of slavery. In all the allusions of the New Testament writers to this subject, not a word is found which seems as if they approved of one man's holding another in bondage; not a word to encourage the master in perpetuating the degraded condition of his servants; not a word to caution him against the "mistaken philanthropy" of giving them their freedom.

2. It is manifest that the apostles regarded the condition of slaves with compassionate sympathy. Their language, when they inculcate on servants the duties of their station, breathes always the spirit of condolence. They enjoin it on every slave who may be made free, to accept the higher responsibilities of a freeman, as more worthy of one redeemed by the blood of Christ. We find in their writings no pictures of the happiness of servitude; none of the sickening common-places of southern philanthropy about the contentment of slaves, their exemption from care, the lightness of their tasks, and the superiority of their condition over that of a free peasantry. Every word in the New Testament, that touches on slavery, is in a very different tone.

3. Immediate emancipation on the part of slaveholders, was not a condition of membership in the apostolic churches. Philemon, a man of consideration among the saints at Colosse, was a slaveholder. Paul expected that Timothy, in fulfilling his office of an evangelist, would have occasion to exhort some slaves, at least, that had believing masters, (TITOUS dedoras.) In the church at Ephesus, as well as in that of the Colossians, there were so many masters, that it seemed proper to address them as a distinct

class. All these men must have been acknowledged as credible professors of Christianity. Yet, not one word is said by way of enjoining upon them the immediate emancipation of their servants; not one word which implies that to live in the relation of a master, even for an hour, is to live in high-handed iniquity; not one word which intimates any sympathy with a certain Address to the Presbyterian Church, which has been widely circulated at the expense, we presume, of some of the leading abolitionists, (so called,) in the city of New York. "Slaveholding," says that address, "under every possible modification, is man-stealing. Man-stealing, as combining impiety in principle, falsehood in claim, injustice and cruelty without intermission and without end, is the most flagrant iniquity which a sinner can perpetrate. All profession of religion, by a man who thus acts, is a gross deception." Such is the modern doctrine of immediate emancipation. The master of a slave, under every possible modification of that relation, is guilty of the most flagrant iniquity possible; his crime is one in which impiety and falsehood, injustice and cruelty unremitting and interminable, are all combined; and if he attempts to make a profession of religion, he is a gross deceiver. Such were the TiσTOI deσTOTαi of whom Paul speaks to Timothy. Such was Philemon, whom the great apostle styled, "our dearly beloved, and fellow-laborer." Such were the "masters" in the churches at Ephesus and Colosse. The apostles did not teach immediate abolitionism, nor did they form their churches on that basis.

4. The apostles seem to have taken it for granted,

that the Christian master would do for his slaves all that was consistent with their welfare and the public good. So Paul acted in the case of Philemon and Onesimus. The slave is sent back to his master, and the master's legal claim is distinctly recognized. Yet it is taken for granted, that Philemon will act with other views than a regard to his own pecuniary interest; that he will look on Onesimus not as an article of merchandise, but as a man, a brother, and will treat him accordingly. It is taken for granted that now, since the grace of God has taken effect on the once unprofitable slave, and has fitted him to be happy and useful under the responsibilities of freedom, his Christian master will not only forgive his past offences, but will send him forth free, to be the helper of Paul, or in any other way to advance the kingdom of the Saviour. So to masters generally, the command was, 'Render to your servants that which is right and equitable ;' and it was left to an enlightened conscience to decide, in each instance, what the principles of right and equity required. Of course it was taken for granted, that the slave would be treated as an intelligent and immortal being; and that, whenever the great rule of equity, the golden rule of love, required the slave to be put upon his own resources, and set to act under his own guidance, he would be emancipated.

We find the discussion extending itself beyond our expectation, and the printer warns us to bring it to a conclusion. Let us look, then, at some points f Christian duty in regard to slavery, as we have do with it in this country at the present day.

1. Ought the naked fact, that a certain man is the master of slaves, to exclude him, without farther inquiry, from the communion of the churches? We answer, No. It may be that he came into that relation without any act of his own. It may be that he is doing for the welfare of those slaves, conscientiously and diligently, the most that existing circumstances will allow. It may be that if he emancipates them from under his hand, the sheriff will immediately arrest them, and sell them to the highest bidder. It may be that he is prosecuting a course of measures, which, after less than a seven years' "apprenticeship," will result in their real emancipation. The mere fact that he is invested with a certain legal power over the persons of these individuals, implying a certain legal title to their services, is not necessarily a crime. The author of these letters on slavery, while he was educating his servants to take care of themselves, and providing their outfit to Liberia, was not a criminal, though he was still their master, and as such, responsible for their good government. The question, in each individual instance, is, Whence did this man obtain his power over these his fellow-men? and to what ends is he employing it? On the answer to this question will depend the propriety of allowing his claims to be considered as a servant of Christ. If he makes it a business to breed slaves for marketif he treats rational and immortal beings only as if they were cattle-nay, if he does not see carefully, not only that their physical wants are supplied, but that they are restrained from vice, and properly instructed, especially in the things of their everlasting

peace; and if, after due admonition, he will not repent of his iniquity, then treat him as a heathen man and a publican.

2. Ought the mere buying of a slave to exclude the buyer from Christian communion? Not the mere act of buying. The question is, To what end, and with what views, was the purchase made? A friend of ours in the District of Columbia, once bought a negro woman with a family of children. 'Away with him!' cry the abolitionists- Excommunicate him! But, "good friends, sweet friends, let us not stir you up to such a sudden rage ;"take your fingers from your ears, and hear the story. That woman and her children were for sale, and, by the operation of the internal (or, as the word is sometimes spelled, not incorrectly, infernal) slavetrade, were about to be transported to the extreme south. There are philanthropists who would have stood by to witness the transaction, and would have eased their burthened minds, by letting off a volley of execrations. But our friend has taken no degrees in their college. Though not worth a dollar beyond his daily earnings, he bought the whole family, borrowed the money on his own responsibility, with the endorsement of a friend, and, if we mistake not, owes for it, and pays seven per cent. interest for it, to this day. Those slaves are now free, not in Liberia, but in America; and their benefactor, a standing mark for the obloquy of some who think themselves the only abolitionists, toils on in the great cause of suffering humanity, burthened with the debt of that purchase. When any of those who have arrayed themselves as his enemies, shall