pertory, all the arguments found therein, and elsewhere, for the rightfulness of slavery-that the Bible does not condemn it, but has countenanced it in all ages; that it is not to be regarded as, per se, an evil; that it is wrong for ecclesiastical bodies to legislate on it; that slaves may be held with propriety by Christians and Christian ministers; that the war which Christianity makes on it is not on the system but the "abuses of the system"-are grossly inconsistent. If Christianity would bring it to an end, there must be some reason why it would; and the only reason that can be assigned, as drawn from the nature of Christianity, is, that it is contrary to the will of God, and a thing that is morally wrong.

Having thus fully examined the tendency of Christianity upon slavery, Mr. B., as he did in the case of the Mosaic system, inquires what were its actual working and effectand shows that these were such as to confirm this view of its tendency. Slavery was considered by the early Christians, to be adverse to the spirit of the gospel; they regarded emancipation as a most important and desirable thing; they made great sacrifices to impart freedom to the enslaved some even delivering them. selves into bonds and slavery, that they might restore others to liberty; Christianity meliorated the laws pertaining to slavery, and made it quite a different thing; and, under the influence of Christianity, slavery had almost ceased in the Roman empire, when that empire was overrun by the northern barbarians.

Such is this work of Mr. B. To give this condensed and yet current account of it, has cost us far more labor than would a patched account of it, in the ordinary way of quotation. But we think we have thus given more of its life and spirit, as well as its essential meaning. There are faults of style in the work, which we could easily criticise. But we

admire it so much as a whole, that we have no heart for such criticism. We pronounce it a thorough, candid, able and triumphant vindication of the Bible against the charge, to which many of its friends with infatuated blindness, have exposed it— a charge disastrous to its influence, yea, destructive of its character and authority-that it countenances and sanctions slavery.

It was no part of Mr. B.'s design, to discuss the mode by which our country should be freed from this dreadful system. His object was to endeavor to settle one great preliminary matter, viz. to secure the conviction every where, in and out of the church, that slavery is not countenanced but condemned, by the teachings of the Bible, and is contrary to the spirit and influence of Christianity. "There is one method, however," he says, "which is obvious, and which if every where practiced, would certainly lead to this result. It is, for the Christian church to cease all connection with slavery." On this point we quote the following, the concluding paragraph of the book.

"Now here, I am persuaded, is a wise model for all other denominations of Christian men, and the true idea of all successful efforts for the removal of this great evil from the land. Let all the evangelical denominations but follow the simple example of the Quakers in this country, and an end. slavery would soon come to There is not vital energy enough; there is not power of numbers and influence enough out of the church, to sustain it. Let every religious denomination in the land detach itself from all connection with slavery, without saying a word against others; let the time come when, in all the mighty denominations of Christians, it can be announced that the evil has ceased with them FOR EVER; and let the voice from each denomination be lifted up in kind, but firm and solemn testimony against the system-with no 'mealy' words; with no attempt at apology; with no wish to blink it; with no effort to throw the sacred shield of religion over so great an evil-and the work is done. There is no public sentiment in this land

there could be none created, that would resist the power of such testimony. There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sus

tained in it. Not a blow need be struck. Not an unkind word need be uttered. No man's motive need be impugned; no man's proper rights invaded. All that is needful is, for each Christian man, and for every Christian church, to stand up in the sacred majesty of such a solemn testimony; to free themselves from all connection with the evil, and utter a calm and deliberate voice to the world, AND THE WORK IS DONE.-pp. 383-4.

With this we entirely concur. This ought to be done. The when and the how Mr. B. does not discuss, except that he says, speaking of the Quakers," They have aimed at two things-and two only-both of them legitimate, both of them prudent and wise; first to remove slavery from their own body; and then to bear their solemn testimony, in regard to the evil, to the world. The first object was pursued year after year, by patient and manly discussion, and by faithful and affectionate dealing with their brethren ;-and the period at last arrived, when they could announce to the world, that the evil of slavery was not attached to any portion of their denomination; when there was not a "Friend" who claimed a right of property in his fellow-man." We suppose Mr. B. holds we certainly do that the when and the how should be such as are entirely consistent with the rule, which we deem cardinal in the church of Christ, viz., that no one should be excluded from the communion and privileges of the Christian church, who gives evidence that he has experienced the renewing grace of God, and is accepted by the Great Head of the church.

We have said that we agree with Mr. B. in the general proposition, which it is the whole object of his book to prove from the Bible, viz., that slavery is sin. We would insist strenuously on this proposition. We care not which form of expression is used, whether " slavery is sin,” or slavery is sinful," or "slavery is morally evil," except that we have a fondness for the good strong Saxon word, sin. These phra

66

ses, in our view, have the same meaning.

But

Lest however we should be misunderstood, by those who are especially given to metaphysics, we would say, that we hold that, in accurate metaphysical language, nothing should be called, as nothing is, sin, but selfishness—a state of heart in some degree selfish. we also hold, that there are certain outward acts so palpably disastrous to human well-being, that the performance of them always implies, in some degree, selfishness, or sin in strict metaphysical language; and, therefore, the performance of such acts is called, and properly called, in popular language, sinful.

While, however, we hold, and would strenuously insist, that slavery is sin; when we apply this proposition to individual cases of what, in legal and popular language, is called slaveholding or slaveowning, we deem it important, and demand. ed by justice as well as charity, to make some distinctions. It follows inevitably from the proposition slavery is sin, that wherever there is not merely nominal but real slavery

wherever a man is held as property, contrary to his will, there is sin somewhere. A human being is held in a relation palpably disastrous to human welfare. That man is a stolen man. He has a right to himself-to the reasonable free use of his powers.

