The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus Part 251

[Footnote 80: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]

[Footnote 81: Mark, i. 19, 20.]

Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if men of learning, wealth, and station, "labor, working with their hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the "peculiar inst.i.tution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak.

5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished in the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_ were joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society were described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a place among Samaritans and publicans. They were "_hired servants_,"

whom Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them all. But these--what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS.

"Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the lowest menials known in Jewish life.

Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor, working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of.

With every phase and form of society among them slavery was inconsistent.

The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to the law of G.o.d. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst forms"[82] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The sacred writers did not condemn it." [83] And why should they? By a definition[84] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the slaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[85]

[Footnote 82: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]

[Footnote 83: The same, p. 13.]

[Footnote 84: The same, p. 12.]

[Footnote 85: Supra, p. 58.]

A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.

1. Was the form of slavery which our professor p.r.o.nounces innocent _the form_ witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, _he_ will by no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst"

kind. _How then does he account for the alleged silence of the Savior?--a silence covering the essence and the form--the inst.i.tution and its "worst" abuses_?

2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.

_Christianity in supporting Slavery, _The American system for according to Professor Hodge_, supporting Slavery_,

"Enjoins a fair compensation for Makes compensation labor" impossible by reducing the laborer to a chattel.

"It insists on the moral and It sternly forbids its intellectual improvement of all victim to learn to read cla.s.ses of men" even the name of his Creator and Redeemer.

"It condemns all infractions of It outlaws the conjugal marital or parental rights." and parental relations.

"It requires that free scope It forbids any effort, on should be allowed to human the part of myriads of the improvement." human family, to improve their character, condition, and prospects.

"It requires that all suitable It inflicts heavy means should be employed to improve penalties for teaching mankind" letters to the poorest of the poor.

"Wherever it has had free scope, Wherever it has free it has abolished domestic bondage." scope, it perpetuates domestic bondage.

_Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around?

Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of _straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business.

It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying both Church and State;--it is this that they feel pledged to do battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty G.o.d it is thrown, dead and d.a.m.ned, into the bottomless abyss.

3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any s.h.i.+eld which may be thrown over_ SUCH SLAVERY, _as may be consistent with what the Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity_?

Is _this_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"--"marital and parental rights"--"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement, moral and intellectual, of all cla.s.ses of men;"--are these, according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the "peculiar inst.i.tution?" Their grat.i.tude must be of a stamp and complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their "domestic system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as must at once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder."

And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the master."[86]

[Footnote 86: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.]

_According to Professor Hodge's _According to Professor Hodge's account of the definition of Slavery_, requisitions of Christianity_,

The spring of effort in the The laborer must serve at the laborer is a fair compensation. discretion of another.

Free scope must be given for He is deprived of personal his moral and intellectual liberty--the necessary condition, improvement. and living soul of improvement, without which he has no control of either intellect or morals.

His rights as a husband and The authority and claims of the a father are to be protected. master may throw an ocean between him and his family, and separate them from each other's presence at any moment and forever.

Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the peace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so far from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them into each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as _wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger of rus.h.i.+ng into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the slaveholder.

But _Professor Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that "_Paul did not expect slavery to be ousted in a day_."[87] _Did not_ EXPECT! What then! Are the _requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human consciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the gospel by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every where to repent, and this, though "Paul did not expect" that human wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community "be ousted in a day." Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite another.

[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 7.]

In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, "gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." _That_ he did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as a "theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, _without respect of persons_, to do each other justice--to maintain equality as common ground for all to stand upon--to cherish and express in all their intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one _brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the "ad interim precepts."[88] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, "root and branch," at once and forever.

[Footnote 88: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]

Professor Stuart comforts us with the a.s.surance that "_Christianity will ultimately certainly destroy slavery_." Of this _we_ have not the feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that "_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE CHURCH?"[89] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished inst.i.tution which hurts neither her character nor condition?[90] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its inherent wickedness--its malignant temper--its deadly effects--its const.i.tutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the authority of G.o.d and the welfare of man.

[Footnote 89: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]

[Footnote 90: Professor Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et salva ecclesia_.]

"Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery." "ULTIMATELY!" What meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have rolled over this world of wrong and outrage--and yet we tremble in the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen in such cold blood, to write that word "ultimately," how, under the sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the lamentable cry, "How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!" In the agony of beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small comfort would he find in the dull a.s.surance of some heartless prophet, quite at "ease in Zion," that "ULTIMATELY _Christianity would destroy slavery_." As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul, all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of _legalized_ debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry dies upon his lips, "_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG!"

"_Ultimately_!" In _what circ.u.mstances_ does Professor Stuart a.s.sure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts of this republic--as living members of this community, did we forfeit the prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or statesman of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and the Const.i.tution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of slavery, what "_ultimately_" must Christianity here wait for before she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over slavery is r.e.t.a.r.ded by nothing but the corruption and defection so widely spread through the "sacramental host" beneath her banners!

Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_ of the "dark spirit of slavery" would at once give place to the _immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor.

No. 12.