Personal tools
EServer » Antislavery Literature » Religious Literature » The Bible Vindicated from the Charge of Sustaining Slavery » The Bible Vindicated from the Charge of Sustaining Slavery (XHTML)
Navigation
Antislavery Poetry from San Francisco

Running man image from workshop poster

The Pacific Appeal was the leading African American newspaper on the West Coast during the early 1860s.  A newly-published set of eight antislavery poems from the journal's inaugural 1862 volume captures the sense of expectancy within the African American community for the imminent end of US slavery.  These poems include the work of James Madison Bell, a San Francisco plasterer, brickmason, and poet.  Read more... 
Log in


Forgot your password?
New user?
 
Document Actions

The Bible Vindicated from the Charge of Sustaining Slavery (XHTML)

A religious tract of biblical disputation published in Columbus, Ohio, in 1837 by Goodsell Buckingham, a local Methodist antislavery lecturer. Digitized by the Antislavery Literature Project.

Click here to get the file

Size 86.0 kB - File type text/html

File contents

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="undefined">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>THE BIBLE VINDICATED</title>
<style>
<!--
h1
	{text-align:center;
	page-break-after:avoid;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
	color:gray;}
h2
	{text-align:center;
	page-break-after:avoid;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Palatino Linotype";}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
	{text-align:center;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent
	{text-indent:36.0pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoBodyText2, li.MsoBodyText2, div.MsoBodyText2
	{font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
	{text-indent:36.0pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US">

<div class="Section1">
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>THE</span></b></p>
  <h1><span style='color:windowtext'>BIBLE VINDICATED</span></h1>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>FROM THE</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>CHARGE OF SUSTAINING</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>SLAVERY</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>BY</span></b></p>
  <h2>G. BUCKINGHAM</h2>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>_________________</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
  style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>COLUMBUS</span></b><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>:</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>PRINTED AT THE TEMPERANCE ADVOCATE
    OFFICE;</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:&quot;Palatino Linotype&quot;'>1837</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>This is an annotated edition of the original text of 
    G. Buckingham’s <i>The Bible Vindicated from the Charge of Sustaining Slavery</i>,
    printed in Columbus, Ohio in 1837.  Original spelling, punctuation and page
    citations have been retained; minor typographic errors have been corrected.</span></b></p>
  <p class="MsoBodyText">This electronic edition has been prepared for the Antislavery
    Literature Project, Arizona State University, a public education project
    working in cooperation with the English Server, Iowa State University.   Digitization has been supported by a grant from the Institute for Humanities
    Research, Arizona State University.  </p>
  <p class="MsoBodyText2" align="center" style='text-align:center'>Editorial
    annotation by Joe Lockard.  Digitization by April Brannon.  All rights reserved
    by the Antislavery Literature Project.  Permission for non-commercial
    educational use is granted.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[blank page 2]</p>
  <h1><span style='color:windowtext'>Introduction</span></h1>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>                Goodsell
    Buckingham’s <i>The Bible Vindicated on Charges on Sustaining Slavery</i> was
    an entry into the biblical disputation that was becoming a central feature of
    anti-slavery and pro-slavery argument by the 1830s.  Unlike many texts from
    this debate, the present tract did not emerge from a familiar publishing house
    in Boston or New York, but rather from the offices of an obscure provincial
    temperance newspaper located in Columbus, Ohio.  It represents an amalgam of
    reform and religious engagements, typical of much antislavery literature of the
    period.  </span></p>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>                The tract,
    which evidences a self-taught knowledge of biblical Hebrew, examines a broad
    variety of primarily Old Testament verses to demonstrate differences between
    slavery as practiced among the ancient Hebrews and slavery in the American
    South.  The author’s purpose lies in proving to bible-cognizant readers that
    not only are the two systems incongruent, but that the terms of biblical
    slavery provide for eventual freedom.  Therefore, the Southern system of
    perpetual slavery opposes the more liberal terms of slavery in the pastoral
    world of the Hebrew tribes.  Buckingham measures the claim that the Bible
    authorizes slavery, which was a consistent theme of pro-slavery apologetic
    literature, against a social profile of slavery as it appeared in the Old
    Testament.</span></p>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Later
    in the text, Buckingham deals more briefly with the New Testament in order to
    juxtapose characteristic conditions of Southern slavery with cautionary New
    Testament verses.  After his exegesis of biblical texts, he concludes &quot;American
    slavery is enormously criminal, sinful in the pure light of the bible, and the
    way to get rid of it is clearly pointed out in that good book.&quot; (p. 22) 
    An end to slavery is thus an end to catastrophic national sin that opposes
    divine commandments, a sin that can be remedied only with emancipation.</span></p>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Buckingham
    calls, among other points, for immediate emancipation of slaves; payment of
    fair wages for labor; establishment of marriage ceremonies and personal
    chastity among ex-slaves; and a religious mission to freed slaves to provide
    them with churches, schools, and ministers.  Adopting an attitude common among
    both religious and secular whites, Buckingham viewed blacks as living within a
    &quot;great darkness&quot; (p. 22) that required moral reform and uplift from
    benevolent whites.  </span></p>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>This
    relatively brief text reflects the religious character of antislavery debate in
    Ohio, and through counter-example seeks to contradict the bible citations
    employed by pro-slavery advocates.  It is the work of an obscure grassroots
    moral reform activist, determined to disprove any citation of the bible in
    support of slavery.</span></p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent2">Buckingham was born in Carthage, Ohio, in 1810, and
    lost his father at age three.  His mother kept store and raised him to age
    eleven, when she sent him to preparatory school at Ohio University.  He
    remained as a storekeeper in Zanesville until he married in 1831 and moved to
    Mansfield, Ohio, where the death of his firstborn child brought about a
    religious conversion.  After moving again to McConnelsville and achieving some
    financial success, Buckingham joined the Methodist Conference and became an
    advocate of abolitionism during the late 1830s when Methodism was in the midst
    of schism over the slavery issue.  The present tract is from this period, and
    was written with the assistance of Reverend T.D. Weld.  Buckingham ran twice
    for public office as an anti-slavery candidate, one for Congress and once for
    lieutenant governor, without success.   Throughout the 1840s, Buckingham was an
    anti-slavery lecturer in Ohio.  Although once a distillery manager, he also
    campaigned for temperance.  After his business failed, Buckingham came to
    Washington at the start of the Lincoln administration and obtained a
    responsible administrative position in the Treasury through the influence of
    his anti-slavery colleague, Salmon P. Chase.  After the war, he took positions
    in Chicago and in southern states, then underwent successive failures and
    bankruptcies as a publisher and grain merchant.  As he concluded in his
    autobiography, &quot;My life has been checkered.&quot; (p. 42)  </p>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>For
    further information, see <i>Autobiography of G. Buckingham</i> (New York:
    Wynkoop and Hallenbeck, 1884).  </span></p>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>                                —
    Joe Lockard</span></p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[unnumbered page 3]</p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'>    <b><span
style='font-size:14.0pt'>THE BIBLE VINDICATED</span></b>.</p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center'>____________________</p>
  <p><b><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>I</span></b>N
    the day of final judgment, every man will be called upon to give an account of
    the &quot;deeds done in the body,<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;</span> whether they are good or whether they be evil. &quot;It should consequently be
    the aim of christians, to ascertain their duty on all questions of importance,
    that there may no &quot;blood be found in their skirts.&quot;  The duty of the
    church on the subject of American slavery, is the object of our research in the
    following pages. It must be determined, by the voice of God, speaking to us
    through Divine revelation. That is the only infallible rule of faith and
    practice, and by it we are always safe in governing our lives. That the bible
    both justifies and perfectly furnishes rules to regulate servitude, we do not
    wish to deny. The question to be settled is, was Jewish servitude of such a
    character as to justify American slavery?  There were Hebrew and Gentile
    servants, distinguished from hired servants: they were &quot;bought with
    money.&quot; Did these persons sell themselves and receive an equivalent for
    their services?  Or were they stolen by others, sold and, compelled to
    involuntary service, without wages?  The following passage is doubtless the
    strongest one afforded by the bible, which slaveholders and their apologists
    claim to justify the relation of master and slave.</p>
  <p>Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46. &quot;Both
    thy bondmen and bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that
    are round about thee; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of
    the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy
    and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and
    they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them for 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.&quot;</p>
  <p>We are gravely told, that this
    text proves, both that the Jews might buy slaves of the heathen and strangers,
    and perpetuate slavery by transmitting them to their children as property
    &quot;forever.&quot;  This proved, they have established a similitude between
    Jewish servitude and American  slavery, sufficient to justify the continuance
    of the latter, until some plan is spread before the public, wiser and better in
    the opinions of our opponents than immediate repentance. If this be not the
    object of those who <span style='text-transform:uppercase'>trouble</span> the
    bible, what can be? (Abolitionists would never have disturbed the question of
    Jewish servitude, unless pro-slavery men had attempted to prop themselves in
    iniquity by declaring it the same in principle with American slavery.)</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 4]</p>
  <p>We are, however, quite unwilling
    to believe their assertion, and therefore say, slavery is always sin.  It is
    denied, and the bible is called up to develop a system of <span
style='text-transform:uppercase'>slavery</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>,</span> which has calmly reposed in the tomb for eighteen hundred years. A simple
    comparison between the legal treatment of Jewish servants and American slaves,
    would be sufficient to cover the holders of the latter with everlasting infamy,
    and should summon the &quot;mantling blushes&quot; of deepest shame to the
    cheeks of slaveholders and their apologists. But we intend to do more—&quot;to
    carry the war into the enemy's camp;&quot; and prove not only that there was no
    slavery on Jewish soil, but that American slavery, in &quot;the light of the
    word of eternal truth, is most detestable; and must forever&quot; suffer under
    the withering anathemas and anger of Almighty God.</p>
  <p>We lay down as our hypothesis,
    sustained by the text alluded to and &quot;every word that proceedeth out of
    the mouth of God,&quot; the following propositions.</p>
  <p>I. The Jews were not allowed in
    any case to buy, either the heathen or strangers who, had been reduced to
    slavery; by which we mean involuntary bondage, without crime.</p>
  <p>II. They could not hold a man as
    property at all, much less establish <i>everlasting slavery</i>.</p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">III. Heirs could not claim services from servants of
    legators, except upon contracts   limited by the Jubilee.</p>
  <p>            IV. Servants were in the main treated as
    children or equals; no authority appearing in the bible, for using them as our
    Southern slaves.</p>
  <p>These are startling positions to
    those who believe that slavery is not always wrong. And we confess our
    diffidence in asserting them, when we know how many <i>great names</i> are
    opposed to us. Before we proceed to the proof, however, let us inquire, What is
    a slave?  In the language of the Roman law, (when our Saviour was on the
    earth,) a slave was one &quot;without name,&quot; and counted &quot;pro nullis,
    pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus:&quot; that is, <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;</span>for
    nobody, for dead, for four footed beasts.&quot; In the language of the Louisiana
    law, &quot;a slave is one who is in the power of his master to whom he belongs.
