and leader, are unwilling to stay behind. Public spirit faints at the sight clean away. And none laments, not a tear is shed. Then cold civility and hypocritical compliment, party purposes aud selfish aims, occupy their places.

And now, christian reader, how do you think the Lord Jesus Christ will look upon all this? He has been highly dishonored. A worm has been put in his place. A worm whom his favor and bounty distinguished. How has he been slighted! the shining of the glow-worm has been preferred to the splendor of the sun. His authority in the thing which he has commanded has been disregarded, and the promise of his presence has passed for nothing in forming this unhallowed relation. His bride hath basely violated her engagements and taken up with another lover. His ordinances have been prostituted. The wall of his vineyard has been broken down-the sheep of his flock scattered and torn.

These are heavy charges doubtless. On whom do they fall in this case? On this man, say the people. Right, but are the people clear? Nay, verily. They are partakers with him in all this guilt and shame. Did he "love the pre-eminence ?" they raised the platform to let him up. Has he betrayed his Master? They promised him money. Is he proud, they flattered him. Has he loved the world and debauched and ruined the church? they followed and gave him countenance.

Let none be so deluded as to expect from Christ a blessing on this work. As soon may you expect from him his throne. And neutral He cannot be. Listen to the awful words that break from his lips-"These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes as a flame of fire, and his feet like unto fine brass. I know thy works-behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He that searcheth the hearts and the reins, and I will give to every one of you according to your works." Terrible things! and they are threatened on those who commit fornication and adultery, and eat things sacrificed to idols. And they who put a man in Christ's place are guilty of them. They have been often executed since they were first uttered. And still they are threatened. Often has his blasting word fallen upon the much admired talents as it did upon the barren fig-tree, and dried them up by the roots. Consider this and be afraid, ye that overlook, supplant, betray him, lest he tear you in pieces and then there is no deliverer.

A word or two to the serious and I have done.

What has the church to expect from ordinances, unless Christ's presence be in them? You will probably say, nothing-no water to the panting soul, no refreshment to the hungry, no strength to him that is ready to faint, nothing conducive to the preparing of the soul for glory. And this is true. But then it is not all the truth If his presence be not in them, they are deadly-the mind is puffed up, the heart is hardened, and the people sit down content with the form of godliness, and deny the power of it. And when the great day of reckoning comes, all the talents of God's creation cannot balance their loss.

Again, if Christ's presence is in his ordinances, what will be wanting to make up the comfort, the peace, and growth in grace of the believer? You will plainly say, nothing. His presence makes every word of truth to be food-darkness to be light-every bitter thing to be sweet. I do not say that it will make bad grammar to be good, or awkward gestures to stand with the rules of rhetoric, but it will make them invisible. You

will be like the captive princess, who saw not Cyrus for looking at the man-her husband, who offered his life for her liberty.

Now, in a word-What sort of men have they generally been, whom Christ has called to the work, and whose labors he has most remarkably blessed? Turn to the 1st chap. of 1 Corinth. 26th verse :-" Not many wise men after the flesh-not many mighty-not many noble are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen-yea, and things that are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh may glory in his presence."

A. G.

ART. II. Further Reflections on the Treatment of our Colored

Population.

MR. EDITOR-I come now to speak of our common guilt in reference to our treatment of the unfortunate African race. Before entering on that subject, I wish very briefly to notice your remarks contained in the September No.

You say I am still in the dark on the subject of slavery. The truth of that proposition I feel no disposition to controvert, and cannot but entreat others who are more enlightened, to dispel the gloom with which I may be surrounded. The only boon I crave is, that I may be permitted to lay my complaint fully before them, that their prescriptions may prove radical and complete. This I speak not in ironical bitterness, but in the simplicity of my heart. While, however, professing a willingness, as her votary, to drink at every fountain opened by truth, I must proclaim my resolution, as her enlisted soldier, to fight wherever I see her banner wave. Candor and plainness becomes the importance of the subject, and the perilous condition of our common country. The action of this generation touching the subject of slavery, may not only affect our future happiness, but on it may depend our existence as a nation. It be comes the christian, then, to put on his armor and assume his station in the front of the embattled host, not to urge furious factions to deeds of carnage and destruction, but to point out the path of duty with that firmness, meekness, and abiding confidence, which a righteous cause and a clear conscience never fail to inspire.

