I might, perhaps, have fairly declined any formal reply to your second letter, on the ground that you transcended the real intentions of my statement. But inasmuch as the inference you have drawn from it may be a natural one, and is an opinion I really hold, and the arguments, by which you attempt to oppose it, are, in my judgment, unsatisfactory, I shall accept the opportunity of discussing what you seem to insist upon-the subject of "EMANCIPATION AND THE CHURCH."

You begin by attempting "to strip the proposition" of what you are pleased to call its "adventitious support.' I beg leave, however, to insist that its Christian drapery shall remain upon it, and that it shall retain the firm support of its own Bible truth. The blessings of personal liberty have not been considered by me, in this discussion, in any other sense than including well-being. The whole morality of slaveholding depends upon conditions of social and public welfare, as I have endeavoured to show in my first letter. This is also the fundamental idea in the statement, which you desire to lay violent hands upon. My statement contains three ideas, which ought to be a sufficient guard against the impression that I was in favour of emancipation without an adequate preparation. These three ideas are, first, a work of Christian instruction among the slaves; secondly, their elevation, as a result of this instruction; and thirdly, a progressive condition of society, which, under Providence, would render emancipation practicable and beneficial. Could anything more be expected to render my meaning plain, and to include well-being as an element in the recovery of freedom?

The expression "when Providence shall open the way for it," gives the latitude required in a question of this sort. True wellbeing was the precise thought in my mind; for, as you justly remark, "Providence never does open the way for any change, unless well-being is to be promoted thereby." Judge, therefore, my surprise, when I find you not only imputing to me the opposite view, but also trying to rob my proposition of the support of divine Providence, whose glorious wisdom and power are so deeply concerned in the solution of this intricate problem. My view of the blessings of personal liberty magnifies well-being. Instead of admitting, therefore, that my statement involves a petitio principii, I hold that the real petition is from Dr. Armstrong to alter my proposition to suit his own views. This petition I respectfully decline. I cannot allow any one to banish God and his providence from my meditations on this subject. I choose to retain the whole paragraph, just as it was written, and more particularly the words you desire to exclude.

The terms, "when Providence shall open the way," are used in exactly the same sense as the words "when God in his providence shall open the door for their emancipation,"—an expression employed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in

1815, to convey the same idea on the same subject. The question of the time of emancipation is wisely left to the counsels of the Most High. Whether it shall be long, or "before very long," depends, in no inconsiderable degree, so far as human instrumentality is involved, upon the views of those who, like yourself, occupy influential positions in the southern section of the Church. But whether the time be long, or short, it will be when "Providence opens the way," or "when God in his providence shall open the door." Not until then, will emancipation be consistent with the true enjoyment of "the blessings of personal liberty." On this particular point, there does not appear to be any real difference of opinion between

us.

We also agree in regard to the chief and higher end, which the Christian slaveholder should keep before him. The salvation of the souls of his slaves is the continual burden of a pious master's heart. To be instrumental in bringing to his plantation-household the knowledge of the true God and of redemption by Jesus Christ, is the primary duty and privilege of the relation. No language can exaggerate the magnitude of this responsibility; no enlightened Christian conscience can resist the power of its appeal.

The point on which we differ, is whether the Church has any authority to contemplate emancipation as a righteous and lawful end. This, although a comparatively inferior matter, is nevertheless one of real interest and importance. And, in order that I may not be misunderstood, I request the attention of my brother, Dr. Armstrong, to a few brief explanations.

1. In the first place, an interest, on the part of the Church, in emancipation, does not imply an undue regard of the temporal, above the spiritual, welfare of the slaves. The chief duty is to preach "Jesus Christ and Him crucified." No work on earth compares with that of religious teaching and preaching. The vast concerns of immortality should ever be uppermost in the aims and enterprises of the Church. And yet present well-being has such connections with eternal life, as to claim a just share of Christian interest in all generations. The position of the Presbyterian Church has always enabled her to preach the Gospel to both masters and slaves. Ours is not an agitating Church. Her testimony on emancipation, as I shall presently show, has been uttered firmly and fearlessly; but, unlike modern reformers, or other Churches less favoured of heaven, we have not magnified slavery above the higher interests of the kingdom of God, nor substituted vain clamour and restless agitation in the place of "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

2. In the second place; to keep in view emancipation as an end, which naturally follows the use of lawful means, does not bring the Church into the exclusive province of the State. Slavery has both moral and political aspects. In the letter of the General Assembly to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, in 1846, the following remarks have a place:

"The relations of negro slavery, as it exists in the States that tolerate it, are twofold. Chiefly, it is an institution purely civil, depending absolutely upon the will of the civil power in the States respectively in which it exists: secondarily, it has various aspects and relations, purely or mainly moral, in regard to which the several States permit a greater or less degree of intervention."*

Our Church has always avoided interference with the State, in matters that are outside of her own appointed work. She has not claimed authority over the political relations of slavery; nor attempted to extend her domain over subjects not plainly within her own province. It is only where slavery comes within the line of ecclesiastical jurisdiction-that is to say, in its moral and religious aspects, that our Church has maintained her right to deliver her testimony, in such forms, and at such times, as seemed best. She has "rendered unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Let no man attempt to despoil her of this joy.