    The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry and his labor; he
    can do nothing, acquire nothing, but what must belong to his master.&quot;  The
    South Carolina law adjudges slaves to be &quot;chattels personal in the hands
    of their owners, possessors and assignees, to all intents, purposes, and
    constructions whatever,&quot; and this is said to be &quot;forever.&quot; In
    all the States he may be sold at the will of his master.  Such an one is a
    slave. With voluntary servitude, or the servitude of minors, we wage no
    opposition, assured that the danger to be apprehended from them, is both small
    and remote. Slavery, involuntary servitude, interminable bondage, labor without
    compensation, ''reaping down fields and wages kept back by fraud,&quot;
    invasion of the marriage rights, destruction of the family relation, mental
    degradation, hopeless ignorance, heathenizing curtailment of religious
    privileges, chastity annihilating systems, are what we hate, for God hath
    taught us thus. We attempt not to prove there was no protracted servitude,
    among the Jews—not that master is</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 5]</p>
  <p>an unholy title, not that a man may not buy or sell
    services, not that one man should not serve another in a menial relation; but
    that God did in holy anger, fulminate death the portion of any and every one
    who held his fellow man a <i>slave</i> in the common sense of that term.  But
    to proceed with the subject.</p>
  <p>First. The Jews could not in any
    case, buy either the heathen or strangers, who had been reduced to involuntary
    bondage without crime.</p>
  <p>The moral law of God is, in all
    its bearings, like its glorious Author; immutable everlastingly. Not one of its
    provisions has ever been changed.  Men should therefore be exceedingly cautious,
    how they make assertions, which conflict with either the letter or spirit of
    that law; for Christ says, Math. v. 17, 18, 19, &quot;'Till heaven and earth
    pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass, till all be fulfilled. 
    Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these commandments, and
    shall teach men so, shall be called the <i>least in the kingdom of Heaven</i>:
    but whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of
    Heaven.&quot; One of those enactments, concerning which he spake thus, was
    delivered by Jehovah amid the awful solemnities of thundering and darkness upon
    Mount Sinai, and reads thus: &quot;And he that stealeth a man and selleth him,
    or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death.&quot; Ex. xxi.
    16. Apply this to America—enforce its provisions, and how soon would every
    slaveholder &quot; open the prison doors to them that are bound,&quot; and
    &quot;let the oppressed go free?&quot; Because every slave in the land is
    either a <i>stolen</i> man or, what is no better, his descendant. &quot;Men
    stealers! The worst of all thieves; in comparison of whom highway robbers and
    housebreakers are innocent; and <i>men buyers</i> are exactly on a level with <i>men
    stealers</i>.&quot;—<i>John Wesley</i>.  If the first stealing be morally
    wrong, all the logic in the world can never render, <i>just</i> the sale of
    stolen men or their descendants, though repeated through a succession of ages,
    sufficient to exhaust our knowledge of numbers. This law was promulged
    immediately subsequent to the exhibition of a succession of stupendous miracles
    revealing the illimitable majesty of Almighty God; all performed for the
    deliverance of his chosen people from an oppressive bondage. As it is of vast
    importance, and will be again referred to in the prosecution of our subject,
    let us ascertain the extent of its meaning, that we may not err in its
    application. And to do this correctly, we must find a scriptural instance of <i>man
    stealing</i>, to know precisely what is condemned. In Genesis, xl. 15, we learn
    that Joseph was <i>stolen</i>; and by comparing the manner in which he was
    reduced  to slavery, with that process which crowds the &quot;middle
    passage&quot; between Africa and America with its miserable victims, we may
    without the possibility of erring discover the applicability of the law, (Ex.
    xxi. 16,) to the system of American slavery. And,</p>
  <p>1. Joseph was forcibly taken
    prisoner by his brethren—1. So are Africans.</p>
  <p>2. Joseph was sold to slavery—2.
    So are Africans.</p>
  <p>3. Joseph was carried into a
    foreign land by the mercenary wretches</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 6]</p>
  <p>who bought him, and sold to Potiphar—3. So are Africans
    carried into  a foreign land, and sold to the Potiphars of Christian America.</p>
  <p>The analogy is complete—both are
    alike condemned. This &quot;infernal traffic in human flesh&quot; has continued
    with us two hundred years. Yet, though Joseph says he was stolen—and the bible
    threatens death to men stealers-and American slaves, are made such in the
    identical manner he was, there are found some followers of Jesus, who say
    slavery is not sin; that the great Southern <i>Market-house</i> for &quot;souls
    of men&quot; is a <i>holy temple</i>, and its keepers are the <i>sacred
    depository of the Holy
    Ghost!!                                                                                                                               </i></p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">O slavery, what hast thou done! Do not, we beseech you
    dear brethren, accuse the Holy One of describing <i>stealing men</i> (Joseph
    interpreting) on one page of his blessed book, on the second fixing death as
    its just reward, and on the third dictating to Moses a perpetual charter for
    the commission of that very crime. Never was a law more plainly opposed to an
    iniquitous practice, than was this of Jehovah against slavery—and it applies,
    in its unchangeable nature, with unabated force to American slavery.       </p>
  <p> There are but two modes of
    reducing men to slavery—(involuntary bondage without crime.) The first is
    stealing them, as Joseph was, which we have described, and it is not only
    condemned by the bible, Ex. xxi.16, but is declared piracy by the laws of every
    christian nation, with a single exception. The second is by compelling to
    unrequited toil, through legal and physical force, on the soil of one's birth.
    And this is as plainly condemned in the bible as the former Jeremiah xxii. 13,
    &quot;Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth
    him not for his work&quot;  &quot;Rob not the poor because he is poor; neither
    oppress the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and <i>spoil
    the soul</i> of those that spoiled them.&quot; Prov. xxii. 22. Every American
    slave comes under one of these modes; and so would Jewish <i>slaves,</i> had
    there been any.</p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Most hateful in the sight of God, is oppression in
    every form, but particularly so when imposed upon the &quot;stranger,&quot; or
    &quot;widow or fatherless,&quot; that might &quot;sojourn&quot; in their land;
    the very class this from which the Jews, were to &quot;take their bondmen and
    bondmaids.&quot; He solemnly and repeatedly warns them against it in the
    following passages. Deut. xxv. 17. &quot;Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of
    the stranger, nor of the fatherless,&quot; &amp;c. Ex. xxii. 21, 22, 23, 24.
