sence 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 jus