SLAVERY
DEFENDED FROM SCRIPTURE,
AGAINST
THE ATTACKS OF THE ABOLITIONISTS,
QUOQU
IN A SPEECH
Delivered before the General Conference
OF THE
METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH,
IN BALTIMORE, 1842.
BY ALEXANDER MCCAINE.
BALTIMORE:
PRINTED BY WM. WOODDY.
1842.


SLAVERY
DEFENDED FROM SCRIPTURE,
AGAINST
THE ATTACKS OF THE ABOLITIONISTS,
IN A SPEECH
DELIVERED BEFORE THE GENERAL CONFERENCE
OF THE
METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH,
IN BALTIMORE, 1842.
BY ALEXANDER MCCAINE.
Baltimore:
PRINTED BY WM. WOODDY.
1842.

Entered aecording to the Act of Congress, in the year 1842, by ALEX-
ANDER McCaine, in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Maryland.

PREFACE.
Ar the General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, held
in Baltimore in May, 1842, memorials from different societies were pre-
sented to that body, praying for the abolition of slavery in the Church.
One of these memorials, brought up by the Rev. T. Hicklin, of Indiana,
was extremely offensive in its language, as it called slaveholders "thieves,
robbers, pirates," and declared them to be deserving of a pirate's death."*
But notwithstanding its offensive character, it was turned over with the
others to the committee on memorials, a majority of whom signed and
presented the following report:-
"Your committee, to whom was referred the several memorials upon
the subject of slavery as connected with the Methodist Protestant Church
in these United States, beg leave respectfully to report:—That they have
had under consideration the said memorials, thirteen in number, and bear-
ing upwards of 500 signatures. They have also considered the resolu-
tions of the Ohio, Pittsburg, New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Cham-
plain, Vermont, Genessee, and Onandagua Annual Conferences upon the
same subject.
"Your committee, after prayerful and patient deliberation, have come
to the conclusion that the time has arrived when some action should be
had by this General Conference, whereby the Northern Conferences
should be exonerated from all participation in this great moral evil, as
your committee conceive it to be, and we can discover no way in which
this can be done, short of some rule being laid down by this body, where-
by the 9th item of the elementary principles of our Church shall be more
strictly and generally enforced, and the 5th paragraph of Section 4, Arti-
cle 7, of the Constitution, more clearly understood by all our members.
“While we would deeply sympathise with our brethren who are situa-
ted within the bounds of those States and Territories where slavery is
legalised, and where to procure other than slave labour is next to impos-
sible-yet we believe this, their unfortunate situation, is one in which
God calls them to suffer, rather than to hold their fellow beings in per-
* I very much doubt if Rev. Mr. Hicklin knows what a pirate's death is.
† When the celebrated Joseph Addison, who, though an elegant writer, was a poor
speaker, was about to make a speech in the British House of Commons, he addressed
the Chair and said: "Mr. Speaker, I conceive”—got no farther, but coughed and sat.
down. Shortly afterwards he arose again, and said: “Mr. Speaker, I conceive,” cough-
ed again, and sat down. Not discouraged by his former failures, he rose the third
time, and said again, "Mr. Speaker, I conceive," but coughed again, and sat down.
Thus
Thrice he essayed to speak, and thrice sat down.
Upon which a waggish member arose and observed, “Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
who has just taken his seat has 'conceived three times, and brought forth nothing."
So may I say of these five abolition committee men, they all “conceived” and brought
forth nothing. No: not as much as “a ridiculous mouse” of an argument.

iv
petual bondage: and your committee cannot believe* that the Father of
our mercies will hold us guiltless, as an ecclesiastical body, should we
turn a deaf ear to the prayer of the petitioners, and the resolves of one-
half of our Annual Conferences. Therefore, in order that our ministers,
preachers, members, and all of our official bodies may more clearly un-
derstand their duty, in view of the aforesaid item in the elementary prin-
ciples, and also the article alluded to in the Constitution, we submit the
following resolutions for the action of the Conference:
61. Resolved, That slavery as it exists in the Methodist Protestant
Church in these United States is opposed to the morality of the holy
Scriptures, and consequently a great moral evil.
62. Resolved, That the several Annual Conferences at their next ses-
sions, be instructed to record the sense of their several bodies relative to
the distinction made in the 1st and 2d Sections, Article 12, of the Con-
stitution, relative to colour; and should two-thirds of the Annual Confer-
ences decide said distinctions to be unscriptural, or that, in their judg-
ment, the words "white" ought to be removed from the said sections, a
convention shall be authorized for the purpose of erasing them. Your
committee also recommend the insertion of the following in the general
rules on page 76, immediately following the words “doing to others as
we would not they should do unto us, viz. buying or selling men, women,
or children, or holding them in slavery.
E. JACOBS, Chairman.”
It was upon this occasion that the following speech, which is now en-
Jarged, was delivered. But being interrupted in it, by a call for adjourn-
ment, I was prevented from saying all, at the time, that I intended to say.
I was, however, importuned, by some who heard me, to write out my
views on the subject and publish them. I have consented--1. Because,
I was convinced, from what I saw and heard from the leading abolition-
ists in Conference, they did not understand the subject themselves. 2.
Because it seems to be generally assumed as an incontrovertible point by
those in the Church and those in the State, that “slavery is opposed to
the morality of the Scriptures, and is positively condemned in the word
of God. 3. Because I have never seen any publication that expressly
takes up the subject and treats of it on gospel principles. Something then
is wanted to place the subject in a Scriptural point of light. If the fol-
lowing remarks will accomplish that purpose if they will afford any
information to the abolitionists-if they will disabuse the public mind of
the errors under which it has laboured, and continues to labour-if they
will relieve the religious community of doubts and fears which they may
have entertained on the subject-and if they will tend to strengthen the
bond which binds these States together, so that their integrity may be
preserved, then will my highest wishes be gratified, and to God's name
shall be ascribed all the glory.
ALEXANDER MCCAINE.
Edgefield DISTRICT, S. C.,
June 27th, 1842.
}
* "I cannot see"-"I cannot imagine"_“I cannot suppose"_"I cannot conceive,"
and such like phrases, were frequently used by Jacobs, Witsel, Bennett, Hicklin, Stier,
and other violent abolition speakers. And will it follow, gentlemen, that because you
cannot see," others cannot see? You ought to have made yourselves better acquainted
with what your Bibles say on the subject, than what you seem to have done, before
you began to lecture Southern men on the evil of slavery. Indeed, you ought to have
"arried in Jericho till your beards were grown

SPEECH, & c.
am,
MR. PRESIDENT: I rise, sir, to offer some remarks on the subject of
slavery: and in doing this, shall be obliged to take a more extensive range
than I would have done, had not the memorialists represented slavery as
a thing of comparatively recent date, and as being a great moral evil.
Now, sir, to neither of these propositions can I subscribe. In the report
of the committee of the South Carolina Conference, which, very much
against my wishes, has been read from their journals before this body, I
have said, that “slavery has existed in all ages of the world since the
flood, and has been incorporated with all forms of religion, Patriarchal,
Jewish, and Christian.7* If I am correct in this statement, and that I a
I think history will bear me out, it cannot be considered a thing of recent
date. Nor, when we consider the origin and institution of slavery, can
we consider it a great moral evil. Forty-two years ago, when the sub-
ject of slavery was agitated in a General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in this city, I said, that slavery is not a moral evil; and
I have seen, or heard nothing from that time to this, that has caused me
to change my opinion.
If we turn, sir, to the oldest book in existence, and of the truth of
whose records there can, among Christians, be no doubt, we will find
that, at a very early period of time, the institution of slavery was predict-
ed and ordained by God Himself, through his servant Noah. The pro-
phetic denunciation of Noah, of one of the three branches of his family,
is the first notice of slavery upon record; and it was uttered at the very
dawn of time. He spoke under the impulse and dictation of Heaven.
His words were the words of God himself, and by them was slavery or-
dained. This was an early arrangement of the Almighty, to be perpetu-
ated through all time, and was intended to cement and compact the whole
human family--to establish the system of mutual relation and dependen-
cy,—and to sustain the great chain of subordination, so essential to the
Divine, as well as all human governments. The words of Noah are:
"Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of
Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”+ Gen. ix. 25—27.
Nor, if we consider the character of those who were possessed of
slaves, can we pronounce slavery a "great moral evil? Abraham is the
first, of whom we read, who held slaves, and he had 318 who were born
in his house. Gen. xiv. 14. With these he pursued the confederate
kings, who had captured his nephew Lot; and with them, rescued Lot,
“his goods, the women and the people. He had slaves given him by
Pharaoh, when he dwelt in Egypt. Compare Gen. xii. 16, with xvi. 1.
By Abimeleck, king of Gerar. Gen. xx. 14. And he had slaves “bought
with his money." See Gen. xvii. 13 and 27. Now, in what light is the
servant.
*
“Slavery, at a very early period after the Flood, prevailed, perhaps, in every region
of the globe."--Encyclop. Brita.
+ See a letter, signed J.J.S. Baltimore: printed 1841.

6
character of Abraham represented in the Holy Scriptures? Is he not called
Cthe father of the faithful”-“the friend of God: How then could these
appellations be given him, by the Holy Spirit, if he were a great sinner,
and lived in the practice of a great moral evil? Impossible. Either
the standard of morals has been changed, or slavery is not that great
moral evil that the abolitionists represent it to be.
Next to Abraham stands Sarah his wife. "Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, bare
him no children: and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was
Hagar. Gen. xvi. 1. Dr. Clarke remarks on this passage, —"As Hagar
was an Egyptian, St. Chrysostom's conjecture is very probable, that she
was one of those female slaves which Pharaoh gave to Abram when he
sojourned in Egypt. xii. 16.? “The slave being the absolute
property of the mistress, not only her person, but the fruits of her labour,
with all her children, were her owner's property also. The children,
therefore, which were born of the slave, were considered as the children
of the mistress. It was on this ground that Sarai gave her slave to
Abram.” And again: "Sarai certainly stands at the head of all the wo-
men of the Old Testament, on account of her extraordinary privileges.
I am quite of Calmet's opinion; that Sarai was a type of the blessed Vir-
gin. St. Paul considers her a type of the New Testament, and heavenly
Jerusalem; and as all true believers are considered as the children of
Abraham, so all faithful, holy women are considered the daughters of
Sarah. Gal. iv. 22, 24, 26.” See Dr. Clarke on Gen. xvii. 16. Now,
where in the Scriptures will the abolitionists find a sinner practising a
great moral evil, represented as a type of a Divine object? They cannot
find one.
The next in order is Isaac. "He had possession of flocks, and posses-
sion of herds, and great store of servants; and the Philistines envied
him." Gen. xxvi. 14. “He who blessed him in the increase of his fields,
blessed him also in the increase of his flocks; and as he had extensive
possessions, so he must have many hands to manage such concerns:
therefore it is added, he had great store of servants-he had many domes-
tics, some born in his house, and others purchased by his money.” Dr.
Clarke in loc.
Next to Isaac is Jacob. He had Zilpah and Bilhah, the slaves of his
wives, given him by their respective mistresses, and for the same purpose
that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham. And it is said of this Patriarch also,
that “the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid ser-
vants and men servants, and camels and asses." Gen. xxx. 43.
And the last I shall notice is Job. His substance also was seven
thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of
oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this
man was the greatest of all the men in the East.” Job i. 3. Of him Cal-
met says: "Job was a man of great probity, virtue and religion, and he
possessed great riches in cattle and slaves; which, at that time, were the
chief wealth even of princes in Arabia and Edom.”
And is it of this slaveholder that God hath said, “Hast thou considered
my servantJob, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and up-
right man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil? i. 8. Is it to this slave-
holder that God directs his calumniators to go that he may pray for them,
declaring at the same time, “him will I accept." xlii. 7, 8. Is it with Noah
and Daniel that this same slave holder is put on a level by God himself.
Ezekiel xiv. 14. And even in the New Testament, is the most honorable
mention made of this slaveholder, when he is proposed by St. James as a

