Gass_j=^j7t4^ /- Book tL + •T / \jy BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVBK^Y". Philadelphia, April 15, 1863. Right Reverend Sir: Your views on the Scriptural aspect of Slavery, contained in a letter addressed by you to some gentlemen in New-York, short- ly before the breaking out of the war, has come to our notice, and been pe- rused with much satisfaction and profit. We believe that false teachings on this subject have had a great deal to do with bringing on the unhappy strife between two sections of our common country, and that a lamentable degree of ignorance prevails in regard to it. It is of the deepest importance to the public welfare that a sound public opinion should exist on this topic. Be- lieving that the communication of your views as a Christian Bishop on the Scriptural aspect of Slavery may con- tribute to this desirable result, we re- spectfully venture to beg that you will favor us with them, and permit us to make them public. We are with great respct your obedi- ent servants, G. M. Wharton, A. Browning, John Stockton Littell, Samuel Jackson, M.D., ChAS, J. BiDDLE, P. McCall. To the Rt. Rev. John Henet Hop- kins, Burlington, Vt. Burlington, Vt., May 2, 1863. My Dear Sirs : The pamphlet pub- lished in January, 1861, to which you have so kindly referred, is at your serv- ice, in its original form — as I have not found in the numerous answers which it has drawn forth, any reason for changing my opinion. On the contra- ry, those answers have only strength- ened my conviction as to the sanction which the Scriptures give to the prin- ciple of negro slavery, so long as it is administered in accordance with the precepts laid down by the Apostles. Such was the universal doctrine of Christian ministers. Christian lawyers, and Christian statesmen one hundred years ago, with a few exceptions which only proved the rule. The Constitu- tion of the United States, as I firmly believe, made no concessions on the subject which were not warranted by the Bible. And therefore, while I should rejoice in the adoption of any plan of gradual abolition which could be accepted peacefully by general con- sent, I can not see that we have any right to interfere with the domestic in- stitutions of the South, either by the law or by the Gospel. With this brief, introduction, I proceed to the veiy serious question which your friendly application has submitted for discus- sion. Your faithful servant in Christ, John H. Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. The word "slave" occurs but twice in our English Bible, but the term "servant," commonly employed by our translators, has the meaning of slave in the Hebrew and th^e Greek originals, as a general rule, where it stands alone. We read, however, in many places, of " hired servants," and < of "bondmen and bondmaids." The first were not slaves, but the others were ; the distinction being precisely the same which exists in our own day. Slavery, therefore, may be defined as servitude for life, descending to tin offspring. And this kind of bondage appears to have existed as an esta- blished institution in all the ages of our world, by the universal evidence of history, whether sacred or profane. This understood, I shall not oppose the prevalent idea that slavery is an evil in itself. A physical evil it may be, but this does not satisfy the judg- ment of its more zealous adversaries, since they contend that it is a moral evil — a positive sin to hold a human being in bondage, under any circum- stances whatever, unless as a punish- ment inflicted on crimes, for the safety of the communit3% Here, therefore, lies the true aspect of the controversy. And it is evident that it can only be settled by the Bible. For every Christian is bound to assent to the rule of the inspired Apostle, that "sin is the transgression of the law," namely, the law laid down in the Scriptures by the authority of God— the supreme "Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." From his Word there can be no appeal. _ No re- bellion can be so atrocious in his sight as that which dares to rise against his ^l' if ■H7^^ \ gorernment. No blasphemy can be more unpardonable than that which imputes sin or moral evil to the de- crees of the eternal Judge, who is alone perfect in wisdom, in knowledge, and in love. With entire correctness, therefore, your letter refers the question to the only infallible criterion — the Word of God. If it were a matter to be deter- mined by my personal sympathies, tastes, or feelings, I should be as ready as any man to condemif the institu- tion of .slavery, for all my prejudices of education, habit, and social position stand entirely opposed to it. But as a Christian, T am solemnly M'arned not to be " wise in my own conceit," and not to " lean to my own understanding." As a Christian, I am compelled to sub- mit my weak and erring intellect to the authority of the Almighty. For then only can I be safe in my conclu- sions, when I know that they are in accordance with the will of Him, be- fore whfse tribunal I must render a strict account in the last great day. I proceed, accordingly, to the evi- • dence of the sacred Scriptures, which, long ago, produced complete conviction in my own mind, and must, as I regard it, be equally conclusive to every can- did and sincere inquirer. W^hen the array of positive proof is exhibited, I shall consider the objections, and ex- amine their validity with all the fair- ness in my power. The first appearance of slavery in the Bible is the wonderful prediction of the patriarch Noah : " Cursed be Canaan, a sertant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall le his servant. God shall enlarge Ja- phet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall he his ser- vant. (Gen. 9 : 25.) The heartless irreverence which Ham, the father of Canaan, displayed toward his eminent parent, whose piety had just saved him from the deluge, presented the immediate occa- sion for this remarkable prophecy ; but the actual frdjillment was reserved for his posterity, after they had lost the knowledge of God, and become ut- terly polluted by the abominations of heathen idolatry. The Almighty, fore- seeing this total degradation of the race, ordained them to servitude or slavery under the descendants of Shem and Japhet, doubtless because he judged it to he their fittest condition. And all history proves how accurately the prediction has been accomplished, eTei\ to the present day. t We come next to the proof that\ slavery was sanctioned by the Deity in \ the case of Abraham, whose three hun- \ dred and eighteen bond servants, bom in his own house, (Gen. 14 : 14,) are mentioned along with those who were hought icith his money, as proper sub- jects for circumcision. (Gen. lY : 1''/.) His wife Sarah had also an Egyp. .ii slave, named Hagar, who fied from her severity. And " the angel of the Lord" commanded the fugitive to return to her mistress and svhmit herself. (Gen, 16 : 9.) If the philanthropists of our age, who profess to believe the Bible, had been willing to take the counsel of that angel for their guide, it would have preserved the peace and welfare of the Union. ( The third proof that slavery was au- ' thorized by the Almighty occurs in the last of the Ten Commandments, de- livered from Mount Sinai, and univer- sally acknowledged by Jews and Chris- tians as THE MORAL LAW I " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid- servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exod. 20 : 17.) Here it is evident that the principle of property — "any thing that is thy neighbor's " — runs through the whole. I am quite aware, indeed, of the prejudice which many good people entertain against the idea of property in a human being, and shall consider it, in due time, amongst the