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 God. 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 pronounces 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 institution 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,according to Prof. Hodge, | The American system for supporting Slavery, |
| "Enjoins a fair compensation for labor." | Makes compensation impossible by reducing the laborer to a chattel. |
| "It insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men." | It sternly forbids its victim to learn to read even the name of his Creator and Redeemer. |
| "It condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights." | It outlaws the conjugal and parental relations. |
| "It requires that free scope should be allowed to human improvement." | It forbids any effort, on the part of myriads of the human family, to improve their character, condition, and prospects. |
| "It requires that all suitable means should be employed to improve mankind." | It inflicts heavy penalties for teaching letters to the to the poorest of the poor. |
| "Wherever it has had free scope, it abolished domestic bondage." | Wherever it has free scope, it perpetuates domestic bondage. |