7
pattern of patience to all Christians. James v. 10, 11. o, how humilia-
ting to the pride and arrogance of the heart of the abolitionist must it be
to be turned over, by God, to the slaveholder, to be prayed for by him,
with an assurance whim will I accept." And what strange inconsistency
for the Holy Spirit to propose a character, who, according to the doctrine
of the abolitionists, was guilty of a great moral evil, under the Old Tes-
tament dispensation, as a pattern, worthy of imitation, to Christians, under
the New!! Such, however, are some of the absurdities into which the
abolition scheme unavoidably conducts its advocates and friends.
Now, these few instances may suffice to show, that some of the most
eminent of the Old Testament saints were slaveholders; nor is there the
least hint by any of the New Testament writers, that they were guilty of
a great moral evil in holding their fellow beings in bondage. Where do
the abolitionists, then, get their authority for anathematising slaveholders,
and fixing on them such opprobious and unchristian epithets as "thieves,
"robbers," "pirates, &c? For this they have no authority, neither from
the Old Testament nor the New.
Passing from the consideration of these few individual cases in the Old
Testament, it is important to notice what history says on the subject of
slavery as connected with the different nations of the earth. “Almost
every page of ancient history,” says Wallace, in his Dissertation on the
Numbers of Mankind, demonstrates the great multitude of slaves; which
gives occasion to a melancholy reflection, that the world, when best peo-
pled, was not a world of freemen, but of slaves."* "And in every age
and country, until times comparatively recent,” says Hallam, "personal
servitude appears to have been the lot of a large, perhaps the greater por-
tion of mankind.”+
“Slavery,” says Professor Dew, “was established and sanctioned by
Divine Authority, among even the elect of Heaven—the favored children
of Israel. Abraham, the founder of this interesting nation, and the chosen
servant of the Lord, was the owner of hundreds of slaves. That mag-
nificent shrine, the Temple of Solomon, was reared by the hands of slaves.
Egypt's venerable and enduring piles were reared by similar hands.
Slavery existed in Assyria and Babylon. The ten tribes of Israel were
carried off in bondage to the former by Shalmanezar, and the two tribes
of Judah were subsequently carried in triumph by Nebuchadnezzar, to
beautify and adorn the latter. Ancient Phænicia and Carthage had slaves:
the Greeks and Trojans, at the siege of Troy, had slaves. Athens and
Sparta, and Thebes, indeed the whole Grecian and Roman worlds had
more slaves than freemen. And in those ages which succeeded the ex-
tinction of the Roman Empire in the west, “Servi or slaves,' says Dr.
Robertson, seem to have been the most numerous class.”
There is one thing asserted in this quotation, Mr. President, which re-
quires something more than a passing remark, because it has an important
bearing upon the principles and practices of the abolitionists. By whom
was the Temple of Solomon built? Was it reared by the hands of free-
men or of slaves? Mr. Dew says by slaves, and for his assertion the
following facts and quotations may serve as proofs:
1. Because, when Solomon ascended the throne, he became possessed
of many slaves, which were left him by his father. David was a man of
war, conquered several nations, and reduced those whom he spared to a
state of slavery. “And when all the kings that were servants to Hadare-
לל
*Quoted by Dew, in his “Review of Slavery.”
† Ibid.

8
mem.
sem,
zer saw that they were smitten before Israel, they made
peace with Israel,
and served them. II Sam. X. 19. "Thus,” observes Dr. Delaney, whe
arms of David were blessed; and God accomplished the promises which
He had made to Abraham. Gen. xv. 18; and renewed to Joshua. i. 2, 4.
And thus, in the space of nineteen or twenty years, David had the good
fortune to finish gloriously eight wars: all righteously undertaken, and all
honourably terminated. viz.--1. The civil war with Ishbosheth. 2. The
war against the Jebusites. 3. The war against the Philistines and their
allies. 4. The war against the Philistines alone. 5. The war against
the Moabites. 6. The war against Hadadezer. 7. The war against the
Idumeans. 8. The war against the Ammonites and Syrians. This last
victory was soon followed by the complete conquest of the kingdom of
the Ammonites, abandoned by their allies. Dr. Clarke in loc.
“And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under
saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them
pass through the brick-kiln; and thus did he unto all the cities of the
children of Ammon." II Sam. xii. 31. On this passage Dr. Clarke re-
marks: “From this representation a great cry has been raised against
David's unparalleled, if not diabolical, cruelty. I believe this interpreta-
tion was chiefly taken from the parallel place I. Chron. xx. 3., where it
is said, he cut them with saws, and with axes, &c. Instead of vaiyaser, he
sawed, we have here in Samuel) vaiyasem, he put them : and these two
words differ from each other only in in a part of a single letter, resch for
And it is worthy of remark that instead of vaiyaser he sawed, in I
Chron. xx. 3, six or seven MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott, have vaiya-
he put them; nor is there found any various reading in all the MSS.
yet collated for the text in this chapter, that favours the common reading
in Chronicles. The meaning therefore is, He made the people slaves;
and employed them in sawing; making iron harrows; or mining, for the
word means both; and in hewing wood, and making brick.” See also
Coke's Notes, and Kempton's works, in loc.
2. Because it was adopted as a rule of policy by Solomon, as well as
by Sesostris, king of Egypt, to make his slaves perform the offices of
drudgery and hard labour, instead of imposing these services on the chil-
dren of Israel. “And Solomon sent to Hiram saying. ... Now therefore
command thou that they hew me cedar trees out of Lebanon; and my
servants shall be with thy servants. . . . And Solomon had three score
and ten thousand that bare burdens, and four score thousand hewers in
the mountains.” I Kings, v. 2—15.
3. Because it is expressly said, that of the children of Israel, Solomon
made no bondmen. “And all the people that were left of the Amorites,
Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the chil-
dren of Israel,—their children that were left after them in the land ...
upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bond service unto this day-but
of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen, but they were
men of war."
Now, sir, having, I think, established the position that Solomon's Tem-
ple was erected by the labour of slaves, I would ask, if it is not worth
while to contemplate, for a moment or two, the case of an abolitionist, (if
there were any of this description of beings in the days of Solomon,)
who was required to go up to the house of the Lord, to worship before
the most High God in his Temple. You know, sir, that many of the
abolitionists of the present day affect to have such tender consciences,
and to feel such abhorrence of slavery, that they declare they will not

9
wear the cotton of the South, because it has been cultivated by slaves.
They will not eat our rice, because it has been raised by slaves. Nor
will they use our sugar or molasses, because they are the production of
slave labour. And yet, these extremely sensitive, and pre-eminently holy
characters, feel no qualms of conscience, to sell Southern planters their
boots and shoes, their negro cloth, and all the et cetera that make up a
cargo of Yankee notions, and put the money, arising from the labour of
slaves, in their pockets. Suppose I say, a modern abolitionist, true to his
principles, and consistent with his profession, had been formerly required
to go up to worship in the house of the Lord, what would he have done?
Methinks I see him turn away with abhorrence, and exclaim with vehe-
mence in some such language as this: "What! shall I? I wont put my foot
across the threshold of the building. I shall not defile the purity of my
mantle, by allowing it to touch those polluted walls. I shall not partici-
pate in the exercises that are performed therein, for the building is stained
with blood, and all who go there ‘are a brotherhood of thieves, robbers,
and pirates, and deserve a death worse than that of a pirate. No, I am
exonerated, and will stand 'exonerated from all participation in this great
moral evil.?” And thus, whilst this abolitionist is ranting and raving like
a madman, I see "the fire come down from heaven, and consume the barnt
offering and the sacrifice; and the glory of the Lord fill the house of
the Lord.” II Chron. vii. 1.
But I may be told, that all I have said is wide of the mark. That the
subject under consideration is, “Slavery as it exists in the Methodist Pro-
testant Church in the United States,* and not slavery as it existed in the
Patriarchal or Jewish Church. Well, be it so: though I do not see that
this will help the cause of abolitionism, or strengthen the argument of its
advocates and friends. Let us, however, look at the subject a little more
minutely.
"The word servant,” says Calmet, "generally signifies a slave: because
formerly among the Hebrews and the neighbouring nations, the greater
part of servants were slaves: they belonged absolutely to their masters, who
had a right to dispose of their persons, their bodies, goods, and even of
their lives, in some cases."
“The Hebrews had two sorts of servants or slaves. Lev. xxv. 44, 45,
&c. Some were strangers, bought, or taken in war; and their masters
kept them, exchanged them, or sold them as their goods. The others
were Hebrew slaves, who being poor, sold themselves, or were sold to
pay their debts; or were delivered for slaves by their parents, in cases of
necessity. This sort of Hebrew slaves continued in slavery, only to the
year of Jubilee: when they might return to their liberty, and their mas-
ters could not detain them against their wills. If they desired to con-
tinue with their masters, they were brought before the judges; here they
made a declaration, that for this time they disclaimed the privilege of the
law, and had their ears bored with an awl against the door-posts of their
master's house, after which they had no longer any power of recovering
their liberty.” Calmet's Dictionary -Article, Servant.
“Calmet enumerates six different ways in which a Hebrew might lose
his liberty: 1. In extreme poverty they might sell their liberty. Lev.
xxv. 39. 2. A father might sell his children. See verse 7. 3. Insolvent
debtors became the slaves of their creditors. II Kings, iv. 1. 4. A thief,
if he had not money to pay the fine laid on him by the law, was to be
* I will make no remark upon the unintelligible jargon of this sentence,
2

