But we propose to the disciples of Dr. Channing an inquiry: If he could not see how St. Paul in his circumstances could have done more for the subversion of slavery, why did he not take St. Paul for his example, and suffer the matter to rest where St. Paul left it? For he says, vol. iii. page 152—“It becomes the preacher to remember that there is a silent, indirect influence, more sure and powerful than direct assaults on false opinions.” Or was he less careless than St. Paul about stirring up a servile war, and of shaking our social fabric to its foundation? Or did the doctor’s circumstances place him on higher ground than St. Paul? Had “this age of the world” presented him with new light on the true interpretation of the Scriptures? Had the afflatus of the Holy Spirit commissioned him to supersede Paul as an apostle? Are we to expect, through him, a new and improved edition of the gospel? And is this the reason why an argument drawn from the Old Edition now “hardly deserves notice?”
Dr. Channing says, vol. ii. p. 104—“The very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed.” Is then the Christian religion a fabrication of men? Was Christ himself an impostor? And could Dr. Channing loan himself to such a consideration?
“Upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. xvi. 18.
LESSON XI.
The sixth position in the treatise under consideration is, “I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it.” His plan is, page 108—“In the first place, the great principle that man cannot rightfully be held as property, should be admitted by the slaveholder.”
Dr. Channing seems to suppose that his previous arguments are sufficient to produce the proposed admission.
Page 109. “It would be cruelty to strike the fetters from a man, whose first steps would infallibly lead him to a precipice. The slave should not have an owner, but he should have a guardian.”
We take this as an admission that the slave is not a fit subject for freedom. But he says—
Page 110. “But there is but one weighty argument against immediate emancipation; namely, that the slave would not support himself and his children by honest industry.”