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 rushing 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.]
Prof. 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?"[B]
What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished inst.i.tution which hurts neither her character nor condition![C] 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 B: The same, p. 7.]
[Footnote C: Prof. 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 heart turns to stone, while the cry dies upon his lips, "_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG?"
"_Ultimately!_" In _what circ.u.mstances_ does Prof. 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 principle 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 8.
THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
CORRESPONDENCE,
BETWEEN THE
HON. F.H. ELMORE,
ONE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATION IN CONGRESS,
AND
JAMES G. BIRNEY,
ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.
NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
No. 143 Na.s.sAU STREET.
1838.
This periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7-1/2 cts.; over 100 miles, 12-1/2 cts.
_Please read and circulate_.
REMARKS IN EXPLANATION.
ANTI-SLAVERY OFFICE, _New York, May 24, 1838_.
In January, a tract ent.i.tled "WHY WORK FOR THE SLAVE?" was issued from this office by the agent for the _Cent-a-week Societies_. A copy of it was transmitted to the Hon. John C. Calhoun;--to _him_, because he has seemed, from the first, more solicitous than the generality of Southern politicians, to possess himself of accurate information about the Anti-Slavery movement. A note written by me accompanied the tract, informing Mr. Calhoun, why it was sent to him.
Not long afterward, the following letter was received from the Hon. F.H.
Elmore, of the House of Representatives in Congress. From this and another of his letters just now received, it seems, that the Slaveholding Representatives in Congress, after conferring together, appointed a committee, of their own number, to obtain authentic information of the intentions and progress of the Anti-Slavery a.s.sociations,--and that Mr. Elmore was selected, as the _South Carolina_ member of the Committee.
Several other communications have pa.s.sed between Mr. Elmore and me. They relate, chiefly, however, to the transmission and reception of Anti-slavery publications, which he requested to be sent to him,--and to other matters not having any connection with the merits of the main subject. It is, therefore, thought unnecessary to publish them. It may be sufficient to remark of all the communications received from Mr.
Elmore--that they are characterized by exemplary courtesy and good temper, and that they bear the impress of an educated, refined, and liberal mind.
It is intended to circulate this correspondence throughout the _whole country_. If the information it communicates be important for southern Representatives in Congress, it is not less so for their Const.i.tuents.
The Anti-slavery movement has become so important in a National point of view, that no statesman can innocently remain ignorant of its progress and tendencies. The facts stated in my answer may be relied on, in proportion to the degree of accuracy to which they lay claim;--the arguments will, of course, be estimated according to their worth.
JAMES G. BIRNEY.
CORRESPONDENCE.
WASHINGTON CITY, FEB. 16, 1838
To Jas. G. Birney, Esq., _Cor. Sec. A.A.S. Soc._
Sir:--A letter from you to the Hon. John C. Calhoun, dated 29th January last, has been given to me, by him, in which you say, (in reference to the abolitionists or Anti-Slavery Societies,) "we have nothing to conceal--and should you desire any information as to our procedure, it will be cheerfully communicated on [my] being apprised of your wishes."
The frankness of this unsolicited offer indicates a fairness and honesty of purpose, which has caused the present communication, and which demands the same full and frank disclosure of the views with which the subjoined inquiries are proposed.
Your letter was handed to me, in consequence of a duty a.s.signed me by my delegation, and which requires me to procure all the authentic information I can, as to the nature and intentions of yours and similar a.s.sociations, in order that we may, if we deem it advisable, lay the information before our people, so that they may be prepared to decide understandingly, as to the course it becomes them to pursue on this all important question. If you "have nothing to conceal," and it is not imposing too much on, what may have been, an unguarded proffer, I will esteem your compliance as a courtesy to an opponent, and be pleased to have an opportunity to make a suitable return. And if, on the other hand, you have the least difficulty or objection, I trust you will not hesitate to withhold the information sought for, as I would not have it, unless as freely given, as it will, if deemed expedient, be freely used.