    &quot;Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him…If thou afflict them in
    any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry. And my
    wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall
    be widows, and your children fatherless.&quot; Levit. xix. 33, 34, &quot;The <i>stranger</i> that dwell with you shall be unto you as one born among you and <i>thou shalt
    love him as thyself,</i> for ye were <i>strangers</i> in the land of
    Egypt.&quot; Also, Ex. xxiii. 9, thus urging them to mercy, from a remembrance
    of their own wrongs, while in bondage. An appeal, the most cogent possible, is
    this.</p>
  <p>The Jews might purchase servants
    both from the heathen and strangers. The latter were doubtless free from the
    characteristic word</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 7]</p>
  <p>&quot;sojourner&quot; applied to them in the charter. And
    the heathen, who were bought for bondmen, must also have been free, else the
    Jews would be partakers in the iniquity of the <i>man stealer.</i> Hebrews were
    not permitted to steal them, and to buy them of such as had stolen them would
    be no better. &quot;For he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil
    deeds,&quot; 2 John. i.11. If indeed Hebrews could buy men stolen, enslaved
    against their will, why buy at all? It would be easier and no more criminal to
    steal them themselves, and save money. They had the <i>power to</i> <i>enslave</i> those &quot;sojourning&quot; among them, and might have done it; but this would
    have been oppression, and they were forbidden by &quot;ye shall <i>buy</i>.&quot; 
    The conviction is irresistible that those &quot;bondmen and bondmaids&quot;
    whom the Jews &quot;bought with money,&quot; sold themselves (if of age, or
    were sold by their parents during minority) upon the equitable principles
    practiced every day by northern freemen.</p>
  <p>We here assert as probable, from
    the different constitution of society, that a much larger proportion of our <i>free
    citizens</i> in the free States, are in servitude, than was among the Jews. 
    Foreigners sold to pay their passage to America, apprentices and laborers
    agreeing for protracted service—all upon the same basis, value for value, a
    given amount of labor for a given sum, so many years for what was considered an
    equivalent.   </p>
  <p>Again.  This service must
    positively have been voluntary, and not only so but more favorable to the
    servant than  the master; else why so strange a license as the following would
    prove to every servant in the country:  &quot;Thou shalt not deliver to his
    master the servant which has escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell
    with thee, among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates,
    where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him,&quot; Deut. xxiii. 15,
    16.  How would slavery vanish away, as the morning cloud before the rising sun,
    if there stood incorporated in our National Constitution, such a regulation as
    the foregoing, found embodied in the Jewish <i>Slave Code!</i>  As the Russian
    ways were crowded with the self defeated thousand of Napoleons' army, so would
    our ways be thronged with flying myriads of Southern slaves.</p>
  <p>But it is asserted that the Jews
    certainly could make slaves of captives taken in their wars with the Canaanites!
    The <i>proof </i>is all against, assertion only in favor of this. Joshua was
    commanded <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;</span>to save alive nothing
    that breatheth&quot;—<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;</span>thou shalt
    utterly destroy them,&quot; Joshua ix.  24, and Deut. xx. 16, 17, 18. He was
    however deceived, and in one instance commuted the righteous sentence of God
    (death) to  servitude. The character of that servitude is clearly set forth in
    the following passages: 1 Kings ix. 20, 21, Judges i. 28, 29, 35, 2d Samuel
    viii. 2, 8, 14, by an examination of which we find this relation. A Tribe
    tributary to the Jews in consideration of certain privileges. The Gibeonites
    paid this to the Jews in a national capacity, in labor instead of money.
    &quot;Hewers of wood and drawers of water to the congregation of Israel.&quot; 
    It was the price of their life, and cheaply was the purchase made; for there is
    not the slightest indication of personal servi-</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 8]</p>
  <p>tude, individual slavery! The Gibeonites still occupied
    their own city, doubtless dwelt in their own houses, and preserved inviolate
    the sanctity of the family relations. As the Canaanites had no good objection
    to urge against the exterminating anathema of the Almighty, having deserved
    death by their sins committed against the preaching of Abraham, this
    arrangement of Joshua's was <i>tender mercy</i> instead of oppression. So much
    for slavery among conquered enemies, claimed by the real pro-slavery of the
    South, and unwittingly echoed by their apologists in the North. There is one
    text in the Bible, which approaches justification of slavery, nearer than all
    others. It is Deut. xxi. 10th, &amp;c. A Hebrew might take a beautiful female
    captive home and marry her as his lawful wife. If he did not this she was
    free!!</p>
  <p>Once more. That Hebrew servants <i>sold
    themselves</i> is perfectly clear. Lev. xxv. 47, <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;</span>And
    if a sojourner, or stranger, wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by
    him wax poor, and <i>sell himself</i> unto the stranger,&quot; &amp;c. he might
    either be redeemed or serve, just as long as a heathen servant could a Jew,
    until the Jubilee. Now if a Hebrew servant <i>sold himself</i> as a
    &quot;bondman&quot; for the longest possible period, why is it not more than
    probable, the Heathen and strangers did the same? A stranger would not of
    course have the right to steal or enslave a Hebrew; that would be wrong. And
    the Hebrew was both forbidden to do it to one of his brethren and to a
    stranger; for he was taught to &quot;love the stranger as himself,&quot; Lev.
    xix. 33, 34. In other words, to do unto a stranger as he would, that a stranger
    should do unto him. This would effectually preclude the Hebrew from interfering
    with the rightful freedom of the &quot;heathen and sojourner&quot; in any
    purchases of services from them. Every description of servants then <i>sold
    themselves</i> into <i>voluntary servitude</i> for a specified period, instead
    of <i>being sold as slaves into perpetual slavery.</i> Who can with moral
    rectitude sell freemen but themselves?</p>
  <p>God gave us only over beast,
    flesh, fowl, </p>
  <p>Dominion absolute; that right we
    hold</p>
  <p>By his donation; but man over men</p>
  <p>He made not lord; such title to
    himself</p>
  <p>Reserving, human left to human
    free.<i>—Milton.</i></p>
  <p>What is the object of stealing men? To enslave them. 
    &quot;And he that stealeth a man, &amp;c.&quot; shows that slavery, involuntary
    bondage without crime, could not exist on the soil of Palestine.&quot; </p>
  <p>We will now show in what manner
    servants might be obtained.  </p>
  <p>First. A Hebrew might sell
    himself to a Hebrew, for six years, if reduced to extreme poverty, Lev. xxv.