I must be singularly unfortunate in the use of language, as it seems I cannot make myself fairly understood. To speak of slavery as an institution of God, has never been my purpose, unless a tolerated evil may be so regarded. Since comparisons are considered well adapted to convey ideas distinctly, I shall introduce one to illustrate my sentiments and views. Suppose a person was to do some unlawful deed, by which all the members and functions of his body became infected with a paralizing and loathsome disease, would his suffering under that disease be sinful? Would it be sinful in him if he failed to use such limbs as had become impotent, before they were restored to strength? Duty would require him to resort to every proper means to have his health restored, that he might attain a perfect use of all his members, in their various and

complicated functions, and wherein he failed to do so, he would be culpable. This may serve to illustrate our moral condition. Slavery among mankind, in all its phases, may be regarded as a part of this disease, and ought undoubtedly to be eradicated; but in the body social, as in the body physical, much injury may be done by the application of violent or improper remedies, so it is highly imprudent to make, or attempt to make, a diseased limb perform the functions of a sound one.

But am I certainly mistaken' in supposing that tyranny and oppression are not essential to slavery. I think I can not be mistaken. The Jews were permitted to buy persons; these persons were declared to be their money, and were subject to their control. Long before this permission was given, the slave trade was regularly carried on. Now, were those persons not slaves when their masters owned them as property, and exercised authority over them as persons? Free men they could not be, and I know of no neutral ground on which to place them. That they were not preciseiy in the same condition with our slaves may be admitted, for perhaps no two people ever held slaves exactly in the same way. Now God surely will not, surely he cannot, give a written permissive grant to a creature as a rule of action, which is essentially morally wrong. This argument appears to me, at least, to be conclusive and invulnerable. The divine law, so far as I know, grants no permission to sell a man, and herein is its beauty and benevolence manifested. We may buy a man in the exercise of the kindest feelings and noblest sentiments of our nature, but if we sell one, the promptings must come from the very fountain of mischief itself. But can we not imagine a case in which it would be an act of mercy and benevolence to enslave a person? It is well known, that among men in a rude stage of society, it is the law and the usage, too, to slay all captives taken in war; even the Jews were allowed to do this, if the enemy refused the first offer of capitulation. Now, suppose a chieftain more humane than his fellows, instead of killing his captives, would take them into his family and service, and treat them kindly, would he be guilty of a breach of the divine law? Surely he would not. In his conduct towards them he might not come up fully to its injunctions, (who does do so) but he would be manifestly reaching forward to those things that are before. Our great sin in this land is, not that we have slaves, but that we are not striving with laudable and enlightened zeal to benefit them. We are sinning in fact against light and knowledge, and instead of going forward we are going backward, drawing the chain of bondage tighter and tighter.

Were not the directions and admonitions of the sacred writers, given as a rule of conduct for servants, addressed to persons bound in involuntary servitude? Have there not been in all ages of the world a large portion of the human family in that condition, and can we suppose that a compassionate God has entirely overlooked them? It is clearly evident, then, that the directions referred to have special respect to such persons, or they have been altogether neglected. On which horn of this dilemma those doctors choose to hang, who insist that the relationship of master and slave is sinful, is for themselves to determine, but on one of them hang they surely must. Voluntary servitude is a strange conception. Rational men will not engage to do service without compensation, and if they do so for compensation, they exercise an unquestionable attribute of freedom, the obligations being mutual and reciprocal betwixt the parties contracting, one engaging to do one thing and the other engaging to do another thing. If they can be called servants at all,

they must be servants to each other. What there is in the condition of persons thus exercising the high functions of free men, which calls for sympathy and condolence, it is difficult to conceive.

I am slow to believe that I misinterpret the Synod's late act. If Synod did not intend to dissolve the relationship of master and slave within the bounds of our communion, it is difficult to conceive what was the object in view, and should this bond be dissolved, I am at a loss to see how the consequences pointed out could be avoided. I must think that A—B— in my last communication occupies the scriptural ground on which a slave-holder ought to stand; he gives his slave full compensation for all his labor, the extra labor spoken of being that which he performs for his master, when not tilling his allotted field, the master performing for him the combined office of protector, guardian and overseer. It is true there is nothing said about dissolving the relationship of master and slave, for the very obvious reason, that it cannot be done without the action of the commonwealth. In fact, in the present situation of the country, such a dissolution, if practicable, could operate only to the disadvantage of the slave, without conferring a solitary benefit. It is well known to those who are conversant with the laws of the slave-holding States, that the slaves have no legal existence as persons, that they cannot appear as parties in any law-suit before the lowest courts of justice, nor can they acquire, own, or convey the most insignificant piece of property, nor sustain an action for personal abuse. Hence the necessity of a guardian and protector. A writing declaratory of his freedom,' would convey to the slave neither right nor privilege; indeed, for any thing that is good, it would prove entirely nugatory, though for harm it might not be so. Could any honest, conscientious master make such a solemn declaration, whilst his relation to the slave remained in other respects unchanged? In what an awkward predicament would it place him? How could he, after having done so, appear before the law tribunals of the land, and aver that this person whom he declared to be free was his slave, and that the property which he had earned was his property. This he would be conipelled to do, in order to protect the person of the slave and the property which was in his hand.

