Thomas Scott, the celebrated English Presbyterian Commentator, says:—

“To number the persons of men with beasts, sheep, and horses, as the stock of a farm, or with bales of goods, as the cargo of a ship, is, no doubt, a most detestable and anti-Christian practice.”

From a resolution denunciatory of slavery, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in 1818, we make the following extract:—

“We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature, as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the Gospel of Christ, which enjoins that ‘all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.’ * * * We rejoice that the church to which we belong commenced, as early as any other in this country, the good work of endeavoring to put an end to slavery, and that in the same work many of its members have ever since been, and now are, among the most active, vigorous, and efficient laborers. * * * We earnestly exhort them to continue, and, if possible, to increase, their exertions to effect a total abolition of slavery.”

A Committee of the Synod of Kentucky, in an address to the Presbyterians of that State, says:—

“That our negroes will be worse off, if emancipated, is, we feel, but a specious pretext for lulling our own pangs of conscience, and answering the argument of the philanthropist. None of us believe that God has so created a whole race that it is better for them to remain in perpetual bondage.”

EPISCOPAL TESTIMONY.

BISHOP HORSLEY says:—

“Slavery is injustice, which no consideration of policy can extenuate.”

BISHOP BUTLER says:—

“Despicable as the negroes may appear in our eyes, they are the creatures of God, and of the race of mankind, for whom Christ died, and it is inexcusable to keep them in ignorance of the end for which they were made, and of the means whereby they may become partakers of the general redemption.”

BISHOP PORTEUS says:—

“The Bible classes men-stealers or slave-traders among the murderers of fathers and mothers, and the most profane criminals on earth.”

John Jay, Esq., of the City of New-York—a most exemplary Episcopalian—in a pamphlet entitled, “Thoughts on the Duty of the Episcopal Church, in Relation to Slavery,” says:—

“Alas! for the expectation that she would conform to the spirit of her ancient mother! She has not merely remained a mute and careless spectator of this great conflict of truth and justice with hypocrisy and cruelty, but her very priests and deacons may be seen ministering at the altar of slavery, offering their talents and influence at its unholy shrine, and openly repeating the awful blasphemy, that the precepts of our Saviour sanction the system of American slavery. Her Northern clergy, with rare exceptions, whatever they may feel on the subject, rebuke it neither in public nor in private, and her periodicals, far from advancing the progress of abolition, at times oppose our societies, impliedly defending slavery, as not incompatible with Christianity, and occasionally withholding information useful to the cause of freedom.”

A writer in a late number of “The Anti-Slavery Church man,” published in Geneva, Wisconsin, speaking of a certain portion of the New Testament, says:—

“This passage of Paul places necessary work in the hands of Gospel ministers. If they preach the whole Gospel, they must preach what this passage enjoins—and if they do this, they must preach against American slavery. Its being connected with politics does not shield them. Political connections cannot place sin under protection. They cannot throw around it guards that the public teachers of morals may not pass. Sin is a violation of God’s law—and God’s law must be proclaimed and enforced at all hazards. This is the business of the messenger of God, and if anything stands in its way, it is his right, rather it is his solemn commission, to go forward—straightway to overpass the lines that would shut him out, and utter his warnings. Many sins there are, that, in like manner, might be shielded. Fashion, and rank, and business, are doing their part to keep much sin in respectability, and excuse it from the attacks of God’s ministers. But what are these, that they should seal a minister’s lips—what more are the wishes of politicians?”

For further testimony from this branch of the Christian system, if desired, we refer the reader to the Rev. Dudley A. Tyng, the Rev. Evan M. Johnson, and the Rev. J. McNamara,—all Broad Church Episcopalians, whose magic eloquence and irresistible arguments bid fair, at an early day, to win over to the paths of progressive freedom, truth, justice and humanity, the greater number of their High and Low Church brethren.

BAPTIST TESTIMONY.

Concerning a certain text, the Rev. Mr. Brisbane, once a slaveholding Baptist in South Carolina, says:—