    39; or to a stranger until the Jubilee, Lev. xxv. 47, 50.</p>
  <p>Second. A father might sell the
    services of his daughter during her minority, or to be the wife or daughter in
    law of the purchaser, Ex. xxi. 7.  A custom strange to us in part, but
    perfectly right and aptly illustrated by the sale of Leah and Rachel, by Laban,
    their father.  Gen. xxix. ch.</p>
  <p>Third. Thieves might be sold to
    pay the person injured by their theft, if they had not property sufficient.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 9 ]</p>
  <p>Fourth. Children were detained
    with their mother, where a man obtained his freedom before his wife; but
    nothing in the law to separate the husband from the remainder of the family, if
    he chooses to remain with them until the Jubilee, Ex. xxi. 4. Some think
    children could be sold to pay the debts of insolvent parents. This idea is
    founded upon 2d Kings, iv. 1. But finding not only no &quot;thus saith the
    Lord,&quot; but in my opinion a strong condemnation of the practice of
    sundering families forcibly without crime, I deny the legality of the
    procedure, and demand better evidence. Were this true, it would not assist to
    stand erect the falling pillars of pretended right, upon which reclines the black
    American Colossus, slavery. Having now enumerated every way described by the
    bible, in which men might become &quot;servants or bondmen,&quot; and none of
    them coming in conflict with our first position, that &quot;the Jews were not
    authorized in any case to buy a man reduced to involuntary servitude without
    crime,&quot; we proceed to the second.</p>
  <p>II. The Jews could not hold a <i>man </i>as <i>property</i> at all, much less establish everlasting slavery. And,</p>
  <p>  1. Three things are always
    necessary to constitute a fair transfer of property. (1) A seller, (2) a buyer,
    (3) the thing sold. In every purchase of servants among the Hebrews, the seller
    was the first, the buyer the second, and the services sold the third. This is
    true, because we have shown that no involuntary servitude could be tolerated
    among them, except for crime, theft. How utterly at variance with these truths
    are American manners! The <i>soul driver,</i> the planter, and the poor slave,
    here form the necessary trio in the transaction of enormous iniquity.</p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">  2. Two ideas always attach to property in itself
    considered, viz: absolute control over it by the owner, unless the superior
    rights of others are injured by his management; and, the power to transmit, by
    will or sale, to successive holders. Now, neither of these can be established
    in reference to Jewish servants, because nearly one half of their time was
    given them by law, and complete liberty to all every fiftieth year.</p>
  <p>  3. It is ridiculous to talk of
    property holding an unrestrainable <i>right</i> in property. Though masters in
    the South, may sometimes grant &quot;pecunisms&quot; to their slaves, yet their
    legal right of property in the time, labor, soul and body of the slave, must
    and does positively absorb all other rights. But servants mentioned in the
    bible could not only hold property uncontrolled by their masters, but every act
    of becoming a servant was accompanied by a demand for property, which the buyer
    must pay to the servant before he could have any kind of claim upon him.</p>
  <p>  4. <i>No man has the moral
    right to sell himself as  property</i>. It is freely granted, that a master had
    an interest in the services of his bondmen, for he had &quot;bought&quot; them,
    and they were his money.&quot; So have masters now. Every where they have the
    same pecuniary interest in the bodies, souls and services of foreigners
    &quot;bought with money,&quot; free laborers and apprentices, which the Jews
    had in their &quot;servants and bondmen.&quot; Yet this interest is far from
    amounting to property in</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 10]</p>
  <p>the &quot;flesh and blood,&quot; and &quot;souls of
    men.&quot; The bodies of all men belong, with their souls and every ransomed
    power, to God, and him alone. &quot;Every soul is mine, saith the, Lord.&quot; 
    &quot;The earth is the Lord’s, with the fullness thereof,&quot; says David and
    Paul;  &quot;Ye are not your own, ye are bought with a price.&quot; Every where
    that the ownership of man is hinted at in the bible, he is claimed by his
    Creator. Who else can? God gives him his bodily and mental powers for his</p>
  <p>own happiness, good, and to glorify his maker. Of course no
    man is at liberty to impair or oppose this right of God in him, or transfer it
    to another, as property; for &quot;he is not his own.&quot; And no man can
    rightfully buy such a right unless of God himself; he being the true owner of
    all men. No man then has the moral right to sell himself, becoming property,
    thereby throwing off the restraints of the Almighty, and fastening upon himself
    the shackles of sinful man.</p>
  <p>And now we shall show, that even
    the mild and equitable servitude authorized among the Jews, could not be
    perpetuated. And,</p>
  <p>1. Six years in every case,
    closed the services of a Hebrew to a Hebrew; or forty-nine at the utmost, a
    Hebrew to a stranger, Lev. xxv. 47, 50.—Jeremiah xxxiv. 13, 14. &quot;Thus
    saith the Lord, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the
    day that I brought them forth, out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
    bondmen, saying; at the end of seven years, let ye go every man his brother a
    Hebrew which <i>has been sold unto thee</i>; and when he hath served thee <i>six
    years</i>, thou shalt let him go free from thee,&quot; Here the reader will
    perceive the same phrase is used in reference to a Hebrew, as in the case of a
    heathen, &quot;has been sold unto thee;&quot; but nothing is more clear than
    that <i>services</i> alone were sold for a limited season or period. Our
    opponents do not, cannot resist the plainness of this proof, but say the
    heathen! and strangers! were certainly to be slaves &quot;forever.&quot; If
    they could be equally candid in reference to the heathen and the Jew, there
    exists in the bible just as good proof, that periodical liberty, was offered to
    the former, as the latter. It is found, Levit. xxv. 9,10. &quot;Then shalt thou
    cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to sound, on the tenth day of the seventh
    month; in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet to sound throughout
    all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and <i>proclaim liberty
    throughout all your land, unto all the inhabitants</i> thereof; it shall be a
    Jubilee unto you; and  ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye
    shall return every man unto his family.&quot; Not an individual excepted,
    heathen nor Jew, &quot;liberty to all the inhabitants of the land.&quot; This
    law was fundamental. While Ex. xxi.16, fenced slavery out of Judea, Levit. xxv.
    9, 10, prevented abuses of the privilege granted, Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46; and
    while the Jubilee was preserved, perpetuity of servitude was completely
    prevented. It was wise, glorious and important. Primarily typical of the
    liberty, proclaimed by Christ and his apostles, after the grand atonement had
    been made, by the Saviour &quot;bearing our sins in his own body on the tree.&quot; 
    This is clear from the analogy between the two. When the Jubilee trump was
    sounded, liberty was offered to all. So when Jesus had died, had finished the
    atonement, and &quot;ascending </p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 11]</p>
  <p>on high led captivity captive,&quot; and had crowned his
    apostles with pentecostal fire, liberty from sin, through faith, the benefit of
    his death, was offered to all who would accept. Again: The trump was to sound
    &quot;on the tenth day of the seventh month,&quot; the day when atonement was
    to be made by the high priest for the sins of the people, which is acknowledged
    by all to be the very manifest type of Christ's death and atonement for the
    spiritual bondage of the &quot;whole world.&quot; Thus the Jewish atonement
    typified the death of the Saviour; and the Jubilee most beautifully adumbrated
    the proclamation of &quot;glad tidings which shall be to all people.&quot; Mr.
    Parkhurst says, &quot;It is a lively prefiguration of the grand consummation of
    time, which will be introduced in like manner by the trump of God, 1 Cor. xv.
    52,&quot; when the graves shall burst in the general resurrection. Now, how
    could the Jubilee be typical of this liberty offered in Christ to all, or that
    granted positively to all the dead in the &quot;glorious morn,&quot; unless
    &quot;every inhabitant in the land&quot; was entitled to freedom from
    servitude?  Both the typical character of the Jubilee, and the plain language
    of the text, rivet the true impression upon the mind, &quot;<i>there was no
    perpetual servitude among God's chosen people.</i>&quot;</p>
  <p>But we are told by sticklers for
    slavery, that the text says of the heathen and strangers, they shall be your
    bondmen &quot;forever.&quot; Let us see how much &quot;forever&quot; is. Unless
    this term be applied to an individual servant, it does our opponents no good.
    For if applied to the system of buying servants from the heathen, whatever
    might be the length of service, it would bring no revenue to the argument for
    perpetual bondage; the Jubilee interrupting the <i>servitude,</i> but not
    affecting the <i>system</i>. But it could not apply to individuals (though from
    the manner the passage is translated, such at first sight appears to be its
    design) first, because it contradicts fact, viz: the life of the individual
    could not continue &quot;forever.&quot; Second: A positive law comes in
    conflict with this application, viz: the Jubilee, declaring all contracts for
    servitude at an end. But again: Apply this term &quot;forever,&quot; (which
    every biblical scholar knows to be often a limited one, sometimes applying to
    things temporal, sometimes eternal,) to an individual, and the period indicated
    by it was either closed at the Jubilee, or the plain text of that institution,
    &quot;<i>all </i>the inhabitants of the land,&quot; only meant &quot;a <i>part </i>of
    the inhabitants of the land.&quot; Let the term &quot;forever&quot; refer to
    the <i>system</i> of purchasing &quot;bondmen and bondmaids&quot; from the
    &quot;heathen and stranger,&quot; (as in fact it really does); and the word of
    God is reconciled with itself, which in this case can be done in no other way.
    The apparent discrepance between Leviticus, xxv. 10, and the 46th verse of the
    same chapter, vanishes.</p>
  <p>Again: The term
    &quot;forever&quot; is usually applied to things of considerable duration, so
    much so as to give an idea of perpetuity. It may relate, in perfect accordance
    with this sense, to the system of servitude, but cannot to individuals. We give
    a different reading to the text to show our idea in addition to what has been
    said.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p> [page 12]</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section2">
  <p>           <i> Common translation.</i></p>
  <p>&quot;And ye shall take them for an inheritance for your
    children after you, to inherit them for a possession they shall be your bondmen
    forever.&quot;</p>
  <p><i>                  Paraphrase.</i></p>
  <p>&quot;And ye shall&quot; forever continue to &quot;take them
    for an inheritance, &amp;c. and <i>they</i>&quot; not your brethren the <i>Hebrews</i> &quot;shall forever be your bondmen.&quot;</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section3">
  <p>   &quot;The passage seems to mean,&quot; says an able
    writer, &quot;that the Hebrews might by successive purchase, continually
    possess that kind of servants, and not, that they might hold the same
    individuals for life.&quot;  We once more assert the fact, that no contract for
    service could be valid beyond the Jubilee supported in this view by the
    positive <i>“all”</i> before noticed, as superior in its weight, to the
    accommodating term &quot;forever.&quot; There is no real force in this phrase,
    so much harped upon by those who would even fasten upon the Holy One, the
    charge of sanctioning slavery in his moral law, if they could thereby abolish
    abolitionism. (Let those only clothe themselves with this <i>garment</i>, who
    are fitted by it.).</p>
  <p>    One more argument in favor of the first member of our
    second head.</p>
  <p>    5. The position that God allows men to be enslaved, we
    think presents him in a most unenviable predicament of inconsistency, which we
    know is impossible in fact. By his law he demands our undivided service; and
    this charge would make it appear, that he had resigned a part of that right to
    the task master or slave owner. God would not invest, we think, <i>nay has not
    invested</i>, an arm wielded by a wicked heart, with unlimited and despotic
    sway, over his fellow man. No never! for He is wisdom and love and mercy.  That
    the pecuniary interest of the master comes in contact with the religious duty
    of the slave in innumerable instances, is a fact so notorious, that it requires
    no proof. As a consequence of this, an accredited correspondent of the &quot;<i>Presbyterian,</i>&quot;
    writing from Alabama, declares them &quot;emphatically a neglected race;&quot;
    and the Kentucky and Tennessee divines, have recently attested to the almost
    universal denial of religious privileges to the slaves, though they have the
    same right to the instructions of the sanctuary, with whites, and their souls
    require the light of divine truth to prepare them for the great day of accounts,
    just as much, yea more than do those of the whites.  This state of neglect is
    very general; and how absolutely irreconcilable with probability, is the idea
    of &quot;goods and chattels&quot; prescribing religious liberty, as a condition
    of continued service!  Property dictating to its owner. No. A <i>slave</i> has
    no acknowledged civil or religious rights. God would not found an institution,
    investing the control of an owner in one man, and imposing the subserviency of
    property on another, as from the natural laws of the human mind, it would
    produce results so disastrous to morals, as above described, and that too so
    general, and <i>unavoidable by the best legal control in existence.</i>  No
    man, in the light of the word of God, would throw away his dearest rights,
    because it involves palpable sin; they must be torn from him by the hands of
    ruthless oppressors. The very relation of master and slave, instituted for
    gain, pleasure or profit, is sin, only sin, always sin in itself.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 13]</p>
  <p>6. It is objected that the
    phrase, &quot;of them shall ye buy your bondmen and bondmaids,&quot; is proof
    that property was bought.</p>
  <p>&quot;We must be careful low we
    understand the terms &quot;bought and sold&quot; in the scriptures. Excepting
    the priests, Joseph &quot; bought&quot; <i>all the Egyptians, </i>and they sold
    themselves unto him. See Gen. xlvii.19 and 23. They were bought for servants.
