sight of God,' and never once tell them it was a crime; to allow them to go on in this course of iniquity, to the ruin of their souls, is a supposition which shocks the moral sense. Nothing but the explicit declaration that slaveholding was a crime, and immediate emancipation a duty, could satisfy the demands of conscience, in such a case. Men were constantly coming to the apostle to ask, what they must do to be saved, what God would have them to do; and if they did not answer those questions openly and honestly, according to their real convictions, they were bad men. Such conduct in any other case would by all men be pronounced immoral. Suppose our missionaries among the heathen, in teaching the gospel, should, from motives of policy, abstain from telling them the truth, should fail intentionally to inform them that idolatry, adultery, child-murder, or any like crime, was a grievous sin in the sight of God, would not all the world pronounce them unfaithful? Do not abolitionists condemn southern ministers for not explicitly stating that slaveholding is a crime, and immediate emancipation a duty? Would they not view with abhorrence the minister who really coincided with them in his views, and yet through fear of consequences, held his peace, and allow his hearers to sin on in security? Would not, on the contrary, the world ring with their shouts in praise of the man who, in fidelity to God, and in love to man, should openly preach the truth on these points to a congregation of slaveholders, even though it brought sudden destruction on his own head? We fear, however, we are only obscuring the clearness of a self-evident truth, by multiplying illustrations. The conduct of the apostles is absolutely irreconcilable with moral honesty, if they believed slaveholding to be a heinous crime in the sight of God. They were either bad men, or they were not abolitionists, in the American sense of that word. 2. But again, the course ascribed to the apostles in reference to slavery, is not only base in itself, but it is contrary to their conduct in all analogous cases. Slaveholding is the only sin familiar to those to whom they

preached, and about which they wrote, that they failed to denounce. Idolatry was a crime which was more prevalent than slaveholding; more implicated in all the institutions of life, in support of which stronger passions were engaged, and in attacking which they could not look for the support of one-half or two-thirds of the community. Yet idolatry they everywhere proclaimed to be a crime, inconsistent with Christianity and a bar to salvation. The consequence was, the apostles were persecuted even to death. It is not true that they kept back the truth for fear of suffering. They called God to witness that they declared the whole counsel of God, and were clear of every man's blood. It is said that the cases of idolatry and slavery are not parallel, because it was more dangerous to denounce the latter than the former. Admitting the fact, is the degree of danger attending the discharge of a duty the measure of its obligation? Must a religious teacher, in explaining the way of salvation, keep back the truth-one of the most effectual methods of teaching falsehood because he may incur danger by inculcating it? We do not, however, believe the fact. We believe that the apostles might have taught that slaveholding is a sin, with far less danger than that which they incurred by teaching that what the heathen sacrificed they sacrificed to devils. We need not conceive of their adopting the system of agitation, and the whole 'moral machinery' of modern times. They adopted no such course with regard to idolatry. But they might doubtless, with comparative safety, have told slaveholders that it was their duty to emancipate their slaves. They could as well have enjoined them to set their servants free, as to command them to render to them what is just and equal. Many men, without any great exhibition of courage, have taught and do still teach the moral evil of slaveholding in the midst of slaveholders. And even now, any man who, in a meek, sincere, and benevolent spirit, should say to southern planters, that the relation they sustain to their slaves is contrary to the will of God, and incompatible with their own

salvation, would meet with no greater disturbance than the Quakers have experienced in making their annual testimony against slavery.

"The course ascribed to the apostles is not only inconsistent with fidelity, and contrary to their uniform practice, but it is moreover opposed to the conduct of the messengers of God in all ages. The ancient prophets never failed to reprove the people for their sins, and to exhort them to repentance, no matter how strong the attachment of their hearers to their iniquity, or how powerful the interests leagued in its support. Elijah did not fail to denounce the worship of Baal, though Ahab and Jezebel were determined to kill the prophets of God; nor did John the Baptist fail to tell Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his brother's wife.”

