for The Church should be chaste as well as simple and sentimental. Abstruse or antiquated harmonies, questionable oddities inrythm, and even secular frivolities ia style, may enlist attention, and afiford entertainment while the novelty lasts. Yet such things form but a miserable substitute for that kind of pathos, which is the life and soul of genuine music. Something far different is needed to call forth the fervor of an enliehiened devotion." The compilers then very modestly say, that they have endeavore'd to supply this much-needed something, and it is but justice to their ac- knowledged talents to say, that they have succeeded admirably. We could point to many tunes in the collection as proof of the correctness of this remark, but we think the three found on pages 176 and 177, and the one entitled "There is a Land." p. 265 267, will be sufficient.— Cftrisi. Adv. and Jour., Aug, 31. J ' This new book of sacred music is said by competent judges to be in many respects by far the best ever published. The gentlemen by whom it is prepared are universal- ly known to be eminently competent for such a labor, and we doubt not they have presented a work in every way worthy of public patronage.— Cowr. and Enq. The Psalmodist.— Under this title we have a new and "choice collection of Psalm and Hymn tunes, chiefly new, adapted to the very numerous meters now in use, to- gether wiih chants, anthems, motets, and various other pieces, for the use of choirg, congregations, singing schools and musical associations, most of which are now foi; the first time presented to the American public," When to this announcement we add that this book is prepared by our venerahlo friend Thomas Hastings, whose praise is in many, if not in all churches, and by Wm. B. Bradbury, the popular teacher of music to the young, our readers will be confident that the work will precisely meet the wants of multitudes. The styles of music which will suit the tastes of these two editors, must be widely different— Mr. H. incul- 25 eating: tho soft and subduing tones, while Mr. B. delights in bold and animating strains; and we may therefore infer willi safely that their combiaed judgement and industry have given us a book that will be widely popular, among all lovers of chaste and ele- gant music. This is a very suitable place in which to speak of the importance of paymg more attention to sacred music, as a part of divine worship.^ It is a matter of astonishment that so few out of the many whom God lias endowed with good voices, make any at- tempts to turn their powers to His praise. There is a waste of talent here to be an- swered for. We wish that in all our cliurches classes were always in training in this important art; and to all sucli classes we commend the Psalniodist, by Messrs. Hast- ings and Bradbury.— iV. y. Observer, Aug. 31, The Psalmodist.—h. collection of sacred music, the excellence of w^hich is suffi- ciently guaranteed by the fact that it is edited by Thos. Hastings and Wm. B. Bradbu- ry. — Comtnercial Adv> ' 77ie Psahnodist.—k somewhat extended examination of the 'Psalmodist' has con- vinced us that as a valuable and highly useful, as well as pleasing collection of Wiisic, it has few if any superiors or equals among the legion which have been issued during the last fifteen years. The airs are siaiple^but beautiful, and most pleasing to th* ear. The compilers, and in a good degree, the authors, are Thomas Hastings, whoso fame as a musical composer is1;o-extensive with our land, and Wm. B. Bradbury, ono of the first musicians of New York. We can cheerfully recommend the 'Psalmodist' n, the fa- vorable attention of all choirs who may desire one of the best collections of sacred music e:i.ia.n\..— Albany Ecening Journal. We have here a singing book that every choir, singing school, family and Individual should possess. Indeed the combined eltbrts of two such editors as Messnj. Hastings and Bradbury could not fail to produce a work that will meet the wants of the singing community throughout the United t^tates. Before we had any knowledge of the in- tention of ihese gentlemen to combine their talents in this great work, we had occa- sion to allude to ihem as having been eminently instrumental in elevating the standard of sacred music in the churches of our city. They have now done a noble service for the American public generally, for which they will not long remain unre- warded. We could point out some of the excellencies of this work, beginning with the course of Elementary Instruction, and proceeding through all the range of varied and captivating melodies and rich harmonies, but the book will speak (or sing) for it- self. Choristers and teachers of Music who wish to cultivate an elegant and purely classic style of performance in their choirs and schools should immediately introduce "The Psalmodist."— xV. Y. Tribune. The Psalmodist.— k new collection of sacred music, with this title, has just been published by M. H. Newman, 199 Broadway. The work has been prepared by Thos. Hastings and Wm. B. Bradbury, whose acknowledged taste in musical matters is. a Bufficient recommendation of its va.lue.— Christian Intelligencer. ,' We opened "The Psalmodist" with large expectations. Mr. Hastings, the senior editor, has been in the field either as a teacher or composer, for nearly forty years.