ducing the document, which I had not time
to do, for it fully substantiates my position.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It seems to be my misfor-
tune to be thrown upon the last hours of a
discussion. I propose to make the beat use
possible of the time left for me; and lest I
should not be able to get through, I will state
to the Convention what it is my purpose to
accomplish.
I shall endeavor to satisfy the Convention
of these points:
That slavery is neither a sin nor a moral
offence in the view of the Old Testament, or
the New, or the Church of God, or the opin-
ion of saints and servants of our inaster.
That it never has been considered in Mary-
land a sin or crime, except by a few persons
whose habits and thoughts and education
have been derived from without the State.
That it exists in Maryland by contract, in
every sense of the term; a contract made by
the framers of the Constitution; and espe-
cially, as it now exists, a contract among
ourselves.
That this contract is protected in express
terms by the Constitution of the United
States.
That therefore this body has no right to
manumit in the mode now proposed.
That if they did possess this right, it
would not be expedient to exercise it.
That the measure, thus inexpedient, is not
justified by any necessity of the country, not
being in itself at all calculated to aid in
crushing the rebellion; which is the great
argument of the advocates of this measure.
I confess to the most perfect surprise at the
manner in which this subject is dehated here.
I have heard the strangest exposition of Bible
texts that I ever heard in my life except on
one occasion. I was once travelling on a car
in the North with a number of gentlemen,
among whom was apreacher—of what de-
nomination I did not learn—who was a very
ardent abolitionist; and then I did hear the
opinion advanced which was advanced by the
gentleman from Baltimore (Mr. Stockbridge)
last night, who thought that Onesimus was
a brother either of St. Paul or Philemon.
His idea was that he was a brother of Paul's,
because St. Paul said he was no longer a
servant but a brother beloved. I thought
that was a remarkable idea, never having
seen it before; and I could only remark that
St. Paul must have had most fruitful parents,
the most fruitful known on the face of the
earth; for he addressed the Romans, Corin-
thians, Galatians, Ephesians, and all the va.
rious people to whom he wrote his epistles, by
the same title.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Did yon understand me
to take that position ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Certainly I did.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. That Onesimus was a
brother of St. Paul?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, air.
47 |
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Not at all. I stated the
principal facts of the cage and quoted simply
the words of the Apostle, to receive him,
" not now as a servant, but above & servant,
a brother beloved." I never had the slightest
idea that Onesimus was literally a brother :
and the gentleman entirely misunderstood
me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. One thing the gentleman
did gay. But I forbear to pursue that matter,
for I should certainly be most unwilling to
impute to any gentleman an argument of such
absurdity. I am always happy to be cor-
rected, if I have misunderstood what was
said. The gentleman did say one thing—I
presume I am right in that—that this idea of
justifying slavery by this quotation, was an
American idea, never heard of across the
waters. I understood the gentleman in so
many words to say that no writer beyond the
water had ever adopted this view. Am I
wrong in that?
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Yes, sir; I think that
has been argued here; but I did not argue it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I hold in my hand the
second edition of a book published in Liver-
pool by a learned divine. Rev. R, Harris, in
the year 1788; in which he goes far beyond
any proposition that has been entertained
here. He goes to the whole extent of saying,
not only that slavery in the times of the Old
Testament history was actually ordered by
the Deity, but that it was enjoined since the
Christian dispensation by the Apostles. I
rather think that the converse of the propo-
sition is true; that until this system of abo-
litionism originated, which is of compara-
tively late origin, within less than half a
century, it was not in the power of any gen-
tleman, whatever might be his industry, to
find an intelligent divine who maintained
that by the Gospel, slavery was a sin and an
immorality. I have not seen such an au-
thority. While denunciation, harsh terms and
crimination, in the most offensive words,
such as belong to none but the vilest criminal
have been heaped day after day upon slavery,
gentlemen have forgotten that the memory of
their ancestors, their fathers and grandfathers,
is involved; that they were participants in
this great sin and immorality, this worst of
all evils.
I maintain that before the first book of the
Old Testament was written slavery existed.
It existed in the time of the patriarchs before
Moses had a being. I maintain that it exis-
ted during the Mosaic dispensation. I main-
tain that it existed at the time when our Sa-
viour came on earth; that it existed when
the apostles addressed their epistles to the va-
rious churches; that it bos existed from that
time to the present; and that until lately
it never was impeached as an institutions or
frowned upon in any form by the Gospel of
Christ. In page 32 of this book, referring to
Exod. chap. 21: v. 1, 4: |
