use which is here made of the term 'relation.' This term 'relation' has a talismanic effect on the orthodox advocates of slavery, which every person does not understand. The Shorter Catechism teaches that "the fifth commandment requires the preserving the honor, and performing the duties belonging to every one in their several places and relations as superiors, inferiors, and equals." Now if you can foist in among these relations, the 'relation' of master and slave, you have gained your point: you have got into the Decalogue. But we shall guard this door. God has constituted no such 'relation' as that of master and slave, It does not belong to the necessary and beneficial corelations of Society. God has in his providence permitted one man to usurp authority over another---to hold him in the condition of a slave, as he has permitted men to act the tyrant, and to do a thousand other wrongs. The word of God takes notice of the fact, that some men are masters or slaveholders; and others slaves: but it does not acknowledge such facts as constituting a relation in the appropriated sense of the word. But then, according to Dr. J. the Centurion had a slave, aud the slave was dear to him; and the Centurion was an eminent believer. What of all that? The Centurion was brought up under the tyranny of imperial Rome; he was himself subject to the despotism of the Emperor: he had to go at his word. In like manner he had soldiers under himself to whom he said, Go: Come: and they instantly obeyed. So he said to any one of his servants; Do this: and he did it. The right and the wrong of these things he had never studied. He was attached to the Jewish religion; though it does not appear that he was yet a full proselyte. If he had been the law would have required him to set his servant free at the end of six years. He was convinced by the Savior's miracles that he had been sent of God: and therefore could heal his servant by a word. Now it is not to be supposed that as soon as he imbibes this faith, he would understand the full bearing of the whole system of Christian morality. He probably needed instruction in a great many other matters beside that of slavery. It does not follow that men in the nineteenth century, under a republican government, and having the opportunity of ample instruction on these matters are to be retained in the church while they hold their fellow-men in slavery. But it may be asked, why did not our Savior teach him that slavery 'was wrong? I may as well ask, why did not he teach him that aggressive war in which the Romans were often engaged, and he very probably had acted a part in it---was wrong? It does not appear that our Savior gave him instruction on any subject---nay from Luke's account it would appear that he did not see him at all: He merely complied with his request to heal his servant.

The Dr's next proof under this head is Eph. VI: 9. He brings in Col. III: 22, IV: 1. under his fifth proposition. But as the two passages are precisely parallel, I shall remark on them in connection. These are the only passages in the New Testament in which masters are directly addressed. The word 'masters'---kur ioi---is not the appropriate term for slaveholders. In Titus servants are exhorted to obey their own masters. The term there is despotais. These despots are not exhorted because they were not members of the church. So Peter exhorts servants to obey their masters---despotais. But he does

not exhort those despots; evidently because they were not Christians. But in the passages before us, Masters---kurioi, not despotai---are addressed as members of the church. They were not slaveholders. They probably had been such; and the persons who are now exhorted to obey them might have been held by them formerly as slaves; but their relations to one another as christians forbade them to continue, any longer, in any such unhallowed connection. Hence those who may have been formerly despots, are now only 'kurioi,' 'masters,' or 'bosses. They still retained the servants in their employment, but under such iegulations as that they were no longer slaves. And Paul requires the masters to give to their servants that which is just and equal. This of course would be understood by those Christian masters as implying an equitable compensation for their labor; and such treatment as to show them that they considered them as fellowmen, having equal rights with themselves. I remark in passing that Dr. J. seems to think that the social relations would be terribly broken up, if a hired girl upon her conversion, should be allowed to sit at table along with the lady of the house, and said lady should help her to wash the dishes and sweep the floor occasionally. Now I think Mrs. Employer, would find such things of house work, quite wholesome, and no ways degrading. Why, Henry Clay, who says that he has fifteen thousand dollars worth of negroes, says also that, Mrs. Clay works in the kitchen, and thinks no hardship of it. Commend me to a wife who can take 'turns at house work,' or do it all herself.

