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."

But from these views, so plainly expressed, shall we infer that the conductors of the Repertory wish to be understood as the advocates of American slavery? Shall we infer that they regard it as an institution which it is desirable to perpetuate, and which the Christian religion is adapted and designed to perpetuate? However such a conclusion would seem to follow from some portions of their reasoning, and however certainly such an impression will go forth from some of their statements, adapted to soothe the consciences of slaveholders at the South, yet there are other portions of their argument with which such a conclusion would be entirely at variance; portions in which they distinctly express the opinion that the system is an evil, and that the effect of the gospel would be gradually to remove it, because it is so. Thus they say :

"We have little apprehension that any one can so far mistake our object, or the purport of our remarks, as to suppose either that we regard slavery as a desirable institution, or that we approve of the slave laws of the Southern states. So far from this being the case, the extinction of slavery, and the amelioration of those laws, are as sincerely desired by us, as by any of the abolitionists.

"If it be asked what would be the consequence of thus acting on the principles of the gospel, of following the example and obeying the precepts of Christ? We answer, the gradual elevation of the slaves in intelligence, virtue, and wealth; the peaceable and speedy extinction of slavery; the improvement in general prosperity of all classes of society, and the consequent increase in the sum of human happiness and virtue. This has been the result of acting on these prin

ciples in all past ages; and just in proportion as they have been faithfully observed.

"Besides the two methods mentioned above, in which slavery dies a natural and easy death, there are two others by which, as history teaches us, it may be brought to an end. The one is by the non-slaveholders, in virtue of their authority in the state to which the slaves and their masters belonged, passing laws for its extinction. Of this, the Northern states and Great Britain are examples. The other is by servile insurrections. The former of these two methods is of course out of the question, as it regards most of the Southern states; for in almost all of them the slave-owners have the legislative power in their own hands. The South, therefore, has to choose between emancipation by the silent and holy influence of the gospel, securing the elevation of the slaves to the stature and character of freemen, or to abide the issue of a long-continued conflict against the laws of God."

Now if it is fair to conclude that the views entertained by the conductors of the Repertory, when they recommend the inculcation of the relative duties of the master and the slave, and the silent influence of the gospel, are not inconsistent with the belief that they do not regard "slavery as a desirable institution," and that they suppose the gospel would produce its certain extinction, it is fair to infer the same thing of the apostles, and to conclude that they did not regard it as “a desirable institution," and that they supposed they were adopting the most wise and judicious means to remove what they considered as an evil. Moreover, if the course which is pursued by the conductors of the Repertory be such as to free them from the charge of Jesuitism and dishonest dealing, while they are recommending a method adapted to secure the entire removal of the system-by a quiet influence-by the inculcation of principles-by the silent operation of the system 'producing the gradual elevation of the slaves in intelligence, virtue, and worth, and the peaceable and SPEEDY extinction of slavery'-why should they have inferred that the very same

course, if pursued by the apostles, would have been dishonest and Jesuitical? Why should it be charged on them as wrong, when the same course is recommended by those who admit that the gospel would remove it as an undesirable institution,' and who become indignant when it is suggested that they are the advocates of slavery or the apologists for it? Would they not desire that it should be understood that, while they recommend this course, they are the friends of liberty; that they prefer freedom for themselves and their children to bondage; that they suppose that the gospel will promote liberty wherever it has its fair influence in the world, and that it contains principles which are hostile to slavery? Would they wish it to be supposed that they desire that slavery should be extended and perpetuated on the earth? Assuredly notfor they express the belief that the effect of the silent influence of Christianity would be to remove it entirely from the world; that is, that it is an evil-for Christianity removes nothing that is good. The doctrine of the Princeton Repertory, as I understand it, is, that men are to go into those portions of our country in which slavery exists, and to incul-. cate the truths of the gospel; to instruct the master and the slave in their respective duties; to lay down principles which will gradually remove the evils of the system, and ultimately abolish it altogether; and to do this with a view and intention that this shall be the result. Is this course honest, or is it Jesuitical? If honest now, was it not in the days of the apostles? If it is consistent now with a sincere aversion to the system, and a belief that the principles of the gospel are opposed to it, was it not then? Would it be exactly right for any one, from the course which they recommend, to represent the conductors of the Repertory as the friends and advocates of slavery, and as desiring its perpetuity? If it would not, is it proper to represent the apostles, when pursuing just such measures as they recommend, as the friends of the system, or as Jesuitical in their manner of treating it? The whole matter on this point is clear. If the apostles supposed that

the gospel which they preached would ultimately abolish the system, they regarded it as an evil. If they left that impression as fairly deducible from their writings, then they were honest men, and cannot be charged with duplicity.

(c) I would remark, then, that they did not leave a false impression on this subject. They did not leave it to be fairly deduced from their conduct or their writings that they regarded it as a good system, or as desirable to be perpetuated. This point will be more fully considered in another part of the argument. Here, it may be observed, in general, that they never enjoin it as a duty, or speak of it as proper or desirable, for Christians to hold slaves; they never express any approbation whatever of the system; they never speak of it as they do of marriage and similar institutions, as honourable; they never enjoin it on the masters to continue to hold their slaves in bondage; they never even say to a slave that it is right for his master to hold him in bondage, or recommend obedience or submission on that ground; they never leave the impression on his mind that liberty would not be better than servitude. They represent it as a hard system; lay down principles which would lead every Christian master, if he followed them, to emancipate his slaves as soon as possible; endeavour to comfort slaves as in a condition that was hard and undesirable; advise them to avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming free if it is in their power, (1 Cor. vii. 21, ɛi xai dúvaca); and direct them, if they cannot obtain their freedom on earth, to look forward to that world where every fetter will be broken, and they will be free for ever. If it shall appear, as I trust it will, that the apostles gave this representation of slavery, then it is doing them great injustice to speak of them as friends of the system, or to say that their conduct was chargeable with pusillanimity or duplicity.

(d) One other remark should be made here, in inquiring whether they were honest men if they were really opposed to slavery, and how far their conduct should direct us in the treatment of this subject. It is, that they were all foreigners

in those countries where slavery prevailed. They had no agency in making or administering the laws. We have. We make and administer the laws ourselves. The apostles could not change the state of things then existing by a vote. The American people can. They had no vote; they could effect changes in a community only by a slow moral influence. The people of the slaveholding states can produce changes on this subject at the polls; can make any changes which they please. Their responsibility, then, was of a different kind from that of the people of the slaveholding states. The only thing which they could do was to lay down principles; to mould the public mind by a moral influence; and to leave the impression of their opinions on the age in which they lived. The responsibility of the people where slavery exists in our land is of a different character altogether. The question is whether they shall sustain the system by their votes; or whether, in connection with such moral influences as may be used, they shall use the power which they have, and put an end to it and whatever may be their duty on that point, it is clear that they cannot refer to the example of the apostles to guide them in it. They never could cast a vote that could in any way affect slavery; they could do nothing in making or administering the laws which sustained it.

§ 3. The question whether the general conduct of the Apostles is consistent with the belief that they approved of Slavery, and desired its perpetuity.

A very material question here presents itself, which is, whether the general conduct of the apostles, above referred to, is consistent with the supposition that they regarded slavery as a good institution, and desired that it should be perpetuated ? Was it such as to make a Christian master feel that he was doing right, or acting consistently with his religion, in asserting a claim of property over those who were his fellow Christians?