    &quot;Were they therefore Joseph's &quot;goods and chattels?&quot; like the
    Southern slaves? &quot; Jacob bought his two wives, for they say themselves of
    their father,  “He hath sold us,&quot; Gen. xxi. 15. Were they therefore his
    slaves? Mere goods and chattels? Boaz bought Ruth. Was she a slave? To
    &quot;buy with money&quot; does not always mean to purchase property in
    scripture phraseology. See Ex. xxx. 12, and xiii. 13, 14, 15. &quot;Redeem the
    first born,&quot; literally &quot;buy&quot; the first born.  Cain signifies to
    &quot;buy.&quot;  Eve said &quot;I have gotten,&quot; literally
    &quot;bought,&quot; a man of the Lord, Gen. iv.1.  So according to
    slaveholders’ logic, Eve was the first slaveholder—good old mother Eve; and the
    Lord the first trader.  When our Southern slaveholders undertake to show how
    ancient their system is, let them go to the bottom.  The Lord a slave trader! 
    Eve a slave buyer! Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, good old slaveholders! &amp;c.
    and so on.  Who can doubt, but that slaveholders are of the patriarchal line!! 
    Doubtless they are the <i>people</i>, and we poor <i>fanatics </i>ought to be
    expelled from the church, for not &quot;walking in the steps of those good
    bondmaids,&quot; so far from proving that <i>slaves </i>were thus obtained,
    supports a directly contrary opinion, and fully reveals the fact that the
    principles of common honesty were sustained in obtaining servants, as we shall
    just now show.  It will be granted that the “strangers and their children which
    do sojourn among you,” spoken of in the text, must have been free.  The very
    term &quot;sojourn&quot; indicates this characteristic, as it means &quot;to
    dwell for a short time in a place&quot; while traveling.  These were persons
    from it was appointed to the Jews to &quot;<i>buy</i>&quot;<i> </i>their
    &quot;bondmen and bondmaids.&quot;  Now the Israelites, as has already been
    seen, were forbidden from oppressing the &quot;stranger,&quot; and therefore
    God commands them to &quot;buy&quot; bondmen of them. Mark the force of the
    expression, &quot;of them shall ye <i>buy</i>,&quot; not steal, your bondmen.
    Ye shall not oppress them, ye shall &quot;buy.&quot;  Not compel them to an
    unwilling service, (as southerners generally do) ye <i>shall </i>&quot;<i>buy.</i>&quot; 
    Ye shall not <i>enslave,</i> forcing them into bondage, ye &quot;shall
    buy&quot; your servants justly. Shall not sunder the family ties, without
    consent of parents and children. Ye &quot;shall buy&quot; of them on fair
    contract. Anything short of this would be grievous oppression; and so deeply
    concerned was the God of all goodness, for the welfare of the stranger, that he
    utters that thrilling denunciation against those who would dare oppress them,
    &quot;If they cry at all unto me. I will surely hear, and my wrath shall wax
    hot against you, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be
    widows and your children fatherless,&quot; Ex. xxii. 22, 23, 24. So much for
    &quot;buy&quot; and sell.  Our second position that the Jews could not hold men
    as property at all, much less establish everlasting slavery, being established;
    we pass to notice, thirdly, heirs</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 14]</p>
  <p>could not claim services from servants of legators, except
    upon positive contracts limited by the Jubilee.</p>
  <p>     Our opponents say children were to have the servants of
    their parents for an inheritance. We answer, heirs would of course claim the
    fulfillment of contracts with their parents. Justice would require this,
    because those services would be a part of the estate, &quot;his money.&quot;
    But these words, &quot;and ye shall take them for an inheritance for your
    children after you, to inherit them for a possession,&quot; mean any thing else
    as soon as that slavery was to be perpetual among the Hebrews.  An
    &quot;inheritance,&quot; 'tis true, generally means a legacy from a friend, and
    a possession is commonly applied to property; but not always, by any means.
    Instance—He who drinks much rum, inherits disgrace and an early death, as his
    &quot;possession;&quot; but the sober man has an &quot;inheritance&quot; of
    long life with honor, as his &quot;possession.&quot; These terms may express in
    a lively and forcible manner, certain privileges. Thus, the
    &quot;inheritance&quot; of Christ's humble followers will be a
    &quot;possession; in the skies incorruptible. As &quot;bondmen&quot; would be a
    necessary part of community, the children of Israel were &quot; forever&quot;
    to have the privilege of &quot;possession&quot; by &quot;buying&quot; them of
    the &quot;heathen and stranger,&quot; and this was to be their
    &quot;inheritance.&quot; I know not what language could have portrayed more
    awfully than that we have quoted, the fixed determination the Almighty, to
    blast and wither, with his fierce vengeance, the Jewish nation, if they should
    forcibly take the innocent &quot;stranger or heathen&quot; as property for an
    inheritance and &quot;possession&quot; for their children after them, and will
    them as <i>slaves</i> to their heirs &quot;forever,&quot; for surely there can
    be no greater oppression, than that of enslaving a man. See Ex. i. 13, 14, and
    iii. 9. Every other wrong dwindles into insignificance when compared with this.