But to return from this digression, the explanation which I have given of the above passages is confirmed by what is said I. Tim. VI: 1, 2. The servants there said to be under the yoke are plainly contrasted with those that have believing masters. Those that were under the yoke therefore had not believing masters, and consequently remained in a state of unmitigated slavery. Timothy had no access to their masters, no authority over them. Paul does not tell him to say anything to them. But those that had believing masters were no longer under the yoke---no longer in a state of slavery. It is true he calls the masters despotas---and this is the only place where that term is applied to believers. But he uses this word in relation to what they had been. Just as the woman whose husband is dead, is called the wife of the deceased person, though death dissolves the matrimonial relation. It is, as if he had said; And those whose masters have become believers, "Let them not despise them because they are brethren; but rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved." It was natural while there was any remnant of corrupt human nature left, on feeling that they were the brethren of their former masters in a spiritual sense, and believing that the master's authority over them was virtually removed ---it was natural that they should act rudely and insolently towards them. The Apostle forbids such feelings and conduct, and tells them that they have now much better motives to serve them than before; because these their former masters, are now, like themselves true believers, beloved of God, and partakers of the unspeakable gift. I have before showed that douleuein does not necessarily mean to be a slave; and Dr. J. says that 'doulos,' a corresponding word is applied to the services which Christians are required to render to one another. In Gal. V. 13. we read: For breth

ren, ye have been called unto liberty: only use not liberty as an occasion to the flesh; but by love, serve, 'douleuete' one another. So might those servants whose masters had become believers, still serve them; and yet be no longer their slaves.

I say, then. that the use of the term kurios in all instances but one in relation to Christian masters, the absence of all addresses to despots and the contrast between servants under the yoke, that is slaves, and those that have believing masters, together with the injunction to Christian masters to give to their servants that which is just and equal--all these things go to show that slavery was virtually banished from the primitive church. And the eqality of mankind, their brotherhood, both naturally, and when converted, spiritually, are so clearly asserted, and the permanent principles of justice and charity are constantly and strenuously urged in the New Testament, that we have no difficulty in determining that the Slavery which exists in these United States is contrary to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. 4th. The Dr's fourth proposition is that "the New Testament recognizes the existence of slavery." That's a fact. We agree for once. The New Testament tells us, too, that the church of Rome deals in slaves and souls of men. The New Testament also recognizes the existence of murder, adultery, theft, false, witness, and blasphemy. I dismiss this proposition.

5th. I have already virtually disposed of the fifth proposition. But the case of Philemon and Onesimus requires some notice. Ever since I knew any thing about this controversy, this has been one of the chief refuges of the defenders of slavery. Now there is no evidence that eren Onesimus had been a slave to Philemon. It is evident that he had been a servant to him, and an unprofitable servant---probably being indolent, and disobedient;---and that he had left his employment from unworthy motives. It is hinted that he was, in some way indebted to Philemon: but that "he had taken the precaution to fill his pockets from his masters stores," is a gratuitous assumption, and therefore a slanderous assertion. The precise nature of the connection between Philemon and Onesimus is concealed from us: and it is preposterous to argue from assumptions and inferences, which proceed from our ignorance, more than our knowledge---especially for the purpose of propping up a system which every man's reason and conscience tells him to be flagrantly wrong.

The theory which Dr. J. condemns is much more likely to be true than that he maintains. I mean the supposition that Onesimus was a brother, or some relative of Philemon, in a state of minority. All the expressions of the Apostle accord with that view of the case. I am persuaded that Dr. J's criticism on the adverb especially is not correct. Especially cannot of course qualify brother; but neither does it necessarily qualify beloved: but the participle of existence--onta---understood. The construction is "That thou shouldest receive him as eternally related to thee, not as being any longer a servant but as being above a servant, a brother beloved: especially is he such to me: but how much more is he such to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. He was then a beloved brother to Paul; but much more a beloved brother to Philemon, both in the flesh and in the Lord. He was a brother to Philemon in the flesh; but not so to Paul: for this is

the only respect in which there be a difference. How 'then can this be explained, but by the supposition that he was either literally a brother, or some near relative of Philemon? There is no occasion to 'smile,' or to bluster at this explanation. That a minor brother, or cousin under the guardian care of an elder relative, and in his employment might and would be called 'doulos' a servant, is, in my apprehension, indisputable. I do not however lay any great stress on this explanation. It is not necessary to the argument. Philemon is at any rate as good as required to treat Onesimus not as a servant but a brother. If he even had been a slave, he is to be one no more. On the whole there is no evidence that Philemon was a Christian slaveholder.