10
sold for his profit whom he had robbed. xxii. 3, 4. 5. A Hebrew was
liable to be taken prisoner in war, and sold for a slave. 6. A Hebrew
slave who had been ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew, might be sold
by him who ransomed him, to one of his own nation.” Clarke on Exo-
dus, xxi. 2.
“Men became slaves among the Romans, by being taken in war, by
sale, by way of punishment, or by being born in a state of servitude.
Adams' Roman Antiquities, p. 48.
The same writer observes, “Among the Romans, masters had an abso-
lute power over their slaves. Juvenal Sat VI. 219. Slaves were not es-
teemed as persons, but as things, and might be transferred from one owner
to another, like any other effects.” See the whole chapter on slaves in
Adams' Roman Antiquities.
Now, from the above accounts, the condition of the slave among the
Jews, as well as among the Romans, was far worse than the condition of
the slave in these United States. In the former, the life of the slave was,
in certain cases, at the disposal of the master: not so in these United
States. Here the master has no power to put his slave to death, for any
offence whatever. And even if the master considers him deserving cor-
rection, the law prescribes the instrument and extent of the correction.
“The slave is here carefully protected in life, limb, and even in a mode-
rate share of liberty, by the policy of the laws; and his nourishment and
subsistence are positively enjoined.” Dew on Slavery.
But, what is that thing called slavery, which, it is said, “exists in the
Methodist Protestant Church in these United States," which has been pro-
nounced by the majority of the committee on memorials, as "opposed to
the morality of the Holy Scriptures, and consequently a great moral evil?''
Before it was thus denounced, it ought to have been defined. This has
not been done: and it is worthy of special notice, that neither the memo-
rials which have been presented—the friends who have brought them up-
nor their supporters on the floor of this Conference, have attempted a
definition. Nor, in the discussion, has even one argument been offered,
nor one single text of Scripture quoted, to prove that slavery is wrong.
All is rant. All is declamation. This omission I shall now proceed to
supply, but shall first consider the law and the action itself, which is
either right or wrong, as it conforms with, or is contrary to the precept of
the law.
And what is moral law? Moral law is a rule of moral conduct pre-
scribed by the Supreme Being, commanding what is right, and prohibiting
what is wrong. And, (an action is rendered moral by two circumstances-
that it is voluntary-and that it has respect to some rule which determines
it to be good or evil. Moral good and evil,” says Locke, “is the confor-
mity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good
or evil is drawn upon us, from the will or power of the law maker.”
Watson's Institutes, page 9.
And what is slavery? My brother from Virginia has defined it as being
6 the condition of an individual, whose will is in complete subjection to the
will of another.” To this definition I will subscribe, as far as it goes: but
it does not go far enough for me. I would say—slavery is that condition
of a human being, in which, neither his time, his labor, nor the products of
his labor, belong to himself, or are at his own disposal. And as time and
labor are things of value, I would define slavery, in one word, as that state
where the individual is the property of another. This, sir, is slavery, whe-
ther it exists in the Patriarchal Church, the Jewish Church, or the Chris-

11
tian Church. Yes, I repeat it, the slave is the property of his master, who-
ever that master may be; and to contemplate him in any other point of light,
will make all those parts of the Holy Scriptures which treat of slavery, as a
umble of unmeaning and inapplicable directions, utterly unworthy a wise
and holy God. And does not this definition accord with the state of
slavery, as it existed in the family of Abraham? He had some slaves who
were born in his house. He had some who were given him by Pharaoh,
king of Egypt, and by Abimeleck, king of Gerar. And he had some that
he purchased with his own money. In all these, had he not an equal and
absolute right? Were they not all his bona fide property? They were.
And the same may be said
of all those slaves, who were owned by masters
in the Jewish Church.-Their masters "had a right to dispose of their
persons, their bodies, goods,"? &c., as we have stated above on the autho-
rity of Calmet. Nor can the abolitionists produce one passage from the
New Testament, where the case was otherwise in the Church of Christ.
I shall now consider the principal causes or sources of slavery, which I
shall class under three heads--conquest, cupidity, and crime; and under
each head shall offer an instance or two illustrative of my positions.
Conquest, or the laws of war. Although God had promised Canaan to
the descendants of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 8, yet, when the children of
Israel entered it, under their leader Joshua, they had to war with the
several nations which inhabited it. This they did, and were victorious.
In the progress of their wars, the Gibeonites heard of their conquests, and
fearing for their own lives, they fell upon a stratagem, by which they de-
ceived Joshua and the princes of Israel. They went in disguise, and re-
presenting themselves as having come from a far country, imposed on
Joshua, “who, without asking counsel at the mouth of the Lord, made
peace with them, and made a league with them to let them live; and the
princes of the congregation sware unto them.” For doing this, "all the
congregation murmured against the princes. But all the princes said
unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of
Israel: now therefore we may not touch them. This we will do to them;
we will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath
which we sware unto them. And the princes said unto them let them
live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the
congregation. In other words, they shall be our slaves. Joshua ix.
On this transaction I shall remark, Ist. The Gibeonites voluntarily agreed
to become the slaves of the Israelites for ever, rather than be put to death
as the other nations of Canaan had been. 2d. They entered into this
state of slavery, when the government of the Israelitish nation was a
THEOCRACY, and there is no mark of disapprobation, or expression of
censure on the part of the Deity, that Joshua or the princes of Israel had
done wrong in making the Gibeonites slaves. 3d. So far from manifesting
any displeasure, the Lord espoused the cause of Joshua, and fought for
these slaves. “And the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon
them (their enemies) unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which
died with hailstones than they which the children of Israel slew with the
sword.” And he even suspended the course of nature at the command of
Joshua, that he might have time to be avenged on the Amorites who had
made war on those slaves. “Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou
moon in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon
stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.”
Joshua x.
See the case of those Syrians who assisted Hadadezer, Il Sam. x. 19,
and also the case of the Ammomites, II Sam. xii. 31.

12
2. Cupidity, or purchase and sale. The well known case of Joseph
will illustrate this head. “And it came to pass when Joseph was come unto
his brethren, they stript Joseph out of his coat of many colors, &c.—and
cast him into a pit, &c.—And Judah said unto his brethren, what profit is
it if we slay our brother? come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites
... and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver,"
Gen. xxxvii. 23-28. On this transaction I shall make two remarks.
1. That it justifies the opinion that a traffic had been carried on in human
beings before this time, otherwise it is not likely that Judah would have
thought of selling his brother; and this opinion is strengthened by the
fact, that the caravan of traders expressed no surprise at, or objection to
the proposition to buy. 2. That this is the first link in the great chain of
providential events by which the descendants of Abraham have been dis-
tinguished from all the nations of the earth. “God sent me before you, to
preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great
deliverance. So now, it was not you that sent me hither, but God.”
Gen. xlv. 7-8.
The Israelites reduced to a state of slavery in Egypt, may properly be
cited also, as falling under the head of cupidity. Their bondage may have
had its origin in jealousy and the love of gain. The king of Egypt was
jealous of the increasing numbers and growing power of the Israelites;
and wished to turn their labor to his own advantage.
3. Crime, or a violation of the laws of civilized society. And under
this head will fall the cases of convicts confined in penitentiaries. Instead,
therefore, of abolitionists sending up memorials, or coming to this General
Conference to obtain an alteration in the book of discipline, to enable
them to expel slaveholders from the fellowship of the church, it would be
more in accordance with their christian duty to "let their charity begin at
home." They tell us, "they deeply sympathise with their brethren who
are situated within the bounds of those States and Territories where
slavery is legalised," and yet they manifest no concern for those miserable
creatures who are incarcerated, for life, in these abodes of wretchedness.
If they are concerned for the poor slaves, why not shew some sympathy
for the white slaves as well as the negroes? Indeed, sir, I might turn
every thing the abolitionists have said against slaveholders, on this floor,
against themselves, because of their apathy or indifference to the case of
the poor convicts. Do they tell slaveholders that, “all men are born free
and equal, and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Not so, in their sense, and to the extent of their meaning, or the convicts
in penitentiaries are an exception. Do they say to slaveholders, “it is a
great moral evil to hold men in bondage.?) Not so, or their practice is
at war with their doctrine, for they are tributary to this state of things, by
the exercise of the elective franchise. Do they say, to slaveholders,
"liberate your slaves." I say in return, liberate your convicts; empty all
your penitentiaries, and turn the thousands of burglars, thieves, robbers,
and cut-throats loose upon the community. Do the abolitionists say, we
cannot do that, for the penitentiary system is established by law. So say I,
of slavery. Do they require slaveholders to remove all those “legislators"
who have "legalised” slavery, and to elect others in their places, who
would abolish the existing laws, and “et the captive go free.” This,
slaveholders cannot do. And lastly, is it required of slaveholders to take
their slaves into free states, and free them there. What free state would
admit them? Alas! for the poor negroes. The conduct of the abolition-
ists has injured them every where, more than language can describe. In

