your last cited observations: "The common lot of slaves in general," says he, was with the ancients, in many circumstances very deplorable. Of their situation take the following instances: they were held pro nullis, pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus, for no men, for dead men, for beasts; nay, were in a much worse state than any cattle whatsoever. They had no head in the state, no name, tribe, or register; they were not capable of being injured: whatsoever they acquired was their master's, they could not plead nor be pleaded, but were excluded from all civil concerns whatsoever, were entitled to the rights and considerations of matrimony, nor were proper objects of cognation or affinity; they could be sold, transferred, or pawned as goods or personal estate; for goods they were and such were they esteemed; might be tortured for evidences, punished at the discretion of their lord, and even put to death by his authority, together with many other civil incapacities, which I have not room to enumerate."

not

Mr. Webb." The Slavery of Greece and Rome was not tolerated in the primitive church."

Christianus. You have already acknowledged that slaveholders were in the primitive church. If by your terming them nominal' you mean that they did not exercise all their legal power, I agree with you; but I maintain that the primitive church would not have tolerated any of its abuses, even though legalized, yet the thing itself, viz. a property in man, was tolerated. By the way, are not some of the American "teachers of Christianity prevented" from directly insisting on the enfranchisement of the slaves?" If they were to do this

would not "the banner of the cross become the standard of sedition, and every herald of its truths (be) regarded by both masters and servants as another Spartacus ?" The government of America may be more guilty than the government of Rome, but private Christians under each might be in the same condition in reference to this subject.

Mr. Webb.- "The doctrines and spirit of Christianity are incompatible with Slavery."

Christianus. If they had been incompatible with the mere fact itself, then no slaveholder could have been a Christian, yet we find Christian slaveholders in the church; but that the spirit of Christianity is incompatible with the cursed fruits' of Slavery I readily grant.

Mr. Webb.-"I remind Christianus that the inspired penmen affirmed the state to be inconsistent with the right that the redeeming Lord had in his people, 1 Cor. vii. 23."

Christianus. Your interpretation of this passage makes the apostle contradict himself. He says, ver. 20, 21, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant, care not for it; but if thou mayest be free, use it rather." Do not these passages prove that Christianity did not enjoin freedom? The apostle asserted freedom to be better than Slavery; but he interfered not with the political bearings of the question. The slave was to care not for it, i. e. be not over anxious about it, but consider chiefly his spiritual freedom. When, therefore, he says, "Ye are bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men;" he cannot mean that they were to rebel against their masters,

but give their souls to Christ as their Lord; and if it have any reference to their servitude, the utmost it can mean is, that if they might be free, to choose a state of freedom in preference to that of Slavery.

Mr. Webb." Conjugal, parental, and social duties were inculcated, the due discharge of which was not compatible with a state of Slavery, &c. Now I ask Christianus if primitive masters, in their conduct towards their servants, had not acted on these principles, whether they would not have been worthy of exclusion from the communion of saints?"

Christianus.-I have already said that the primitive church would not have tolerated any of the abuses of Slavery. But was it not possible for a man to hold a slave and to give him what was just and equal, according to his condition? Was he bound to pay him wages in money in order to do this? Who should regulate the amount? If he gave him If he gave him food and raiment, and treated him as a fellow-creature and a fellow Christian, could he not

fulfil all the apostle's injunctions without setting him free? To argue that a believing master was bound to pay his slave wages as a hired person, is to argue that Christianity enjoined the master to set him free, which we know was not the case. The salaries of human service in a free country vary from more than a thousand to less than three pound a year, and yet every one is considered to receive what is just and equal, according to the condition of the servant. If then a Christian master gave to his servant sufficient food and raiment, and every needful comfort, that also was just and equal, according to his station. If the American slaveholding professors do not treat their slaves with kindness and consideration, according to the apostle's rules, then let them be set aside from Christian communion; but if they cannot, as a body, be charged with this, let us not repudiate them merely because they hold a property in slaves, which primitive Christians did before them. CHRISTIANUS.

