The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1861-02-27

triumph of their views. Others stand off at
what they suppose o safe distance, as Shimei
did when he stood on an opposite hill to curse
! King David, and rebuke the sin, and denounee
! Divine judgments upon the sinner. others,
more practical, if not more prudent, 60 into the
very midst OF the alledged wickedness, and
teach servants under the yoke'' that they ought
not to count their own idaSters worthy OF all
honor--that liberty is their unaienable right
which they should maintain, if necessary, even
by the shedding of blood. Now, it is not for
kme to decide whether the man who breaches
this doctrine in brave words, amid applauding
multitudes in the city of Brooklyn, or the one
who, in the stiffness OF the night, and in the
face Of the laws terrors. goes to preaching at
Harper's Ferry, is the most consistent Aboli-
nionist, and the most heroic man. II is not for
me to decide which is the most important part
of tree; and if the tree be poisonous, which
Is the most injurious, the root, or tie branches,
or the fruit. But am here tonight, in Gods
name, and by his help, to show that this tree
ofAbolitiohism is evil, and only evil--root and
branch, flower, and leaf and fruit; that it
springs from, and is nourished by, an utter re-
lection of the Scriptures; that it produces no
real benefit to the enslaved, and that is the
fruitful source OF division and strife, and infdel
ity, in both Church and State. | have four
disctinct propositions on the subject to maintain
-four thesis to nail up before this pulpit, and
defend with the "word of God, which is the
sword Of the Spirit"
L--Abolitionism has no foundation in the
Scriptures.
U.--fts principles have been promulgated
chiefly by Misrepresentation and abuse.
III 1t leads in multitu6es Of cases, and by
logical process, to utter infidelity.
lV.--It is the chief cause of the strife that
a2itates, and the danger that threatens, our
country.
t--ABoLirIoNrsM HAS NO FOUNDATION IN SCRIP.
TURE. ,
Passing by the records of the patrarchal age
and waving the question as to those servants in
Abrahams family who, in the simple, but ex-
pressive language Of Scripture, "were bought
with his mouey,' let US come at once to the
tribunal Of that law which God promulgated a.
mid the solemnities Of Sinai What said the
law and the testimony to that peculiar people
over whom God ruled, and for whose institu-
tions He has assumed the responsibility? The
answer is in the twenty.fi fifth chapter OF Levitt
GUS in these Words
"And if Thy brother that dwelleth by thee be
waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shall not
compel him to serve as bond SERVANT but as a
hired servant and sojourner he shall be with
thee, and shall thee unto the year OF jubilee
and then shall he depart from thee, both he and
his children with him."
So far you will observe, the law refers to the
children Of Israel who by reason of poverty
were reduced to servitude. 1t was their right
to be free at the year Of jubilee, unless they
chose to remain in perpetual bondage; for
which provision is made in other enactments.T
But not so with slaves Of foreign BIRTH There
was no year OF jubilee provided for them.t For
what says the law? Read the forty fourth to
forty sixth verses Of the chapter.
Both thy bondn1en and thy bondmads which
thou shalt have shall be of the beathen that are
round about you OF them shall ye buy bondmen
and bUndmalds Moreover, OF the children at the
strangers that do sojourn among you-of them
sha ye bny and of their families that are with
you, which they begat in your land and they shall
be your possession. And ye shall take them as
inheritance for your children after you, to inherit
them as possession; they shall be your bondmeh
forever"
/ There it Is, plainly written in the DiYihe law,
No legislative enactment, no statute framed by
legal skill, was ever more explicit and incapa-
BILE OF perversion. When the Abotionist tells
me that slaveholding is sin, in the simplicity OF
my faith in the Holy Scriptures, point him to
this sacred record, and tell him, in all candor,
as my text does, that his teaching blasphemes
the name Of God and His doctrine. When he
begins to dote about questions and strifes Of
words, appealing to the Declaration OF Inde-
pendence, and asserting that the idea Of proper
ty in men is an enormity and CRIME, | still
hold him to the record saying, aye shall take
them as an inher tance for your children after
-. Ii ,l f.. kor
he wexes warm, as he always does if his oppo
nent quote Scripture, (Which is the great test to
try the spirits whether they be God-the very
spear OF Ithurel to reveal their true character)
when he gets angry, and begins to pour out
his evil surmisngs and abuse upon Shareholders,
obey the precept which says, from such with
draw thyself," comforting myself with this
thought: that the wisdom Of God Is wiser than
men, and the kindness of God kinder than men.
Philosophers may reason and refoGmers may
rave till dooms day; they never can convince
me that God, in the Levitcal law. or in any
other law, sanctioned sin; and as know, from
the plain passage have quoted and many more
like it, that He did sanction slaveholding among
His ancient people, know, also, by the logic
of that faith which beieves"the Bible to be His
word, that slaveholding is not sin.
Abolitionists are accustomed to answer this
appeal to the Levitical law, by asserting that
the Old Testament gives the same sanction to
polygamy that it does to slaveholding; and
am sorry to observe that ministers OF the gos-
pei make this broad assertion in the pulpit,
without condescendng to give us the proof
texts. Suppose the Old Testament does saction
polygamy, what then? What is the purpose o
the Abohtionist in making this assertion?-
Does he meat to cast contempt upon the Le-
vitical law, by proving that it sanctions what
all Christians under the gospel admit to be
wrong? Or does he mean to maintain that
both slaveholdipg and polygamy are rela-
tions on which the Divine sanction rests?--
If it can be proved that the law Of God. as pro-
mulgated by Moses, did sanction polysamy, am
prepared at once to say that polygamy is in it.
self no sin, and If there has been no explicit re-
peal of that sacton, that it is still right to have
plurality of wives. | know Of nothing as SIN
excspt that which transgt Gods law. But
the fact is, this attempt to offset slaVeholding
with polygamy is mere assertion. We call for
the proof Point us in the divine law which
came by Moses passage In reference to plu.
rality of wives, clear and explicit, like that
we have quoted in reference to the purchase o.
bondmen from the heather. 1t cannot be dene
1t is true some OF the patriarchs had more
wives than one; and this fact is recorded
----
"Exedus xxi. s, 6; "And If the servant Il. Q. the
Hebrew servant, the context showsl shall plain.
ly say love my master my wife, and my child rem;
will not 60 out free: then his master shall bring
him unto the judges; he rhall also bring him unto
the deor or unto the door.post ad his master shall
bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall
serve him forever"
+The Abolitiontsts have blown this jubilee trum.
pet with zeal worthy Of a better cause. They