God gave him this right. He has been, and is, robbed of this right. His slavery commenced in theft; it is continued by theft

by man-stealing. Of course the guilt of the theft, or robbery, is somewhere.. Wherever there is real slavery, there is sin, guilt, somewhere; and that somewhere is where the gripe of the slavery is-where the real holding is-the holding which keeps the man in that particular relation, or should that be dissolved, would plunge him into a worse.

But there may be, there are, indi.

will or without his consent, is guilty of the sin of slavery.

Of course, we do not, by this remark, include cases where a man holds others for a temporary period only, in order to their emancipation in the best practicable way. It can not reasonably be supposed, that men at all fit for liberty would object to this. But if they should object, such cases come under the rule "de minimis lex non curat." They do not invalidate the justice of the above application of our general proposition.

We ought also to make some distinctions respecting degrees of guilt in essential and guilty slaveholding. The amount of guilt, in performing certain wrong acts, varies according to circumstances; though the evil of the acts themselves is ever the same, and always involves real guilt in the intelligent agent, capable, as he is, of knowing, and therefore under obligation to know, their nature and character. Slavery and the slave-trade were just as evil in their knowable nature and tendencies, when Jonathan Edwards defended the one and John Newton practised the other, as they are now; and therefore involved sin as truly as they do now. But who will say, that those men sinned by those acts as greatly, as the men who are guilty of like acts amid the light of this year of our Lord eighteen hundred and forty six? Right and wrong, as they exist in outward acts, lie in immutable relations-in the unchangeably evil nature and tendencies of those acts. But right and wrong, as they exist, morally, in the hearts of men who do right and wrong acts, vary with circumstances; among which may be mentioned, as prominent, knowledge and the means of obtaining knowledge respecting these acts. Accordingly the sin, the personal guilt of essential slaveholders, varies according to circumstances; and, in some cases, may be compara

tively small, and quite consistent with reputable piety. We believe there are many instances where a man, educated amid southern preju. dices and customs, and embarassed by the difficulties which the barbarous laws of the slave States throw in the way of emancipationa man of full ordinary conscientiousness and wisdom and Christian benevolence-doubts whether he ought, nay, is confident that he ought not, to liberate his slaves. We need not enter on the question respecting the degree of guilt, in the various cases of essential slaveholding. Each case must be decided, not by general rule, but by its own merits. We only need say, that while we fully believe that all essential slaveholders are in some degree sinners, we do not believe that they are, in all instances, at the present time, sinners in such degree as disproves their piety, or disqualifies them for the communion of the saints, or the privileges of the Christian church.

There is one topic on which we can not forbear, in conclusion, to say a word. We introduce it by quoting this language of Mr. Barnes. "If the Bible could be shown to defend and countenance slavery as a good institution, it would make thousands of infidels-for there are multitudes of minds that will see more clearly that slavery is against all the laws which God has written on the human soul, than they would see that a book sanctioning such a system had evidence of divine origin." This we fully believe. It ought to be uttered with intense emphasis. They who defend slavery from the Bible, are making thousands of infidels. We will not retort the discourtesy and uncharitableness of the Princeton Reviewers, by saying that it is vain for them to plead that the Bible proves the lawfulness of slavery, "and yet profess reverence for the Bible." We have no doubt that they do reverence the Bible. But

we do say, that the position which they and others like them take on this subject, is most disastrous to the Bible. If they could carry men's convictions with them when they ar gue that the Bible sanctions American slavery-we say American slavery, for that is what we mean and they mean-they would be doing more than is done by perhaps any other agency, to bring the Bible into contempt, and to cause the name of Christ to be blasphemed. They bring the Bible into open conflict, with truths as obvious and as certainly known, as the very premises on which all proof of the divine origin of the Bible must rest. These reviewers, in the article often quoted by Mr. B., use the following language. Every one must feel that if perjury, murder, or idolatry had been thus authorized, it would bring the Mosaic institutions into conflict with the eternal principles of morals, and that our faith in the divine origin of the one or the other must be given up." We turn this language upon them. We try them by their own rule. We say, they bring the Bible" into conflict with the eternal principles of morals." They af firm that American slavery-a system clearly, palpably, contradicting the first principles of right-is sanctioned by the Bible. Nay, they say that it is vain for any one who denies this, "to profess reverence

Thus they bring

for the Bible." the Bible "into conflict with the eternal principles of morals ;" and, by their own rule, their "faith in the divine origin of the one or the other must be given up ;" i. e. they must believe that the Bible is not from God, or that God is immoral

unworthy of love or service. On their own principle, they are logically bound to be either infidels or atheists. They are thus giving to the world, and inculcating on the church, premises, which, by a short and logical process, make men, if they will but take the premises, infidels or atheists. The reasoning is just. The logic is infallible. If the Bible sanctions this slavery, then it is not from God, or God is without benevolence, and without rightful authority. To say that God sanctions slavery, is, not in intent, but in word and in fact, blasphemy. For how could He be more emphatically called the patron of injustice and tyranny, than by saying that he sanctions such a complication of wrongs, such a concentration of oppressions, as American slavery. We implore our brethren, for the sake of God, and for the credit and safety of Christianity, to reconsider and change their position. And we hope that our Princeton brethren, if in all other cases they adhere to their rule to make no progress in ethics or theology, will make an exception here.