    Give me liberty or give me death, said Patrick Henry. Ten thousand voices
    echoed, &quot;Give me liberty or give me death.&quot; 'Twas a noble saying. It
    rolled with gathering force through the nation, until the voice of one man was
    the thundering proclamation of millions, and was hurled, with defiance, at
    European despots on the eastern shore of the Atlantic. It lit up the fire of
    the revolution, which disinthralled us from a foreign yoke, and is destined to
    burn in the bosom of all the real friends of liberty, until &quot;every yoke
    shall be broken,&quot; and all the &quot;oppressed&quot; upon the American
    continent go free. O thou Lord God of the oppressed! speed that day.</p>
  <p>But once more. The Jews could not
    have understood the terms &quot;inheritance and possession&quot; as we
    understand them, when applied to property, for with all the claims of our
    opponents to perpetuity, when speaking of <i>Jewish slavery! </i>there was a
    law, (well understood by them broad in its extent, positive in its
    requirements, plain in its phraseology, which shouted liberty upon every hill,
    rung it through every valley of the holy land, and in the twinkling of an eye
    removed every restraint that the master could legally fix upon the
    &quot;servants and bondmen.&quot; What kind of property is that which owns
    itself fully at short intervals? What perpetuity! that which is periodical and
    numbers forty nine years!!!  Every case of servitude was begun upon a </p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 15]</p>
  <p>mutual agreement, and must close on the return of the
    Jubilee. Hebrew servants! heathen bondmen, strangers at service, &quot;<i>all
    the inhabitants of the land,</i>&quot; partook of the general release: every
    bond was broken, and if any were oppressed, they all went free. This is all the
    individual &quot;inheritance and possession&quot; that the <i>children! </i>could
    possibly have in the bones and sinews of the poor <i>heathen slaves! </i></p>
  <p> Again: Speaking of our Saviour,
    the apostle says, &quot;by whom and for whom were all things created,&quot; and
    again, &quot;who made all things for his own pleasure.&quot;  Could it be
    pleasure for the merciful Jesus, to see his redeemed rendering an unrequited
    and unwilling service to a tyrant? Common sense says no. And let all the
    righteous say amen. This leads us to consider and prove,</p>
  <p>4. Jewish servants were in the
    main treated as equals or children, not a shadow of authority appearing in the
    word of God, for treating them as are our Southern slaves.</p>
  <p>1. Their service was always
    voluntary—unless convicted of crime. This is indubitable from the following
    text, before quoted, Deut. xxiii.15, 16, &quot;Thou shalt not deliver to his
    master the servant, which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell
    with thee <i>among you*</i> in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy
    gates which liketh him best; thou shall not oppress him.&quot; Unfurl to the
    States, a banner with this inscription, and <i>slavery is dead.</i> The land
    would be darkened with flying thousands, who long to escape from their masters.</p>
  <p>2. They might hold property over
    which the master had no control. For the counterpart of this, see the Southern
    slave codes generally.</p>
  <p>3. They had the civil rights of
    citizens in the congregation of Israel. Southern slaves have none.</p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">4. If the master smote out an eye or a tooth,
    freedom was the price. How is it south? Death is almost the only emancipator
    there.</p>
  <p>5. The various public feasts,
    Sabbaths, convocations, &amp;c. gave Jewish servants rest for very near one
    half of the time.</p>
  <p>How much rest, how many feasts
    and sabbaths, have Southern slaves?</p>
  <p>6. Jewish servants sometimes
    married their masters children!</p>
  <p>7. It was the duty of Hebrews to
    teach the law of God to their families.  Is this made the duty of masters in
    the South, by law?  No.  In some of the slave States, laws are made against
    this effect.</p>
  <p>8. Husbands and wives could not
    be forcibly separated under the Jewish law.  It is done daily in the South.</p>
  <p>9. Jewish servants worshipped in
    common, in the same church with their masters.  <i>This is not even permitted
    in the North generally, much less in the South.</i></p>
  <p>We here insert an article, from
    the pen of Rev. George Storrs, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, upon the
    patriarchal treatment of servants.</p>
  <p>*In reading this, I fancy I hear a colonizationist exclaim, <i>horrible! </i> right among them! What amalgamators!!</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 16]</p>
  <p>&quot;Abraham had servants bought with money.&quot; &quot;We
    find one an heir to his estate; see Gen. xv. 3. Another ruled over all that
    Abraham had, Gen. xxiv. 1, 2, sent to choose a wife for Isaac, v. 4. He seems
    to have had charge of Isaac himself, v. 6. Rachel salutes him with &quot; my
    lord,&quot; v. 18. What a lovely slave! He inquires for a place to lodge in her
    father's house, v. 23. What a saucy slave! Ask for a place to lodge in a
    planter's house! Why not go to the 'negro quarters?'  When our slave holders
    can show us, if they were to die childless, their slaves (goods and chattels)
    would be heirs to their estates; that they send them to choose wives for their
    sons: that they rule over all they have, &amp;c.; then it will be time for us
    to grant that they have Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for their examples.&quot; The
    treatment of minors, was that of children—and adults that of equals.</p>
  <p>       Objections of various kinds have been made to the
    idea just thrown out; some arising from one text, some another. We notice two
    of the strongest, and assure the reader, that quite as signal a refutation is
    the destiny of all others, as he will perceive happens to these. It is said
    that Hebrews might treat their servants with a rigor more severe than would be
    justifiable to their children. This idea arises from the closing clause of the
    text, &quot;but over your brethren <i>the children of Israel</i> ye shall not
    rule, one over another, with rigor.&quot; And how does this apply to the
    &quot;stranger&quot; or the &quot;heathen?&quot;  Personal treatment is not
    intended at all, but it was designed to add weight to the already implied
    injunction, to buy their &quot;bondmen&quot; exclusively from heathen and
    strangers. Another objection is taken from Ex. xxi. 20, 21., &quot;If a man
    smite his servant or his maid with a<i> rod</i>, and he die under his hand, he
    shall surely be punished, (or avenged,) notwithstanding if he continue a day or
    two, he shall not be punished, (or avenged) for he is his money.&quot; This law
    is quoted to build up the idea of the existence of <i>slavery </i>among the
    Jews; and indeed to hold out a still more barbarous principle, viz: because the
    servant is called &quot;his money&quot; he had a right, <i>uncondemned, </i>to
    flog his slave to any extent, even to death, so that it did not occur during
    the infliction of the punishment.</p>
  <p>Even Southern slave laws are more
    merciful than the <i>Jewish slave code,</i> according to this interpretation.
    It is horrible. But instead of authorizing cruelty, this regulation is
    perfectly just, and would doubtless <i>be the very rule of action, in our own
    Courts of Justice,</i> if a master should use the <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>ROD</span> so severely upon one of his &quot;servants&quot; or &quot;bondmaids&quot;
    maids&quot; (apprentices,) as to produce death. It was applicable to Hebrew as
    well as Gentile servants; indeed, our translators being the judges, it was <i>positively
    confined to Hebrew servants</i>, for they call heathen servants &quot;bondmen
    and bondmaids&quot;—and how will it comport (according to the exposition of our
    opponents) with, &quot;over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not
    rule one over another with <i>rigor.&quot;</i> Let the wicked have his own way
    and he will surely destroy himself. Let the pro-slavery advocates have their
    own way, and they make God say on one page of the bible, &quot;over your
    brother Hebrew you shall not rule with rigor,&quot; and on the very next,
    &quot;you may flog him to any extent you please, so that he does not die
    instantly, for he is your</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 17]</p>
  <p>money.&quot;  O shame! cover them quickly. There is indeed
    no more authority for whipping a servant, developed in this passage, than
    masters have and of right ought to have, all over the world. The rod must
    sometimes be used on refractory young, servants and children, both male and
    female, and this law was made to guard the persons of Jewish servants against
    the abuse of this practice, instead of authorizing masters to whip severely.
    &quot;He is his money.&quot; In the very same sense are apprentices &quot;the
    money&quot; of masters now; and this phrase is used to show that interest was
    added in this case to other motives for preserving both the life and bodily
    powers of the servant. If the servant died under the rod, the master lost his
    life, (Ex. xxi. 12;) but if he lived &quot;a few days&quot; (for this is the
    meaning of the original translated &quot;a day or two&quot;) it was possible
    some other cause produced the catastrophe, and life is so valuable that it
    should not be taken unless upon indisputable evidence of actual and
    premeditated murder. &quot;Malice aforethought&quot; is our legal term, and it
    was doubtless drawn from Ex. xxi. 12, 13, 14. The Lord prefers  reserving a
    decision in such dubious cases, for his own management, or day of final
    accounts and judgment, when unerring scrutiny will do right. It is better that
    two guilty persons should escape human justice, than that one innocent, should
    be punished.</p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Three things described in this law, form an
    important reason, for sparing the life of the master. Taken together, they
    produce strong presumptive evidence, that he did not design to take the life of
    his servant.</p>
  <p>1. The instrument used is not a
    deadly one—a rod.</p>
  <p>2. The continuance of life, for
    some days. </p>
  <p>3. The pecuniary interest, which
    he had in the labors of the deceased.</p>
  <p>            Another objection is, the Hebrew <i>six year
    slaves</i>, were stiled  &quot;servants,&quot; while, the heathen, &quot;<i>forever</i>&quot;<i> slaves</i>, were called &quot;bondmen.&quot;  Let it be offered in any shape,
    it is of no force at all, for <i>the original of servants and bondmen, is every
    where precisely the same;</i> the variation is only an arbitrary arrangement of
    the translators. Every Hebrew scholar knows this is true. The design of the
    translators was to keep up a distinction, between Hebrew and heathen servants,
    which really existed.  What that difference was, we are not told; but we
    conjecture, from a collation of various passages, referring to this subject,
    that it was in the length of time, for which they might serve, or in the kind
    of labor to be performed—probably both. Whatever it was, we are assured it
    involved neither oppression nor injustice, for the rule was established by one,
    who hateth perversion of judgment. The distinction between Hebrew and other
    servants, is developed as strongly in Lev. xxv. 39, 40, as in any other
    passage.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p>[page 18]</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section4">
  <p><i>              Common translation</i></p>
  <p>&quot;And if thy brother, that dwelleth by thee, be waxen
    poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond
    servant; but as a hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and
    shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee.&quot;</p>
  <p><i>                Literal translation</i></p>
  <p>And if thy brother by thee, be waxen poor, and be sold unto
    thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve with the service of a servant; as a
    hired servant, as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, shall serve thee unto the
    year of Jubilee.</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section5">
  <p>Even the tenth commandment of the Decalogue has been charged
    with supporting the pro-slavery opinion of the bible, in our presence, <i>by a
    minister of the gospel!!</i>  It is, however, too puerile and wicked an
    objection, to notice farther, than to say, if coveting a servant, there means
    coveting property, coveting another's wife, does also.</p>
  <p>Both are false in fact. Noah's
    curse of Canaan, has often been quoted, to prove the enslavement of Africans to
    be in accordance with prophecy! and therefore right! It is as absurd as wicked.