Thus I have disposed of Dr. J's principal and subordinate propositions. In my opinion he has not succeeded in showing that slaveholding was tolerated in the church during the period of New Testament history.

But I submit a remark or two on the Dr's performance. If he had succeeded in establishing his second principal proposition by an alibi, he would have gone beyond his own position---that slaveholding is treated in the Scriptures as a tolerated evil. He would have proved that it is authorized. Accordingly I venture to say, that it will be claimed by many of the advocates of slavey, that his arguments have conclusively established that slavery is agreeable to Scripture---is right. Indeed the Dr. appears himself to have come to that conclusion, when he said, page 69. "We contend that the infidel abolitionists---the nogovernment men and women---the anarchical party are the only true and only consistent anti-slavery men and women." Did you ever hear the like of that? He had in a previous part of his pamphlet protested against the idea of being considered pro-slavery. But here he appears to have got over all his delicate feelings on that head. While such a sentence stands unrecalled, how can any person be blamed for setting him down as a pro-slavery man of the McDuffie school.

One thing more I shall notice. From the manner in which D. J. comments on Paul's words, If any man teach otherwise---he is proud &c., you would think that he holds all anti-slavery men in very great dislike, and wishes to hold them up to public odium. He says Paul finds the origin of abolitionism in the vanity, self-conceit, and puffed up pride of the human heart. He gives some elaborate criticism to prove this. Now from the sentence above quoted, it is fairly inferable that the Dr. considers all opposition to slavery of the same nature and derived from the same source. Of course all that are for removing slavery from church and state, are actuated by vanity &c. That there are vain self-conceited men among those opposed to slavery I will not deny: but are there not at least as many among the advocates of it! But I have no desire to render railing for railing. But Dr. I. might ascribe even to the zealous, and diligent opposers of this iniquitous system, better motives. Is it strange that men who have from their childhood been taught to consider it a self-evident truth that, All men are created equal,and endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness-.is it strange that men so taught should believe that holding negroes in slavery is a violation of the inborn and inalienable rights of men; and

should in their desire for the civil well being of their fellow men, assert boldly and perseveringly, the right of said negroes to their personal liberty? Can they not do so without possessing any notorious, or hurtful degree of self conceit? Nay the man that does not feel disposed, and determined to use every lawful means and make every proper and practicable effort, to procure for the oppressed negro his civil rights is himself unworthy of republican freedom.

The zeal and the efforts of professed christians on this subject, may be traced to a better source than vain, empty, self conceit. They too have learned that God has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth; that they must love their fellow-men as themselves, and that they must do good to all men as they have opportunity. Men understanding these doctrines and precepts of God's word, and feeling their influence, must hold slavery in abhorrence. As they believe they must speak and act. And I now advertise all slaveholding professors and all their apologists that it is vain for them to exhort to be let alone in the practice in which they are engaged. Christians we hope will act towards them wirh all becoming forbearance, and tenderness; but the civilized world, and the Christian world will say to them, so that they must hear, let the oppressed go free. It is altogether folly to suppose that the rest of the world look on in silence, or without efficient action, while a portion of the human race is treated as the colored people of the United States It cannot be.

are.

But I must close this number. And I will endeavor to bring what farther I have to say on the subject in the Ch. Intelligencer to a close in the next number; which shall be mainly on the question, ought slaveholding to be made a ground of exclusion from Church membership? J. R.

For the Evangelical Guardian.

THE GOSPEL-A LIGHT TO THE GENTILES.

In the world of nature, darkness is the absence of light. Light is that subtle essence, which gives beauty and vitality wherever it pervades: and no conditions can be more opposite in character than those under which light and darkness, respectively prevailing, involve their subjects. Employed as figures of speech, they represent in the moral, and political, and religious world, conditions as opposite as they can do in the natural. Darkness is the figurative representation of ignorance, and depravity, and wretchedness, and crime---of every thing that is melancholy, and frightful, and hideous in character. Light is the figurative representation of knowledge, purity, and rectitude of every thing that is beautiful, and lovely, and beneficial. To the moral, political, and religious world, the Gospel is light, wherever it is known and embraced, and the destitution of it is darkIn precise proportion as any nation or people of mankind are

ness.