objections. I am equally aware that the wives of our day may take umbrage at the law which places them in the same sentence with the slave, and even with the house and the cattle. But the truth is none the less certain. The husband has a real property in the wife, becaiisc she is bound, for life, to serve and to obey him. The wife has a real property in her husband, because he is bound for life to cherish and maintain Irt The character of property is doubtless modified by its design. But whatever, whether person or thing, the law ap- propriates to an individual, becomes of necessity his property. The fourth proof, however, is yet more express, as it is derived from the direct rule established by the wisdom of God for his chosen people, Israel, on the very point in question, namely : " If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall he her master's, and he shall go out by himsel/r (Exod. 21 : 2^.) Here we see that the separation of husband and wife is positively di- rected by the divine command, in order to secure the property of the master in his bond-maid and her offspring. But the husband had an alternative, if he preferred slavery to separation. For thus the law of God proceeds : " If the servant shall plainly saj^, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free ; then his master shall bring him unto the judges ; he shall also bring him to the door or unto the door-post ; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever^ (Exod. 21 : 5, 6.) With this law before his eyes, what Christian can believe that the Almighty attached immorality or sin to the condition of slavery ? The treatment of slaves, especially as it regarded the degree of correction which the master might administer, occurs in the same chapter, as follows : " If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not he punished ; for he is his money?'' (Exod. 21 : 20, 21.) And again. If a man smite the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out Kis man-servant's tooth, or his maid- servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." (Exod. 21 : 26, 27.) Here we see that the master was authorized to use corporal correc- tion toward his slaves, within certain limits. When immediate death ensued, he was to be punished as the judges might determine. But for all that came short of this, the loss of his property was held to be a sufficient penalty. The next evidence furnished by the divine law appears in the peculiar and admirable appointment of the Jubilee. " Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every inan to his family:' (Lev. 25 : 10.) This enact- ment, however, did not affect the slaves, because it only extended to the Israel- ites who had " a possession and a family," according to the original dis- tribution of the land among the tribes. The distinction is plainly set forth in the same chapter, namely : "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, and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the pos- session of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt, they shall not be sold as bond- men. Both thy hondmen and hond- maids, 'w7iich thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the chil- dren of the strangers that do sojourn among yozi, of them shall ye buy, and, of their families that are with you, ichich they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be VOUR BONDMEN FOR EVER ; but OVCr 3'our brethren, the children of Israel, 3'e shall not rule one over another with rigor. For unto me the children of Israel are servants ; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt : I am the Lord your God." (Lev. 25 : 40-46, with v. 55.) The distinction here made between the temporary servitude of the Israel- ite and the perpetual bondage of the heathen race, is too plain for contro- versy. And this express and positive law furnishes the true meaning of an- other passage which the ultra aboli- tionist is very fond of repeating: " Thou shalt not deliver unto his mas- ter the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee : he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best : thou shalt not oppress him." (DeuL 23': 15, 16.) This evidently must be referred to the case of a slave who had escaped from 9. foreign heathen master, and can not, with any sound reason, be applied to the slaves of the Israel- ites themselves. For it is manifest that if it were so applied, it would nullify the other enactments of the divine Lawgiver, and it would have been an absurdity to tell the people that they should " buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen and the stranger, to be their possession and the inheritance of their children for ever," while, nevertheless, the slaves should be at liberty to run away and become freemen when they pleased. It is the well-known maxim, in the inter- pretation of all laws, that each sentence shall be so construed as to give a con- sistent meaning to the whole. And assuredly, if we are bound to follow this rule in the legislation of earth, we can not be less bound to follow it in the legislation of the Almighty. The meaning that I have adopted is the only one which agrees with the established principle of legal construction, and it has invariably been sanctioned by the doctors of the Jewish law, and every respectable Christian commentator. Such, then, is the institution of slavery, laid down by the Lord God of Lsrael for his chosen people, and con- tinued for fifteen centuries, until the new dispensation of the Gospel. What change did this produce ? I grant, of course, that we, as Christians, are bound by the precepts and example of the Saviour and his apostles. Let us now, therefore, proceed to the all-im- portant inquiry, whether we are au- thorized by these to presume that the Mosaic system was done away. First, then, we ask what the divine Redeemer said in reference to slavery. And the answer is perfectly undeni- able: He did not allude to it at ALL. Not one word upon the subject is recorded by any of the four Evan- gelists who gave His life and doctrines to the world. Yet slavery was in full existence at the time, throughout Judea ; and the Roman empire, ac- cording to the historian Gibbon, con- tained sixty millions of slaves, on the lowest probable computation ! How prosperous and united would our glori- ous republic be at this hour, if the elo- quent and pertinacious declaimers against slavery had been willing to follow their Saviour's example ! But did not our Lord substantially repeal the old law, by the mere fact that he established a new dispensa- tion ? Certainly not, unless they were incompatible. And that he did not consider them incompatible is clearly proved by his own express declara- tion. "Think not," saith he, "that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (JLitt. 