leaving the vast majority of the audience under the impression that it was the thing itself, and not the abuse of it, on which they were animadverting!

Liberty—there is scarcely a word in the English Vocabulary so often perverted as the term liberty.—A vast mass of mankind conceive that the meaning of the word is, a perfect privilege and license for each and every man to do as he pleases.—If this be the real and true meaning of liberty, and that where this is not, there is slavery, then there is no liberty in the United States, (and God forbid, say I, there ever should be here such liberty,) and every man, woman, and child in the

Union, is a slave! I doubt not this is the kind of liberty at which some of the champions of Abolitionism, viz. Fanny Wright Darusmont—Owen—et hoc omne genus, are aiming! But is this the liberty sanctioned by God? No! Is this the liberty guaranteed by the declaration of Independence? No! Is this the liberty for which the Fathers of this Country fought and bled? No! No! Such liberty would be the most awful tyranny and oppression—The liberty authorised by God, and sanctioned by the laws of this Country, is, that no man shall do aught to the injury, prejudice, or hurt of his neighbour—This is the only true liberty granted by God to man; yet this is the very liberty, the advocates of Abolitionism turn into ridicule, and attempt to destroy, under the plausible plea of vindicating the rights of man! This was the plea of Thomas Paine—This was the plea of Robert Owen—this is the plea of Fanny Wright Darusmont—this is the plea of all the infidels on the face of the earth! But, say Abolitionists, the Bible commands us, to "do unto others as we would be done by." Admitted. This very passage was addressed by the Infidels in their discussion with me to show the absurdity of the Bible: and according to the use made of it by Abolitionists, the argument of Infidels would be unanswerable! But will Abolitionists stand by this rule? They will not: for if they did, they would instantly abandon their crusade against their southern fellow citizens: and if they will not, then let them no longer quote that as authority, by which they themselves will not be governed! [See this subject further illustrated in a subsequent chapter.]

Liberty then may be defined to be, the privilege of doing all that is good—and nothing that is evil—But who is to decide that which is good, and that which is evil?

The Creator of the universe—Man unassisted by revelation never was, and never will be, able. The Bible which contains the revealed will of Omnipotence is that volume, and that only, which constitutes the umpire of good and evil[11:A]—The very fact of the existence of laws in the land, proves man is not at liberty to do as he pleases: for, "law is a rule of action:" actions therefore must be controlled—Society demands it—God has authorised it—And perfect Liberty maintains it.

The Pirate boasts of liberty—preaches liberty to his comrades—and condemns all law! Here is a specimen of perfect liberty! He may with equal propriety, when taken prisoner, urge the Abolition text, "do unto others, as you would be done by." Now, if you had been a pirate, (he would say) and had the misfortune of having been taken prisoner, would you not wish to be set at liberty? You reply, yes, certainly—then he says, the Bible commands you to do unto others as you would be done by; and, as you would wish to be set at liberty, were you in my situation, if you regard the authority of God you will set me free! The reader must perceive to what lengths this principle may be carried out—even to the utter destruction of all society!

Again; would opening the doors of a lunatic asylum, and letting free the patients thereof, be an act of kindness or friendship towards them? You reply, Certainly not! Yet this would be granting them immediate liberty—this would be pure abolitionism! But, you rejoin, the condition of the persons—their mental inabilities disqualify them for liberty till they are cured—till they can take care of themselves—till there is no danger of their doing violence to others; therefore, keeping them confined till then, is in fact an act

of kindness towards them,—and the opposite course would be most injurious to them! Thank you, kind reader, these are identically the same reasons I give for not advocating the immediate emancipation of the slaves. I give you full credit for the wisdom and propriety of your reasons: be so liberal as to grant me the same indulgence—to give me the same credit for the sincerity of my actions. It is probable the Abolitionist will reply, that the condition of the slaves, and of the inmates of a lunatic asylum, is very different. I answer, without fear of contradiction, that, as far as mental incapability, the vast mass of the slaves are as incapable of taking care of themselves as the great proportion of lunatics; and this we shall fully demonstrate in a subsequent chapter. Again; do you think children ought to be freed from all parental control? You reply, certainly not; and you give the same reasons as you have just adduced for not setting lunatics free. Is not this, then, a case parallel with that of the slaves? And in both, I may as justly accuse you of oppression, of tyranny, of a hatred to liberty, because you will not emancipate lunatics, and all children, as you accuse me, for not advocating the immediate abolition of slavery.

Slavery is derived from slave; as servant comes from service. In the English language the two are distinct from one another; the former term being applied to involuntary, the latter to voluntary, servitude. But this is not the case in either the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin tongues; one and the same word, in each language, signifies both voluntary and involuntary service. Thus "obed," in Hebrew—"δουλος," in Greek—and "servus," in Latin, signify what we mean by the terms, servant and slave. Hence in works written in

any of these languages, we can never tell from the word itself whether the person to whom the term is applied was a slave, or a servant: it is therefore only by concomitant expressions or circumstances that we can come to a conclusion as to the actual nature of his situation. This is the case both in the Old and New Testament.

For instance, when we read of individuals having been sold, having been purchased, having been "bought with money" &c., we cannot doubt for a moment the propriety of applying to such persons the term slave: and that, no matter whether their servitude was temporary, or for ever—whether they had sold themselves, or were sold by others; they were slaves to all intents and purposes—from the moment they were sold they became subject to involuntary servitude.

Again, while it by no means follows that every servant ("obed"—"δουλος"—"servus,") mentioned in the Bible, was a slave, it does follow that every slave was a servant!

Ere I make the next statement, I request it may be distinctly understood, 1st, that I consider the "Slave-trade," and "Slave-holding," two distinct things: 2d, that I do not