(5.) Another consideration relied on is, that the apostles nowhere exhort masters to liberate their slaves; they speak of the relation as one of comparatively little account, and as one attended with few disadvantages. Thus the Princeton Reviewer says,

"The subject is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his personal instructions. The apostles refer to it, not to pronounce upon it as a question of morals, but to prescribe the relative duties of masters and slaves. They caution those slaves who have believing or Christian masters, not to despise them because they were on a perfect religious equality with them, but to consider the fact that their masters were their brethren, as an additional reason for obedience. It is remarkable that there is not even an exhortation to masters to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and immediate duty. They are commanded to be kind, merciful, and just; and to remember that they have a Master in heaven. Paul repre

'Let

sents this relation as of comparatively little account. every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant, (or slave,) care not for it; though, should the opportunity of freedom be presented, embrace it. These external relations, however, are of little

importance, for every Christian is a freeman in the highest and best sense of the word, and at the same time is under the strongest bonds to Christ.' 1 Cor. vii. 20-22.”

If the relation is a mild one, and on the whole not very undesirable, and if masters are never exhorted to disturb it by any act of voluntary emancipation, it seems to be inferred that the New Testament is not inimical to it, and that it is an institution which it is desirable to perpetuate for the best interests of society.

(6.) As a final argument to show that the apostles were not hostile to slavery, and that the institution is not opposed by Christianity, an appeal is made to the case of Onesimus, referred to in the epistle to Philemon. The argument relied on is, that Onesimus was a slave; that he had escaped from his master, and was a runaway; that he was converted under Paul; that he sent him back without any wish or concurrence on the part of Onesimus, and with a view that he might remain as a slave with Philemon. It is inferred from these supposed facts, (1.) That Paul regarded the relation as proper and desirable. (2.) That it is wrong for a slave to leave his master without his consent. (3.) That the effect of conversion should be to make a runaway slave willing to return to a state of bondage. (4.) That it is a duty to send back a runaway slave to his master; and, (5.) That the act of Paul in restoring Onesimus to his master, fairly proves that he supposed the relation was to be perpetual.*

It is on such arguments as these that those who maintain that slavery is not inconsistent with Christianity, rely. It is of importance, therefore, to examine the force of this reasoning, and to inquire whether the Saviour and his apostles meant to represent slavery as a desirable system for the best interests of society; as a system which is congenial with the gospel which they sought to propagate; as one which the gospel would serve to extend, and as so destitute

Compare Dr. Fuller's Letters to Dr. Wayland, p. 195,

of the elements of evil, that they would desire to see it perpetuated in connection with the Christian religion. I shall, therefore, examine these points at some length, with a view to ascertain the exact relation of Christianity to slavery, and particularly to the system as it exists in our own country. If Christianity would sustain and perpetuate that system, it may be assumed that the institution is not evil; if it would not, it is not a very forced conclusion that it is to be regarded as sinful and wrong.

I. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CHRIST HIMSELF EVER CAME IN CONTACT WITH SLAVERY.

The first inquiry which meets us here is, whether there is evidence that Christ himself ever came in contact with slavery. If he did, and regarded it as wrong, in the same sense as hypocrisy and sensuality are wrong, it is to be presumed that he would have denounced it in the same way as he did those things; and if he did not express his disapprobation of it, it seems to be a fair inference that he did not regard it as wrong. If, however, he never came in contact with it, nothing can be safely argued in favour of it from his silence, any more than it can be inferred that he was favourable to the sports of the amphitheatre at Rome, or to the orgies which were celebrated in honour of Bacchus, or to the claims to inspiration of the oracles of Dodona or Delphi. We can only argue in respect to his sentiments on such points, from the principles which he laid down of a general character, or from the incidental remarks which he made when discoursing on other topics.

In endeavouring, then, to ascertain the views of the Saviour on this subject, I would make the following remarks :—

(1.) There is no conclusive evidence that he ever came in contact with slavery at all. If the train of argument which has been pursued in regard to the tendency of the Mosaic institutions is well-founded, there is every probability that slavery had ceased in the Hebrew commonwealth long before the advent of the Saviour. There is no proof which I have