5:17.) On that point, therefore, this single passage is perfectly conclusive. It is said by some, however, that the great principle of the Gospel, love to God and love to man, necessarily involved the condemnation of slavery. Yet how should it have any such re- sult, when we remember that this was no new principle, but, on the contrary, was laid down by the Deity to his own chosen people, and was quoted from the Old Testament by the Saviour himself? And why should slavery be thought inconsistent with it ? In the relation of master and slave, we are assured by our Southern brethren that there is incomparably more mutual love than can ever be found between the employer and the hireling. And I can readily believe it, for the very reason that it is a relation for life, and the parties, when rightly disposed, must therefore feci a far stronger and deeper interest in each other. The next evidence which proves that the Mosaic law was not held to be inconsistent with the Gospel occurs in the statement of the apostles to St. Paul, made some twenty years, at least, after the establishment of the first Christian church in Jerusalem. " Thou seest, brother," said they, " how many thousands of Jews there are who be- lieve, and they are all zealous of the law." (Acts 21 : 20.) How could this have been possible, if the law was supposed to be abolished by the new dispensation ? But the precepts and the conduct of St. Paul himself, the great apostle of the Gentiles, are all sufficient, because he meets the very point, and settles the whole question. Thus he saith to the'Ephesians : " Servants, (in the original Greek, bond servants or slaves) " be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your hearts, as unto Christ. Not with eye service, as men-pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not unto men, knowing that what- soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven, neither is there any respect of per- sons with him." (Eph. 6 : 5-9.) Again, to the Colossians, St. Paul repeats the same commandments. "Servants," (that is, lond servants or slaves) " obey in all things your mas- ters according to the flesh, not with eye service, as men-pleasers, but in sin- gleness of heart, fearing God." (Col. 3 : 22.) " Masters, give unto your ser- vants that vrhich is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." (Col. 4 : l.)_ Again, the same inspired teacher lays down the law in very strong terms, to Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephesus : " Let as many servants as are under the yoke," (that is, the yoke of bond- age,) "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 ser- vice because they are fiithful and be- loved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome tcords, even the words of our Lord Jesus Chrkt, and to the doc- trine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing^ hut doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comelh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, jterverse dis- ptitings of men of corrujjt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that griin is godliness. From such with- draw thj'^self But godliness with con- tentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is cer- tain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content." (1 Tim. 6 : 1-8.) Lastl}', St. Paul, in his Epistle to Philemon, informs him that he had sent back his fugitive slave, whom the apos- tle had converted to the Christian faith during his imprisonment, asking the master to forgive and receive his peni- tent disciple. " I beseech thee for my son Onesimus," saith he, "whom I have begotten in my bonds, which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me, whom I have sent again : thou therefore re- ceive him that is mine own bowels, whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have min- istered unto me in the bonds of the gospel. But without thj-- mind would I do nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever, not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count- est me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account. I Paul have written it with mine own hand. I will repay it ; al- beit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me thine own soul besides." (Ep. to Philemon 5 : 10, 19.) The evidence of the New Testament is thus complete, plainly proving that the institution of slavery was not abol- ished by the Gospel. Compare now the course of the ultra abolitionist with that of Christ and his inspired apostle. The divine Redeemer openly rebukes the sanctimonious Pharisees, " who made void the law of God by their tra- ditions." He spares not the wealthy, infidel Sadducees. He denounces the hypocritical Scribes, who " loved the uppermost rooms at feasts and to be called of men. Rabbi, Rabbi." He calls the royal Herod "that fox," en- tirely regardless of the king's displea- sure. He censures severely the Jewish practice of divorcing their wives for the slightest cause, and vindicates the original sanctity of marriage. He tells the deluded crowd of his enemies that they are " the children of the devil, and that the lusts of their fathers they would do." He makes a scourge of small cords, and drives the buyers and sellers out of the temple. And while he thus rebukes the sins of all around him, and speaks with divine authority, he proclaims himself the special friend and patron of the poor — preaches to them his blessed doctrine, on the mountain, by the seaside, or in the public streets, under the open canopy of heaven — heals their diseases, par- takes of their humble fare, and, pass- ing by the rich and the great, chooses his apostles from the ranks of the pub- licans and the fishermen of Galilee. Yet he lived in the midst of slavery, maintained over the old heathen races, in accordance with the Mosaic law, and uttered not one word against it ! What proof can be stronger than this, that he did not regard it as a sin or a moral fevil ? And what contrast can be more manifest than this example of Christ on the one hand, and the loud and bitter denunciations of our anti-slavery preachers and politicians, calling them- selves Christians, on the other ? For they not only set themselves against the Word of God in this matter, con- demning slavery as the "monster 6 sin," the "sum of all villainies," but — strange to say — they do it in the very name of that Saviour whose whole line of conduct was the very opposite of their own ! Look next at the contrast afforded by the inspired Apostle of the Gentiles. He preaches to the slave, and tells him to be obedient to his master for Christ's sake, faithful and submissive, as a main branch of religious duty. He preaches to the master and tells him to be just »nd equal to his slave, knowing that his Master is in heaven. He finds a fugi- tive slave, and converts him to the Gospel, and then sends him back again to his old home, with a letter of kind recommendation. Why does St. Paul act thus ? Why does he not counsel the fugitive to claim his right to free- dom, and defend that right, if neces- sary, by the strong hand of violence, even unto death ? Why does he not write to his disciple, Philemon, and re- buke him for the awful sin of holding a fellow-man in bondage, and charge it upon him, as a solemn duty, to emanci- pate his slaves, at the peril of his soul. The answer is very plain. S^'. Paul teas inspired, raid knew the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and teas only in- tent on vieying it. And who are we, that in our modern wisdom presume to set aside the Word of God, and scorn the example of the divine Redeemer, and spurn the preaching and the con- duct of the apostles, and invent for our- selves a "higher law" than those holy Scriptures which are given to us as " a light to our feet and a lamp to our paths," in the darkness of a sinful and polluted world ? WIio are we, that vir- tually blot out the language of the sa- cred record, and dictate to the Majesty of heaven what he shall regard as sin, and reward a.i duty ? Whoare we, that are ready to trample on the doctrine of the Bible, and tear to shreds the Con- stitution of our country, and even plunge the land into the untold horrors of civil war, and yet boldly pray to the God of Israel to bless our very acts of rebellion against his own sovereign au- thority ? Woe to our Union when the blind become the leaders of the blind ! Woo to the man who dares to " strive against his Maker !" Yet I do not mean to charge the nu- merous and respecfcible fi-iends of this popular delusion with a willful or con- scious opposition to the truth. They are seduced, doubtless, in the great majority of cases, by the feelings of a £ilse philanthropy, which palliates, if it can not excuse, their dangerous