Jan. 2, 1837.

and experience not so imperatively demanded in distant and less public stations. As to the right of destitute churches inviting settled pastors to supply them, I do humbly conceive many of our deacons and influential members have been labouring under a morbid and injurious delicacy on this subject; and it is to this part of your correspondent's letter that I propose to offer a few friendly suggestions. I am the more induced to draw attention to this matter, not recollecting that it has ever been definitely and at large brought under consideration in your pages; and from the present position of our churches, likely to appeal to some of them as a matter for practical decision. We have been long taught to consider the congregational order of church discipline to be at once most consonant with the New Testament, and the best adapted to secure the growth of individual piety, and the advancement of truth in the world. Whether on some points we may not have carried our love of independence to too great an extent, may be a matter of serious inquiry: whether our sympathies and attentions may not have been too minute and contracted-whether we have not been sacrificing the good of the whole to the welfare of a part -and whether there may not have been discovered somewhat

of a refined kind of selfishness in seeking what is beneficial to our own little inclosures to the disparagement and neglect of larger and more imperative claims. We cannot be too often reminded that the Church of Christ is oneone in the allegiance it bears to its Head-one in the affinity the parts bear to each other one in the providential arrangements by

which it is governed. This unity, inasmuch as it confers a boon upon all, and strengthens the parts by consolidating them into a whole, imposes an obligation upon each that individual advantage should not be sought at the public expense; nor any private interest stand in the way of a greater good, or a more beneficial arrangement.

These observations, it is confessed, are of a general character, and apply to all the variety of cases which the history of the church may suggest. But to none can they with greater frequency or more propriety apply, than in the particular disposal of those whom the Great Head of the Church has raised up to be its guides and instructors; and to this one case will the following observations entirely refer.

I conceive, Sir, that when a young man devotes himself to the work of the ministry, he pledges himself to the cause of Christ at large; his time, his talents, his entire self is his Master's; and it is just as imperative upon him to devote every one of his talents to the utmost possible advantage to the church and to the world, as it was at first to engage in the work at all. His first engagement is to the work itself: this is of paramount, binding obligation: the precise location in which he may discharge this duty, is quite a matter of after consideration, and ought to be modified and regulated just as a supreme regard to his first duty may suggest. In an important sense, every minister is the property of the church at large; or rather of that gracious superintending providence which provides for the well-being of the church; nor is he any farther at his own disposal than as he con

ceives in any given direction he may most effectively subserve the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom. It consequently forms one of the most delightful parts of what are called our Ordination Services, to trace the leadings of Providence in first preparing and adapting an agency to the wants of a given church, and then directing the attention of that church to the instrument which an unseen hand had been preparing for its benefit; and not unfrequently have there been such coincidences, such concurrent yet unconscious arrangements, as when developed have greatly contributed to the delight of the church at large, and to strengthen its faith in that all-wise, protecting, yet invisible power by which its affairs are conducted.

But the particular inquiry returns,-When the hand of Providence has been visible in the appointment of a minister to a given spot, is it his duty, in any subsequent stage of his life, to remove? The answer to this inquiry will be readily suggested by applying the general principles already laid down; and which are just as applicable to a minister's removal as they were to his first appointment. If his time, his talents, his entire self is his Master's; and if he be bound to devote them to the utmost possible advantage of the church; then should he, by native gifts, by diligence in study, by absorbing devotedness to his work, outgrow the sphere in which he at present labours: then the Great Head of the church, and its officers acting under his unseen impulse, may call him to more arduous service, and to a more onerous station. Did he consult his own ease, or his love of study, or his local partialities and claims,

he might be tempted to live and die in his present comparative seclusion. But these are all subordinate considerations; the same hand which guided him where he is may as sensibly guide him away; and he would not act in accordance with the entire consecration of himself to his Master's cause, were he to consult flesh and blood in his decisions. And with respect to the church over which he presides, were they permitted to consider their own private and personal interests, would obstinately refuse to let him go; but then, to the church in such a case as this, we apply that other principle (obvious enough to the dullest capacity when taken apart from its application, but not quite so obvious when it is made to fit a particular case) that "no man is to seek his own, but every man the things which are Christ's;" or in other words, that they are forbidden to indulge that refined kind of selfishness which retains what is beneficial to a part irrespective of the claims of the whole.

We are told sometimes with a measure of warmth approaching to ill-temper, that no church has any right to invite away the pastor of another church, unless that pastor is what is usually called moveable. Now let us examine this a little more closely. In the first place, what is meant by being moveable. In one sense, every minister is, and at all times ought to be, moveable; that is, he ought always to be ready to obey the voice of Him whom he calls Lord and Master; to go anywhere at the bidding of his providence, when its intimations are clear and unequivocal. But this is not the sense usually intended. It is used to describe a minister who is where he does not wish to be; who is