13
free states, free negroes are a nuisance, as the mobs in Cincinnati, Alton,
Philadelphia, New York, &c. abundantly prove. The citizens of free
states have either driven them out of their territories, or have been obliged
to adopt rigorous measures as a means of their own personal safety.
From the inconsistency, therefore, of the abolitionists, I am inclined to
think, that their overheated and unjustifiable measures do not proceed from
their pure love of liberty, or concern for the poor negro slave, but may be
attributed to a principle which they are not willing to admit, as influenc-
ing them though it has influenced others. “And the Philistines envied
Isaac »
Gen. xxvi. 14
I am now come, Mr. President, to that part of my argument which, I
am sure, will secure me the attention of this Conference, because, sir, I
have laid down a position which contradicts, point blank, the assertion of
the majority of the committee in their report on memorials.
For me to
have denied that “slavery, as it exists in these United States, is opposed
to the morality of the gospel," &c., was, in the opinion of the abolition-
ists, going too far. But to intimate, as I did, a few days ago, that slavery
has always had the sanction of Almighty God, was more than they were
able to bear. I saw how they were affected by the declaration. It
shocked them to a man. And this blasphemous doctrine, as I believe
they considered it,* affected their delicate sensibilities, as much as a shock
of electricity would have affected their nerves. I was immediately pro-
nounced an “Ultra:” and it seemed to be legible in the countenance of
every abolitionist, that I had advanced more than I ever would be able to
make good. I shall now, sir, though I have no hope of convincing any
one of them by what I shall say, and notwithstanding it may procure for
me their lasting dipleasure, proceed to substantiate what I have laid down
in the third head of my argument, namely, 5that so far from slavery being
opposed to the morality of the Holy Scriptures," it has, and always has
had, the sanction of Almighty God.
The numerous cases which I have already brought forward from the
Old Testament, will serve as so many irrefrigable proofs of the truth of
this position. But as I have much more to offer than what I have already
advanced, I shall, for the sake of perspicuity, throw my arguments into
the form of a series of propositions.
PROPOSITION I. When God would abolish the relation which subsisted
between master and slave in Egypt, he did it by miracles.
To abolish this relation God made choice of his instrument, commis-
sioned him for the purpose, and wrought miracles before his eyes in attes-
* This opinion is strengthened by the following extract of a letter written by the
Rev. John Clark, Jr., a member of the General Conference and published in the New
York Luminary of June 25, 1842. He says: "Did not the General Conference pass,
without official notice or rebuke, the Journal of the South Carolina Annual Conference,
exhibiting action by that body on the subject of slavery, which for blasphemous inva.
sion of divine and human rights, defies a parallel in the dark and corrupt ages of the
Church." Will Mr. Clark allow me to tell him, that the report which was read from
the Journals of the South Carolina Conference, and which he says has no "parallel in
the dark and corrupt ages of the Church," was written by me. Yes, sir, I wrote it,
who was preaching the gospel long before you were born of your mother. It is
an easy matter, Mr. Clark, for men in their z al to write such sentences as that which
I have extracted from your letter; but it will not be so easy for you, or them to prove,
that what I have said is false--much less blasphemous! What a pretty figure you will
cut before an intelligent community, into whose hands this blasphemous! pamphlet
will fall, for your intelligence, piety, and deep research into the history "of the dark and
corrupt ages of the Church."

14
To
tation of his divine mission. The Israelites were in bondage in Egypt.
They were slaves to Pharaoh; and during their state of slavery, Moses
was born, who was subsequently chosen by God to lead them out of the
house of bondage.” The first forty years of his life were spent, prin-
cipally, in Pharaoh's court, where he was instructed under the eye of
Pharaoh's daughter, in all the wisdom and learning of the Egyptians.
For killing an Egyptian he fled to the land of Midian, and for forty years
dwelt in that country, with his father-in-law Jethro, whose flocks he kept.
"It was at the end of this long retirement, that God revealed to him his
design, to make use of him to deliver his people from the captivity in
which they groaned. The Divine Being appeared to him, spoke to him,
heard his objections, answered them with condescension, and overcame
his repugnance with miracles. Moses convinced of the certainty of his
mission, set out for Egypt, and by the way found his brother Aaron, who
guided by divine inspiration, had come to meet him."
.?* Thus authorised,
he proceeded to discharge his sacred mission, which was twofold. 1st.
go to his brethren and declare the purpose of God concerning them.
2d. To go to Pharaoh, their master, and demand their liberation. Noth-
ing short of miracles,--and miracles too of the most grievous and afflictive
character, performed before the eyes of all Israel, would have induced
that whole nation to put themselves under the guidance of Moses. And
nothing short of miracles oft repeated, could have produced acquiescence
on the part of Pharaoh, to let the Israelites go. When, therefore, the
abolitionists would disturb the settled order of Providence, and dissolve
the connexion between master and slave, that has been recognised by the
great Governor of the Universe, it certainly is not too much for the
owners of slaves to enquire, "by what authority doest thou these things,
or who gave thee this authority?” And although I admit, that the con-
nexion subsisting between master and slave may, with the consent of
those interested, be annulled by legislative enactments, yet until the
abolitionists produce some stronger reasons for the dissolution of such
connexion, than is to be found in the speeches of L. Garrettson- Abby
Kelly-T. Hicklin-F. Stier-and others of the same stamp, it is not
saying too much to affirm, that slaveholders will feel themselves under
no obligation to comply with their demands.
PROPOSITION II. Slavery has been sanctioned by Almighty God.
In the third month after Moses had safely conducted the children of
Israel through the Red Sea, they were encamped before Mount Sinai.
From the top of this Mount, God delivered the Ten Commandments,
first orally, Exod. xx. 1, next in writing, Exod. xxxi. 8, and thirdly on
two tables of stone, to replace those which had been broken by Moses,
Exod, xxxiv. 1. The last of these commandments reads thus:-- "Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his
ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Although this commandment
is so perspicuous and plain, yet I shall make a few remarks on it. 1.
Slavery is recognised by God: for the man servant and maid servant are
slaves. 2. The slave is property, as much so as the house, the ox, or the
3. The right of the master to hold such property is allowed and de-
fended. 4. Coveting this species of property is forbidden. 5. There
can be nothing immoral in holding slaves, since God has sanctioned and
defended slavery.
ass.
* Anquetil's Universal History, vol. 1, p. 126.
+ See Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses.

15
The prohibitory clause, “thou shalt not covet," is next to be considered.
To "covet,” according to Walker, "is to desire inordinately, to desire
beyond due bounds." When, then, it may be asked, is this command-
ment violated? It is violated, says Archbishop Secker, in his lectures on
the commandments, "first, If our neighbour cannot lawfully part with his
property, nor we lawfully receive it. Or, if he can part with it, but is
not willing, and we entertain thoughts of acquiring it by force or fraud:
or of being revenged on him for his refusal. This is highly blameable,
for why should he not be left free master of his own? Indeed, barely
pressing and importuning persons, contrary to their interests, or even
their inclinations only, is in some degree wrong. For it is one way of
extorting things from them, or of giving them trouble, where we have no
right to give it.
"But though we keep our desires to ourselves, they may, notwithstand-
ing, be very sinful. And such they are, particularly, if they induce us to
envy others. For this turn of mind will prompt us to do them ill, if we
can: and, indeed, a great part of the mischief that is done in the world,
and some of the worst of it, arises from hence. But were it to produce
no mischief to our neighbour, yet it is the directly opposite disposition to
that love of him, which is the second great precept of Christ's religion.
Nay, indeed, it deserves, in some respects, to be reckoned the worst of
ill-natured sins. The revengeful man pleads for himself some injury
attempted against him: but the envious person bears unprovoked malice
to those who have done him neither wrong nor harm.”
"Covet,” says Dr. Clarke, on this commandment, "signifies to desire,
or long after, in order to enjoy as a property the person or thing coveted.
He breaks this commandment who, by any means, endeavours to deprive
a man of his house or farm—who lusts after his neighbour's wife, and
endeavours to ingratiate himself into her affections, and to lessen her
husband in her esteem—and who endeavours to possess himself of the
servants, cattle, &c. of another in any clandestine or unjustifiable manner.”
But say the abolitionists, we do not want your slaves—we would not
have them if you were to give them to us. Well, then, according to their
own declaration, it is not to enrich themselves, or promote their own in-
terest by slave labour, that they have undertaken this crusade against the
institutions of the South. This being so, I ask, what then is their object?
Is it the freedom of the slave? I think not, for they are decidedly hostile
to colonization—they are not for sending one negro out of the country,
even if by so doing, he could obtain his liberty. What then can they
want? To turn three millions of slaves, with all their ignorance and
habits of idleness and vice, loose upon the community? Surely this plan
evinces neither wisdom nor goodness. But if it does, will these same
tender-hearted and loving souls take these liberated negroes into their
fellowship? Will they receive them into their houses and place them at
their tables, or take them, in the holy ordinance of matrimony, as part-
ners, to their beds? This, I think, they will not do. This levelling sys-
tem, then, is intended exclusively for Southern men. But Southern men
have as great a right, on gospel principles, to exact the performance of
these things from abolitionists, as abolitionists have from them.
If the abolitionists do not "covet their neighbour's property to appro-
priate it to their own use-If they do not wish the negro slave emanci-
pated that he may enjoy his liberty in the land of his fathers, more fully
than he could possibly do, were he liberated here—And if they are not
willing to give proof of their love for the poor blacks, by admitting theme

16
into those States where the doctrine of abolitionism now prevails, that
these dear objects of their Christian sympathy may enjoy the pleasure
and happiness which flow from amalgamation, what object can they have
in view, in all those mighty efforts that they have put forth? They have
threatened to dissolve the union of these States. They have most awfully
disturbed the peace of the Church of Christ, that he has purchased with
his own blood. They have laboured to sever the bond which has con-
nected master and slave together. They have endeavoured to excite in-
surrection, and to spread desolation, servile war, and bloodshed through
the land—and for what purpose? They are actuated by some motive, and
must have some object in view. I submit, then, whether the following
lines do not express the principle and the object:
“Evil be thou my good.
To do aught good never will be our task
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to his high will
Whom we resist. If then his providence
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
Our labour must be to pervert that end,
And out of good still to find means of evil."* _Milton.
PROPOSITION III. The sanction which was given to slavery in the
tenth commandment, and the guards that were thrown around that spe-
cies of property, at that time, have never been cancelled or withdrawn.
From those who would contradict this proposition, I might call for
their proof. I might require the abolitionists to cite me the chapter and
verse, where the sanction has been expressly annulled. This, I know,
they cannot do, for there is no such passage in the Bible.
“He must have optics sharp I ween
Who sees what is not to be seen.”
So far from annulling it, Jehovah legislated for its continuance; and in
Exod. xxi., and also in Leviticus xxv. gave sundry directions to regulate
the conduct of the owner of slaves; which see.
And at the close of the
Old Testament, Mal. iv. 4, which verse, the Septuagint, Arabic, and Cop-
tic, says Dr. Clarke, place the last, the Lord hath said, "Remember ye
the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb
for all Israel, with the Statutes and Judgments.” And with this verse the
Old Testament closes.
PROPOSITION IV. As the Mosaic dispensation was introduced and
established by miracles, so also, was the dispensation of the gospel of
Christ.
Miracles attended the birth of the Saviour, yet it was not until he en-
tered upon his public ministry, that he found himself under a necessity of
working miracles, in proof of his divine commission. He began preach-
ing the gospel of his Kingdom by requiring his hearers to "repeni,”-as-
suring them, that "the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.” And he pro-
promised to those who would yield obedience to him, in virtue of the
authority he possessed as Sovereign Lord of all, a recompense infinitely
beyond the sacrifices they would make in complying with his require-
Here then began that demonstration of the SPIRIT AND OF POWER,
says Bishop Porteus, which was to be the grand basis of his new kingdom
ments.
* This quotation was suppressed when the speech was delivered.

