The time has been when the event of war has been supposed to confer on the victorious party the right of enslaving the vanquished. But this is now universally acknowledged to be a principle of barbarism, and is abandoned by the civilized world. Where then is our charter for the oppression of our fellow men? Perhaps the most plausible argument in support of American slavery, (and it is one that has been newly discovered, for it was first introduced into Congress on the Missouri question,) is, that the New Testament distinctly recognises without any mark of disapprobation, the relation of masters and servants, and St. Paul in his Epistles explicitly enjoins on the latter the duty of respect, obedience and fidelity. This argument has been triumphantly urged as presenting Divine authority for slavery. But pray tell me, are there no servants but slaves? Is there no such thing as the relation of master and servant unless where slavery exists? If so, tell Great Britain to blot the word from her vocabulary, that it has no meaning in the English language, and is exclusively of American origin and use. “But,” says the advocate of slavery, “this argument is not to be got rid of in this way. This is mere quibbling. St. Paul speaks not only of servants, but of _bond-men_; and he actually enjoins it on every man to abide in the same calling, or condition, wherein he is called. And he specifies particularly that if any one is called being a _servant_, he is to rest contented with the assurance that he is the Lord’s _free man_. 1 Cor. vii. 20-22. Nay, in his Epistle to Philemon, he had a fair opportunity to put this question at rest for ever; but instead of rebuking the master for holding slaves, he returned the _runaway_ to his service.”[1] On this ground, it has been asserted, that those who hold slaves are more obedient to the Scriptures than those who do not. Footnote 1: This whole argument, in all its parts, was once urged with amazing zeal, on the floor of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. If I am not greatly mistaken in regard to the nature of this argument, I could prove, in the same way, that tyranny and despotism are approved of God; and that those who submit to such a kind of government, live in greater conformity to the Scriptures than the citizens of a republick.