3. In the third place, the Church's testimony, in favour of emancipation, as a righteous end, must be distinguished from legislation over the consciences of men. Testimony differs from ecclesiastical law. It has different objects and purposes, and has a wider latitude of application. A Church judicatory may express its opinions, and attempt to exert its influence in a particular direction, within its lawful sphere, without pretending to make laws to bind the conscience. There are, indeed, duties, devolving upon masters, whose violation is justly made the subject of discipline. But there are various views of slavery, which the Church, however desirous of their general adoption among her members, has presented only in the form of opinion, or testimony. Acquiescence in these views, as for example, those on emancipation, has never been made a test of Church communion. Dissenters from testimonies of this nature have no more reason to complain, than the minority in our public bodies have, in general, reason to complain of the decision of the majority on other questions, which come up lawfully for considera

tion.

4. Emancipation, as an end to be kept in view, does not imply reproach, where emancipation is, for the present, impracticable. In my first letter, I have endeavoured to show that slaveholding is not necessarily, and under all circumstances, sinful. There may be conditions of society where the continuance of the relation is among the highest demands of religious obligation. But even in such cases, an enlightened view of duty would, in my judgment, acknowledge emancipation to be an end, worthy of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The two ideas of the lawfulness of the existing relation, and of the ultimate end of emancipation, are perfectly consistent and harmonious. The maintenance of the latter

*Baird's Digest, 542.

idea conveys no reproach upon the scriptural view of slaveholding. It is antagonistic only to the unscriptural view of the permanence of slavery, as an ordinance of God, on a level with marriage or civil government.

5. The time of emancipation, as I have already intimated, the Church has left to the decisions of Providence. Circumstances vary so much in society, that no rule can have a universal application. It is sufficient to keep emancipation in view, and to labour to secure its attainment as speedily as circumstances will permit, or "when Providence shall open the way."

Having made these explanations in the hope of disarming prejudice and conciliating good-will, I shall proceed to show, first, that my views of "Emancipation and the Church" are sustained by the testimony of the General Assembly, whilst yours differ from it; and secondly, that the testimony of our Church is sustained by the Word of God.

The TESTIMONY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY on emancipation is important, as an exhibition of the general sentiments of the Presbyterian Church on this great social question, and particularly as showing its interpretation of the Scriptures.

The first deliverance of our Church on the subject, was made in the year 1787, by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, which was at that time our highest judicatory, and was in the act of forming our present ecclesiastical constitution.

The deliverance is as follows:

"The Synod of New York and Philadelphia do highly approve of the general principles in favour of universal liberty that prevail in America, and the interest which many of the States have taken in promoting the abolition of Slavery; yet, inasmuch as men, introduced from a servile state, to a participation of all the privileges of civil society without a proper education, and without previous habits of industry, may be in many respects dangerous to the community; therefore they earnestly recommend it to all the members belonging to their communion, to give those persons who are at present held in servitude, such good education as to prepare them for the better enjoyment of freedom; and they moreover recommend that masters, whenever they find servants disposed to make a just improvement of the privilege, would give them a peculium, or grant them sufficient time and sufficient means of procuring their own liberty, at a moderate rate; that thereby they may be brought into society with those habits of industry that may render them useful citizens; and finally, they recommend it to all their people to use the most prudent measures consistent with the interests and the state of civil society, in the countries where they live, to procure eventually the final abolition of slavery in America.'

In 1793 this judgment was reaffirmed by the General Assembly, and again reiterated by the Assembly in 1795, with the remark that "they trust every conscientious person will be fully satisfied

with it." Its brevity, its comprehensiveness, its conservative tone, and its scriptural authority, make this testimony deserving of great attention. The General Assembly, in 1815, testified to the same effect:

"The General Assembly have repeatedly declared their cordial approbation of those principles of civil liberty, which appear to be recognized by the Federal and State Governments in these United States. They have expressed their regret that the slavery of the Africans, and of their descendants, still continues in so many places, and even among those within the pale of the Church, and have urged the Presbyteries under their care to adopt such measures as will secure, at least, to the rising generation of slaves within the bonds of the Church, a religious education, that they may be prepared for the exercise and enjoyment of liberty, when God, in his providence, may open the door for their emancipation.'

It could hardly be expected that a deliverance could be found on the records of our Church, so exactly concurring in thought and language with the extemporaneous statement contained in my brief review.

In 1818, the largest Assembly that had yet been convened, met in Philadelphia. An abler body of divines, probably, never assembled in our highest judicatory. The paper adopted by them, on the subject of slavery, is too well known to require large extracts. It was drawn up by Dr. Ashbel Green, with the concurrence of Dr. George A. Baxter, of your own Synod. Dr. Speece of Va. was Dr. Baxter's fellow-commissioner from your old Presbytery of Lexington. I only quote a few sentences from this celebrated document.

"We rejoice that the Church to which we belong, commenced as early as any other in this country, the good work of endeavouring to put an end to slavery, and that in the same work, many of its members have ever since been, and now are among the most active, efficient, and vigorous labourers."

"At the same time, we earnestly exhort them to continue, and, if possible, to increase their exertions to effect a total abolition of slavery. We exhort them to suffer no greater delay to take place in this most interesting concern, than a regard to the public welfare truly and indispensably demands."

"We, therefore, warn all who belong to our denomination of Christians, against unduly extending this plea of necessity; against making it a cover for the love and practice of slavery, or a pretence for not using efforts that are lawful and practicable, to extinguish this evil.

"And we at the same time exhort others to forbear harsh censures, and uncharitable reflections on their brethren, who unhappily live among slaves, whom they cannot immediately set free, but who are really using all of their influence and all their endeavours to bring them into a state of freedom, as soon as a door for it can be safely opened."+

*Baird's Digest.

†The Assembly's testimony of 1818 was reaffirmed at the last meeting of the Synods of Pittsburg and Ohio. These two Synods, in the midst of which the Western Theo