error. Living far away from the Southern States, with no practical experience of the institution, and accustomed, from their childhood, to attach an inordinate value to their personal liberty, they are naturally disposed to compassionate the negro race, and to believe that the slave must be supremely wretched in his bondage. They are under no special inducement to " search the Scriptures " on this particular subject, nor are they in general, I am sorry to say, accus- tomed to study the Bible half as much as they read the newspapers, the novel and the magazine. There they find many revolting pictures of slavery, and they do not pause to ask the question whether they are just and faithful. Perhaps a fugitive comes along, who has fled from his master, and who, in justification of himself, will usually give a very distorted statement of the fticts, even if he does not invent them altogether. And these good and kind- hearted people believe it all implicitly, Avithout ever remembering the rule about hearing ioth sides before we form our opinion. Of course, they sympa- thize warmly with the poor, oppressed African, and are generously excited to hate the system of slavery with all their heart. Then the eloquent preacher chooses it for the favorite topic of his oratory. The theme is well adapted to rouse the feelings, and it is usually by no means difficult to interest and gratify the audience, when the sup- posed sins of others, which they are under no temptation to commit, are made the object of censui'e. In due time, when the public mind is suflB- ciently heated, the politician lays hold of the subject, and makes the anti- slavery movement the watchword of party. And finally the Press follows in the wake of the leaders, and the fire is industriously Hmned until it becomes a perfect blaze ; while the admiring throng surround it M'ith exultation, and fancy its lurid light to be from heaven, until the flames begin to threat- en their own security. Such has been the perilous course of our Northern sentiment on the sub- ject of slavery. The great majority, in every community, are the creatures of habit, of association and of impulse, and every allowance should be made for those errors which are committed in ignorance, under a generous S3'm- pathy for what they suppose to be the rights of man. I can not, however, make the same apology for those who are professionally pledged to under- stand and inculcate the doctrines of the Bible. On that class of our pub- lic instructors, the present perilous crisis of the nation casts a fearful re- sponsibility. Solemnly bound by their sacred office to preach the AVord of God, and to follow Christ and his apos- tles, as the heralds of " peace and good- "will to men," they seem to me strange- ly regardless, on this important subject, of their highest obligations. But it is not for me to judge them. To their own Master, let them stand or fall. I have promised, however, to notice the various objections which have been raised in the popular mind to the in- stitution of Southern slavery, and to these I shall now proceed. First on this list stand the proposi- tions of the far fanied Declaration of Independence, " that all men are cre- ated equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, lib- erty, and the pursuit of happiness." These statements are here called "self- evident truths." But with due respect to the celebrated names which are ap- pended to this document, I have never been able to comprehend that they are " truths" at all. In what respect are men " created equal," when every thoughtful person must be sensible that the}' are brought into the world with all imaginable difference in body, in mind, and in every characteristic of their social position ? Notwithstand- ing mankind have all descended from one common parent, yet we see them divided into distinct races, so strongly marked, that infidel philosophers insist . on the impossibility of their having the same ancestry. Where is the equality in iody between the child born with the hereditary taint of scrofula or consumption, and the infant filled with health and vigor ? Where is the equality in onind between one who is endowed with talent and genius, and another whose intellect borders on idiocy ? Where is the equality in social position between the son of the Esquimaux or Hottentot, and the heir of the American statesman or British peer ? Neither am I able to admit that all men are endowed with the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because it is manifest that since "sin entered into the world and death by sin," they are all alienated, forfeited and lost, through the con- sequences of transgressioa Life is alienated not only by the sentence of the law, but by innumerable forms of violence and accident. Liberty is alienated not only by imprisonment, but by the irresistible restraints of social bondage to the will, the temper, the prejudices, the customs, or the interests of others ; so that there is hardly an individual to be found, even in the most favored community, who has really the liberty of word and action so confidently asserted as the unalienable right of all men. And as regards the " pursuit of happiness," alas ! what multitudes alienate their right to it, beyond recovery, not only in the cells of the penitentiary, but in the reckless indulgence of their appe- tites and passions, in the disgust aris- ing from ill-chosen conjugal relations, in their associations with the profligate and the vile, in the pain and suffering of sickness and poverty as the results of vice, in the ruin of the gambler, the delirium of the drunkard, the de- spair of the suicide, and in every other form of moral contamination ! If it be said, however, that the equali- ty and unalienable rights of all men, so strongly asserted by this famous Declaration, are only to be taken in a political sense, I am willing to concede that this may be the proper interpre- tation of its intended meaning, but I can not see how it removes the diffi- culty. The statement is that " all men are created equal^'' and that "the Ckeatok has endowed them with these unaliinalle rights." Certainly if the authors of this celebrated document designed to speak only of political rights and political equality, they should not have thus referred them to the act of creation, because it is perfectly obvious that, since the be- ginning of human government, men have been created with all imaginable inequality, under slavery, under despot- ism, under aristocracy, under limited monarchy, under every imaginable form of political strife and political oppression. In no respect whatever, that I can discover, has the Almighty sent our race into the world with these imaginary rights, and this fanciful equality. In his sight the whole world is sinful, rebellious, and lying under the just condemnation of his violated laws. Our original rights, whatever they might have been, ai-e all forfeited and gone. And since the fall, mankind have no rights to claim at the hand of the Creator. Our whole dependence is on bis mercy and compassion. And 8 he dispenses these according to his sovereign will and pleasure, on no system of equality that any human eye can discover, and yet, as every Christian must believe, on the eternal principles of perfect benevolence, in union with impartial justice, and boundless knowledge, and wisdom that can not err. Where, then, I ask, did the authors of the Declaration of Independence find their warrant for such a statement ? It was probably judicious enough to call their propositions " self evident truths," because it seems manifest that no man can prove them. To estimate aright the vast diversity among the races of mankind, we may begin with our own, the highly privileged Anglo- Saxon, which now stands at