“Paul was speaking of the law as having been made for men-stealers. Where is the record of that law? It is in Exodus xxi. 16, and in these words: ‘He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his possession, he shall surely be put to death.’ Here it will be perceived that it was a crime to sell the man, for which the seller must suffer death. But it was no less a crime to hold him as a slave, for this also was punishable with death. A man may be kidnapped out of slavery into freedom. There was no law against that. And why? Because kidnapping a slave and placing him in a condition of freedom, was only to restore him to his lost rights. But if the man who takes him becomes a slaveholder, or a slave seller, then he is a criminal, liable to the penalty of death, because he robs the man of liberty. Perhaps some will say this law was only applicable to the first holder of the slave, that is, the original kidnapper, but not to his successors who might have purchased or inherited him. But what is kidnapping? Suppose I propose to a neighbor to give him a certain sum of money if he will steal a white child in Carolina and deliver him to me. He steals him; I pay him the money upon his delivering the child to me. Is it not my act as fully as his? Am I not also the thief? But does it alter the case whether I agree before hand or not, to pay him for the child? He steals him, and then sells him to me. He is found by his parents in my hands. Will it avail me to say I purchased him and paid my money for him? Will it not be asked, Do you not know that a white person is not merchantable? And shall I not have to pay the damage for detaining that child in my service as a slave? Assuredly, not only in the eyes of the law, but in the judgment of the whole community, I would be regarded a criminal. So when one man steals another and offers him for sale, no one, in view of the Divine law, can buy him, for the reason that the Divine law forbids that man shall in the first place be made a merchantable article. The inquiry must be, if I buy, I buy in violation of the Divine law, and it will not do for me to plead that I bought him. I have him in possession, and that is enough, God condemns me for it as a man-stealer. My having him in possession is evidence against me, and the Mosaic law says, if he be found in my hands, I must die. Now, when Paul said the law was made for men-stealers, was it not also saying the law was made for slaveholders? I am not intending to apply this term in harsh spirit. But I am bound, as I fear God to speak what I am satisfied is the true meaning of the apostle.”

In his “Elements of Moral Science,” the Rev. Francis Wayland, D.D., one of the most erudite and distinguished Baptists now living, says:—

Abraham Booth, an eminent theological writer of the Baptist persuasion, says:—

“I have not a stronger conviction of scarcely anything, than that slaveholding (except when the slave has forfeited his liberty by crimes against society) is wicked and inconsistent with Christian character. To me it is evident, that whoever would purchase an innocent black man to make him a slave, would with equal readiness purchase a white one for the same purpose could he do it with equal impunity, and no more disgrace.”

At a meeting of the General Committee of the Baptists of Virginia, in 1789, the following resolution was offered by Eld. John Leland, and adopted:—

“Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, and inconsistent with republican government, and therefore we recommend it to our brethren to make use of every measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it in their power to proclaim the great jubilee, consistent with the principles of good policy.”

METHODIST TESTIMONY.

John Wesley, the celebrated founder of Methodism, says:—

“Men buyers are exactly on a level with men stealers.”

Again, he says:—

“American Slavery is the vilest that ever saw the sun; it constitutes the sum of all villanies.”

The learned Dr. Adam Clarke, author of a voluminous commentary on the Scriptures, says:—

“Slave-dealers, whether those who carry on the traffic in human flesh and blood; or those who steal a person in order to sell him into bondage; or those who buy such stolen men or women, no matter of what color, or what country; or the nations who legalize or connive at such traffic; all these are men-stealers, and God classes them with the most flagitious of mortals.”

One of the rules laid down in the Methodist Discipline as amended in 1784, was as follows:—

“Every member of our Society who has slaves in his possession, shall, within twelve months after notice given to him by the assistant, legally execute and record an instrument, whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in his possession.”

Another rule was in these words:—

“No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into Society, or to the Lord’s Supper, till he previously complies with these rules concerning slavery.”

The answer to the question—“What shall be done with those who buy or sell slaves, or give them away”—is couched in the following language:—

“They are immediately to be expelled, unless they buy them on purpose to free them.”

In 1785, the voice of this church was heard as follows:—

“We do hold in the deepest abhorrence the practice of slavery, and shall not cease to seek its destruction, by all wise and prudent means.”

In 1797, the Discipline contained the following wholesome paragraph:—

“The preachers and other members of our Society are requested to consider the subject of negro slavery, with deep attention, and that they impart to the General Conference, through the medium of the Yearly Conferences, or otherwise, any important thoughts on the subject, that the Conference may have full light, in order to take further steps towards eradicating this enormous evil from that part of the Church of God with which they are connected. The Annual Conferences are directed to draw up addresses for the gradual emancipation of the slaves, to the legislatures of those States in which no general laws have been passed for that purpose. These addresses shall urge, in the most respectful but pointed manner, the necessity of a law for the gradual emancipation of slaves. Proper committees shall be appointed by the Annual Conferences, out of the most respectable of our friends, for conducting the business; and presiding elders, elders, deacons, and traveling preachers, shall procure as many proper signatures as possible to the addresses, and give all the assistance in their power, in every respect, to aid the committees, and to forward the blessed undertaking. Let this be continued from year to year, till the desired end be accomplished.”