17
--the great evidence of his heavenly mission. The proofs which he
gave of his own divine nature, and of his divine mission, were those as.
tonishing miracles which are recorded in Matthew iv. 23. “And Jesus
went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the
gospel of the Kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all man-
ner of disease among the people.” And when John the Baptist sent
two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire of him, "Art thou he that should
come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them,
Go, and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The
blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and
the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel
preached to them.” Matt. xi. 2-5.
“The miracles of our Lord were not merely transient acts, beheld at
the moment with astonishment, but forgot as soon as over, and produc-
tive of no important consequences. They gave birth to a new religion,
to a new mode of worship, to several new and singular institutions, such
as the rite of baptism, the sacrament of the Lord's supper, the appropria-
tion of the first day of the week to sacred purposes, and other things of
the same nature. Now this religion, and these institutions subsist to this
day.” Bishop Porteus' Lectures. Lec. V.
We see from this quotation what rites were introduced into the Chris-
tian Church, that had no place or existence in the Jewish. Circum-
cision was laid aside, and Baptism was administered in its stead. The
Passover was displaced to give room for the sacrament of the Lord's sup.
per. And the seventh day, as a day of rest and worship, gave way to the
first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of the Sa-
viour of the world. Now, what was there in the Jewish Church that
was abrogated by Christ, and was to have no place in that Church, of
which he was the founder. St. Paul tells us in Ephes. ii. 15, “Having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments con-
tained in ordinances." On which Dr. Macknight remarks: “The ritual
ordinances of Moses, being founded in the pleasure of God, are fitly
called ordinances, dogmata. But this name cannot be applied with pro-
priely to the precepts of the gospel, which are all founded in the nature
and reason of things. The ordinances of the law, being designed to
keep the Jews separated from the rest of mankind, that they might pre-
serve the oracles of God concerning Christ-designed also, to prefigure
the blessings which God was to bestow on all nations through Christ's
death, were wisely appointed to continue only till Christ came and died
as a sacrifice for sin.” Also in Coll. ii. 14, the same Apostle uses this
language, "Blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross.” On this passage Dr. Clarke observes, "By the handwriting
of ordinances, the Apostle most evidently means, the ceremonial law."
And Whitby says, "Dogma, is a rescript or ordinance concerning any
thing, a royal or imperial decree. Dan. ii. 13. Hence ritual prescrip-
tions are called dogmata. The handwriting of ordinances in the parallel
epistle Ephes. ii. 15, is the law of commandments in ritual ordinances
or the ceremonial law.''
These authorities prove, that it was the ceremonial law, or the law of
Levitical ordinances, and not the moral law, or the Decalogue which was
abrogated by Christ, and consequently that the tenth commandment,
which secures the rights of the owner of slaves, is of the same force and
binding obligation in the present day, that it was in the days of Moses.
3

18
PROPOSITION V. The sanction given to slavery, in the Old Testament,
is renewed and confirmed by the Saviour in the New.
Christ, in his sermon on the Mount, rescued the moral law from those
false glosses and interpretations, that were given it by Judaising teachers,
and in doing this, he uttered this most important declaration, "Think not
that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to de-
stroy, but to fulfil.” Mat. v. 17, 18. To show that the Saviour meant the
moral law, or the ten commandments, I shall quote the language of a
few eminent commentators.
"Do not imagine that I am come to violate the Law~katalusai, from
kata and luo, I loose, violate or dissolve. I am not come to make the
Law of none effect—to dissolve the connection which subsists between
its several parts, or the obligation men are under to have their lives re-
gulated by its moral precepts. But I am come, plerosai to complete, to per-
fect its connection and reference, to accomplish every thing shadowed
forth in the Mosaic ritual, to fill up its great design: and to give grace to
all my followers, plerosai to fill up, or complete every moral duty.
"It is worthy of observation that the word gamar, among the Rabbins,
signifies not only to fulfil, but to teach; and consequently, we may infer
that our Lord intimated, that the Law and the Prophets were still to be
taught or inculcated by him and his disciples: and this he and they have
done in the most pointed manner.” Dr. Clarke.
"That the great design of our Lord's appearance might be more fully
understood, he proceeded in his discourse and said, Suppose not that I
am come to dissolve that goodly fabrick of holy precepts contained in the
sacred writings of the laws" (the ten commandments) or the prophets;
for I solemnly assure you, that I am not come to dissolve, but rather to
vindicate and illustrate, to complete and adorn them both by my exam-
ple and discourses. For verily I say unto you, that as their original is
divine, their honours shall be perpetual; so that till heaven and earth pass
away, and the whole visible frame of nature be disjointed, not one jot or
one tittle shall pass or perish from the law, till all things which it re-
quires or foretells shall be effected.” Dr. Doddridge.
"Our Lord hath taught us, that all the law and the prophets are com-
prehended in these two precepts: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart,' &c. 'And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'
St. Paul—that he who loves his neighbour as himself hath fulfilled the
law, Rom. xiii. 8. And that the whole law is fulfilled, Gal. v. 14, or is
perfected, James ii. 8, in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
It is not, therefore, to be thought, that Christ came to dissolve the moral
law, or any rules of morality' (one of which is the tenth commandment
which regards slavery.) Whitby's Annotations.
“When our Lord is explicitly asked by 'one who came unto him and
said, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal
life?' The answer given shows that the moral law, contained in the De-
calogue, is so in force under the Christian dispensation, that obedience to
it is necessary to final salvation." Watson's Institutes, p.
381.
These authorities are sufficient, I presume, (though many more might
be added,) to establish the truth of this proposition beyond the cavils of
abolitionists.
PROPOSITION VI. The New Testament contains no prohibition of
slavery, nor is there in it one text, in which slavery, or the slaveholder is
condemned.
It was surely a hard task that was imposed on the abolitionists in de-

19
bate, when they were urged repeatedly to produce a single text that con-
demned the slaveholder. And the shifts and subterfuges to which they
were driven, was truly ridiculous. I will here give a sample of their
argument. For instance, one said, "Slavery is a creature of law," and
on that he descanted most learnedly! Another said, “The gospel is for
the 19th century," and on that topic, he was very eloquent! Another
said, "A man may have had slaves left him by his father, and the
state in which he resides will not allow him to set them free: in
that case, he is not guilty of a moral evil in holding them, but the
legislature that made the laws was guilty of this evil. The sin is
in the system, and not in the man, who is absolutely overruled by
the law of the land." A fourth said, "We have been challenged,
Mr. President, to produce one text that condemins slavery-I shall
do it, sir—'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but
in vain'">!!! But the cap-sheaf of all was the Rev. Dr. Bennett's set
off to the tenth commandment. When I quoted this commandment, this
reverend gentleman sneered a smile of contempt; and when he caine to
reply to me said—"But Mr. Jefferson has said that all men are born free,
and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Well,
after this, I shall be surprised at nothing. This gentleman-the Rev.
Mr. Hicklin, and the Rev. Mr. Witsell of New York-called us "Thieves,"
in their respective speeches; but that was nothing compared with Dr.
Bennett's rashness-to oppose a statesman to Jehovah, and the Declara-
tion of American Independence to the tenth commandment-was noth-
ing short of blasphemy.
PROPOSITION VII. There is but one standard of morals—and that
standard is one and indivisible--it is uniform and perpetual.
It is not popular opinion—it is not the law of the land—but it is the
word of God that I receive as the standard of morals. It is this, and this
alone, which determines what is a great moral evil and what is not. The
abolitionists, then, need tell me nothing about what Mr. Wesley said-
what Mr. Wilbeforce said—what Mr. Jefferson said or what Mr. Clark-
son said. After the great Chillingworth, I say, “the Bible, and the Bible
alone, is the religion of Protestants.” If what they say is not clearly
supported by scripture, it passes for nothing with me. In what point of
light, then, is the standard of morals represented in the New Testament?
The "law” is represented as being "holy, and the commandment holy, and
just and good." Could it be otherwise, as emanating from a holy, just and
good God? It could not. "This character of the law is perfectly conso-
nant to truth, whether the Apostle is speaking of the law of nature, or the
Of all the strange and unintelligible things that were advanced in debate, nothing
surprised me more than the above statement; because it was uttered by one, who is
justly allowed to be one of the most long-headed, clear-sighted, and discerning men in
the church. How he came to adopt such a sentiment I know not, unless it was be-
cause he was unwilling to admit that slavery is not a moral evil. I hope he will allow
me to suggest to him a review of his principles, on the following grounds:-Is a
"system" accountable? Can sin be in the "system,” separate from the moral agent?
Can a "system” be punished? If so-how-when-where? If in the next world,
how can a non-entity be damned? If the "system” is not punished—does not sin go
unpunished, or the innocent slaveholder suffer. If it be the legislature that is to be
punished, are they punished their social, or individual capacity? If in the former,
must it not be in this life: if in the latter, may not some escape punishment by getting
to Heaven. And if the balance should be damned, wherein will that differ from their
being damned as substitutes? My brother, I assure you, I mean no disrespect when I
bestow a note on your hypothesis. You are involved in a labyrinth, and do what you
will, you will never get clear of your difficulties until you take the Bible as your guide.

law of Moses. By the commandment, as distinguished from the law, Beza
understood the command, "Thou shalt not covet." Macknight in Loc.
Dr. Clarke says, "The law, which is to regulate the whole of the out-
ward conduct, is holy; and the commandment, Thou shalt not covet,
which is to regulate the heart, is not less so.''
Where then, I ask again, will the abolitionists find a sentence of con-
demnation of slavery in the scriptures? If there is nothing there to con-
demn it, and I am sure there is not, for “where there is no law there is
no transgression," how can they condemn men for a thing, which is not
condemned by the word of God? I am astonished at their temerity. I
tremble for the consequences of their rashness. They seem madly bent
upon their own destruction, by endeavoring to get men excommunicated
from the fellowship of the Church, who hold slaves. But with Mr. Cart-
wright I will say, "The discipline of Christ's Church, that is necessary for
all times, is delivered by Christ and set down in the holy scriptures:
therefore the true and lawful discipline must be fetched from thence,
and from thence alone, and that which resteth upon any other foundation
ought to be esteemed unlawful and counterfeit.** I shall now close this
proposition, by a quotation from the good Matthew Henry's work on
schism. He says, "let those books be opened which must be opened at
the great day. If sinners must be judged by those books shortly, let sin
be judged by them now, and let not any man or company of men in the
world, assume a power to declare that to be sin, which the sovereign
Rector of the world hath not declared to be so, lest in so doing, they be
found stepping into the throne of God, who is a jealous God, and will not
give this branch of his glory to another.''t
PROPOSITION VIII. If slavery be “a great moral evil, no slaveholder
has enjoyed, or can enjoy, the grace or favor of God as long as he owns
slaves: and dying a slaveholder, he is prevented from entering into the
kingdom of glory.
Is there any thing unfair in the statement of this proposition? Does not
the reprobation of slaveholders necessarily follow, as a legitimate conse-
quence of the doctrine of the abolitionists? But how will this reprobation
harmonise with what has been said of Abraham--of Isaac—of Jacob-
of Job—and all the other slave owners in the patriarchal and Jewish
churches? How can the exclusive character of this proposition accord
with the acts and doings of God himself, who was pleased to legislate for
slavery, and give such numerous directions to his servants, who owned
slaves under the Mosaic dispensation? How will it tally with the tenth
commandment, which is of the same force and obligation under the gos-
pel, that it possessed under the law? For the Decalogue, like its author,
o'is the same yesterday, to day, and forever.” How can this judging
and damning spirit be reconciled to the spirit of the gospel, which teaches
humility, righteousness, meekness and love? How can it be reconciled
to the precept of the gospel, which says, "Judge not that ye be not
judged?” In fine, in every possible view that can be taken of the prin-
ciples and practices of the abolitionists
, they are wrong. They condemn
what God has approved. They confound what he has made lucid and
plain. They establish a standard for moral evil," which has no exis-
tence, only in their own fanatical imaginations. They erect a tribunal
of judgment and condemnation, which is not recognised by either the
Old Testament or the New. They make the Deity a versatile and
Quoted by Rev. T. Smyth, in his Lectures on Apostolical Succession. Vol. 1
† Ibid, p. 99.
P. 64.