the head, although our ancestors were heathen barbarians only two thousand years ago. From this we may go down the descending scale through the Turks, the Chinese, the Tartars, the Japanese, the Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Indian tribes, the Laplanders, the Abyssin- ians, the Africans, and how is it pos- sible to imagine that God has made them all equal ! As truly might it be said that all the trees of the forest are equal — that all the mountains, and seas, and rivers are equal — that all the beasts of the fields are equal — that all the birds of the air are equal. The facts rather establish the very contra- ry. The Deity seems to take pleasure in exhibiting a marvelous wealth of power through the rich variety of all his works, so that no two individuals of any species can be found in all re- spects alike. And hence we behold a grand system of order and gradatiox, from the thrones, dominions, princi- palities and powers in heavenly places, rank below rank, to man. And then we see the same system throughout our earth displayed in the variety of races, some higher, some lower in the scale — in the variety of governments, from pure despotism to pure democ- racy — in the variety of privilege and power among the subjects of each gov- ernment, some being born to command- ing authority and influence, while others are destined to submit and obey. Again, we behold the system continued in the animal creation, from the lordly lion down to the timid mole, from the eagle to the humming bird, from the monsters of the deep to the sea star in its shell. The same plan meets us in the insect tribes. Some swift and poweiful, others slow and weak, some marshaled into a regular government — monarchy in the bee- hive, aristocracy in the ant-hill, while others, like the flies, have no govern- ment at all. And in perfect harmony with this divine arrangement, the in- animate creation presents us with the same vast variety. The canopy of heaven is studded with orbs of light, all differing in magnitude, all differ- ing in radiance, and all yielding to the sovereign splendor of the sun. The earth is clothed with the most profuse diversity of vegetation, from the lofty palm down to the humble moss. The mineral kingdom shines with gold, sil- ver, iron, copper, and precious stones, in all conceivable forms and colors. From the mammoth cave down to the minutest crystal — from mountains of granite down to the sand upon the shore, all is varied, multiform, unequal, yet each element has its specific use and beauty, and the grand aggregate vmites in the sublime hymn of praise to the wisdom, the goodness, and the stupendous resources of that ineffable Power which produced the whole. This brief and most inadequate sketch of the order of creation may serve at least to show that the manifest inequality in the condition of mankind is no exception to the rule, but is sus- tained by all analogy. It is the will of God that it should be so, and no human sagacity or effort can prevent it. And the same principle exists in our political relations. AVe may talk as we please of our equality in political rights and privileges, but in point of fact, there is no such thing. Amongst the other civilized nations it is not even pretended. None of the great galaxy of European governments can have a better title to it than England, yet who would be so absurd as to claim political equality in a land of monarchy, of hereditary nobles, of time-honored aristocracy ? The best approach to political equality is con- fessedly here, and here only. Yet even here, amidst the gloiics of our universal suffrage, where is it to be found ? Political equality, if it means any thing, must mean that every man enjoys the same right to political office and honor; because the polity of any government consists in its sys- tem of administration, and hence it results, of necessity, that those who can not possibly be admitted to share in this administi^ation, have no poli- tical eqvMity with those who can. We do, mdeed, say that the people are 9 tovereign. But every one knows, full well, that the comparative few who are qualified to take the lead, by talent, bj^ education, by natural tact, and by a conjunction of favoring circumstances, are practically sover- eigns over the people. The man who carries a hod gives his vote for the candidate. The candidate himself can do no more, so far as it concerns the mere form of election. Are they therefore politically equal ? AVho formed the party to which the candi- date belongs ? Who ruled the conven- tion by which his name was put upon the list ? Who arranged the orators for the occasion ? A\''ho subsidized the Press? Had the poor hodman any share in the operation, any influence, any voice whatever? No more than the hod which he carries. Can any human power ever manufacture a candidate out of him? The notion would be preposterous. Where then is his political equality ? Even here, in our happy land of universal suffrage, how does it appear that "aZZ men we horn equal"? The proposition is a sheer absurdity. All men are born unequal, in body, in mind, and social privileges. Their intellectual faculties are unequal. Their education is une- qual. Their associations are unequal. Their opportunities are unequal. And their freedom is as unreal as their equahty. The poor are compelled to serve the rich, and the rich are com- pelled to serve the poor by paying for their services. The political party is compelled to serve the leaders, and the leaders are compelled to scheme and toil, in order to serve the party. The multitude are dependent on the few who are endowed with talents to govern. And the few are dependent on the multitude for the power, without which all government is impossible. From the top to the bottom of the social fabric, the whole is thus seen to be inequality and mu- tual dependence. And hence, although they are free from that special kind of slavery which the Southern States maintain over the posterity of Ham, yet they are all, from the highest to the lowest, in bondage quite as real, from which they can not escape — the slavery of circiimstariccs, called, in the ordinary language of the world, NECESSITY. I have been, I fear, unreasonably tedious in thus endeavoring to show why I utterly discard these famous propositions of the Declaration of Independence. It is because I am aware of the strong hold which they have gained over the ordinary mind of the nation. They are assumed by thousands upon thousands, as if they were the very doctrines of divine truth. And they are made the basis of the hostile feeling against the slavery of the South, notwithstanding their total want of rationality. Yet I do not wonder that such maxims should be popular. They are admirably cal- culated to gratify the pride and am- bition so natural to the human heart, and are therefore ;*owerful incentives in the work of political revolution. It was for this purpose, I presume, that they were introduced in that famous document, which publicly cast off the allegiance of the colonies to the British crown. And the same doc- trines were proclaimed a few years later, in a similar service, by the French Directory, in the midst of a far more terrible revolution. Libert?