And with respect to liberating my slaves; while as a matter of duty, I should most likely at all events have done it; still the time and the manner and even the effect it would have on the slave question, were not unthought of. I did not, it is true, consult many, but I did consult some. I consulted a gentleman of great worth, who holds a large slave property, has deservedly a great influence among you, and from his public character and extensive acquaintance, had the best opportunity of knowing the public feeling, as to the effect emancipating slaves and sending them to the Colony, would have on the general cause. He gave it as his opinion that it would have a good effect. I inquired whether, in his opinion, it would give offence? He said no, assuredly not, in his opinion, and stated that he had been looking among his own slaves, to see if there were not some of a suitable character to send out. I did not, it is true, tell him my reasons for making the inquiry. The inquiry, however, was made with especial reference to my own case; and his opinion had an influence in removing an apprehension that I might offend some by liberating my slaves and sending them to Liberia; and the poor unfortunate piece in the Visitor, was, to little purpose, as it may seem, the subject of prudential consideration. After concluding that I ought, in way of answer to many things that had been said, given my views of slavery, I was in some doubt as to the best mode of doing it. It would have been more agreeable to me, and suited my immediate object better, to have done it from the pulpit. It was a religious, and not a political question, that I meant to discuss; and of course it belonged to the province of the pulpit. There were, however, usually a few slaves in our worshiping assemblies, and I thought such discussions not prudent before them. I had no wish that they should know anything about it. It was the duty of the master that I meant to discuss, and not that of the slave. It occurred to me that a few numbers in the Family Visitor, a religious paper, taken chiefly in religious families, would be the least exceptionable mode I could adopt. Few coloured persons can read, none took that paper, and perhaps few ever read it. It did not occur to me as possible that any great offence could be given by arguing the case freely and even

strongly in its pages. The appeal was made to professors of religion to the masters and mistresses of slaves. I did not, it is true, gravely tell them that said piece was not to be read to their slaves. I took it for granted that they would have common sense enough to know that.

The first and second numbers gave, I believe, no offence. Within a few days after the publication of the third, I received a note from the editor stating that he had been advised not to publish any more pieces on that subject, as possibly they might give offence. I wrote to him to discontinue them, as I had no wish to do that.

A few individuals in various quarters may not have liked the piece. I did not expect all to like it. Little notice, however, was taken of it, except among you, and in a few neighbouring places after hearing from you.

I am aware that some friends of the Colonization Society have represented me as injuring that cause by what I did.

The piece about which the complaint was made, does not contain one word about the Colonization Society, its objects or plans. I did not write it as a friend of colonizing, but as an enemy of slavery. The argument rests on other grounds, and desires no aid from colonizing plans.

If that Society was injured by prejudices resulting from their having given a passage to my slaves to the Colony, it was an unlooked for evil. When I asked a passage for them, I no more apprehended an evil to the Society than the Society did in granting it. I believe, however, that the real interest of the Society has not been injured, but promoted.

There was evidently in the public mind at that time, and especially in the non-slaveholding states, a diversity of opinion and feeling respecting the objects and bearing of the Colonization Society. Some considered it as a scheme of slaveholders to get clear of the free coloured people, that they might hold with a more enduring grasp the slaves. Others looked at the indirect bearing of the plan, and hoped that slaveholders would free their slaves and send them to the Colony. There was evidently a hesitancy in the minds of many, who are now the fast friends of the institution. They were willing to benefit the free, but disliked

to do so at the expense of the slaves. I, from the first, did believe that its indirect bearing on slavery would be good. I thought the state of hesitancy in the public mind, especially in the non-slaveholding states, required that a practical proof be given of the tendency of the Societya proof that all would understand. I thought it time that some slaves were freed to go out under the patronage of the Society. I offered mine, and they were acceptd.

If there were any who wished to remove the free coloured people for the purpose of retaining more firmly the slaves, it is possible that they may have been alienated from the Society on seeing its tendency. I believe, however, that it gained more friends than it lost, and those gained are fast friends; those lost must soon have been lost, for this tendency of the Society must soon have appeared.

The above facts will, I hope, be kept in view when the question of imprudence is under discussion. I must defer to another letter a few remarks on the rule by which some measure prudence, as also a few on the objection made against Ministers of the Gospel saying anything about slavery. Yours, &c.

15

LETTER II.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

PASSING by those that are without, some members of the Church, together with several of my brethren in the ministry, appear to consider the circumstance that offence was taken, as ipso facto proof that there has been over-zeal and imprudence. Their rule for judging of zeal and prudence in this matter, it would seem, is, that no offence must be given. If liberating slaves gives offence to any, it must not be done if speaking or writing against slavery gives offence, that must be avoided-if an apparent justification of slavery be needful to catch people with guile, it must be done. The preacher must not offend the people, or they will not hear him, and he will have no opportunity of doing them good. Very plausible certainly! Allow me, however, to request you to compare this rule with those many passages of scripture, which represent ministers as bound to declare the whole truth to their fellow men, "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear"as bound to explain truth and enforce duty-to reprove vice and encourage virtue, and leave the event to God.

Or take the more easy and simple test, that of applying this rule to the conduct of the Prophets, Apostles, and our Lord himself. Do you not see that with one sweep it will charge with imprudence and over-zeal every teacher from the days of Moses to the last Apostolic man of God recorded in the New Testament? Which of the Prophets,' said our Lord to the Jews, "did not your fathers persecute?" And he foretold that the same would continue to be the fate of his ministers-"Ye shall be hated of all men for my sake-Brother shall betray brother-Wo unto you when all men speak well of you, for so did the fathers of the false Prophets." Our Lord repeatedly urged truth when he knew it would offend, and actually so offended multitudes that they went away and attended his ministry no more, and in one case, the displeasure and going away was so general among his followers, that he was left almost alone, and put the question directly to his disciples, who appear to have become restless, Will ye also go

away?"

Or take the case of the apostle Paul, whom I have heard extolled as most consummate for his prudence and skilful management of men and things, so as not to give offence. Please to turn to the account we have of him in the Acts of the Apostles and his own Epistles. You will see at once that he was forever getting into difficulties, and might positively be tracked almost over the world by the commotions that he raised. His very first preaching produced such a ferment at Damascus, that he had to be "let down over the wall in a basket" to escape not only the "Jews," but the civil officers; and no sooner had he arrived at Jerusalem, than he gave such offence to the Grecians that they "went about to slay him." Now we have him "disputing with the Jews at Antioch," and "shaking off the dust of his feet against them"-again, exciting the multitude into a rage at Philippi, by breaking up their gains from sooth-saying; directly we have him raising an uproar at Thessalonica, and charged with "turning the world upside down," and interfering with the "decrees of Cesar," what is now called politics and affairs of state-presently we have him hauled by a mob before Gallio at Corinththen raising such a stir at Ephesus as "filled the city with confusion," by so preaching against idolatry as to deprive the "craftsmen" of their " gains," and render useless their stock on hand.

We

He excited commotions repeatedly by urging points that were considered as interfering with the right of property. He was charged again and again with meddling with politics, and even moving sedition, by preaching doctrines that tended to change the existing state of things. have indeed his own confession that all the churches planted by him in Asia, were "turned away from him," and from an attachment that made them willing to "pluck out their own eyes and give them to him," were become "his enemies," so stoutly had he plied them with offensive truth. This really, at first view, looks as if Paul had laboured in the Gospel to little purpose; and yet he is not more remarkable for the trouble and confusion and everlasting contention of his ministry, than the conclusion he draws respecting the good growing out of them. After he had "five times received forty stripes save one"—" thrice

66