in its platforms, in its primary meetings, upon the stump, at elections, in Congress, in the Supreme Court. Certain concessions emboldened Southern politicians to demand what had never been dreamed of by the founders of the Government; but the demand was no sooner made than it was granted, and generally, in latter days, in the name of the supreme organic law; so that, at length, the doctrine of Southern Statesmen, and of nearly the whole Southern people, was precisely that stated by Dr. Thornwell, in his elaborate vindication of the secession of South Carolina: "The Constitution covers the whole territory of the Union, and throughout that territory has taken slavery under the protection of law;" a doctrine, as understood at the South, which would have startled the framers of the Constitution, and which is nevertheless but the echo of the celebrated declaration of President Buchanan about Kansas while it was yet a Territory, that slavery existed there in fact and by the Constitution of the United States, as truly as it existed in Georgia and South Carolina.

RESPONSIBILITY AMONG CHURCHMEN NORTH.

The subserviency of Northern politicians had its counterpart within the Northern Churches, and in those ecclesiastical bodies which extended into all parts of the Union. We do not mean that corruption, bargaining, and sale, for place and profit, occurred in like manner; but the disposition to apologize, extenuate, stifle discussion, and yield to Southern wishes, lest slavery should receive some damage, or somebody or something connected with it, somewhere or somehow, should be in some manner or in some degree hurt, in purse, feeling, or character; all this has been too frequently illustrated in the higher courts of the Church, and defended by religious journals, and makes too

SOUTHSIDE VIEW OF NORTHERN CLERGYMEN.

89

prominent and frequent a figure in our recent religious history, scarcely to need in these pages any recurrence to the facts except in a general statement. And yet it may be well to confirm this view by a bare reference to the influence this course had upon the South, as seen in Southern testimony.

SOUTHSIDE VIEW OF NORTHERN CLERGYMEN.

A man's standing and influence are generally pretty well determined by the estimation in which he is held by his judicious friends. Taking this as a fair criterion of judgment, we have only to turn the eye South to perceive how certain Northern men in the Church were regarded upon those questions which politically and religiously divided the country, and at length terminated in rebellion and war, and thus to see on which side their influence for many years, when these difficulties were culminating, was thrown.

If in taking this Southern observation we are led to give names, it is because we find them presented in the South, and because they are prominent persons and representative men of a large class at the North. If special distinct on is given to individuals, it only shows how highly their services were valued; and if they are now found at last upon the side of the country and its real interests, it only serves to make the lamentation at the loss of their services the more bitter, and to give the sarcasm in which it is expressed a keener point.

The Southern Presbyterian, a religious weekly published at Columbia, South Carolina, is a good authority upon the point in hand. In its issue of February 23, 1861, it refers, as "a sign of the times," to a discussion then going on between Rev. William Matthews, of Georgia, and Rev. Dr. N. L. Rice, then editor of the Presbyterian Expositor,

at Chicago. The Southern editor, Rev. A. A. Porter,

says:

We do not intend to report the particulars of this correspondence, which would be profitless. We allude to it for a different purpose. We have called it a sign of the times! We regard it as such for several reasons: Because Dr. Rice, who has heretofore been DISTINGUISHED as a defender of slavery and the South, and as an antagonist of the antislavery party, now has wheeled about with Dr. Hodge, and, like him, appears on the other side, against the South and Slavery. We have heard much of late about a reaction in the North in favor of the South, and have been assured that our cause was gaining ground there. Does this look like it?

To appreciate fully the point here made, it is only necessary to bear in mind that this comes from one who well knows the course of opinion and discussion in the Church and the country, and that it comes from the capital of South Carolina. If the course of Dr. Rice for twenty years past has such an estimation in such a quarter, where, to be "a defender of slavery and the South," and to be "distinguished" as such, has a meaning whose significance cannot be mistaken,-it is better testimony than any we could give to show how great has been his influence, and on which side it has been exerted, during the gestation period of that gigantic iniquity which at length gathered sufficient strength from such nutriment to come forth armed and equipped to make war upon good government and popular liberty. This same article. pronounces Dr. Rice "probably the adroitest debater now living," another indication of the high esteem in which his defences of "Slavery and the South" were held,—and thousands at the North well know, that had not the class of which he is so prominent a representative taken the course they did, there would have been formed such a public sentiment in the Church at least as would have

SOUTHSIDE VIEW OF NORTHERN CLERGYMEN. 91

checked the growing proslaveryism and spirit of domination in the South, and which would have gone far towards preventing secession, treason, rebellion, and war.

The name of Dr. Hodge occurs in the foregoing paragraph, associated with that of Dr. Rice. It appears, how-, ever, and we should in justice state, that he is not claimed as having given his influence to the South in the same manner. Southern men differ upon the point, it is true. Dr. Armstrong, in his "Christian Doctrine of Slavery," frequently quotes Dr. Hodge as sustaining his own views; and Dr. Armstrong, it is well known, as seen in that book and in his discussions with Dr. Van Rensselaer, though mild in his terms and eminently Christian in his spirit, maintained and vindicated the extreme view, substantially, of the system taken at the South. It is well known, too, that Dr. Hodge's writings on slavery have been extensively circulated and approved at the South, and have undoubt edly exerted a large influence to make the Southern people quite contented with the status of the institution, and quite willing it should be perpetuated. It is possible, also, that in the above paragraph the editor designs to put Drs. Rice and Hodge in the same category, and yet it is not probable; for in a subsequent paper he speaks very differently of the latter.

66

In reply to a correspondent, who refers to "the course of Dr. Hodge, Dr. Rice, Dr. Lord, Dr. Breckinridge, and Dr. Engles," in regard to the state of the country, as unexpected," and who, notwithstanding that "course," says of them, They are every one with us, and against abolitionists, on the slavery question,"-deeming the fact so important as to array the sentence in italics,-the editor, the Rev. A. A. Porter, in The Southern Presbyterian of March 30, 1861, thus excepts by name two of the persons concerned:

We cannot agree with our correspondent that the views of the eminent men whom he names, on the slavery question, are acceptable to Southern Presbyterians. Our readers, who noticed the communication of "Georgia," in our last number, must be convinced that there is a wide and radical difference between us and Dr. Hodge on that subject. Dr. Breckinridge, it is well known, is, and always has been, an emancipationist-that is, in favor of the gradual abolition of slavery. So is Dr. Hodge. So, we doubt not, are almost the entire body of Northern Presbyterians.

It thus appears, that while Dr. Hodge is quoted favorably by Dr. Armstrong at Norfolk, Virginia, he is not deemed sound in South Carolina and Georgia. Latitude sometimes affects men's views of moral questions. He is by no means put in the category with Dr. Rice, at the South; for, although Dr. Rice has said some hard things of slavery, and has been regarded as an "emancipationist" also, at least at the North, he has, nevertheless, always taken such a course, and illustrated so highly the peculiar skill of "the adroitest debater now living," that the South, -even "the extremists" among them, as we see,—claimed him as THEIR MAN par excellence, to do their work at the North, and thus give them substantial "aid and comfort." Hence they have always spoken of him kindly, and valued his services at a very high figure. This is shown as truly in their incidental references as it would be in a more elaborate commendation, and at the same time the thing is done with a better grace. Here is another specimen, in The Southern Presbyterian of April 27, 1861, where the South Carolina editor again laments that he can count no longer on the services of his quondam friend:

No less authority than Dr. N. L. Rice, who has been regarded in the South as OUR BEST FRIEND at the North, and who, if we mistake not, drew up the act of 1845, which was supposed by the South to be a decision in our favor, tells us that we must not interpret that as reversing former acts.