21
capricious being, having no fixed and permanent rule of right and wrong.
They hate, whom God loves. They condemn, whom he approves.
And they consign to endless punishment, in the fames of hell, those
whom the Saviour has promised to make partakers of his glory in Heaven,
Slaveholders, then, may contrast their own spirit and pract ce, with the
spirit and practice of the abolitionists. The one class is quiet and peace-
able--the other is contentious and quarrelsome. The one minds their
own business--the other obtrusively intermeddles with that which does
not belong to them, and for which they cannot be responsible to God.
The one produces strife in the church, and threatens to dissolve the
Union of the States--the other labors to promote God's glory in the sal-
vation of souls, and to support and perpetuate the integrity of the Union.
The conduct of the one has nothing to justify it—that of the other, has.
The principles and practices of the one are positively and repeatedly
condemned in the gospel-not so, those of the other. The course the
abolitionists pursue must lead to their own destruction, whilst there is not
one syllable in the gospel that condemns the other.
PROPOSITION IX. If God communicates his grace and spirit to the
slaveholder, he holds communion and fellowship with the sinner.-If he
does not, the slaveholder is a false witness before God.
Here, again, the doctrine of the abolitionists is at war with the doc-
trine of the Bible. The abolitionists say, slavery is a "great moral evil,"?
and, of consequence, that the slaveholder is a great sinner. If this be
true, Abraham was a great sinner, and so were all the slaveholders in the
Patriarchal and Jewish Churches. And yet, with these very great
sinners did a Holy God hold communion, and to them did He impart his
grace. A clear proof, that slavery is not a moral evil; or, that God held
fellowship with those who were sinners; which is repugnant to every
idea that we have of God, and contrary to every declaration which is re-
corded in his word. If, however, they should say, that slavery was not
a moral evil under the law, but is a moral evil under the gospel, I de-
mand proof for the assertion. I require of them to state the basis of the
distinction. Do they make the distinction to grow out of the nature and
quality of the thing itself? or do they make it by the authority of God's
word? It is unphilosophical and absurd to make the distinction from the
thing itself, for under both dispensations its nature and essence are the
And it is unscriptural to say it was right under the law, but it is
wrong under the gospel. So that if they strive to avoid one horn of the
dilemma, they will fall upon the other—and if they labor to shun Scylla,
they will inevitably be shipwrecked upon Charibdis.
Again: Thousands and tens of thousands of slaveholders, have made a
profession of the religion of Jesus Christ, at the very time they owned
slaves. Now, is their testimony to pass for nothing? It must, or the
doctrine that I am combating, must be founded in error. The slave-
holder tells us that God has pardoned his sins-converted his soul-and
given him his holy spirit to witness, with his spirit, that he is a child of
God. Now, this testimony is true, or it is false. If truemit nullifies the
favorite doctrine of the abolitionists, and silences for ever their clamors
against slaveholders. If false, it must be either an intentional, or unin-
tentional falsehood. If an intentional falsehood, it is a lie-known to be
such at the time, and uttered to deceive. If an unintentional falsehood,
it is a mistake, growing out of, either the imperfection of the powers of
apprehension, or the defect of the testimony. In either case, Religion
receives a mortal stab, and the infidel rejoices over the advocates of the
“For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. xix.
same.
cross.

22
more.
If the testimony of the slaveholder can be thus easily set aside, as being
hypocritical, the testimony of abolitionists can be set aside also. The
slaveholder gives all the proof that the scriptures require, of the reality
of the change of his heart, by the holiness of his life and the uprightness
of his conversation--the abolitionist, if he does that much, can do no
The secret workings of the heart of each are known only to
God, but the overt acts of each become a cognizable affair for the public
eye, and for public opinion.
PROPOSITION X. The Holy Spirit recognises slavery in the New Tes-
tament, and gives directions for the conduct both of masters and slaves.
To quote all the passages from the New Testament, where the original
term doulos occurs, which, in our version, is rendered 'servant,” would
be to transcribe a large portion of this part of the word of God. The
singular number alone, of this noun, according to Cruden's Concordance,
occurs fifty times. And, as it bears different meanings in different places,
I shall give those meanings from Parkhurst's Lexicon. Douleuo, from
doulos, servant or slave, means: 1. To serve, in a civil sense, as a ser-
vant or slave. 2. To serve, be in subjection, in a political sense, as a
conquered nation. 3. To serve, be serviceable to one another, by acts of
kindness. 4. To serve, or be in bondage to, in a religious or spiritual
sense, as to God, Mammon, sin, the law, idols, legal ceremonies, lusts.”
"The Greek word kyrios, answering to the Hebrew adon, to the Latin
dominus, and to the word lord or master in English, was not originally
given, unless by a servant to his master, by a subject to his sovereign, or
in brief, by one bound to obey, to the person entitled to command."
"Kyrios and doulos are corrolates in Greek, just as master and servant are
in English. Indeed, lord and servant are thus used in the common ver-
sion of the gospels, but not so properly.” Campbell on the Gospels,
vol. 1, p. 403.
Now, it is very evident, that the primary meaning of the original word
is slave; and as it occurs so frequently, I shall only transcribe a few pas-
sages, where the term bears that meaning, in proof of my proposition.
“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his
servants ye are to whom ye obey?” Rom. vi. 16. "The word doulos,
which we translate servant, properly signifies slave: and a slave among
the Greeks and Romans was considered as his master's property; and he
might dispose of him as he pleased.” Dr. Clarke.
"Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be
made free, use it rather.” 1 Cor. vii. 21. "Art thou converted to Christ
while thou art a slave? the property of another person, and bought with
his money, care not for it." Dr. Clarke.
"Art thou, for instance, called into the church of Christ, (being) in a
low rank, not only of an hired servant, but a slave? Do not so much re-
gard it, as upon that account, to make thy life uneasy: but if thou canst,
without any sinful method of obtaining it, be made free, choose it rather;
as what is, no doubt in itself, eligible, yet not absolutely necessary to the
happiness of a good man." Dr. Doddridge.
"Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the
Hesh, with fear and trembling, in the singleness of your heart as unto
Christ.” Ephes. vi. 5.
“As the gospel does not cancel the civil rights of mankind, I say to
bond-servants (slaves) obey your masters, who have the property of your
body, with fear and trembling, as liable to be punished by them for dis-
obedience: obey also from the integrity of your own disposition as obey-
ing Christ.” Macknight.

23
"Servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not
with eye-service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing
God." Coll. iii. 2.
"Though the word doulos properly signifies a slave, yet in translations
of the Scriptures designed for countries where slavery is abolished, the
word doulos may with truth be translated a servant.—In this and the
parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 5, the apostle is very particular in his pre-
cepts to slaves and lords, because in all countries where slavery was
established, many of the slaves were exceedingly addicted to fraud,
lying, and stealing, and many of the masters were tyrannical and cruel
to their slaves. Perhaps, also, he was thus particular in his precepts to
slaves, because the Jews held perpetual slavery to be unlawful, and be-
cause the Judaizing teachers propagated that doctrine in the Church.
But from the apostle's precepts it may be inferred, that if slaves are justly
acquired, they may be lawfully retained; as the gospel does not make
void any of the political rights of mankind." Macknight.
"Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own masters
worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not
blasphemed.” I Tim. vi. 1.
The word douloi here means slaves converted to the Christian faith,
and the yoke is the state of slavery. . . . Civil rights are never abolished
by any communications from God's Spirit. The civil state in which a
man was before his conversion, is not altered by that conversion: nor
does the grace of God absolve him from any claims, which either the state
or his neighbour may have on him. All these outward things continue
unaltered." Dr. Clarke.
"Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please
them well in all things; not answering again.” Titus ii. 9.
“The apostle refers to those who were slaves, and the property of their
masters: even these are exhorted to be obedient to their own despots."
Clarke. “Despotes, a sovereign lord, a sovereign.” Parkhurst.
The last I shall notice is the case of Onesimus. Philemon, his master,
was a member of the Church at Colosse: "Some think he was a bishop,
others an elder or deacon." The apostle calls him his fellow-labourer in
the first verse. From him, his slave Onesimus ran away, and came to
Rome, where he was converted to the faith by the preaching of the
apostle. St. Paul was no abolitionist. He acknowledged the right of
Christians to hold slaves. Accordingly he sent Onesimus, the runaway
slave, back to his owner Philemon, and gave him this letter to his master,
in which he engages to pay all the loss that the master sustained by the
running away of the slave. 18, 19 v. Never was there a fairer oppor-
tunity, for the apostle to show his abhorrence of slavery, if he considered
it a "great moral evil,” than presented itself in the case of Onesimus.
But instead of doing this, he becomes a party to the transaction,-sends
back the slave to his owner, and promises to pay the injury sustained,
whatever that might be. Nor is this all: “It may be thought,” says
Dr. Clarke, in his preface to the epistle to Philemon, strange that a short
letter, written entirely on a private subject, without reference to the proof
or defence of any doctrine of the gospel, should, by the general consent
of the Church of God, from the highest Christian antiquity, have been
received into the sacred canon; not only as a genuine production of St.
Paul, but as a piece designed by the Holy Spirit for the edification of the
Church. However, such is the fact: and we may add, that this very
piece was held so sacred, that even the ancient heretics did not attempt

