and the results of these manifold collection?
are embraced in the digest of various read-
ings given by Mr. Alford. This embodies in
a condensed form, and by an admirable sys-
tem of notation, all that can be said on the
subject. No essential additions, we believe,
can be made to it, unless new manuscripts
are brought to light, or a more exhaustive
collation of existing ones be performed. Nor
should it be forgotten that the existence and
character of these various readings are the
surest guaranty for the substantial purity of
the text.
" St. Paul, in the epistles to the Ephesians,
Colossians, I Timothy, and Titus, treats upon
the relative duties of masters and slaves, but
without exhibiting any hostility to the sys-
tem. In the seventh chapter of first Corin-
thians, however, he gives utterance to an ex-
pression which has long been so rendered as
fully to commit the apostle as the open oppo-
nent of slavery, and has been often quoted as
entirely conclusive upon that point. Before
entering into the exegesis of the passage, we
will, in elucidation of the position of slavery
in the Roman world at the time the epistle
was written, lay before the reader an extract
from Mr. Bancroft's essay on the 'Decline of
the Roman people.'
"The aristocracy owned the soil and its
cultivators: The free citizens were poor and
degraded. The third class were the class of
slaves. It was three times as numerous as
the others; though the whole body belonged
almost exclusively to the wealthy. Their
numbers excited constant apprehension, but
care was taken not to distinguish them by a
peculiar dress. Their ranks were recruited
in various ways.
"The manner in which the laborers on the
great plantations were treated, resembled the
modern state prison discipline. They were
sent out by day to labor in chains, and at
night were locked up in cells. Domestic
slaves were sent to various workshops, es-
tablished on purpose to tame the obstinate.
Every expedient that human cruelty could
devise, was employed to insure industry and
docility. The runaway, if re-taken, was
branded or crucified, or sold for a gladiator.
The slave was valued only as property.
"It does not appear," says the reviewer,
" that St. Paul attempted to effect any change
in the civil institutions of the world. Had
he presented the Christian religion as an op-
ponent of those institutions, as hostile to the
existing rights of the most influential class
of society, and an avowed aggressor upon that
class, in the first place, he would have been
met at the outset by the whole power of the
Roman arm, and no ordinary miracle could
have enabled him to have obtained a foothold
for the cross; and, in the next place, he
would have secured nothing but mutual in-
jury in such a crusade. It is true that his
most bitter enemy was the Jew; but the |
only attacks upon him that were effective,
were made by the Roman authorities. It
was from them that the Christians had dan-
ger to apprehend. In view of this fact, St.
Paul's instructions and commands required
from the converts to Christianity, the observ-
ance of the laws, submission to authorities,
the cultivation of peace, and that they should
endeavor to have an honest report among
those who were not of the faith. Could they
have conducted themselves ' honestly towards
those without,' would they have obeyed the
instructions of the apostle, had they exhibited
themselves as disturbers of the existing rela-
tions of society, as public disorganizers? St.
Paul offered them no such example. The
laws as he found them, be conformed to."
You recollect that Onesimus was a con-
verted slave, and a fugitive, and what did St.
Paul do? He returned him to his master,
thereby not interfering with the existing in-
stitutions of the country. If slavery had
been so great an evil, so great a crime, he
certainly would have left on record something
against such an institution. You may search
the Bible from beginning to end. You may
go back to the Jewish dispensation, and up
to the Christian period, and you will not find
in the Bible one solitary word which will
bear yon out in the destruction of slavery,
which yon are now contending for. Look
at the decalogue. I suppose there is no gen-
tleman within the sound of my voice who
does not understand, and who has not com-
mitted to heart, and perhaps can repeat them
better than I can, the Ten Commandments.
What is the fourth commandment? That
neither your man servant nor your maid
servant shall labor on the Sabbath. If
slavery did not exist, could there have been
man servants and maid servants? Not ac-
cording to the modern acceptation of the
term. It does seem to me that upon that
branch of the subject, the authority which I
have quoted, in the absence of any other au-
thority to the contrary, is at least equal to
what was said on that subject to this Conven-
tion.
I believe the most prominent argument
which baa been used for the destruction of
slavery is, that it has been the cause of the
war, and that its destruction is necessary to
restore the Government. I do not mean to
argue that branch of the subject in detail;
but have not I as much right to my property
in slaves as I have to my property in real
estate; or to any other property? The Con-
stitution of the United States, under which
this Union was formed, guarantees to me not
only the possession but the fruition of that
property. If, then, I have the right to hold
that property under the Constitution, and if
I have not in consequence of holding that
property, done anything in derogation of my
allegiance to the State, or obedience to the
Constitution of the United States in refer- |
