Timothy, who was sent to visit them in the character of a missionary. The heart of the Apostle burned with a holy zeal for that class of human beings. The first to appeal to the humanity of their masters for their temporal comfort, he was not the last to cherish the most compassionate regard for their eternal felicity. Nor did he shrink from the duty of exposing the crimes of each. No circumstances, "neither stripes, nor bonds, nor imprisonment," could deter him from declaring "the whole counsel of God" and exposing the moral errors of man wherever he discovered them. What then but precepts of the purest morality could have been expected from him in a charge involving the eternal interests of the slaveLet us analyze his words, that we may correctly ascertain his view of their moral obligations to their masters. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke”: what Yoke? surely it could not have been that of a hired servant, for the very introduction of the word in the sentence implies that there were two distinct classes of servants in Rome-one bond, and the other free-one under a yoke, and the other not-what then but the yoke of Bondage could the Apostle have meant? "Count their own masters worthy of all honor”—and could such masters as held their slaves in bondage contrary to the principles of humanity and "the Scriptures of the New Testament," have been worthy of all honor? Did the great Apostle of the Gentiles in all the purity of his heart and the light of his extraordinary learning, ever advance a sentiment so repugnant to the precepts of morality and the dictates of common sense?" that the name of God and his doctrine be

not blasphemed;" and could the name of God, and his doctrine, have been blasphemed by the disobedience of freemen, held in bondage contrary to "the Scriptures of the New Testament?" In the name of morality and consistency, we ask the question; where in all the sacred volume can be found a solitary sentence, representing the sons of freemen blaspheming the name and doctrine of God by contending for the birthright of Liberty? Did not the Apostle himself contend for the liberty of a Roman citizen when his rights. were assailed? If then the slaves of Rome whom he directed Timothy to admonish in the words we have quoted, where also entitled to the privileges of Roman citizens, by what principle of morality or consistency, could he have been justified for the act? It is indeed painful to see into what depths of error and incongistency, the votaries of emancipation have thrown the sacred writers. No principle of humanity, patriot-. ism, or virtue could have sustained the Apostle in urging the most unqualified obedience on the slaves of Rome, if their masters had robbed them of their liberty or held them in bondage contrary to the precepts of the Bible.

We have already insinuated that St. Paul devoted much of his time to the instruction of slaves, and that he was by no means deficient in moral courage in his efforts to meliorate their condition. To their masters he applied the precepts of the moral law and urged them to be compassionate to their slaves. But where among all his precepts do we find a word on the subject of abolition? Did he shrink fro the task fearing it might cost him his life? certainly not, for

that life he assures us, "was hid with Christ in God"-nor did he count it dear to him when he entered the Athenian Court, exposed the fallacy of Idol Gods, and planted within the walls of Infidelity the standard of the Cross. Whence that holy zeal and god-like magnanimity? surely from ardent desire to correct the moral errors of the Athenians which threatened their destruction. And was he less merciful to the slaveowners of Rome? Did he believe that the bonds of their slaves would expose them to the vengeance of Heaven, and yet was he silent? We cannot perceive the consistency of that logic, or the morality of that system of Ethics, which admits such conclusions. If timidity or partiality could have occupied any space in the bosom of the Apostle, surely the former would have yielded to the dictates of the latter in the case of I ́hilemon. He was a fellow labourer in the Gospel and bound to him by the most sacred ties. To such a friend who possessed his entire confidence, he could freely have imparted his thoughts on the most delicate subjects; nor could he consistently with the duties of his apostolic office have refused to instruct him on a subject of so much interest as the bondage of his slaves. He did instruct him by the hand of his servant Onesimus, who had absconded from his master, and to whom he applied the precepts of the moral Jaw on obedience and fidelity with such force, as to effect his conversion. Being fully persuaded of the sincerity of his repentance, he made him the bearer of a letter to his master, praying that he should be pardoned for his transgression.* is it not marvelous that

Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon.

66

the Apostle should have entreated Philemon not to punish the runaway, if he regarded it repugnant to the Scriptures of the New-Testament,” even for such a master, a minister of the Gospel, to punish such a slave? Could he have viewed the condition of the fugitive. with the light reflected from the great moral luminary of the Abolitionists, rather would he have concealed. him from the sight of his master, until he had sent up his PETITIONS to the Senate of Rome and the Throne of Heaven to release him from his bonds; but guided by the light of INSPIRATION only, he admonished him of having been an "unprofitable servant," and desired him to return to his master's service, with the best purposes of his heart to be "profitable" for the future.

No reproachful epithets did he cast on Philemon, nor did he insinuate that it was contrary to the precepts of the Bible or the duties of his sacred office to own a slave. *

"Servants," said the same Apostle, to the slaves at Colosse, “obey in all things, your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong that he hath done. †

* In the election of Bishops at the last General Conference, the Northern Preachers were quite toɔ conscientions to agree with St Paul on this subject. As their tender feelings would not permit them to suffer "a slave owner" to exercise the Episcopal Office at the North, we hope they will favor us, in the future, with the services of Bish ops SOULE and ANDREW only. We want no Bishops in the South who assume more humanity and piety than St. Paul, and should the services of such be imposed upon us, we hope they will come prepared for a CATECHETICAL EXAMINATION, and for a COURTEOUS DISMISSION, in the event of their proving heterodox to the faith of the Aposle and the principles of the Constitution.

+ Collossians, 3, Chapt. 22, 25.

In this moral lesson, the slaves at Colosse were not only taught that the sincerity of their piety should be, tested by their obedience and fidelity to their masters, but that the blessings of Heaven would be bestowed on none but faithful and obedient servants; and if their bondage was contrary to the will of God and "the Scriptures of the New-Testament," we cannot perceive by what principle of morality the Apostle could have been justified for so teaching them. The Epistle, of which the words we have quoted compose a part, was addressed to members of the Church of Christ, and to such members as were called "Saints and faithful Brethren." Astounding fact! that slaveowners should have been denominated Saints and faithful Brethren--and that too, by an Inspired Apostle. It is nevertheless true, and it is also true that such was the peculiar character of the Colossian slave-owners and their brethren. There piety and simplicity of heart were known abroad, and having escaped the snares of "vain philosophy, traditions, and the worshiping of angels," into which other members of the Church had fallen, the Apostle approved their fidelity and exhorted them to abide in the faith. Surely to such saints and faithful brethren he could freely have imparted his mind on slavery, and the more so, if he regarded it a "moral evil." Why then was he silent? And why did he conclude his admonitions with the threat "but he that docth wrong, shall receive for the wrong he hath done." If their masters kept them in bondage contrary to "the Scriptures of the New-Testament," and their bonds prevented them from realizing the necessaries of life and the inoral enjoyments