of "Doctor This," and "Doctor That," against the clearest elements of equity, and the plainest principles of justice!

I do not say that brother Rice belongs to this class of minds. I would not bring a 1ailing accusation against Satan, much less against my brother. But I wished, for the cause of righteousness, that the public should know, and to know myself, whether he was or was not of this sort and grade of men; and I knew that if he was, if I took him out of the beaten track of pro-slavery argument he would be utterly at loss what to do. Whether this has been true of him, thus far, I do not say. The book which we make will show. I have now done with this matter. If he twits me hereafter with being unable to argue with him, he shall have what benefit that course will bring him. I shall go straight forward with my work.

I wish now to reply to the remark quoted from Dr. Chalmers, that the doctrine of abolitionists is a dogma of recent date; and to show, if I am able, that the truth, that slave-holding is sin, has been struggling with the mind and conscience of the church ever since the time of Christ and the apostles. I have cited to you the fact, that Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, in the year 107, not to appropriate the church money for buying those slaves of heathen masters, who were converted to Christianity from heathenism. The reason of Ignatius's advice is obvious, viz: that if the church bought the freedom of all the slaves who entered it from heathenism, it might tempt the servile population to spurious conversions, as they would join the church for the sake of gaining their freedom. But the fact proves this, that the churches founded by the apostles were far from being slaveholding churches, that the slaves who joined them were importuning the members to club the church money and buy their freedom.

No proof is needed to show that the owners of these slaves were not church-members. The idea of a whole church giving the money of the whole, to buy the bodies of

one part of its members called slaves, from another part called masters, is too absurd for even slaves to ask.

I now resume my argument, (which was suspended at this point several meetings since,) to prove, that, whenever slavery has been abolished without blood, the doctrine that slave-holding is sin has abolished it; that therefore Dr. Chalmers is mistaken; and as this doctrine yields the fruits of truth, by destroying slavery, it is therefore true thal slaveholding is sin.

I must now take you through a little history, and but a little; as the notices of slavery in early church history are not extensive. We find in Giesler, that, about A. D. 316, Constantine ratified the manumissions of the church, and empowered those thus emancipated to take property by will.

These two items of history do not show that the Christian church in the years 107 and 316, understood the doctrine of abolition precisely as now taught. But the first shows that the churches of the Apostles were non-slaveholding churches, and the second, that, in the day of Constantine, the church was forcing emancipation upon the State. For Constantine ratified church manumissions to make himself popular with the Christian party. Whereas, at this time churches and ministers in the South, take the lead of the State in vindicating the principle of slavery. Leaving the age of Constantine and coming down through a period of 300 years, we find what doctrines and sentiments prevailed in the church respecting slavery, that is, upon what theory their practice of church-manumission was based. I read from Robertson's Charles V., p. 24, Note 20.

"When Pope Gregory the Great, who flourished toward the end of the sixth century, granted liberty to some of his slaves, he gives this reason for it :—

"Cum Redemptor noster, totius conditor naturae, ad hoc propitiatus, humanam carnem voluerit assumere, ut divinitatis suae gratia, dirempto (quo tenebamur captivi) vinculo, pristinae nos restitueret libertati; salubriter agitur, si homines, quos ab initio liberos natura protulit, et jus gentium

jugo substituit sertutis, in ea, qua nati fuerant, manumittendis beneficio, libertati reddantur.'"

Which I thus translate :-'Since our Redeemer, the builder of all nature, set apart for this, has voluntarily assumed human flesh, that, by favor of his divinity, (the chain by which we were bound being broken,) he might restore us to our pristine liberty; it is a wholesome act, (salubriter agitur,) if men, produced by nature free at first, but subjected to the yoke of slavery, by the law of nations, may be restored, by act of the emancipator, to that liberty in which they were born.'

This document bases the duty of freeing slaves upon the atonement itself, the center and sum of all Christian doctrine; and practically, and almost in terms, declares that Christians ought to free their slaves, because Christ came to free them: and it distinctly declares the great doctrine from which the duty of immediate abolition flows, that "men are born free!”