CATHOLIC TESTIMONY.

It has been only about twenty years since Pope Gregory XVI. immortalized himself by issuing the famous Bull against slavery, from which the following is an extract:—

We have already quoted the language of Pope Leo X., who says:—

“Not only does the Christian religion, but nature herself cry out against the State of slavery.”

The Abbe Raynal says:—

“He who supports slavery is the enemy of the human race. He divides it into two societies of legal assassins, the oppressors and the oppressed. I shall not be afraid to cite to the tribunal of reason and justice those governments which tolerate this cruelty, or which even are not ashamed to make it the basis of their power.”

From the proceedings of a Massachusetts Anti-slavery Convention in 1855, we make the following extract:—

“Henry Kemp, a Roman Catholic, came forward to defend the Romish Church in reply to Mr. Foster. He claimed that the Catholic Church is thoroughly anti-slavery—as thoroughly as even his friend Foster.”

Thus manfully do men of pure hearts and noble minds, whether in Church or State, and without regard to sect or party, lift up their voices against the wicked and pernicious institution of human slavery. Thus they speak, and thus they are obliged to speak, if they speak at all; it is only the voice of Nature, Justice, Truth, and Love, that issues from them. The divine principle in man prompts him to speak and strike for Freedom; the diabolical principle within him prompts him to speak and strike for slavery.

From those churches which are now—as all churches ought to be, and will be, ere the world becomes Christianized—thoroughly imbued with the principles of freedom, we do not, as already intimated, deem it particularly necessary to bring forward new arguments in opposition to slavery. If, however, the reader would be pleased to hear from the churches to which we chiefly allude—and, by the bye, he might hear from them with much profit to himself—we respectfully refer him to Henry Ward Beecher, George B. Cheever, Joseph P. Thompson, Theodore Parker, E. H. Chapin, and H. W. Bellows, of the North, and to M. D. Conway, John G. Fee, James S. Davis, Daniel Wilson, and W. E. Lincoln, of the South. All these reverend gentlemen, ministers of different denominations, feel it their duty to preach against slavery, and, to their honor be it said, they do preach against it with unabated zeal and success. Our earnest prayer is, that Heaven may enable them, their cotemporaries and successors, to preach against it with such energy and effect, as will cause it to disappear forever from the soil of our Republic.

CHAPTER VII.

Every person who has read the Bible, and who has a proper understanding of its leading moral precepts, feels, in his own conscience, that it is the only original and complete anti-slavery text-book. In a crude state of society—in a barbarous age—when men were in a manner destitute of wholesome laws, either human or divine, it is possible that a mild form of slavery may have been tolerated, and even regulated, as an institution clothed with the importance of temporary recognition; but the Deity never approved it, and, for the very reason that it is impossible for him to do wrong, he never will, never can approve it. The worst system of servitude of which we have any account in the Bible—and, by the way, it furnishes no account of anything so bad as slavery (the evil-one and his hot home alone excepted)—was far less rigorous and atrocious than that now established in the Southern States of this Confederacy. Even that system, however, the worst, which seems to have been practiced to a considerable extent by those venerable old fogies, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was one of the monstrous inventions of Satan that God “winked” at; and, to the mind of the biblical scholar, nothing can be more evident than that He determined of old, that it should, in due time, be abolished. To say that the Bible sanctions slavery is to say that the sun loves darkness; to say that one man was created to domineer over another is to call in question the justice, mercy, and goodness of God.

We will now listen to a limited number of the

PRECEPTS AND SAYINGS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

And now we will listen to a few selected

PRECEPTS AND SAYINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Some years ago a clerical lickspittle of the slave power had the temerity to publish a book or pamphlet entitled “Bible Defence of Slavery,” which the Baltimore Sun, in the course of a caustic criticism, handled in the following manner:—

“Bible defence of slavery! There is no such thing as a Bible defence of slavery at the present day. Slavery in the United States is a social institution, originating in the convenience and cupidity of our ancestors, existing by State laws, and recognized to a certain extent—for the recovery of slave property—by the Constitution. And nobody would pretend that, if it were inexpedient and unprofitable for any man or any State to continue to hold slaves, they would be bound to do so on the ground of a “Bible defence” of it. Slavery is recorded in the Bible, and approved, with many degrading characteristics. War is recorded in the Bible, and approved, under what seems to us the extreme of cruelty. But are slavery and war to endure for ever because we find them in the Bible? or are they to cease at once and for ever because the Bible inculcates peace and brotherhood?”

