The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-08-24
fury, signifying nothing. The argument TO DC
of any avail, must go a step further, when 1t
can never do while christianity stands.

l
Shareholders do not pretend to run slavery
back to the creation Of the natural universe
when God established natural principles.-
They say that it arose, as an institution nav
ing the divine sanction at period OF time pas
terror to the creation of nature-that is to say
arose in the legislation of the Creator with
regard to the descendants of Canaan-hence
necessarily after the laws or principles OF ma
ture were all instituted and in full prevalence.
When did the laws of nature arise Especial
| " when did the natural equality of man begin
| to be moral rule =? Manifestly with nature
if at all, and so manifestly before the fall of
mana fall which christians teach, and which
naturalism Denies
/ desire the christian Abolitionist now to
give lie for moment his closest attention.
If slavery ever did possess the divine sane
ton, it must necessarily have possessed it in
opposition to the principle Of nature Or natural
justice and equality on which he predicates his
| ciples of nature are of older date than any
| supposed divine action in the affairs Of men.
Abolitionists admit slavery to have had the
divine sanction in the early history of our race.
In his controversy with Rev. R. Fuller, on
page 49, President Wayland said Il grant at
once that the Hebrews held slaves from the |
time of the conquest Of Canaan, and that |
Abraham and the Patriarchs had held them
many centuries before. | grant, also, that |
Moses enacted laws with special reference to |
that relation
No christian denies the divine legation of |
Moses The reason assigned in Gen, XIV, |
4 and 5, why God would multiply and bless
the seed of Abraham was that he had kept |
his charge" his commandments = his stat
utes' and his Claws
All this occurred when the natural princi-
pie referred to by the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, and which Abolitonists say, is a moral
principle which it is therefore immoral to yi0-
late, was in full force. These things being so,
does it not inevitably follow, taking the Adolf
tionists argument to be good, that when slave
ry did receive the divine sanction, the Divine
Being departed from the principles of moral
government, plainly, palpable and undenia-
bly, ?
Now, can perceive but one door of escape
for the followers of DR.. Wayland. They must
either say that at the time when the Divine
Being did sanction the institution of slavery,
the principle Of natural equality, which they
l hoIl 10 Of,
not then prevalent Or in existence and this
would be to deny the uniformity and consis
tency OF the laws of nature-or to affirm, if it
was then existing, it did not partake OF a NOR
al character, In no other mode, that l can
perceive, can they escape from the blasphemy
Of charging the Supreme Creator, with dupli-
minately-immorality
Let them take either horn of the dilemma
and the Institution of slavery is equally vim
dicatcd
am aware that Abolitionists contend that
the principles of the Mosaic dispensation are
abrogated by the new, and that it is no argu-
ment in defence of slavery under the dispen-
sation now in vogue, to prove it had the I,i-
vine sanction under the old.
But this view Of the case, does not reach
the point ON hand The issue Immediately
under consideration, is in respect to laws Of
nature claimed to be intrinsically moral-laws
that were plainly in existence when God sane
toned, as they admit, the departure from
them.
i'll understand the philosophy of the chris
tian system at all, it is predicated on the doc
trine that nature and natural principles are
unsafe guides for human thought and action,
and that therefore, whoever trusts himself to
the courses they indicate and prompt, will
suffer permanently in time and in eternity.
I understand, because nature does not dis
, play principles Of moral government, that
/ therefore, a specific necessity existed, for a
; non-natural-or if you please, preter-natural
communication Of rules Of social and civil ac-
: ton or conduct which would have been Who'll
" uncalled for and needless, had nature dis
played moral rule.
Ifindeed, nature had displayed principles of
moral government, as the opposers of the in
stitution of slavery are compelled to maintain,
all that men would have to do, in order to the
ascertanment of the code Of proper or right
living, while occupying the various relations
of life, would simply be to study and conform
to natural philosophy.
If the principles of moral government be
aside from nature and natural productions
exist because they are the will of God who is
not natural but preter-natural being, as |
undertake to maintain, then, it follows that
slavery must be judged-not by laws of ma
ture, or the supposed natural equality of man,
but by different will Of God, called his ETH.
cal philosophy, the body of which is contained
in the Holy Scriptures philosophy whose
office its theoretically to regulate the thoughts
and actions of his immaterial and non-natural
creatures.
i If the Declaration of independence had
merely taught the moral equality of all men
that is to say-the equal obligation of all,
to obey in thought and deed the principles of
nstice and morality to the full measure of
their respective comprehension of them, |
would have had no quarrel with the philoso-
ply, for slavery does not interfere with
mans morality and integrity, for both master
and slave have, in that relation, full opportu-
nifty to adorn philosophy and religion with
the tribute of full obedience.
i If nature does not display moral govern
ment, then natural liberty is fully deserving
the slur of condemnation which Blackstone
bestows upon it, for he calls it a wild and
savage liberty"
Why did God thus give his creatures natu-
raj liberty to do wrong? Why is natural |
liberty thus inconsistent with civil or moral |
government T? Manifestly that moral govern
ment might be possible We must have nat |
/ ural liberty to do wrong, or it would be sense
less to tell us not to do wrong voluntarily, or
| voluntarily to restrain our actions within NOR
\ al 4irnits.
Free agency or natural liberty, comes first,
in the order of the Divine economy and then,
moral or obliged agency is superadded.
| Blackstone says civil government restraints
natural liberty for the public good How can
| this be, except upon the supposition that nat
ural liberty is a bad liberty, or in other words,
| is licence.
It is the merest absurdity for any man to
say that God has not restrained his natural
liberty He has restrained it, by moral gov
eminent Men lie, cheat, STEAL murder mere
ly by the exercise of natural powers and are
obliged not to do those things, only by moral
government. Let a man be permitted to ex-
ercise his natural liberty, and Blackstone says
that then there would be no security to indi-
viduals in any of the enjoyments Of life -
Abolitionists say we restrain the natural lib
erty of the African. Very good We only
wisely restrain bad liberty. We follow very
good examples. YAZ0O.