Now considering that this man was a Pope, a human head of the church, and like other human heads, probably borne along by the body; it is fair to suppose he rather represented than led the anti-slavery opinion of the church in his day; in short that he was pressed to what he did by the truth which prevailed among the membership. It surely would be a rare occurrence-one which has never yet happened, to see a single Pope setting himself against the opinions of both church and world. I say therefore, that this act of emancipation by Pope Gregory the Great, based on abolition principles, not obscurely expressed, shows that the gospel of Christ was a battering-ram before which slavery instantly gave way wherever it came, and that the sentiment that slave-holding is sin, Dr. Chalmers to the contrary notwithstanding, is as old as the church of Christ. I do not say or suppose that this gospel duty of manumission, at that day was perfectly practiced, or that those Christians were abolitionists in the exact modern sense. But I aver that slavery was abolished by the sentiment, then in the church, that slave-holding is sin, and by nothing else.

From Gregory's time (6th century) to that of Louis X., A. D. 1315, the deeds of manumission clearly recognize the abolition doctrine that slave-holding is sin.

66

“A greater part of the charters of manumission previous to the reign of Louis X.," says Robertson, (note 20 to page 24,) were granted, 'Pro amore Dei; pro remedio anima; pro mercede animæ, et pro timore omnipotentis Dei:'" that is" for the love of God," "for the remedy of the soul,” “for the consideration of the soul," and "for the fear of the omnipotent God," etc. Now, the distance between freeing slaves for the soul's salvation, and freeing them to escape its damnation, is not so great but quickened consciences would soon travel it. Certainly, these deeds of manumission, every time one was issued or read in Church, (and great numbers are on record,) must inevitably and instantly have forced the inference upon the minds of Christians, that slave-holding was against "the fear of God, and the salvation of the soul." And they show most clearly that the operative principle which impelled to emancipation was the truth, which is now stated, in simple language, viz: "that holding slaves is sin."

"These deeds, freeing slaves for the "fear of God," etc., run down to the time of Philip the Long, and Louis X., A. D. 1315, and 1318, when, we read in Robertson, "the enfranchisement of slaves became more frequent." These two monarchs then issued ordinances, declaring, that, "as all men were by nature free born, and as their kingdom was called the Kingdom of Franks, they determined that it should be so in reality as well as in name; therefore they appointed that enfranchisements should be granted throughout the whole kingdom, upon just and reasonable conditions. These edicts were carried into IMMEDIATE EXECUTION within the royal domain. And servitude was gradually abolished in almost every province of the kingdom."

Thus, the self-interest of the world completed, what, in the Church, the fear of God began. The sentiment among Christians, that slave-holding was contrary to religion, first

produced emancipations, and proved them beneficial; and the ordinance of these two monarchs with the example of immediate emancipation on the royal estates, completed the overthrow of slavery in what is now France.

The abolition of slavery in Britain followed soon after, the particulars of which, says Robertson, "are found in the charter granted Habitatoribus Montis Britonis, A. D. 1376.”

Before this time, children were sold into Ireland, at a regular market in Liverpool: and Henry, as quoted by Pitt, says, that "great multitudes were shipped from the British coast, and were to be seen exposed, like cattle, for sale in the Romish market." This charter of British abolition, in 1376, is an immediate abolition charter. "1. The right of disposing of their [slaves'] persons by sale or grant was relinquished. 2. Power was given them of conveying their effects by will, or any other legal deed. 3. Their services and taxes to their liege lord are precisely ascertained. 4. And they are allowed the privilege of marrying, according to their inclination." That is, they ceased to be instruments in the hands of their masters, and became men under a government of law.

A system of villeinage, however, continued in England. near two hundred years after this, to the times of Henry VIII.; which, though not slavery, was yet grinding oppression. Villeinage, therefore, like slavery, was abolished by the conviction of its sinfulness. I read the interesting and instructive account of its abolition from Cooper's Justinian, p. 414: notes.

"Sir Thomas Smith, who was secretary of state to Edward VI., and then to Elizabeth, observes that he never knew any villeins in gross in his time; and that villeins appendant to manors (villeins regardant) were but very few in number; that since England had received the Christian religion, men began to be affected in their consciences at holding their brethren in servitude." (Dr. Rice's religion teaches that slave-holding is not sinful.) "And that upon this scruple, in process of time, the holy fathers, monks, and friars so burthened the minds of those