Thus, in the last five chapters inclusive, have we introduced a mass of anti-slavery arguments, human and divine, that will stand, irrefutable and convincing, as long as the earth itself shall continue to revolve in its orbit. Aside from unaffected truthfulness and candor, no merit is claimed for anything we have said on our own account. With the best of motives, and in the language of nature more than that of art, we have simply given utterance to the honest convictions of our heart—being impelled to it by a long-harbored and unmistakable sense of duty which grew stronger and deeper as the days passed away.

If half the time which has been spent in collecting and arranging these testimonies had been occupied in the composition of original matter, the weight of paper and binding and the number of pages would have been much greater, but the value and the effect of the contents would have been far less. From the first, our leading motive has been to convince our fellow-citizens of the South, non-slaveholders and slaveholders, that slavery, whether considered in all its bearings, or, setting aside the moral aspect of the question, and looking at it in only a pecuniary point of view, is impolitic, unprofitable, and degrading; how well, thus far, we have succeeded in our undertaking, time will, perhaps, fully disclose.

In the words of a contemporaneous German writer, whose language we readily and heartily endorse, “It is the shame of our age that argument is needed against slavery.” Taking things as they are, however, argument being needed, we have offered it; and we have offered it from such sources as will, in our honest opinion, confound the devil and his incarnate confederates.

These testimonies, culled from the accumulated wisdom of nearly six thousand centuries, beginning with the great and good men of our own time, and running back through distant ages to Saint Paul, Saint John, and Saint Luke, to Cicero, Plato, and Socrates, to Solomon, David, and Moses, and even to the Deity himself, are the pillars of strength and beauty upon which the popularity of our work will, in all probability, be principally based. If the ablest writers of the Old Testament; if the eloquent prophets of old; if the renowned philosophers of Greece and Rome; if the heavenly-minded authors and compilers of the New Testament; if the illustrious poets and prose-writers, heroes, statesmen, sages of all nations, ancient and modern; if God himself and the hosts of learned ministers whom he has commissioned to proclaim his word—if all these are wrong, then we are wrong; on the other hand, however, if they are right, we are right; for, in effect, we only repeat and endeavor to enforce their precepts.

If we are in error, we desire to be corrected; and, if it is not asking too much, we respectfully request the advocates of slavery to favor us with an exposé of what they, in their one-sided view of things, conceive to be the advantages of their favorite and peculiar institution. Such an exposé, if skillfully executed, would doubtless be regarded as the funniest novel of the times—a fit production, if not too immoral in its tendencies, to be incorporated into the next edition of D’Israeli’s curiosities of literature.

CHAPTER VIII.

At present, all we ask of pro-slavery men, no matter in what part of the world they may reside, is to look these figures fairly in the face. We wish them to do it, in the first instance, not on the platforms of public debate, where the exercise of eloquence is too often characterized by violent passion and subterfuge, but in their own private apartments, where no eye save that of the All-seeing One will rest upon them, and where, in considering the relations which they sustain to the past, the present, and the future, an opportunity will be afforded them of securing that most valuable of all possessions attainable on earth, a conscience void of offence toward God and man.

Each separate table or particular compilation of statistics will afford food for at least an hour’s profitable reflection; indeed, the more these figures are studied, and the better they are understood, the sooner will the author’s object be accomplished,—the sooner will the genius of Universal Liberty dispel the dark clouds of slavery.

TABLE NO. XXVI.

TONNAGE, EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF THE FREE STATES—1855.

TABLE NO. XXVII.

TONNAGE, EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF THE SLAVE STATES—1855.

TABLE NO. XXVIII.

PRODUCT OF MANUFACTURES IN THE FREE STATES—1850.

TABLE NO. XXIX.

PRODUCT OF MANUFACTURES IN THE SLAVE STATES—1850.

TABLE NO. XXX.

MILES OF CANALS AND RAILROADS IN THE FREE STATES—1854-1857.

TABLE NO. XXXI.

MILES OF CANALS AND RAILROADS IN THE SLAVE STATES—1854-1857.

TABLE NO. XXXII.

BANK CAPITAL IN THE FREE AND IN THE SLAVE STATES—1855.

TABLE NO. XXXIII.

MILITIA FORCE OF THE FREE AND THE SLAVE STATES—1852.

TABLE NO. XXXIV.

POST OFFICE OPERATIONS IN THE FREE STATES—1855.

TABLE NO. XXXV.

POST OFFICE OPERATIONS IN THE SLAVE STATES—1855.