/, equality, and fraternity — the kiohts OF MAN, were then the watchwords of the excited populace, while their insane leaders published the decree of Athe- ism, and a notorious courtesan was enthroned as the goddess of reason, and the guillotine daily massacred the victims of democratic fury, till the streets of Paris ran with blood. I do not state this fact because I desire to place the revolutions in the Colonies and in France on the same foundation, with respect to the spirit or the mode in which they were con- ducted. God forbid that I should for- get the marked features of contrast be- tween them ! On the one side, there was religious reverence, strong piety, and pure disinterested patriotism. On the other, there was the madness of atheism, the brutality of ruffianism, and the "reign of terror" to all that was good and true. In no one mark or character, indeed, could I deem that there was any comparison between them, save in this : that the same false assumption of human equality and hu- man rights was adopted in both. Yet how widely different was their result on the question of negro slavery ! The American revolution produced no effect whatever on that institution ; while the French revolution roused the slaves of their colony in St. Domingo to a gene- ral insurrection, and a scene of barbar- ous and cruel butchery succeeded, to which the history of the world contains no parallel. This brings me to the last remarks 10 which I have to present on this famous Declaration. And I respectfully ask my readers to consider them maturely. First, then, it seems manifest, that when the signers of this document as- sumed that " all men were born equal," they did not take the negro race into account at all. It is unquestionable that the author, Mr. Jefferson, was a slaveholder at the time, and continu- ed so to his life's end. It is certain that the great majority of the other signers of the Declaration were slave- holders likewise. No one can be igno- rant of the fact that slavery had been introduced into all the colonies long before, and continued to exist long after, in every State save one. Surely then, it can not be presumed that these able and sagacious men intended to stultify themselves by declaring that the negro race had rights, Mhich nev- ertheless they were not ready to give them. And yet it is evident, that we must either impute this crying injus- tice to our revolutionary patriots, or suppose that the case of the slaves was not contemplated. Nor is this a solitary example, for we have a complete parallel to it in the preamble to the Constitution, where the important phrase, '• We, the peo- ple of the United States,' must be un- derstood with the very same limitation. Who were the people ? Undoubted- ly the free citizens who voted for the Constitution. AVere the slaves count- ed as a part of that people? B}- no means. The negro race had no voice, no vote, no influence whatever in the matter. Thus, therefore, it seems per- fectly plain that both these instru- ments must be understood according to the same rub of interpretation. The slaves were not included in the Declaration of Independence, for the same reason precisely that they were not included amongst the "people" who adopted the Constitution of the , United States. i Now it is the estaVjlished maxim of the law, that every written document must be understood according to the true intent of the parlies when it was executed. The language employed may be such that it admits of a differ- ent sense ; but there can be only one juit interpretation, and that is fixed unalterably by the apparent meaning of its authors at the time. On this ground alone, therefore, I respectfully contend that the Declaration of Inde- pendence has no claim whatever to be considered in the controversy of our I day. I have stated, at some length, my reasons for rejecting its famous propositions, as being totally fallacious ', and untenable. But even if they were ! ever so '' self-evident," or capable of j the most rigid demonstration, the rule ; of law utterly forbids us to appeal to j them in a sense which they were not ! designed to bear. 1 In the second place, however, it \ should be remembered that the De- claration of Independence, whether true or false, whether it be interpreted legally or illegally, forms no part of our present system. As a great his- torical document, it stands, and must ever stand, prominent before the na- tions of the world. But it was put forth more than seven years anterior to the Constitution. Its language was not adopted in that Constitution, and it has no place whatever in the obliga- tory law of the United States. When our orators, our preachers, and our politicians, therefore, take its proposi- ( tions about human rights and human equality, and set them up as the su- preme law, overruling the Constitu- tion and the act? of Congress, which are the real law of the land, I can not wonder enough at the absurdity of the proceeding. And I doubt whether the annals of civilized mankind can fur- nish a stronger instance of unmitigated perversit)'. Thirdly, and lastly, I am utterly opposed to those popular propositions, not only because I hold them to be altogether fallacious and untrue, for the reasons already given, but further, because their tendency is in direct contrariety to the precepts of the Gos- pel, and the highest interests of the individual man. For what is the un- avoidable effect of this doctrine of hu- man equality ? Is it not to nourish the spirit of pride, envy, and conten- tion ? To set the servant against the master, the poor against the rich, the weak against the strong, the ignorant against the educated ? To loosen all the bonds and relations of society, and reduce the whole duty of subor- dination to the selfish cupidity of pe- cuniary interest, without an atom of respect for age, for office, for law, for government, for Providence, or for the word of God ? I do not deny, indeed, that this doc- trine of equality is a doctrine of im- mense power to urge men forward in a constant struggle for advancement. Its natural operation is to force the vast majority into a ceaseless contest 11 with their circumstances, each discon- tented with his lot, so long as he sees any one else above him, and toiling with unceasing effort to rise upon the social scale of wealth and importance, as fast and as far as he can. There is no principle of stronger impulse to stimulate ambition in every depart- ment. And hence arises its manifold influence on the business, the enter- prise, the commerce, the manufactures, the agriculture, the amusements, the fashions and the political strifes of our Northern people, making them all rest- less, all aspiring, and all determined, if possible, to pass their rivals in the race of selfish emulation. But how does it operate on the order, the stability, and the ultimate prosper- ity of the nation ? How does it work on the steadfast administration of jus- tice, the honor and purity of our public officers, the quiet subordination of the various classes in the community, the fidelity and submission of domestics, the obedience of children, and the rela- tions of family and home ? Above all, how does it harmonize with the great doctrines of the Bible, that the Al- mighty Ruler appoints to every man his lot on earth, and commands him to be satisfied and thankful for his portion — that we must submit our- selves to those who have the rule over us — that we should obey the laws and honor the magistrates — that the pow- ers that be are ordained of God, and he that resisteth the power shall receive condemnation — that we may not covet the property of others — that having food and raiment, we should be there- with content — that we must avoid strife, contention and railing accusa- tions, and follow peace, charity, and good will, remembering that the serv- ice of Christ is the only perfect free- dom, and that our true happiness de- pends not on the measure of our earth- ly wealth, on social equality, on honor, or on our relative position in the com- munity, but on the fulfillment of our personal duty according to our lot, in reliance on His blessing ? I have no more to add, with respect to this most popular dogma of human equality, and shall therefore dismiss it, as fallacious in itself, and only mis- chievous in its tendency. As it is the stronghold