24
woe.
to impugn its authority, or corrupt its matter, while making dangerously
free with the four gospels, and all the other epistles."
PROPOSITION XI. The canon of Scripture is closed: and until the
recognitions and precepts of it are abrogated or destroyed by miracles,
they remain unchanged in all their force and obligation.
It must be obvious to every one who has attended to what I have
already advanced, that I lay great stress on the subject of miracles. And
why? Because, the Divine Being when he would either disturb or annul
the existing relations between master and slave as established by Provi-
dence in Egypt-introduce a new religion-or rescind any part of one
existing at the time, did it by miracles. Without these, how could those,
for whose benefit this change, or this new religion was intended, know
it to be divine? And how could compliance with the demands of the
messenger be expected from the multitude, if they did not see some
signs from heaven corroborative of his claims? It is upon this principle
that every imposter, that ever appeared in the world, has proceeded.
Upon this principle every new sect has been formed, that has introduced
a new religion-and it is by giving credit to the pretensions of these
fanatics and impostors—from the days of Simon Magus, down to those
of Joe Smith the Mormon prophet, that the credulous and ignorant mul-
titude have been induced to leave the plain and simple religion of the
Bible, which conducts to happiness and peace, and to pursue in devious
meanderings those paths, that lead to disappointment, wretchedness and
As this principle is one of common sense, founded in the nature
and fitness of things, it seems strange to me, that the abolitionists did
not perceive the propriety of their laying claim to some supernatural or
divine power, to enable them to induce or compel the slaveholders to let
their negroes go.
To this they have made no pretensions, as far as I
know; but have come up to this Conference with a few memorials sign-
ed by a few men and women, perhaps by boys and girls—without one
argument advanced, or one text of Scripture quoted, to prove that slavery
is wrong. And now, as if Divinely commissioned for the purpose, they
say to all the slaveholders in the Church, you must emancipate your
negroes, or you must be expelled!!! Before they proceed to execute
this threat, let me ask them, if they have duly considered a passage at
the close of the New Testament. "If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out
of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Rev. xxii. 18, 19. This passage, it appears to me, not only recognises
all the doctrines and precepts previously recorded in the New Testament,
but it also guards and defends all the rights and privileges of Church
members. To add to, or substract from the one, cannot be done with
impunity:--and to cut off from the fellowship of the saints, or expel the
the other from Church membership, on unscriptural grounds, brings down
the wrath of God on the head of the transgressor. 1 say, then, to the
abolitionists, BEWARE.
I have now, Mr. President, gone through that part of my argument
which is founded on the Holy Scriptures: and before I sit down, shall
beg leave to offer a few farther remarks with reference to the abolition-
ists themselves-the slave--the Church-and the country. The aboli-
tionists themselves.--I distinguish, sir, between abolitionists in this con-
ference; some are moderate men-some are violent. I beg, then, that

25
the former may not apply to themselves what is intended for the latter.
Three of the latter class—Bennett, Witsel and Hicklin (I am inclined
to think Mr. Jacobs also) called us “THIEVES' in their respective
speeches. Now, I need not ask, is that the language of the Christian?
It is not. Is it the language of the gentleman? It is not. Is it the lan-
guage of common decency? It is not. These men, therefore, who pro-
fess to be ministers of the gospel, ought to study to give a stronger proof
of their alleged divine call, than what is furnished by calling slaveholders
sthieves.” Indeed they ought to know, that if they were to address
this language to a non-professor, personally, they might receive in return
a knock down.
But they will tell us it is true. How? Do they mean to say, that
every slaveholder is personally guilty of theft, in the common accepta-
tion of that term? This is not only false, but it is absurd. They will
tell us, perhaps, that that is not their meaning, but that the ancestors of
slaveholders stole them, and that their descendants are involved in the
crime. Very well; this being their meaning, we will see if they are
guiltless. In a small pamphlet written, I am told, by a gentleman of the
Baltimore bar, he speaks thus: “And here let us look a little more closely
at the connection of our Eastern and Northern friends with Southern
slavery, and endeavour to ascertain, what is their exact position in regard
to the great evil they complain of so bitterly. The Constitution limited
the period for the introduction of slaves into this country to the year
1808. In the convention which formed the Constitution, the delegates
from Virginia insisted upon its immediate discontinuance, deeming it a
political evil: but the representatives from the East and North would
not listen to it, on the ground, that their constituents were extensively
engaged in the slave trade, and must have a reasonable time for winding
up so large a business. Indeed, when a committee of the Convention
had reported in favour of limiting the time to the year 1800, and an
amendment was moved to extend it to 1808, Virginia voted against it,
and the amendment was carried by the votes of Massachusetts, Connec-
ticut and New Hampshire. See the Madison papers.
"A very large portion of all the property, in several of the New Eng-
land States, was earned in the slave trade. It has been estimated, for
example, that if every acre of land in Rhode Island were worth a hun-
dred dollars, the aggregate has been twice over earned by the extensive
and long continued operations of her citizens in the slave trade. The
towns of New Port, Bristol, and Providence, in Rhode Island-Stoning-
ton, New London, and New Haven, in Connecticut-Fall River, Bos-
ton, and Salem, in Massachusetts, were engaged, to a greater or less ex-
tent, for a number of years, in the slave trade; and some of them, like
Liverpool, in England) were almost solely built up by it: and a large
portion of the town of New Port, called Factory Point, now in a state of
ruin, was devoted for many years to this trade-and few other vessels
but the largest Guineamen swam at its wharves." pp. 12, 13.
In the "Southern Quarterly Review," for April
, 1842, we are told,
page 460, "The last prayer Virginia ever made to mortal man, was in
1773, to King George III. to abolish the slave trade, at least as far as
Virginia was concerned. Several of the other colonies sent up to the
throne similar petitions; but Great Britain refused to abolish the traffick.”
“South Carolina, a British colony, passed an act in 1760, to prohibit
further importations; but Great Britain rejected this act with indignation,
and declared that the slave trade was beneficial and necessary to the
mother country.” Dew on Slavery, quoted from Barham's Observations
on the abolition of Negro Slavery,
4

26
9)
See also the 9th section of "Walsh's United States and Great Britain,
where this subject is discussed at great length, and with great ability.
From these extracts it is clear, that if any were "thieves,” they were
the citizens of the Northern and Eastern States, who were engaged in
the slave trade,—whose descendants are now bellowing out against the
descendants of Southern men, who opposed it, “Thieves, -robbers-
pirates."
But there is another view I must take of the subject, and truly it is
a painful one. These violent abolitionists have all along pressed this
Conference to adopt the first resolution in the report of the Committee
on Memorials, which reads thus: "Resolved, That slavery, as it exists in
the Methodist Protestant Church in these United States, is opposed to
the morality of the Holy Scriptures, and consequently a great moral
evil.” Now, sir, if the Conference were to declare, by a solemn vote,
that slavery is a "great moral evil," would that satisfy these gentlemen?
I think not. The next thing would be, to have that vote published in
every
abolition
paper
in the United States, with congratulations to the
friends of abolition everywhere, and with shouts of holy triumph. Well,
would that satisfy them? No. The next thing would be, to turn every
slaveholder out of the Church, for they would have no fellowship with
the unfruitful works of darkness." Well, would they be satisfied with
that? No: They would be for sending emissaries to the South, with in-
flammatory publications and pictorial representations, to excite an insur-
rection among our negroes: and if they could put arms into their hands,
I have no doubt they would do it. This opinion, I am sorry to be
obliged to entertain, but I have no reason to think otherwise, from what
I see and hear on this floor, or from the recollection of what abolitionists
did formerly.
Some twenty years ago, Mr. Samuel G. Griffith, my wife's brother,
had a plantation in Harford county, State of Maryland. A negro fellow
belonging to him ran away-crossed the Susquehannah, and made his
way to Chester, in Pennsylvania. Here he was taken by the hand by
abolitionists. They gave him work-gave him a house--and put fire
arms into his hands. After some time, his master heard where he was,
and taking his overseer with him, went to bring him home. In the eve-
ning, when the fellow had returned from his work, his master, accompa-
nied by the overseer, went to his cabin, and finding the door fast, com-
manded the negro to open it. He refused. The master pushed it open
with his foot, upon which the negro fired.
The master fell, and never
spoke. The negro then turned the gun, and struck the overseer with the
butt-end of it, over the head, and killed him too. The negro was put on
his trial at the next court, for the murder of his master, and was acquit-
ed. Not a word of blame- It was all right-he was perfectly justifiable
according to the doctrine of the abolitionists. He was put on his trial
the court afterwards for the murder of the overseer, and was found guilty
of manslaughter in the second degree, and was sentenced to be branded
with a hot iron in the ball of the thumb of the left hand!!! Is this prac-
tical abolitionism? It is the abolitionism of some, but thank God, not
of all.
2. What have been the effects--what are the effects-and what will
be the effects of the conduct of the abolitionists upon the poor slave?
Tongue cannot tell the thousandth part of the evil that has been done
the slaves, by the officious intermeddling of the abolitionists. I cannot
go into a detail of all that has fallen under my own notice, in the last
fifty years. But arguing f om the past to the future, I prophesy no good
for them, in all coming time. Some forty years ago, I was a member of

