Part 117 (1/2)

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 _The American system for Slavery, according to Prof. supporting Slavery,_ Hodge,_

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

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

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

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

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

”Wherever it has had free scope, it Wherever it has free scope, has abolished domestic bondage.” 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 Prof. 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 requisition 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 Prof. 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[A].”

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 12]

_According to Prof. Hodge's According to Prof. Hodge's account of the requisitions of account of Slavery, Christianity,_

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

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

His rights as a husband and a father The authority and claims of are to be protected. the 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 Prof. 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 hearts' content. The hour can not 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 _Prof. 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_[A].” _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 A: Supra, p.8.]

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 Prof. 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,”[A] which can not fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, ”root and branch,” at once and forever.

[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 8.]