of the ultra-abolitionist, I have devoted a large space to its ex- amination, and trust that the conclu- sion is sufficiently plain. Happily it forms no part of our Constitution or our laws. It never was intended to apply to the question of negro slavery. And it never can be so applied with- out a total perversion of its historical meaning, and an absolute contrariety to all the facts of humanity, and the clear instruction of the Woid of God. The next objection to the Slavery of the Southern States, is its presumed cruelty, because the refractory slave is punished with corporal correction. But our Northern law allows the same in the case of children and apprentices. Such was the established system in the army and the navy, until very lately. The whipping-post was a fixed institu- tion in England and Massachusetts, and its discipline was administered even to free citizens during the last century. Stripes, not exceeding forty, were appointed to offenders in Israel by divine authority. The Saviour him- self used a scourge of small cords when he drove the money-changers from the temple. Are our modern philanthro- pists more merciful than Christ, and wiser than the Almighty ? But it is said that the poor slaves are treated with barbarity, and doubt- less it may sometimes be true, just as soldiers and sailors, and even wives and children, are shamefully abused amongst ourselves, in many instances. It is evident, however, that the system of slavery can not be specially liable to reproach on this score, because every motive of interest as well as moral duty must be opposed to it The owner of the horse and the ox rarely treats his brutes with severity. Why should he? The animals are his property, and he knows that they must be kindly and carefully used, if he would derive advantage from their labor. Much more must the master of the slave be expected to treat him with all fairness and affection, because here there are human feelings to be influenced, and if the servant be not contented and attached, not only will he work unwillingly, but he may be converted into an enemy and an aven- ger. When the master is a Christian, the principles of the Gospel, as laid down by St. Paul, will operate, of course, in favor of the slave. But even when these are wanting, the mo- tives of interest and prudence remain. And hence I can not doubt that the examples of barbarity must be exceed- ingly few, and ought to be regarded, not as the general rule, but as the rare exceptions. On the whole, indeed, I see no reason to deny the statement of our Southern friends, that their slaves 12 are the happiest laborers in the world. Their wants are all provided for by their master. Their families are sure of a home and maintenance for life. In sickness they are kindly nursed. In old age they are affectionately sup- ported. They are relieved from all anxiety for the future. Their religious privileges are generoush' accorded to them. Their work is light. Their ho- lidays are numerous. And hence the strong affection which they usually manifest to^'ard their master, and the earnest longing which many, who were persuaded to become fugitives, have been known to express, that they might be able to return. The third objection is, that slavery must be a sin, because it leads to m- morality. But where is the evidence of this ? I dispute not against the probability and even the certainty that there are instances of licentiousness enough among slaveholders, just as there are amongst those who vilify them. It would be a difficult, if not an impossible task, however, to prove that there is more immorality amongst the slaves themselves, than exists amongst the lower class of freemen. In Sabbath-breaking, profane cursing and swearing, gambling, drunkenness and quarreling — in brutal abuse of wives and children, in rowdyism and obscenity, in the vilest excesses of shameless prostitution — to say noth- ing of organized bands of counterfeit- ers, thieves and burglars — I doubt whether there are not more offenses against Christian morality committed in the single city of New-York than can be found amongst the slave popu- lation of all the fifteen States together. The fact would rather seem to be that the wholesome restraints of slaverv, as a general rule, must be, to a great extent, an effectual check upon the worst kinds of immorality. And there- fore this charge, so often brought against it, stands entirely unsupport- ed either by positive proof or by ra- tional probabiiit)^ The fourth objection is advanced by a multitude of excellent people, Avho are shocked at the institution of slav- ery, because it involves the principle oi property in man. Yet I have never been able to understand what it is that so disgusts them. No slaveholder pre- tends that this property extends any farther than the right to the labor of the slate. It is obvious to the slightest reflection that slavery can not bind the intellect or the .soul. These, which properly constitute the max, are free, in their own nature, from all human restraint. But to have a property in human labor, under some form, is an essential element in all the work of civilized society. The toil of one is pledged for the service of another in every rank of life ; and to the extent thus pledged, both parties have a pro- perty in each other. The parent es- pecially has an established property in the labor of his child to the age of twenty-one, and has the further power of transferring this property to another, by articles of apprenticeship. But this, it may be said, ends when the child is of age. True ; because the law presumes him to be then fitted for freedom. Suppose, however, that he belonged to an inferior race which the law did not presume to be fitted for freedom at any age, what good reason could be assigned against the continuance of the property ? Such, under the rule of the Scriptures and the Constitution of the United States, is the case of the negro. God, in his wisdom and providence, caused the patriarch Noah to predict that he should be the servant of servants to the posterity of Japhet. And the same almighty Ruler, who alone pos- sesses the power, has wonderfully adapted the race to their condition. For every candid observer agrees that the negro is happier and better as a slave th^n as a free man, and no indi- vidual belonging to the Anglo-Saxon stock would acknowledge that the in- tellect of the negro is equal to his own. There have been philosophers and phj-siologists who contended that the African race were not strictly entitled to be called men at all, but were a sort of intermediate link between the ba- boon and the human being. And this notion is still maintained by. some at the present day. For mj-self, however, I can only say that I repudiate the doc- trine with my whole heart. The Scrip- tures show me that the negro, like all other races, descends from Noah, and I hold him to be a man and a brother. But though he be my brother^ it does not follow that he is my equal. Equali- ty can not be found on earth between the brothers even in one little family. In the same house, one brother usually obtains a mastery over the rest, and sometimes rules them with a perfect despotism. In England, the elder brother inherits the estate, and the younger brothers take a lower rank, by the slavery of circumstances. The 13 eldest eon of the royal familj is in doe time the king, and his brothCTS forth- with become his subjects. Whv shoald not the same principle obtain in the races of mankind, if the Almighty has so willed it? The Anglo-Saxon race is king, why shoald not the A&ican race be subject and sabject in that way for which it is best adapted, and in which it may be more safe, vaare useful, and more happy than in any other which has yet been opoied to it, in the annals of the