27
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was
held in Baltimore, from which addresses were sent out to Charleston, S.
Carolina, on the subject of slavery. Scarcely had these addresses
arrived, before they were seized by the Intendant, at the head of a body
of armed men, and burnt in the street. Severer laws than existed ante-
cedently, were soon enacted, and the Rev. George Dougherty, one of the
best men that ever set foot into an American Methodist pulpit, was drag-
ged by an infuriate mob from Cumberland street Church, and was
pumped in the street. And has not the Rev. Mr. Graves, from Alabama,
told you how difficult it is to obtain access to the poor negro now? Their
condition was good—but you have made it bad. And in spite of all the
warning that has been, or can be given, the abolitionists persist in shut-
ting up every avenue of approach to the slave.
This would not have been the case, had they always acted on the prin-
ciples expressed by the Hon. John Quincy Adams, in one of his speeches
in the House of Representatives. He said, "With slavery in the
Southern States he would not interfere, because, constitutionally, he
could not do so: because he had no right to, and because he was willing
that the South should manage their own institutions, in their own way.'
Let the abolitionists, then, return to these doctrines. Let them act on
these principles; and the privileges and condition of the slave will be
vastly improved, and peace, as a necessary consequence, in both church
and state, will be sure to follow.
3. The church. I need not tell you, Mr. President, that I was one of
a committee, elected by the convention, to draw up a Constitution and
form of Discipline for the church. This committee had an eye to the
constitutions and usages of the non-slaveholding States, as well as to the
institutions and interests of the South. They reported a Constitution, by
which the Annual Conferences of the States respectively, should be per-
mitted to make their own rules and regulations on slavery. The Con-
stitution was adopted, and now some of the abolitionists want to have it
altered. For what purpose? Is it that they may have the pleasure of
expelling slaveholders from the church? Or, is it that they may exalt
the negroes to the condition of legislators? They cannot possibly be so
stupid as to think, that the Southern community will receive their doc-
trines, or be dragooned into their measures, because they propose them.
As it is, they have every thing that they can reasonably require. If they
don't want slaves, there is no power that can compel them to have them.
If other's have them, and can't get rid of them, the abolitionists will not
be damned for the transgression of others.
But there is one point of light in which this subject has not been con-
sidered—it is this. The Constitution of the Church, like the Constitution
of the United States, was framed and adopted in the spirit of compromise.
There were, in the Convention, slaveholders, and there were men who
were opposed to slavery. These all agreed to offer up their respective
peculiarities on one common altar, for the glory of God and for the good
of his Church. In this spirit of peace, the constitution was adopted, and
the church organised. Now, who are they that would disturb this order?
Who are they who are so clamorous for a change? Who are they, that
wish us to violate our conventional faith, and falsify our vows unto each
other, and to the Lord? Men, who had no church existence when the
church was organized! Men, who, when they were about to join the
Church, knew the regulations on the subject of slavery, as well as they
If they did not like the regulations, why did they join? If
they were so violently opposed to slavery, they might have staid with-
out, or gone elsewhere. No: that wouldn't do: they must join the
do now.

28
breast.
church, and now they want the Constitution altered to please them! If
they don't wish to remain under the present Constitution, they may "take
up their bed and walk.”
4. The country. And what is the object of the abolitionists with re-
ference to the country? We are not left to the uncertainty of conjecture
to answer this question. They, themselves, tell us; nor is there any
mincing in their statement.-Hear what Mr. Birney, the abolition no-
minee for the Presidency of the United States, says, in his letter of
January 10, 1842, addressed to the committee of the National Conven-
tion who nominated him for that high office, —“Let the North say, with
an emphasis that cannot be misunderstood, that slavery must be abo-
lished, or the Union be dissolved. It is against this usurper (slavery) we
would lead her, panoplied in the principles of '96, combating to death for
the right, and the true spirit of liberty.'
Such is the language of Mr. Birney, the would-be president of the
United States. There was, however, a time when no man would have
cherished such a sentiment as the dissolution of the Union; or, if he did
entertain it, like the atheistical fool in the scriptures, who denied the ex-
istence of God, the thought would have remained buried in his own
But that time, it seems, is past. And now, the man who is so
foolish or mad, as seriously to entertain that sentiment, and has the har-
dihood to avow it before the world, is the man of all others who is con-
sidered, by the abolitionists, most worthy of the honor, and most capable
of filling the Presidential chair. Good Heavens! has it come to this?
Is the prospect before us—"To be or not to be”-existence or extermina-
tion-life or death? It is, for Birney has said, "slavery must be abo-
lished.” Respecting which, it may be proper to inquire, When and How?
Does he mean gradually, or at once-at the present, or at some future
time? At the present unquestionably, for it is within the term of his
Presidential office, that he intends this mighty and glorious achievement
shall be effected. And How shall it be done—by purchase, or by force?
Not by purchase, or allowing slaveholders an equivalent for their slaves;
for abolitionists do not admit that slaveholders have any right to own
slaves, and, consequently, are not entitled to compensation for their
emancipation. But it shall be done by force, for he says "he will lead
the North against the South, combating to death.” And Philips, an abo-
lition orator, declared at their late meeting in New York, that, "at all
hazard,” the existing state of things must be abolished. “The ten mile
square," says he, "'is the bridge of Lodi—let that be carried and the
battle is won.” The bloody flag is now raised at the mast-head, and
floats in every breeze. The orders are issued—"Give no quarters to the
slaveholders in the South.” Let not the friends of peace then-the
friends of religion--the friends of the country-fold their arms, and
dream of moderation or clemency, from a man or a party who can indulge
such feelings, and avow such doctrines. Let them remember the fate of
Samuel G. Griffith, and the acquittal of his murderer at Chester. The
Southhampton massacre, under Nat Turner, was on a small scale. That
in St. Domingo, on a much larger. But it is intended that the massacre
in slave States shall be conducted on a scale that, for grandeur and
extent, shall eclipse every thing that ever went before it. In the con-
templation of the possibility of such an event, although I have much to
say, I am so affected I am unable to proceed. Believing that the destruc-
tion of Southern men is intended, and will be effected by the abolition-
ists if they can, I shall close with a passage of scripture
, “And they had
a king over them which is the Angel of the bottomless pit
, whose name
in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his
name APOLLYON.” Rev, ix. 11.


WASHINGTON CITY, Aug 1, 1842.
My Dear Sir:-I have perused, with great interest, the speech you delivered before
the General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, defending the institution
of slavery against the attacks of the abolitionists. The ability with which it is prepared
-the research it displays—and the truly christian and patriotic spirit it manifests
throughout, is well calculated to open the eyes of the virtuous of all denominations to
the gross injustice these fanatics would visit upon so large a portion of the christian
community, and the ruin they would bring upon the political institutions of our
country, could they succeed in their unholy purposes.
I am, dear sir, with the highest respect, your ob't serv't,
The Rev. ALEX'R McCAINE.
WILLIAM R. KING.
SENATE CHAMBER, 1 August, 1842.
Dear Sir:-Under the pressure of accumulated business, at the cise of a long
session, I have been unable to examine with the attention which it merits, the speech
you did me the honor to present to me. From the hurried glance I have been able to
bestow upon it, it appears to me to be characterized by talent, learning and research,
and well calculated to mitigate the wild spirit of fanaticism which invokes the inter-
position of religion, and would pervert ils gentle precepts to the promotion of in-
cendiarism and bloodshed.
If your speech shall contribute to this end, you will have deserved well of your
country.
Y'r ob't serv't, WM. C. PRESTON.
Rev. A. McCAINE.
Washington, 30 August, 1842
Rev'd Sir:- I have read, with great attention, your "Speech delivered before the General Conference of
the Methodist Protestant Church in Baltimore." I concur with you in believing that the conduct of the
abolitionists is injurious to the slave, dangerous to his master, aud calculated to dismember the happiest and
best form of government on earth-the Union of these States. You have exhibited the Christian aspect of
the subject in a new light. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were blessed by God when they were slaveholders,
as undoubtedly they were; if, under the Christian dispensation, rules were prescribed for the observance
of masters and slaves towards each other, and no candid man can read the testament and deny it; it must be
arrogance, pharasaical and disgusting arrogance, on the part of the abolitionists, to denounce slaveholding
members of the Church as "thieves, robbers and pirates, Jesus Christ left no such example for imitation.
I shall be glad to see your speech extensively circulated. Its research cannot fail to excite investigation
and thought, and these, with the American people, never fail ultimately to produce good results.
Very respectfully, your ob't serýt, J. R. UNDERWOOD.
Rev. A. McCaine.
House of Representatives, Washington, August 3, 1842.
Rev'd and Dear Sir:-I have risen from the perusal of your speech, defending slavery from the attacks
of the abolitionists, and cannot but express my admiration at the manner in which the scriptural authorities
in favor of Southern institutions, have been collected, collated and arranged.
You have most clearly shewn, that from Noah to St. Paul—from Canaan to Onesimus--from Shem to
Philemon-the relation of master and slave has been recognized by God and his special messengers.
have most conclusively maintained the affirmative proposition of sanctioned slavery." Let the abolitionists
shew a negative phrase in the old or New Testament. What do they find-either in the history of God's
chosen people, or under the new dispensation which includes the Gentiles-declarative of universal emanci-
pation?
You
God made the world, and placed thereon, divers orders of beings, and varied races of men-subordina-
tion runs throughout the whole arrangement--society cannot exist without it--and what is slavery but one of
the modes of subordination?-What is it, but compulsory labor? and what free state exists without compul-
sory labor in the army, navy, apprentice, vagrant,
and penitentiary systems.
When driven from scriptural grounds, the abolitionists resort to the Declaration of Independence-“All
men are born free and equal"__therefore they should remain equal. If this argument proves any thing, it
proves that as all men are born ignorant, therefore all men should remain so. Servitude in every grade,
from the most modified to the most absolute, is but the result and the manifestation of varied intelligence-
and slavery, in one form or other, must exist until the minds of all men are equally illumined by the efful-
gence of the millennial noon.
With great respect, y'r ob't serv't,
J. E. HOLMES.
Washington, August 1, 1842.
Dear Sir: I received a pamphlet on Slavery written by you, and have read it with great pleasure. A
few more such bold and independent appeals to the Christian community of the North, if they could be cir-
culated amongst them, will give a death blow to that class, who assume to be the self-righteous, and only true
Christians. Accept m warmest thanks. Very respectfully, your ob't servit,
Rev. A. Mc Caine.
P. C. CALDWELL, House of Rep.
Washington, 31 August, 1842.
My Dear Sir: I have read, with pleasure, your pamphlet entitled, “Slavery defended from Scripture
against the attacks of the Abolitionists."
You have fully and ably made good that title. You have shown, beyond all controversy, that slavery is
sanctioned both by the Old and New Testament. He who denies it, if not blinded by fanaticism, must be a
hypocrite.
I trust your pamphlet will have a wide circulation. It is calculated to do good, not only by repelling the
assaults of the designing and fanatical, on our institutions, but also by confirming the South in its determina-
tion of upholding them.
A Mysterious Providence has thought proper to bring together, in that portion of the Union, two races
in nearly equal numbers, from different continents, and of the most opposite colour and character of any two
on the Globe. They have lived together, under their present relation, for more than two centuries, in
peace and prosperity, with the greatest improvement of the inferior race, physically, intellectually and
morally, and without deterioration of the superior. They cannot be seperated; nor can they live together
under any other. Destroy it, and one or the other must be subjected, expelled or extirpated. Safety,
patriotism and duty commands us, then, to maintain it at all hazard; and in obeying their mandate, you
have shown, that we have the high and holy sanction of Scripture, despite the fury of the fanatic, or the
hypocrisy of the designing.
I regret that unavoidable engagements prevented me from tendering you, at an earlier period, my thanks
for your pamphlet.
With great respect, I am, &c. &c.
Rev. Alexander McCaine.
J. C. CALHOUN.
Rev. A. McCaine.