Such declaration could not even secure freedom of action for one hour, nor his domicile from continued inspection, because it would be unjust to require protection and exact accountability, where there was no authority to control. Let us point out precisely what the condition of this person would be after this solemn declaration had been made. He would not have the control of his own person; if assaulted, he could obtain no redress; he could neither earn, own, or convey property; he could collect no debts; he could make no contracts; his house would be continually open to the inspection of another; himself and family, and the property in his hands, would be subject to execution and sale, to pay the debts of his master; himself and family would descend as slaves to the heirs of his master, at his master's decease; he could enjoy no right, nor exercise any privilege, civil or political! Is it not perversion of language, as intimated in my last, to call such a person a free man in any sense whatever? On these points, however, I must not enlarge, but turn to the subject proposed for consideration.

Here, I doubt not, my views wil be stoutly controverted by many a proud, hardened sinner, and perhaps they will be so dealt with, even by some who are meek and lowly saints. To excuse ourselves, and lay blame on others, is an old device of Satan, and bespeaks us the genuine

offspring of our original apostate progenitor. It is painful to notice the many conclusive evidences which daily present themselves to our eyes, that thousands living in the non-slave-holding part of our country regard the guilt of slavery as resting entirely on the heads of the slave-holders, and that they themselves are guiltless. At almost every political meeting, we hear the sentiment iterated and reiterated that slavery is a subject in which the slave-holders alone are interested, and that of course it ought to be left entirely to their management and control, and that for others to meddle with it bespeaks a disposition to interfere with things that do not concern them. Even the religious part of the community seem unconscious of the existence of a stronger plea for the steps which they take in opposition to slavery than that of benevolence to the unfortunate, and the preservation of ordinances in their purity. The idea that they have incurred guilt, and that a sacrifice is due, that atonement may be made, appears never once to cross their minds. While this condition of things endures, what can we expect to accomplish? Conviction of sin must precede works that are meet for repentance, and assuredly, so long as we, Pharisee-like, stand by clothed with garments deeply stained with guilt and say to our brethren, come not near me, I am holier than thou,' we need never look to Heaven for a blessing on our efforts.

We of the free States, by denying any participation in the guilt of slavery, not only do injustice to our own souls, but we cast from us the most efficient weapon we can use in behalf of the bond man. While we inculcate this idea, well may the slave-holder upbraid us with officious intermeddling, and in derision point to the millions in every land suffering from cruel tyranny, as equally fit subjects of our sympathy and But were we to approach them, acknowledging that we participated in contracting the guilt, that we have lent our aid in sustaining the odious system, and that we fear the wrath of offended Heaven if justice be not speedily extended to the oppressed, far different might be the reception of our expostulations and entreaties.

care.

I shall argue, and I trust, shall prove our community of guilt, from three sources of evidence, viz: from the manner in which it was incurred, from the manner in which the system has been upheld, and from the nature of those judgments which are likely to be inflicted on this land on account of it.

As brevity must be consulted, we can only glance at the volumes of evidence which crowd upon us at every turn. Indeed, were it not that the position assumed is so generally either flatly denied or carelessly overlooked, it would seem to be labor spent in vain, to prove a point already written in sunbeams on every page of our country's history. It is not necessary to analyze with philosophic nicety, the sentiments and feelings of the age in which the poor Africans began to be transported from their native land to our continent, and chained in cruel bondage. After all that may be said of the rudeness of the period in which it was done, after all that can be plead of its barbarous ignorance and the little knowledge then attained as to civil rights and religious liberty, it must ever remain a dark, a bloody page, disgraceful to the christian name. That Protestant England followed so closely in the footsteps of the mother of harlots, in filling up a chasm which she had made by her cruelty in one continent, by barbarously transporting colonists in chains from another, redounds nothing to the wisdom of her counsels nor to the glory of her arms. At such a time and under such circumstances, as an integral part of the British empire, these States emerged from that obscurity which had enveloped