Communications: Letter From Rev. Mr. West: No. 3

Monroe, Mich. L4th July, 1343. To the. editors Sig. of Liberty. Jlnn Arbor, Mich. Gentlemen, - ín my lost I observed upon Jour errors which I found in your recent num)ers, relalive to the General Assembly's decisión on the subject of slavery. I will pursuc this topic a üttle farther. 5th Error. - In paper lOth July, p. 2. Col. 5. - In this part of your paper I find a quotaion from Dr. Ely's remarks. Of this quotaion you say, - "If we understanc! language, bis goes to sustain slavery, asa Gospel instiution, not only foran hour, but as long as the Cospel shall endure' I reply, gentlemen, that what Dr. Ely remarkcd, when understood properly, does not sustain slavery as a gospel institution for au iour5 or a moment. Wint called forth the )octor's remarks? It was affirmed on the op)Dsite side in the delate, that the word dcvlos lid not mean compu lsory and perpetual slavery; the Doctor affirmed in his reply that doulos did mean just such a kind of slavery, and partly illustrated his assertion by tht? remarks you quote, which only from a small part of what he 6uid. The word doulos does mean what the Doctor said it meant. Must the Dr. then, be represented as defending a system of compulsory nnd perpetual slavory - a servitude in which the servant has neither consent nor contract in the compact, as a 'gospel instiiution,' perpetually binding on helplcss, unoffending men, womeii and ehildren, becausc he maintained in debate the legitímate signification of the original Greek word referred to for decisión? If a brother ia debate with you should assert that the Greck word diabolos did not mean a slanderer, and you should insist that it did, must it be concluded, t!ierefore,tbat you advocate slander, as a perpetually binding gospel institution, because the word is found to sigmfy stander in all its lenglh nndbrendlh: yea, just such stander as the devil himself is perpetually guilty of, and from which he has the name dev'ü! I shall prove now, that the word doulos ineans a slnve under the worst imaginable forms of slavery. I will refer to the lvomancustomsand laws in tho quotations I sha!] make. Among the Romans, and without reference to either complexión, mental endowments, or nationnl character, some of the most judicious and faithful,and leamcd writers say- "The common lot of slaves in general was, with the aliciente, in many circumslances,very deplorable. Of their siluntion take the following instances- they were held pro nullis, pro morluis, pro quadrupedihus - for no men, for dead men, for beasts; nay, were in a much worse state than any cal Ie whatsoever. They had no head in the state- no tribe- no register. The were not capable of being injured; nor could they take by purchase. or by descentrad no heirs.and therefore coujd make no wffl. Exclusive of whal was called their peculium, what ever they acquired was their master's. They could not piead nor'be pleaded, but wereexcluded from all civil concerns whatever - were nol entitled to the rights and considerations of inatrimony,ani therefore had no relief in case of adultery. Nor were they the proper objects of cognation or affinity; they could be sold, transferred, or pawned as goods,or personal estáte, for goods ihey were, and as such were they esteemed: - ïnight be tortured for evidence; punished at the discretion of their Lord, and even put to death by his authority. A slave in the above described situation is in the New Testament, called doulos; and this word eignifies the most indissoluble bondage,' as Dr. Ely termed it, 'that could be formed.' The same word is found in lst Cor. 7. 22- chap. 12, 13- Epb. G. 5.- Col. 4, 1. Philem, v. 16; and many other places: The above described slavery was that which existed in the days of the Apostles in all the Roman Provinces. This shows why Dr. Hill and Dr. Wisner spoke as they did. But did they, or Dr. Ely. or any other minister, speak to swstuin such a system? No, they did not. They spoke of how we should imitate the Aposiles in their mode of treating this subject. IIowever others might diner from them, this was their aim, and this the burden of their rcmarkF. But, for speaking as he did, and acting as he does, Dr. Hill is set forth by your paper, as a 'Veteran slavc-breeder5 who has 'practically, as you say, 'sustained the hell-begotten system, since he was oíd enough to hold a slave. And 1 am set down as one of his defenders in sustaining the same system. This is a great Terror , anJ if you wiJfuüy coniniittef it, amouni9 to slander in the worst form. Bu I hope betler things of you, than that yoi would voluntarily, or as matter of choice, thus misrepresent the fací. I will dismiss the subject relative to the assembly, at present, and will now pass to some of the errors'contained in your recent Signal of Liberty relative to myself.lst. Error. Ín paper alst July, p. 1. Col. 6. is found a part of my speech at the Assmbly, in which