    Those of the American slaves, who have escaped the discoloring tinges of
    Southern amalgamators, are the descendants of Mizraim, Cush and Phut, who
    settled in Africa, while Canaan settled in Palestine. This is universally known
    to be true, being the combined testimony of biblical critics and commentators.
    To satisfy the reader as to the residence of Canaan's descendants, I refer to
    Genesis, x. 15 to 19, and Joshua, ix. 1. Abraham is cited as an example of
    slaveholding. &quot;He had servants bought with money.&quot; This is true. But if
    they were slaves, and would be the property of his legal heirs, how comes it,
    that one of then is said to be his heir, and would of course, own all the rest
    of the slaves! Again: if they were slaves, where had they all gone to (1800 or
    2000 of them) when Jacob, his lineal descendant and heir, went into Egypt, a
    few years afterwards. Not one of them was left, of all that number. Objections
    against the construction, which abolitionists put upon the bible, may be urged
    in great number; but the grand cause of them all, is about here. The Pope
    issued his bill, some hundreds of years since, announcing the strict morality
    of the slave trade. Since that, slavery has prevailed extensively in Great
    Britain, France and America, as well as many other powers, with which we are
    commercially connected, and has produced wide spread, deep seated, and almost
    unconvertible pro-slavery prejudices. The nations involved in the sin, have
    &quot;screwed to the sticking point&quot; God's holy word, to calm the throes
    of disturbed consciences.</p>
  <p>And yet the very men, who fly to
    the bible now, to prove slavery right, are compelled to turn upon themselves,
    and in one breath say, &quot;<i>God did sanction slavery</i> among the
    Jews,&quot; but &quot;<i>we are as much opposed to slavery</i> as any body
    else.&quot; This is truly one work of supererogation, if slavery was ever
    right, and God does not require it of them. We advise them, therefore, as men,
    to avow their principles and advocate the perpetuity of American slavery; the
    abolition of which, say they, will be attended with untold and unimaginable
    horrors throughout the land. The truth is, if <i>slavery</i> was <i>ever</i> morally right,</p>
  <br clear="all" style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><span
style='letter-spacing:.1pt'>[page 19]</span></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>it is <i>now; </i>for we fearlessly assert, that no purer morality is inculcated in the
    bible, than we find developed in the Decalogue.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      And now,
    we believe it a cheering truth, that, although very many good and great men
    have fallen into the snare set for<sup> </sup>them, by the ene­mies of liberty,
    and advocates for despotism; and have plead for the rightful existence of
    slavery, under the Jewish dispensation, there was no such thing there; but a
    mild and healthful servitude, regulated by laws of the purest possible
    character, for they were Divine. Our proofs have been, the laws imposing death
    as the penalty of man steal­ing, and forbidding Hebrews from returning or
    delivering servants to masters, from whom they had escaped. The general laws
    against oppression and requiring<span style='letter-spacing:-.05pt'> </span>mercy.
    The established treatment of servants. The establishment of the Jubilee giving
    liberty to all the inhabitants of the land, every fiftieth year, and the
    positive immorality of selling one's self, into perpetual slavery.  These are
    from the old testament, and are palpable. If suffered to prevail in our highly
    favored country, they would chant, in solemn, but gladdening tones, the final requiem
    of American slavery, which<i> John Wesley </i>declares, &quot;the vilest that
    ever saw the sun.&quot; Before passing from the old, to the new testament, we
    subjoin references, to a few passages, which the reader may examine, if he
    wishes.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>     1. Treatment of servants. Ex. xii. 43, &amp;c.; xxi.7, &amp;c. 26,
    27<i>. </i><span lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">Deut. vi. 6 to 9; xii. 11, 12; xvii. 18; xvi. 13, 14,
    15; xv. 12, 13, 14; xxiii. 15, 16. 1 Samuel, ix. 22. Genesis, xv. 3; xxiv. 1,
    2, 4, 6, 18, 23.</span></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'><span lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">     2. Oppression. Ex. iii. 9; xxii. 21; xxiii. 9. Judges,
    x. 12. Lev. xxv. 14, 17; Deut. xx. 14; xxvii. 7. 2 Kings, xiii. 4. Psalms, x.
    18; xii. 5; lxii.10; liv. 3; exix. 1, 21. Prov. xxii. 22, 16; xiv. 31; xxviii.
    3; iii. 31; xxviii. 16. Eccles. iv. 1; vii. 7.  Isaiah, i. 10 to 20; xxxiii.
    15; iii. 12; xiv. 4; li. 13; 1viii<i>. </i>6. Ezekiel, xviii. 7, 12, 16.
    Jeremiah, xxii. 3, 13; showing old testament kindness to the poor. </span>A
    compari­son, and we have done. The Hebrews were compelled to make brick for
    Pharaoh, and received, we suppose, about the same wages with Southern slaves.
    Though whipped, they were not sold to individuals, nor were their families
    dismembered. God called this oppression, Ex. iii. 9, and condemns oppression in
    more than a hundred places. Is American slavery as bad, as was Egyptian
    bondage? Yes, and much worse. Is it probable then, that he hated one and still<i> </i>loves the other?  He either loves or hates American slavery. Which, reader,
    do you suppose?  There can be but one answer. And now, which will you do, hate
    with God, or love with man?  Even the purity of our blessed Saviour's
    ministration, has been assailed, by the unblushing advocates of slavery. I pray
    they may be forgiven, in consequence of their igno­rance.      </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>     I. It is said, that, although slavery in its most awful form,
    prevailed under the Roman government, Christ and his apostles too, tacitly ac­knowledged
    the rectitude of the system, by admitting slave-holders into the church, and 
    retaining them in that character, without censure. We answer to this­</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>     1. It proves too much for our opponents. If Christ <i>sanctioned</i></p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 20] </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>slavery, by
    remaining silent upon the subject, he sanctioned the laws, regulating the
    system, for there is not in the new testament, a word of condemnation for them.
    What were those laws?  Two or three, were as follows.  A slave was struck out
    of the list of moral agents, and consigned to that of brutes. A slave might, at
    any time, be killed by his master, without punishment. A slave might be sold
    twice, by the same master, before he could claim his freedom.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>     2. The fact that a practice is not condemned <i>by name, </i>is no
    reason at all that it is right. Under the argument of our opponents, the
    midnight gambler, and the Sabbath breaker, may escape rebuke. The owners of
    theaters, the performers themselves, and those who waste their time and money
    in nightly attendance upon these demoralizing representa­tions, may still drink
    the &quot;shed blood&quot; and eat the &quot;broken body&quot; of the crucified
    Redeemer worthily!!  Burglary, counterfeiting, forgery, horse racing and
    polygamy, are likewise passed by the Saviour and his apostles, without
    condemnation, except by implication. No christian, can justify any of these
    practices, on the ground that silence is pre­served respecting them. <i>The
    iniquitous features of every leading vice are condemned, and among others, </i><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>SLAVERY</span> <i>does not escape the fiery ordeal of
    the new testament morality. </i>The main characteris­tics of American slavery,
    are all made criminal by the new testament.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>     1. Slave
    laws allow the separation of man and wife, by the order of the master.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><i>     N. T. </i>&quot;What
    God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,&quot;  Matthew xix.6.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      2. Slave
    laws forbid the slaves from worshipping God by themselves.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      <i>N. T</i>.
    &quot;Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together,&quot; Heb. x. 25.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      3. Slave
    laws exact labor without wages, in millions of instances.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      <i>N T. </i>&quot;The
    hire of the laborers which have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept
    back      by fraud, crieth,&quot; &amp;c.<i> </i>James, v. 1 to 6.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      4. Slave
    laws shut out the knowledge of letters from the mind of the</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>  slave.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><i>       N.
    T. </i>Search the scriptures.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      5.
    Southern slavery encourages the stealing of men on the coast of Africa; for
    though prohibited by the laws of the land, they are still smuggled in.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><i>      N. T. </i>&quot;The law was made for murderers, men-slayers, <i>men­stealers,</i>&quot;<i> </i>&amp;c. (alluding to Ex. xxi. 16.) classing them among the vilest criminals
    of the earth.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      6. Slave
    laws in North Carolina, make it penal, to give or sell a slave any book, even
    the bible! In Georgia and Louisiana, <i>a free black </i>may be fined, whipped,
    imprisoned, and in the latter State, even put to death, for<i> </i>instructing
    his own children to read the pathway to eternal life!!</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><i>      N. T. </i>&quot;Wo unto
    you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge,&quot; Luke, xi. 52.
