unequivocal, authenticating claim, either in a legal or moral point of view.

First, legal. As growing out of obvious, unequivocal ecclesiastical law. Now we think this cannot be maintained, because, first, a majority of the General Conference, who are, when convened, the constitutional interpreters of their own acts, have, when thus assembled, declared, by the solemn vote of a large majority, that the so-called compromise laws were not intended to protect a bishop in voluntarily connecting himself with slavery. And, second, because of its unreasonableness. It being, in effect, a nullification of the other standing laws of the Church on the subject of slavery, which brand and treat it as a great wrong.

Second, moral. As having the support and sanction of essential moral principle. This also we think cannot be maintained, for the following reasons:

1. It has as its only basis, a conventional article or plan of division, extorted in the hour of confusion and hurried excitement, as a contingency to meet possible, future, apprehended difficulties.

2. This contingency was forthwith acted upon, by the issue of a call for a convention of the Church, composed of the slaveholding States, in contravention of the faith of the party assenting to it merely as a contingency, the necessity of which, time and circumstances must determine.

3. The contingency itself, should it, in the developments of time and circumstances, be found necessary, in accordance with the faith of the assenting party, is based on an illegitimate expediency, subversive of essential moral principle; which in itself, apart from the aforementioned reasons but particularly in connexion

with them, brands it as not having the support or sanction of gospel morality. And if, as we think we have here proved, it shall be found that the suit now in progress has neither the sanction of law or morals, can the South proceed one step further in a course so essentially wrong, and still lay claim to the character of Christians? We think not.

Should they continue in their present position, everything that can be done without giving up essential moral principle should be done, to give them their portion of the goods. And now, brethren, to close this long address, as before intimated, "I wot that in ignorance ye have done these things;" that is, without a correct understanding of the question of slavery, and the principles involved in the course you have taken. Weigh well the doctrines of these pages, and the arguments by which they are sustained. Examine them in the light of Scripture and reason. If you can, answer and refute them. If you cannot, retrace your steps.

CONCLUSION.

"LET us hear the conclusion of the matter." Well, as has been already stated, there are two great classes of truth, or law, which govern this relation, and which are to be kept steadily in view if, in our investigation of this subject, we would be conducted to safe and satisfactory conclusions; a want of attention to which has, as we think, greatly contributed to the confusion and darkness in which this question seems yet to be involved. And,

First. They are the great essential laws of right and eternal rectitude, in the sense of immutable truth, as pertaining to the first constitution of things.

Second. The great laws of Christianity, or the principles of a remedial government.

The first law, or constitution of things, determines slavery to be essentially wrong.

The second law keeps up essentially the same idea, but directs how to manage that wrong when and where it is found in existence.

This brief analysis seems to us to be Scriptural and rational, and as commending itself to the sober judgment of all men as such.

Now, as it appears to us, the extremes of this question are as follows:

The ultraism of abolition plants itself on unbending moral law, and measures the whole question by this rule. This is correct, so far as the principle is con

cerned; and will equally apply to all other wrong principles which have obtained in the history of our fallen world. But is this the rule on which the Divine government, as now constituted, proceeds? Is there no regard paid to the providential circumstances of our existence-our ignorance, our unavoidable connexion with evil, &c.? Why, on all other subjects, the principles of a remedial government apply; but on this subject there is no grace in any of its phases, for, says the Rev. Edward Smith, Slavery is essentially man-stealing under all circumstances," and as such a soul-damning sin; and the person or persons connected therewith-though, so far as the circumstances which originated the evil, and by which it was first made, and continues to be, an element of the social and civil state, are as innocent as the angels in heaven-cannot have a place in the Church of God; and therefore the apostles never admitted them to its communion and fellowship.

Pro-slaveryism plants itself on unlimited and irresponsible grace; and claims, in contravention of the law of nature and eternal rectitude, a Divine right to practise on the principle; and thus wholly overlooks the great design of the gospel, as a gracious expedient to restore us back as fully, in spirit and practice, to primitive rectitude as is consistent with our fallen condition, the consummation of which must, in its onward march, sweep away slavery, and every other refuge of lies, which, under the dominion and prevalence of sin, has obtained in the world. And also forgets that the Gospel tolerates it temporarily, only in view of this reaction of grace, and holds us responsible, as Christians, for the fulfilment of the law of nature and eternal rectitude as fully, both in spirit and

practice, as can be done in the providential circumstances of our gracious existence: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us; who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Now, as it appears to us, the truth lies between these extremes. The law judges the character of slavery; the gospel, the circumstances of our connexion with it. The law proclaims the slave's right to freedom; the gospel shows us how, and sets us to work, not by acts of violence, but on principles of moral goodness, to bring about that freedom.

This, as before remarked, seems to us to be the only rational view we can take of this question; and hence the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism, which, as before stated, is in recognition of both these laws, demonstrates her position to be Scriptural and rational; as well as the folly, not to say the wickedness, of her detractors, both in the North and South.

And now we have done. Not that we have said all that might be said; nor yet that we would claim. exemption from all imperfections, either in style or sentiment. This would be too much to expect in a work written mainly in the interval of hours snatched from the labours of the field by day, or rest by night. We simply mean that we have said what we have deemed necessary to place this question in a Scriptural and rational light before the Church and world; and are unfeignedly conscious of not having designedly attempted to pervert or suppress our sober convictions of truth.

That it shall escape censure, is not to be expected; nor yet that the author's motives will not be impugned. We desire that it may be tried by the closest scrutiny, as to doctrine; and if, when weighed