bondmen forever."* Can language be more emphatic than this? where in all the vocabularies of earth can words be selected, which more clearly justify perpetual bondage? But we are told that the word forever with which this moral and legal instrument concludes, "should not be construed literally but definitely, for the institution of Jubilee was specially designed to break the fetters of bondage." By what authority this remark can be applied to the descendants of Ham, we are at a loss to conjecture. With the most careful perusal of the writings of Moses and the Prophets we have not been able to discover any other distinction between the bondage of the poorer class of Israelites and that of the Heathen and Stranger, than is recorded in the words we have quoted: the former were released from their bonds in the year of Jubilee, but not the latter; thus fulfilling as early as the days of Moses, and from thence to the present period, the dying but prophetic words of the Patriarch Noah, "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." †

But" this distinction between the creatures of a just and merciful creator," is said to be "at war with all his moral attributes, consequently slavery cannot be right." That such an objection, involving so many extremely delicate illusions, should be offered by those who have but little regard for either the attributes of Deity or the precepts of his word, is not astonishing; but that it should be advocated by those who minister at the Altar, and whose business is to defend the pre

* Leviticus, Chapter 25.

† Genesis, Chapter 9; v. 27.

cepts and institutions of the Bible, is truly marvelous. If the distinction on which the objection rests be a reflection on the attributes of Deity, it is also a reflection on his word and will which sanction it; consequently, his word and will are arrayed against his attributes, by the moral logic of the Abolitionists. A sad dilemna this in which the Priests have involved themselves, for they have invariably taught us that there is no conflict whatever between the word and will, and attributes of Jehovah, but the most perfect harmony; otherwise the whole moral Code would be imperfect and consequently beneath the esteem of man. If this be moral truth, and who can doubt it? by what authority will they affirm that the bondage entailed on the descendants of Ham, under sanction of the word and will of God, "is at war with his moral attributes?" We leave the solution of this problem, to the morbid mind that conceived it, not however without a word in reply to the objection on which it is founded. That, we conceive, rests upon a contracted view both of the agency of man, and the purposes and the purposes of Deity. If we seek instruction from the precepts of the moral law, we learn that the great Creator of the Universe is not accountable for that deficiency of human intellect, which distinguish so many of his creatures and from whence spring the ills of poverty and want: and from them we also learn, that in all the dispensations of a merciful providence, our eternal felicity is regarded with a more compassionate eye than our present comfort; hence the stations we occupy and the spheres in which we move, are not to be received as evidences either of his approbation or disapprobation. His om

niscience is as boundless as his mercy, and if IFINITE WISDOM perceived that the capacities of the "Heathen and Stranger" would not permit them to provide for their necessitics, INFINITE MERCY could but provide masters for them, and if infinite wisdom perceived that the condition of bondage would better secure their eternal felicity, JUSTICE and MERCY could but sanction the deed.

、

With this view of the subject, we can perceive no conflict whatever between the word, and will, and attributes of Deity in the permission of slavery. Could it be proven that its subjects were thereby excluded from the means of grace and their condition rendered more intolerable by their bonds, the morality of the institution might be questioned; but the history of the Pat riarchs and Prophets, is replete with evidences to the contrary of this, nor is there an instance recorded, of that rebellious spirit among their slaves, which is said to be produced "by the iron hand of bondage." They had once enjoyed freedom, and with all its "munificent gifts," they could but sip of the bitter cup of poverty and realize in the cries of their hungry little ones, its heart-rending ills-now, their bread was given them, their wants supplied, and they gave thanks to Heaven for the ample provision. Would they have exchanged their condition, for the priviliges now granted to the peasantry of enlightened England? It is hardly proba ble: nor is it probable that the slaves of Baoz, would have exchanged their servitude for that imposed upon the hired servants of the Abolitionists. Why then should the voice of humanity be roused to plead the injustice of God and man in the institution of bondage!

Is it indeed an act of inhumanity to meliorate the con dition of human beings? We appeal to reason and inspi ration for the reply, and proceed to the second part

our argument.

If neither the New Testament Scriptures, nor the preaching and practice of our Lord and his Apostles will justify slavery," they must condemn it, and whatever our Lord and his apostles condemn, every good man should also condemn. Thus the Abolitionists reason and according to their premises they reason corrects ly. But are the premises correct? We answer in the negative: there is not a precept in the writings of the Saviour and his Apostles which denounces the morality of the institution of slavery established in the days of Moses; on the contrary, we find the moral right to own slaves, justified by the act of the Saviour and his apostles receiving slave-owners in the church and greeting them as brethren in the faith. Can this be denied? In the face of truth and evidence, it has been denied: some of the philanthropists of the press ent age, have assumed the right to say that "the condis tion of the Roman slaves was nothing more than that of hirelings," and the more effectually to impose this specious illusion on the minds of the credulous, they have asserted that "the word slave appertaining to the condition of our slaves, is not to be found in the New Testament." Into what mazes of error may not the mind of man be driven in support of a false position. If the testimony of the best historians is to be reject* ed, if the "galling yoke of Roman bondage" of which they speak, be indeed an idle tale, we beg leave to ask the votaries of emancipation for a literal definition of

the original word, Doulos, translated servant in the Scriptures of the New Testament. We have endeav oured to consult the best lexicographers and from them we derive authority to say, that the more correct trans lation, is slave; and this opinion is sustained by the distinction which the sacred writers have invariably marked between the original words Didaskalos and Despotas, both of which are translated master in our version. In the Gospel recorded by the four Evangelists and in other parts of the New Testament Scriptures where the word master is used to designate a lord or officer of the Roman Empire, the original is Didaskalos; and wherever the word implies a relation to servants, the original is Despotas, the literal interpretation of which is a Despot, the peculiar characteristic of a Roman slave-owner. On such authority we assume our position; and until it can be proven that the whole Roman history is a farce and its authors deserve to be numbered among the fabulous, we shall continue to believe that St. Paul in the following words addressed slaves whose masters were members of the Church of Christ-"Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honor; that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are Brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort."*

If we are not mistaken, these words of St. Paul were addressed to the slaves of Rome, by the hand of

Timothy 6th Chapter 1-2.