the owner with power to command his services, does not exempt him from the obligation to exercise that power according to the directions of God's word, the master therefore is bound by the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire. And the right to accumulate property necessarily follows from the right to compensation, for a man's hire is his own, and if it exceeds the necessary means of support, it is his own still. This right is generally recognised. How else could slaves purchase their own liberty, as they are allowed to do under Spanish laws, and as they so often in fact do, in this country.

It follows necessarily, from what has been said, that all those laws which are designed to restrict the master in the discharge of the duties, which flow from his relation to his slaves; which forbid his teaching them to read, or which prohibit marriage among them, or which allow of the separation of those who are married, or which render insecure the possession of their earnings, or are otherwise in conflict with the word of God, are wicked laws; laws which do not find their justification in the admission of the right of ownership in the master, but are in direct contravention of the obligations which necessarily flow from that right. If the laws of the land forbad parents to instruct their children, or permitted them to sell them to the Turks, there would be a general outcry against the atrocity of such laws; but no man would be so absurd as to infer that having children was a great sin. Parents who complied with such laws would be great sinners, but not parents who did their duty to their children. In all other cases, men distinguish between the relation, whether of kings and subjects, of lords and tenants, of parents and children, and the laws just or unjust, which may be made respecting those relations. If they would make the same distinction between slave-holding and the slave-laws, they would see that the condemnation of the latter does not necessarily involve the condemnation of the former as itself a crime.

The principles above stated we believe to be scriptural and in accordance with the enlightened moral sense of men. We believe them also to be eminently conducive to the welfare of the slaves. The principles and conduct, on the other hand, of our abolitionists, we believe to be unchristian and in the highest degree injurious. If their distinctive doctrine is erroneous, then denouncing slaveholders as such, excluding them from the church, insisting on immediate

emancipation as in all cases a duty, are all seen and felt to be unreasonable; and the spirit with which this course is pursued, to be unchristian. The consequence is that opposition and alienation are produced between those who ought to be united; slaveholders who do not belong to the church are exasperated, and become more severe in the treatment of their slaves, more intolerant of all means for their improvement, and the hands of God's people living among them are effectually tied. As the cause of temperance was disparaged, weakened, and in some places ruined, by making all use of intoxicating drinks sinful; so the cause of the slave has been injured beyond estimate, by the doctrine that slaveholding is itself a crime, and by the spirit and measures to which that doctrine has given rise.

Any candid man can see on the other hand, that the scriptural doctrine is adapted to promote the best interests of the slaves. That doctrine is that slaveholding is not necessarily sinful, but like all similar relations is right or wrong according to circumstances, and when it exists gives rise to the obligation of providing for all the temporal and spiritual wants of the slaves. If a man owns another he is for that very reason bound to feed and clothe him, to provide for him in sickness and old age, to educate him and let the light of truth and saving knowledge in upon his mind, to watch over his rights, to exercise all the power which his ownership gives him in accordance with those rules of mercy and righteousness, which are laid down in the word of God. It is also evident that acting in accordance with these principles would soon so improve the condition of the slaves, would make them intelligent, moral and religious, and thus work out to the benefit of all concerned, and the removal of the institution. For slavery like despotism supposes the actual inferiority, and consequent dependence of those held in subjection. Neither can be permanent. Both may be prolonged by keeping the subject class degraded, that is by committing sin on a large scale, which is only to treasure up wrath for the day of wrath. It is only the antagonist fanaticism of a fragment of the south, which maintains the doctrine that slavery is in itself a good thing, and ought to be perpetuated. It cannot by possibility be perpetuated. The only question is, how is it to end? All that we are concerned with, is present duty; and that duty, inferred from the nature of the relation, and declared in the word of God, is to instruct, to civilize, to

evangelize the slaves, to make them as far as we can, intelligent, moral and religious; good husbands, good fathers, as well as good servants. The consequence of such conduct must be peace, a good conscience, and the blessing of God.

If the views presented in this paper are correct, it is easy to see how this whole subject ought to be treated in our church courts. In the first place it is plain, that for such courts, under the dictation of abolitionists, to pronounce slaveholding a crime, and to enjoin the exclusion of all slaveholders from the church, would be foolish and wicked. It would be to trample on the authority of the word of God; to shock the moral sense of the great body of intelligent and pious people on the face of the earth; it would rend the church, send abroad a spirit of malice and discord, and would cut off the slaves themselves from one of the most important means appointed by God for their improvement and emancipation; the instructions and kind treatment of believing masters.