    &quot;Ye fathers bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the
    Lord,&quot; Ephesians, vi. 4.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      7. The
    new testament condemns the selling of one's self into slavery,</p>
  <br clear="all" style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 21] </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>much more,
    one man selling another. &quot;Ye are not your own: ye are bought.&quot;</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>     8. It is
    the testimony of all candid slave-holders, and we positively know from the very
    nature of things, that slavery encourages general licentiousness.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><i>     N. T. </i>In many places condemns adultery and fornication.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>    The slave
    laws of <i>Ohio, </i>and the constitution of the United States, allow
    slaveholders to carry freemen in irons to the South.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      While
    the writer was engaged in preparing this pamphlet, two poor slaves passed
    through the village of Mansfield, (his residence) in chains! to slavery. They
    had escaped from their &quot;better condition!&quot; <span style='letter-spacing:
.3pt'>at Cincinnati, while passing down the river, </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.05pt'>to the Southern market, </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.1pt'>and in endeavoring to let their wives know where
    they were, the owner! </span><span style='letter-spacing:.15pt'>(O! how can I
    write owner?) </span>according to this <i>biblical! </i>American sys­tem,
    learned their place of residence, and sent the soul catchers for them. They
    found the slaves in their &quot;<i>more miserable</i>&quot; condition,
    comfortable in freedom. They were unwilling to permit the poor fel­lows to
    suffer under such a burthen as freedom, and therefore, swore they were slaves,
    and carried them back to their master; destined doubtless to cruel and
    unrequited toil, till death shall emancipate them. This is the tender mercy of
    American slavery! Oh my country! how long can God withhold his anger and fierce
    vengeance? I have since learned that one of the men engaged in taking them, was
    the landlord of the Stage house, in Gratiot, Muskingum county, Mr Price. A de­generate
    adopted son of Ohio, whose name should be cast out as vile.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><i>       N.
    T. </i>Do unto others, as you would that others should do unto you.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      These
    are a few of the points in which American slavery, bids de­fiance to the
    Almighty. They are the necessary consequences,  the almost universal fruits, of
    established slavery every where. Other courses of treatment are exceptions.
    They are all pointedly condemned in<sup>,</sup> the new testament. And is any
    one now prepared to say slavery is not touched by the Saviour's and apostles
    instructions ? We have stu­diously avoided allusion to cruel treatment of the <i>persons </i>of slaves. The <i>system </i>is sufficiently horrible, to every well
    instructed mind, without any appeal to sympathy.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>       Many
    attempts have been made to sustain the morality of slavery, from instructions
    given to servants in the new testament. There is not, however, a single
    passage, which may not, with perfect propriety, be addressed to servants and <i>slaves</i> too, without sanctioning slavery in the remotest degree. Every attempt of the
    kind has been met and foiled a thousand times unanswerably.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>       If 
    those who brought the first slaves into Virginia were guilty, were not those
    who purchased them also guilty?  And how are those, who have since advocated
    and supported the system less guilty? * Human</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>*<span style='letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Wm.
    Pinckney said of American Slavery, in the Maryland House of Dele­</span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'>gates, 1789, &quot;Founded in a disgraceful
    traffick, its continuance is as shameful as </span>its origin. <span
style='letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Eternal infamy awaits the abandoned miscreants,
    whose selfish souls</span></span></p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 22] </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>laws generally recognize the
    principle, the aiders and abettors in crime are obnoxious to the punishment of
    the offended power. Why not apply the rule to the case under consideration?
    There is no reason, but that we will not. American slavery is enormously
    criminal, sinful in the pure light of the bible, and the way to get rid of it
    is clearly pointed out in that good book. &quot;Cease to do evil.&quot; 
    &quot;Times of ig­norance God winked at, but now calleth on all men every where
    to  repent;&quot; with many other passages urging immediate repentance for
    every sin, and declaring that the &quot;wrath of God abideth on the children of
    disobedience.&quot; But stop not with forsaking sin; &quot;bring forth fruits
    meet for repentance.&quot; Cease inflicting these wrongs­—</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By establishing the
    marriage ceremony among the blacks:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By paying them fair wages
    for their labor:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By protecting them in
    their personal and religious rights:             </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By securing to the females
    personal chastity:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By giving tack to them the
    key of knowledge:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By allowing them to manage
    their own earnings:                 </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By sending them the gospel
    in its fullness and purity:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By building them churches
    and school houses:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By supplying the South
    with ministers and teachers:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By treating them as having
    immortal souls:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      By enlisting in their
    behalf, the piety and benevolence of the nation, that their character may
    emerge from that mental and moral night, in the &quot;gross darkness&quot; of
    which they have so long eked out a miserable existence, to reap in millions of
    instances eternal wo.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>    And now at the close of our
    effort, we may candidly say, that after the most careful investigation of
    Divine Writ, we rise from that perusal and research, refreshed and encouraged
    with a redoubled assurance, that the most inveterate and determined pro-slavery
    inquisitor cannot make out, from the bible, a single case of genuine
    slavery—that the servitude sanctioned by the word of God, was similar to that
    of for­eigners, voluntarily sold for a limited period, to pay an honest debt,
    contracted for their benefit, in emigrating to this country—to our app­renticeship
    system—and to that of one nation leniently tributary to another—founded upon
    principles of pure morality and equal justice. No man in his<i> </i>senses, can
    claim this for American slavery. God's law knew no invidious distinctions of
    caste, wealth or condition, brought all in spirit and in truth to the common
    standard of equal par­takers in the temporal benefits conferred upon the chosen
    descendants</p>
  <p style='
text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>should ever
    tempt them to<i> </i>rob unhappy Africa of her sons. But why<i> </i>should we
    confine the edge of our censure to our ancestor, or those from whom they
    purchased? Are not we equally guilty? They strewed the seeds of slavery around,
    we cherish and sustain the growth.&quot;  Said Patrick Henry, “Is it not
    amazing, that at a time when the rights of humanity are defined with precision,
    in a country above all others fond of liberty; that in such an age and in such
    a country, we find men, professing a religion the most humane and gentle,
    adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity, as it <i>is inconsistent with
    the bible </i>and destructive to Liberty?”</span></p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 23] </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>of
    Israel-endowed both servant and master, &quot;circumcised in the flesh,&quot;
    with the same title to the land of promise on earth—and pointed all truly
    &quot;circumsised in heart and life&quot; to the same heavenly inheri­tance,
    with the blessed Redeemer, into whose body &quot;by one spirit, are we all
    baptized,&quot; whether black or white, bond or free.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>       To that
    glorious &quot;home eternal,&quot; where there is neither &quot;Jew nor Greek,
    bond nor free, male nor female,&quot; but &quot;all are one in Christ
    Jesus,&quot; I hope to attain, fully expecting to meet many colored saints
    &quot;martyrs to the glorious cause&quot; of &quot;pure and undefiled
    religion,&quot; not only mine equals, but greatly my superiors in celestial
    knowledge and heavenly growth into our &quot;living head.&quot;  Though <i>whites
    will be in</i> <i>an immeasurable  minority, </i>all will be equal; for
    prejudices of caste will be done away, glory shall crown all and &quot;God be <b>ALL</b> in <b>ALL</b>.&quot;</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>      The only
    prayer which I can utter in reference to this momentous question is, that this
    nation may speedily resolve to keep that fast, which the Lord loves, described
    by Isaiah, chap. lviii. as follows. &quot;Loose the bands of wickedness, undo
    the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke. Is
    it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are
    cast out to thy house.&quot; &quot;When thou seest the naked to cover him; and
    that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh.&quot;  And as God declares
    &quot;all things shall work together for good to them that love&quot; him, I am
    fully persuaded that such a happy triumph of right over wrong, as the aboli­tion
    of slavery would be, cannot but secure to this people the glorious consummation
    of blessings described in the following verses of the same chapter in Isaiah.
    &quot;Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall
    spring forth speedily, and thy righteous­ness shall go before thee; the glory
    of the Lord shall be thy rearward. Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall
    answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, here am I.  If thou take away from
    the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger and speaking
    vanity, and if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted
    soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noon
    day.  And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in
    drought; and thou shall be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water,
    whose water fail not.&quot;</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>       And to
    aid in the accomplishment of this most desirable end, it be­comes every
    follower of Jesus, to pursue the path directed by the prophet: &quot;Cry aloud
    and spare not; lift up thy voice like a  trumpet, and show my people their
    transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins;&quot; accompanying the cry
    with a warning of the fierce wrath of God against the oppressor, and an
    invitation to all to &quot;return to the Lord, who will have mercy, and to our
    God who will abundantly pardon.&quot;</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>