CONTENTS. Page 13 21 34 The Letter from Dr. Fuller to the Editor of the DR. WAYLAND'S LETTERS TO DR. FULLER. Letter I.-Errors on both sides, Letter II.-Definition of Slavery-Two meanings of the terms Moral Evil-Slavery a violation Letter III.-The holding of Slaves does not neces- of Slavery from the Old Testament, Letter VII.-The method of prohibiting Slavery in the New Testament-Principle and permis- DR. FULLER'S LETTERS TO DR. WAYLAND. Letter I.-The Southern States not answerable for the existence of Domestic Slavery, . Letter II.-Slavery is not to be confounded with Letter III.-Slavery proper, no violation of right— Analogy with civil government-Despotism- Letter V.-The Argument from the New Testa- ment-Argument, Inference, Proof, Demon- Letter VI.—The mode of teaching by principle in this case at variance with the character of God CORRESPONDENCE. Letter from the Rev. RICHARD FULLER to the Editor of the Christian Reflector. MR. EDITOR I comply at once, and in as few words as possible, with your request, and state why I do deny that slavery is a moral evil; and let me request you, once for all, to bear in mind that this is the thing affirmed and denied. You say slavery is itself a sin; it is therefore always a sin; a sin amid any circumstances; a crime which must involve the criminal in perdition unless he repents; and should be abandoned at once, and without reference to consequences. This is the abolition doctrine; and at Philadelphia it was reiterated in every variety of phrase; and when even moderate men, and men seemingly very kind and calm in private, mounted the rostrum and felt the oratorical afflatus, we invariably heard, not arguments, but denunciations of this sort; we were sure to have eternal changes rung on the moral evil of slavery, the sin of slavery, the abominable guilt of slavery, -to be told that the ineffable horrors of slavery did not admit of discussion, and to be seriously asked what article of the decalogue slavery does not violate. And because the South listened to all this, unchafed and patiently, one or two papers at the north (and I believe the Reflector among them) forgot themselves, and, when the meetings were over, indulged in pœans and flourishes which showed they did not comprehend us. Now what I do entreat is, that you will cherish no delusion on this point. Even Dr. Channing censures this conduct of the abolitionists, and says, "They have done wrong, I believe; nor is their wrong to be winked at because done fanatically, or with good intentions; for how much mischief may be wrought with good designs! They have fallen into the common error of enthusiasts, that of exaggerating their object, of feeling as if no evil existed but that which they opposed, and as if no guilt could be compared with that of countenancing and upholding it. The tone of their newspapers, as far as I have seen them, has often been fierce, bitter, and abusive." We are willing to weigh reasons, but assertion, and abuse, and blustering, will be heard in silence, because this subject is not to be treated in that style. A correspondent in your last number holds up to me, as a model, the magnanimity of the Northern States in emancipating a few slaves who had become a burden to their owners. We understand this perfectly, and when in a similar situation will abolish, too. This writer is, however, utterly blind, if he supposes that the question with us now is about the value of so much slave property only. It regards all kinds of property, all civilization, and life itself; and in such a case to |