In the second place, it is plain that the church has no responsibility and no right to interfere with respect to the slave laws of the South. Those laws are doubtless in many cases unjust and cruel, enjoining what God forbids, and forbidding what God enjoins. The existence of those laws supposes criminality somewhere; but the responsibility rests on those who made, and have the power to repeal them. It does not rest on the church. Christians who are members of communities in which such laws are in force, have their share of responsibility with regard to them, as citizens.But it is no part of the vocation of the church, as such, to interfere with civil laws. The apostles did not call a synod at Jerusalem, to denounce the Roman laws, but they laid the foundation of a spiritual society, and let the world make its own laws. We would not brook the legislatures of our States passing denunciatory resolutions against our rules of church discipline; and we should not call upon the church to meddle with the laws of the land. As citizens we have the right and duty to demand just and equal laws; but as a church, we have other and higher duties.

In the third place, it is evident that the church has an important duty to perform in relation to this subject. At the North, as elsewhere, she is bound to instruct parents in their duties to their children, and to exercise her oversight and discipline when those duties are grossly violated or neg

lected. She has the same duty to perform with regard to slaveholders. As she would be called upon to censure a parent, who was unjust or cruel to his children, so is she called upon to censure her slaveholding members, should they be unjust and cruel to their slaves. The church is a society constituted by God, to be governed by certain rules, and invested with power to enforce by spiritual means, the observance of those rules upon its members. Of course those who do not comply with the rules, laid down in the word of God, as to their conduct, either as men, or parents, or masters, are justly exposed to the censure of the church, and the church is bound to inflict such censure. As to this point, we presume there is no difference of opinion. And if we could agree to act on these principles; that is, abstain from denouncing as a crime what God has not so pronounced; withhold our hands from the laws of the land, for which, as a church, we have no responsibility; and confine ourselves to teaching all classes of our members their duties, whether as parents, masters, or slaves, and enforcing the discharge of those duties by the power which God hath given to his church for edification and not for destruction, we should commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

ART. VII-A Debate between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice, on the Action, Subject, Design, and Administrator of Christian Baptism; also on the character of Spiritual influence in Conversion and Sanctification; and on the expediency and tendency of Ecclesiastical creeds, as terms of union and communion; held in Lexington, Ky. from the 15th of Nov. to the 2d of Dec. 1843. Reported by Marcus T. Gould, assisted by A. E. Drapier, Stenographers, Lexington, Ky. pp. 912, 8vo.

THE debate, of which this volume furnishes a report, originated in a proposition made by a friend of Mr. Campbell to the Rev. John A. Brown of Kentucky. After a protracted correspondence, in which Mr. Campbell sought, disingenuously, to fasten the responsibility of taking the initiative upon the adverse party, the subject matter and the

order of debate were satisfactorily adjusted. The proposi tions discussed were the following:

I. The immersion in water of a proper subject, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the one only apostolic or Christian baptism. Mr. Campbell affirms, Mr. Rice denics.

II. The infant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism. Mr. Rice affirms, Mr. Campbell denies. III. Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins. Mr. Campbell affirms, Mr. Rice denies.

IV. Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop or ordained presbyter. Mr. Rice affirms, Mr. Campbell de

nies.

Mr.

V. In conversion and sanctification the Spirit of God operates on persons only through the word of truth. Campbell affirms, Mr. Rice denies.

VI. Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical. Mr. Campbell affirms, Mr. Rice denies.

Upon the first two points in debate, Mr. Campbell defended the ground assumed universally by the Baptist denomination. He entered into the controversy with all the advantage belonging to his position as the acknowledged leader of a considerable body of professing Christians.The Campbellites, or as they call themselves, the Reformed Church, though little known in this part of the country, have a large number of congregations in the West, which all look up to Mr. Campbell as the great apostle of their faith. He presides over a collegiate institution at Bethany in Virginia, and possesses a high reputation for talents and learning. He was a member of the Convention which some years since re-modelled the Constitution of Virginia, and earned some distinction by the part he took in the proceedings of that body. For thirty years he has been before the public, labouring in his vocation as a reformer, preaching, writing books, editing a Monthly Magazine, and conducting public controversies. He has been learning the practice of a man of war from his youth up; and if not skilled in all polemic arts, it has not been for want of sufficient training. His opponent was a much younger man, and much less practiced in controversy. The adventitious circumstances were altogether in favour of Mr. Campbell; and yet we think every impartial reader of this volume must agree with us in the judgment that he was defeated upon all the