there aro three mista kes. I do not, of course, blame you, or charge you, as being the proper author of 1 hese, as you transcribed what your paper contains on this point, 'rom the Pennsylvania Frceman, and on comparison of the Freeman with your paper. [ find you have quoted correctly, in tliis instance, al any rate. The mista kei are: - First, That Mr. West stated, that a certain class of persons whcre he lived vere goadmg the church to action on this öubjcct, Sec. Mr. West did not use the words, 'where lie lived.' And Mr. West now believes that a certain class, wherever they may live, or may have ived, were determined to crive that subject hrough the Assembly if they could, irrespecive of consequences to the church. And he hinks the course you have pursued in your )apers since the Assembly, amply proves the same; nor ia he the only one who thinks so. Second.-lt is stated that Mr. Weat said that there is not a man in America, nor in the three kingdoms, but what knew hirn to bc ai) nnti-slavery man. What Mr. West did say, was Ibis - "There is not a man in Scotlund, England, Ireland, or these United States, who ínows Nathanicl West, vvould believe l:im to be a pro-slavery man."' This is quite a diferent statement from the former. Third. - It is sta'ed that Mr. West said, that neithcr the Presbyterian church of Scotnnd, nor any of the Ecclesiastical bodies of he threc kingdoms, have ever discusscd, or ever thought of such a thing as introducing he subject oFslavery inio, or connecting that ubject with, matlers of church governTient.' What Mr. West did say on tlüs point, was. hal 'He could not rccollect that nny of the christian denominntions of the three kingdoms ever had the quettion of slavery forced upon hem, in such a manner as il was forced upon us in this country. Each Pastor took his own cours-e, without the ruin of his influence being onght by those who might differ wilh his mode of action.' 2nd. Error. - In paper lOlh July, p. L Col. 5. - Because I stared that there was not a sentimental, or voluntary slaveholder in our Dr. John Tnylor's elcinentsof civi! law, pp. 428,429. Potter's Antiq. of Grccce. book 2. chap. ]?,. p. 5ö. Tst ed. Le C'.crk's notes on Exod. 21, 2u. Lclnnd's Advaniages. &c. vol. 2J part 2d. chap. :?, 4, pp. -11, GO. Svo. Parkhuist on the word. don'.os; and Hom'."? in! od. vol. 24, p. !6J.ast Assembly, yon charge me with 'sheer nonsense.' The word sentimental means holding to the Bense, considered distinctly from he Iangii3ge, or things: The word voluniary signifies acting by choice: willing, aeting with illingness. Involuntary rneans not done willingly, not acting with choice. 'Will Mr. West say, distinctly, what constitutes an involuntary slaveholder? He will - An invo!iintary slaveholder ia one who may be opposed o slavery in his heart, who n)ay neverlheless under certam circumstances,hold men as slaves egalh', but not on his o.vn part actby choice, r sentimentally beheve in the propriety of such a relation. Perhaps you do not believe n the possibility of any such circumstances existir as wouid throw a man into the situaron of a legal slaveholder against his choice; nor in the possibility of circumstances combining to continue a man in such a relation for any given time, against his will. But I do elieve in such a. possibility; and so every aboilionist on the floor of the Assembly, who referred to to the subject, professed to believe. 'n this connexion you ask the question; 'Who ever knew an involuntary sinner?1 - and then add - 'It is sheer nonsense.' An involuntary sinner is one who may sin, but not from choice. Every action is sinful fit wants any conformity to, or includes any transgression of, the divine In w. A man might kill auother accordjng to Joshua 20, S; yet not do so voliintarily. Still he tbat did so, sinned, and must suffer if he fled not to this city of refuge. Paul, before his conversión, sinned against Christ, but not wilüngly- 1. Tim. Ij 13. Babes, dying, required regenerating grace to fit them for Heaven; but this. does not prove them to be voluntary sinners, yet sinners they are-Psalm. 51. 5, and 58. 3. And we read of sinning wilfully; and of willingly, and by cor.straint, standing opposed to each other- Heb. 10. 26; and 1. Pet. 5. 2. So there is such a thing as involuntary sin, and such persons as involuntary sinners, after all, whether it be sheer nonsense or not. 'Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Pslm. 19. 12. The heart is deceitful above all things, Sec. ; Jer. 17. 9. I have been longer on the two foregoing Errors in relation to myself, than I wishcd to have been, for the sake of convincing some of your readers, that all you say in your papers on the subject under consideraron, mast not be taken without examination, as infallible. Nor do I write one line under íhe motive of either "propitiating the pro-slavery party," or of slavery 'for an hour,' as I doubt not you fuliy believe. Your humble servant.