world ? I know that there may be exertions, now and then, to this intellectiud infe- riority of the negro race, though I be- lieve it woold be very difficult to find one. unless the intermiscure of supe- rior blood has operated to change die mental constitudon of the individoaL For all such cases the master may pro- vide by voluntary emancipation, and it is notorious that this ^nandpation has beoi cheerfully given in thoosands upon thousands of instances, in the majority of which the gift of lib«ty has 5uled to benefit the negra and has. on the contrary, sunk him &r lower, in his social posirloo. But no reflecting man can believe that the great mass of the slaves, amounting to nearly foor mil- lions, are qualifie«l for freedcnn. And therefijfre it is incomparably better for them to remain under the govnnment of their masters, who are likely to pro- vide for them so much morebene6ciaUy than they could provide for themselves. The difference then, between the power of the Northern parent and the Southern sliveholder, is re-iuced to we frcqaenftly fiad pcnn» viwi that tlw vIm^ uwoBciit i ly settled by the qoestka: '^^Eom wtnid y&H, like to he a deue?" In answer to this verr puerile inter- rogatory, I shoald say that wb^faer any omditiMi in life is to be r^arded as aloes «ran advantage, depends oi- tirely on drcomstances. Sappoge, tor example, that the Mayor rf Xew-Tork shoald ask one of its merdiant pnnces : ••How would yoa like to be a police- man ^" I donbt whether the qnestioB might not be taken iw an insolt, and some words of ind^nation Toold pro- bably be uttered in rejdy. Bat sap- pose that the same questaoo were ad- dresse-i to an Irish lalxHr^. with what feelings would he receive ii ? Assur- edly with those of gratitude and {dea- sure. The reason of the di^oiee is obvioos, beeaose the empioynent which Toald be & d^ndatko to the one, offors proraotioa and iageitj to the other. In like manna', slaverr. to an individual of the An^o-Saxon nee, which occupies so high a rank in bo- man estimation, would be a debas^nent not to be thought r o/hU ilate for ; of the hberty on which the abolitioaist li/f. instead of having it only to the age ■ advises ihem to venture. How much of twenty -one, l"?cause the law regards the negro as beir.e always a child in un derstanding, re-quiring a snp«ior mind to govam and direct him. But, on the other hand, the slave has just as really % property ftr U/e in kit master t tup- port and preUetiifn, and this property is secured to him by the same law. in sickness and in health, in the helpless- ness of old age, as well as in the days of youthful vigor, incladin?. besides, a comfortable maintenance for his wife and family. Can any rational ja<%- ment devise a &irer equivalent ? The fifth objection, which often meets the yorthem ear. proceeds from the overweening value attache-i in our age and country, to the name of hb«ty. since it is common to call it the dearest right of man, and to esteem its loss as more would they prize their presoii lot if they understood that, were it not for this very instiiuti slaves. In later times, bondmen and bondmaids were in the service of con- vents and monasteries. And no scru- ple was entertained upon the subject until the close of the last century, when the new light burst forth which now dazzles the eyes of so many worthy people, and bhnds them not only to the plain statements of Scriptures, but to the interests of national unity and peace. Thus, then, I have examined the various topics embraced in your inqui- ry, and the conclusion which I have been compelled to adopt must be suffi ciently manifest The slavery of the negro race, as maintained in the South- em States, appears to me fully author- ized both in the Old and the Xew Tes- tament, which, as the written Word of God, afford the only infallible standard of moral rights and obligations. That rer}- slavery, in my humble judgment, has raised the negro incomparably higher in the scale of humanity, and seems, in fact, to be the only instru- mentality through which the heathen posterity of Ham have been raised at all. Out of that slavery has arisen the interesting colony of Liberia, plant- ed by slaveholders, to be a place of re- fuge for their emancipated bondmen, and destined, as I hope, to be a rich benefit, in its future growth and in- fluence, to Afirica and to the world I do not forget, and I trust that I do not undervalue, the missionary work of England and our own land, in that be- nighted continent But I believe that the number of negroes Christianized and civilized at the South, through the system of slavery, exceeds the product of those missionary labors, in a pro- portion of thousands to one. And thus the wisdom and goodness of God are vindicated in the sanction which his word has given, and the sentence origi- nally pronounced on Canaan as a ctu-se has been converted into a blessing. I have now gone over the whole ground covered by your kind appUca- tion, and would only here repeat that on the question of slavery, which lies at the root of all our present difficul- ties, I have obeyed the rule of conscience and of duty, in opposition to my habits, my prejudices, and my sympathies, all of which would tend strongly to the other side. I need hardly say that I am no politician. More than forty years have elapsed since I ceased even to attend the polls. But as a Christian, I am bound to accept the doctrine of the apostles for my guide. And as a citizen, I am bound to sustain the Con- stitution of the United States, and de- fend those principles of law, and order, and friendly comity, which every State should faithfully regard in its relations to the rest Nor is this the first time that I have expressed my opinions. In a lecture at Buffalo, published in 1850, and again in a volume entitled Tlie American Citizen, printed by Pudney & Russell, in 1857, I set forth the same views on the subject of slavery ; add- ing, however, a plan for its gradual abo- lition, whenever the South should con- sent, and the whole strength of the Government could aid in its accomplish- ment Sooner or later, I believe that some measure of that character must be adopted. But it belongs to the slave States themselves to take the lead in such a movement And meanwhile, their legal rights and their natural feel- ings must be respected, if we would hope for unity and peace. In conclusion, I would only say, that I am perfectly aware how distasteful my sentiments must be, on this very serious question, to the great majority of my respected fellow-citizens, in the region where divine Providence has cast my lot. It would assuredly be far more agreeable if I could conscientious- ly conform to the opinions of my friends, to whose ability, sincerity, and zeal I am ready to give all just commendation. But it would be mere moral cowardice in me to suppress what I beheve to be the truth, for the sake of popularity. It can not be long before I shall stand at the tribunal of that Almighty and unerring Judge, who has given us the inspired Scrip- tures to be our supreme directory in every moral and religious duty. My gray hairs admonish me that I may soon be called to give an account of my stewai'dship. And I have no fear of the sentence which He will pro- nounce upon an honest though humble effort to sustain the authority of His Word, in just alliance with the Con- stitution, the peace, and the public welfare of my country. "With the fervent prayer that the Spirit of Wisdom, unity, and fraternal kindness may guide our National Con- gress, the Legislatures of the several States, and the sovereign will of our whole people, to a happy accommoda- tion of every existing difficulty, I remain, with great regard. Your faithful servant in Christy JoHx H. Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont