George Metzger to Jeremiah Chamberlin

Sir
It ‘twere as well not to loss temper in reviewing the “subjects which now engage the attention between the states north and south,” which you promise in your letter of the 23 Feb 50 when at “leisure” you will [perceive?] from the quotation above that the m[illegible] of the above “subjects” rests entirely with yourself; and me thinks that “the answer” in answer to mine answering yours of the 23d evidences moor pressure from “the shoe” than the wearer is willing to plead to.  I have so repeatedly heard men fall back upon the Bible to sustain the institution of American slavery that I now look for nothing else; if it be simply civil or political in its nature why are proslavery men continually seeking for text or context to uphold it, why does north [illegible] detail of the law, or merely temporal matter sustain you in your position. Your truly good man will bow his knee to no authority, no government, no book, no Bill, no God that makes slavery right: he placed himself upon a broader basis, more charitable in all its bearings, makes no distinction for color, [illegible] large enough for all.  The apologists for slavery are continually referring to Ab~ our Saviour, the Apostles – yet are careful to call the subject servants such a state of servitude as existed in Abs. day approximated no nearer our system, than the serfdom of to day in Russia, or [illegible] in Mexico; the slavery of the South adopts in our day the Roman civil law as the basis of its code – the servitude of Abrs day, of Christ’s, and his apostles, was almost its opposite, if the South, that perpetually refers to the Bible (the Old Testament; you can find nothing of the kind in the new) to justify the system of slavery, will consent to take that Hebrew law of slavery in exchange, for the Roman civil law, for one says Dr. [illegible] I should regard the work of liberty as [illegible] and calmly wait for time to complete what God through Moses designed the utter exterpation of slavery.  If any Bible sanction such a system as that we speak of, out with it. I want none of it – I care not how old the book, however indirectly it sanction the same I say tis not of God, but of the Devil the [illegible] and [illegible] of wickedness.  There is but one way escaping the moral bearings of this matter and that is the brutalizing of all Adam’s race who are born with skin darker than the Anglo saxon; tis true when the Constitutions of slaveholding states and the local laws are brought to bear upon this, that we find [illegible], property, things, not persons; can be sold or transferd as goods or personal estate; they are held [illegible] pro mortius, this of course will cover your position but do constitution, statues make a wrong right? or vice versa? not the whole tenor of the New Testament which no one more fairly understands than yourself establish the moral obligations we are under one to another, Christ both by precept and example teaching us to love one another etc, etc.  You charge “professed Christians, antislavery champions” with disregarding the word of

and are in the constant habit of publishing their stances vs the church and her ministers; they trample upon anything that is wrong whether found between the lids of the Bible or elsewhere, those parts of the Old Testament sanctioning certain kind of servitude and even oppression and which teaches other immoral and detestable practices: on the other hand and the New Testament is found the purest, most sublime and elevated morality, consequently they disregard all that is wicked or immoral in Bible but do not reject the book in total – As for slander, “both church and minister,” what says John G F[er?] Presbyterian minister of Kentucky “the Churches around us, Metho., Bap and Presbyterian, are as corrupt as mystic Babylon – trading in the souls and bodies of men” – and also adulterous particularly in this [Slow?] [embers?]. [illegible] said AntiChrist a Christian is one who [doeth?] the will of Christ, and teaches his doctrine Christ came to preach deliverance to the captives, and [uncovering?] of Sight to the blind, and to set at liberty those that are bruised.  But the churches plead not for the oppressed – they “remember not those in bonds as bound with them” – “ they pas by on the other side” – they care not in deed and in truth”; but some enslave their fellow men, but and sell, separate husband and wife, parent and child – whilst others live in known adultery and fornication.  Those who do not these things, have the guilt of fellowshipping the sins, and sanctioning the iniquity.  Can such bodies be called Christian bodies?  It is as absurd to call them such as to call that body of men a Board of health, elected by the City Council, whilst at the same time one has small pox, another Cholera another leprosy; and as popular physicians, they are mingling freely with the people, and all of them teaching that such diseases are consistent with comfort, good health and long life.  There are doubtly individual Christians in their boundaries, just as there were Republicans in England in the time of the American Revolu. Whilst there were individual republicans, yet the government, as a government was monarchial and tyrannical. So, whilst there are individual Christians in these bodies, yet as bodies, they are AntiChristian, not exhibiting the spirit, and refusing to do the work of Christ.  It is not schism, he continues, to come out of Antichrisitan bodies, It is the duty of those who may be Christians to come out.  [illegible] the words of inspiration “Come out of [here?], My People, that ye be not partaker of h[er?] sins, and that ye receive not of h[er?]  plagues”