— And his large and ripe experience— his indefatigable zeal and perseverance as a stu- (jent— his decided religious character— his acknowledged skill as a composer and har- monist, and last, thoutrh not least, his well-known poetic taste and ability, all gave us reason to look for a work of undoubted excellence. In this we have not been disap- pointed. . . , t,t We need music for the people; and we are happy to find on examination, that Mr. Hastinsrs has given us more music of this kind in the Psalmodist, from his own pen, than can be found in any of his previous works. He has struck an entirely different vein. . We must beg to refer to a few pieces in the Psalmodist which struck us as being ot a highly excellent character. We are pleased with the spirit and structure of 'Torring- ford,' p. 41. We are not apprised of its source, but we attribute it to Mr. Hastings, and mark it 'capital.' Another fatherless tune, by the name of 'Belgrade,' p. 44, though net probably designed for common use, is a vigorous fugue, to the words, 'Awake our souls, awake our fears,' &c., and is well adapted for singing schools. The next thing that we have marked is 'Libnah,' p. 47, adorned with an 'H.,' which is another tune for the people, but quite out of the author's usual track. We next notice 'Edwards/ p 47, by Mr. Bradbury. In the same vein as Libnah— worth its weight in gold, with- out lugging in the last line. This incessant repetition of the last line is a weariness. We should use Edwards without the last etrain. 'Retreat,' the tune above it on the 26 game pa?e, by Mr, H. In the key of D is good-excellent.; but It should have been set in the key of B b. Those high tones do not express the subject. 'Shushan,' p 54, by Mr. B, is another capital tune. 'Berrige,'an anonymous tune in L. M. Double, on p5y, possesses much vivacity and beauty. 'Rest,' by Mr. B. p 6'2, is one of the sweet- est things of the kind in the book. We were also pleased with 'Kin^-sbury,' p G7, by E. Howe, Jr. till we got quite to the end; and there we felt that the autlu>rhad'not finished his work. For so short a piece he has modulated too much, and the balance of power is evidently in the key of F, 3rd line, Oakland, p. 71, by Mr. B. could not be better- ed. For a tune of that cast it is superb. But one of Mr. B.'s happiest elforts is Hol- land, p. 73. This tune is surpassingly beautiful, and must become a favorite. We find also, on p. 75, Zephyr, which is almost a heavenly zephyr. If Mr. B. has much music of this kind in his treasury, he will yet become one of the most popular and useful composers of Psalmody in this country. We find no singular originality in these tunes, but a chaste and sweet simplicity, and a pathos which is truly captivating. We might designate many other tunes, in all the other meters, but our limits forbid. We must, however, just refer the reader to Acadia, 78, Middletun, lOG, Saurin, 108, Brainerd, 113, and Baden, 1-23. j > > i Many of the original anthems and set pieces are productions of great beauty and power. One of the sweetest we ever heard, is 'Cease ye mourners,' p. 246, by Mr, Hastings. We had supposed that Mr. H. had given us his masterpiece in this vein of music, but the present tune surpasses, in our judsement, any previous one. 'There is an hour of hallowed peace,' by Mr. Bradbury, p." 250, is also one of the mo.st charming pieces we have heard this many a day. It commences in a gentle 3—4 movement and the first strain ends in pianissimo, with only the sopranos. There is then a spric^htly interlude in 2—4 time, after which the soprano leads oft' in thrilling strains, followed by the other parts in a slight fugue, to the words ' 'Tis then the soul is freed from fears,' &c. These productions of Mr. Bradbury, we must say, have taken us entirely by sur- prise. We knew he possessed talents, great industry and promise, but we were not prepared to expect from him productions of so high an order as those we have enumer- ated. We might refer to others of equal merit, as 'The Savior calls,' 288, and 'For be- hold the day cometh,' 300. If he had contributed no other than this last piece to the work, it would have been enough to establish his reputation as a composer. Mr. Hastings has also furnished several other elegant anthems and set pieces for the work, but we must content ourselves with mentioning only two, 'Who shall weep,' p. 276, and the anthem on p. 2G2. These two pieces alone are worth the price of the book.' We cordially wish that the work might be used in every sanctuary in the land.— iV. Y. Eva7igelist, Sept. 12th, 1844. THE YOUN^G MELODIST. BYWM. B. BRADBURY. The IToiing Melodist, a choice collection of Social Moral and Patriotic Songg^ composed and arranged for one, tvro, and three voices. By Wm. B. Bradbury. Just published The design of this work is to furnish a collection of songs and pieces adapted for use in common schools and academies. They are generally of a cheerful, pleasing character, and not only entirely free from all immoral or improper tendency, but are replete with noble sentiments and good moral influence. 7'he musical merits of the work, Mr. Bradbunfs reputation, and his previous very successful works, fully guaranty, while it is just to add that it is by far a more careful and comprehensive work than any he has before published. It is neatly printed, and will be gladly wel- comed by unnumbered young singers. The efforts to introduce music into our schools, as a part of daily education, has our warmest approbation. It is coming to be exten- sively practiced, and has the decided approbation of the most eminent teachers and friends of education.— jYiew York Evangelist.