The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural defense of "the peculiar inst.i.tution," maintains, that the "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout out the greater part of Christendom"_[A]--"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a fair compensation for labor; insists on the mental and intellectual improvement of_ ALL _cla.s.ses of men; condemns_ ALL _infractions of marital or parental rights; requires in short not only that_ FREE SCOPE _should be allowed to human improvement, but that _ALL SUITABLE MEANS_ _should be employed for the attainment of that end._"[B] It is indeed "remarkable," that while neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an exhortation to masters to liberate their slaves," they enjoined such "general principles as have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge"
emanc.i.p.ation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the rights of the husband and the fathers; gives every laborer a fair compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of all cla.s.ses, with free scope and all suitable means, the object of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only "remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes and no--hot and cold, in one and the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defense of slavery!
[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 18. 19.]
[Footnote B: The same, p. 31.]
In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings on the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord"s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ"s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."[A]
[Footnote A: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.]
In explaining and applying this pa.s.sage, it is proper to suggest,
1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the Gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke," they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. "If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the claims and spirit of the Gospel have hindered or discouraged them in so doing? Their "brother" could _he_ be, who kept "the yoke" upon their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible? And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian inst.i.tution?--or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the cause of freedom?
2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord"s freeman."
In _him_, therefore, should they cheerfully confide.
3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "_Ye are bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN."
With his eye upon the pa.s.sage just quoted and explained, the Princeton professor a.s.serts that "Paul represents this relation"--the relation of slavery--"as of comparatively little account."[A] And this he applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to _American_ slavery.
Does he then regard it as a small matter, a mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle?
[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 10.]
To the Princeton professor the commend a practical trial of the bearing of the pa.s.sage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which in various forms and under different names unite the southern with the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher[B] from any free state, can be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible collect, as he goes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Christian inst.i.tution! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the pa.s.sage in question, he addresses himself to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him "who is no respecter of persons."
Freedom you ought, indeed, to prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke,"
throw it off. In the mean time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" that the Gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord"s freeman." And, for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished both political and domestic servitude whenever it has had free scope. It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all cla.s.ses of men; it condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end."[C] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is ent.i.tled to your warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of the republic, and cement "the Union?"
[Footnote B: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in the literary and religious world from a slaveholding state, where the "peculiar inst.i.tution" is cherished with great warmth and maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was a.s.sured, that the Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburgh pamphlet, contributed most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to which the Bible gives countenance and support_.
In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. "There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this subject. The great ma.s.s of the people believing slavery to be sinful, are clearly of the opinion that as a system, it should be abolished throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, that whatever is sinful, should be instantly abandoned. The others, _by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that though slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it shall be expedient to abolish it_; or if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, both in church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible allows no tampering with sin."
"To these remarks, there are some n.o.ble exceptions to be found in both parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of grat.i.tude to the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of that article is said, without contradiction, to be _Prof. Hodge of Princeton--HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the ONLY ONE who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious charge of living in the habitual transgression of G.o.d"s holy law_."]
[Footnote C: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 31.]
"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged, that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it around him_ in JUDEA."[A] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "_in_ Judea," which neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is not denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have had slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must have known they could not hold in the light of open day?
[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 9.]
We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or courage,[B] for refusing to "break down the wall of part.i.tion between Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[C] The propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and ourselves.
[Footnote B: The same, p. 10.]
[Footnote C: Matt. xv. 24.]
In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our Savior"s incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest attention:--
1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded to.[A] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of life, the Jews, during our Savior"s ministry among them, seem to have been scrupulously observant of the inst.i.tutions and usages of the "Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and slaveholding--those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed among the heathen--they seem at length, as the result of a most painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced.
[Footnote A: "The Bible against Slavery."]
2. While, therefore, John the Baptist, with marked fidelity and great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,[B] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been less effectually aroused by the presence of "the yoke," than was Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms?
[Footnote B: Psalm lx.x.xii; Isa. lviii. 1-12; Jer. xxii. 13-16.]
3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews.
These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior"s ministry, he could not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics, of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible denunciations.[C] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny had been within his official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by driving their husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans, _but cattle_?
[Footnote C: Matt. xxiii; Mark vii. 1-13.]
4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_, which, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation they were tent-makers.")[A] This pa.s.sage has opened the way for different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual labor. According to _Lightfoot_, "it was their custom to bring up their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or estates." According to Rabbi Judah, "He that teaches not his son a trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief."[B] It was, _Kuinoel_ affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor (opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the highest Rabbinical authority.[C] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train his son to honest industry.[D]
Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though brought up at the "feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of a most ill.u.s.trious teacher, practiced the art of tent-making. His own hands ministered to his necessities; and his example in so doing, he commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation.[E] That Zebedee, the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various hints in the New Testament render probable.[F] Yet how do we find him and his sons, while prosecuting their appropriate business? In the midst of the hired servants, "in the ship mending their nets."[G]
[Footnote A: Acts xviii. 1-3.]
[Footnote B: Henry on Acts xviii, 1-3.]
[Footnote C: Kuinoel on Acts.]
[Footnote D: Heinrichs on Acts.]
[Footnote E: Acts xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11]
[Footnote F: See Kuinoel"s Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]
[Footnote G: 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 object 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 form,"[A] without extorting from his lips a syllable of rebuke. "The sacred writers did not condemn it."[B] And why should they? By a definition[C] 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.[D]
[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 9.]
[Footnote B: The same p. 13.]
[Footnote C: The same p. 12.]
[Footnote D: Supra p. 61.]
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 alledged silence of the Savior?--a silence covering the essence and the form--the inst.i.tution and its "worst" abuses?_