every creature; but where we ask, where is the gospel of Jesus; where is the doctrine of Christ? where?

And now who does not see that this whole array of means, measures, machinery, and conquests is the result of unbelief and a renunciation of the doctrine of the kingdom, that it is the working of anti Christ? 2 Thes. ii. 3-13. The natural effect of the "voluntary principle" and the triangle of humanity. This history is not of a struggle between the "flesh and the spirit," but flesh and flesh, Church power and state power. Episcopal and papal warfares, the quarrels of the popedom and the Empire, among the rivals for the See, between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities; a history of the bulls and interdicts of Popes and of the resistance or submission of kings.

Nor let it be supposed that this spirit of anti-Christ is confined to Roman Popery, the same spirit works and always has in every visible Church; though in the Roman it has been more manifested and revealed. 2 Thes. ii. 8. Look at the history of the Protestants on the continent; of Presbyterianism in Scotland; of Episcopacy in England and Scotland under James and the Charleses; of Congregationalism under Cromwell. See the dissenters fleeing themselves from religious persecution, and ask the Quaker and the Baptist how they fare under puritanical domination. It signifies nothing to say that the power of the Church has among Protestants been exerted in favor of civil liberty; sometimes it has, sometimes not; but the principle is wrong. The rule that justifies the puritans in their political compact to sustain Cromwell, the commonwealth and independency will sanction the conduct of the Catholics of Ireland. The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world, and when the spirit of this world, and the principles of the human triangle reign in the Church, we have nothing fundamentally better at work than the patriotism of Cataline and the religion of the Pontifex Maximus. When the Church is upon this basis, she has "no king but Cæsar."

We deem it wholly superfluous to attempt a description of the doings and glorious results of the American Church. Her zeal in giving them notoriety has not been surpassed by her zeal for any thing else. We need not therefore discourse of her new discoveries, her new philosophy of explanations and of nullifications, her new combinations and institutions, of the omnipotence of her numerous abstractions

and of her extreme and self denying devotion in "doing good," of her temperance principle, submission principle, olition principle, pacific principle, fulminating principle, financial principle; and other voluntary principles.

From our sketch of the history of triangular principles in the Church, we have seen her sin in all times of apostacy to be that of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, to maintain her own independence, sovereignty and dominion; she corrupts the true worship, she rejects the temple, and order, and word of God as her only infallable rule of faith and practice, to make way for her own idols and devices; she removes the priests and Levites, (those whom God alone calls to his service,) and raises up priests of the lowest of the people, who will serve her in all her abominations. 1 Kings xii. 25-33. The chief priests, pharisees, and rulers of the people always reason thus, "If we let Him alone the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation," Jer. xi. 47, 48. Our offices, our influence, our preferments, and our authority. (To be continued.)

ART. III.--SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM.

No. I.

It was not at first, and is not now the object of this excitement to establish any principle in relation to the subject of slavery for on that subject, there was essentially but one opinion. This the abolition publications abundantly show, not only by the records they furnish of the views of the most enlightened and influential individuals of the past and present age, but by the drift and purport of their contents generally. The only question about which any material difference of opinion was, "How shall the evil of slavery be removed?" This question involved and still involves a variety of considerations, moral, political, civil and social; and it is no further settled nor any nearer being settled in the minds of intelligent, sober and conscientious men, than it was several years ago. The abolitionists indeed, regardless of these considerations, dictate a summary and exclusive mode of disposing of the subject; and not only denounce

and condemn all who do not adopt their doctrine, but threaten to give it speedy and triumphant effect by subverting or revolutionizing the governments both of church and state, by the power of the press, of agitation, of the ballot box, and of something further if necessary.

Their real object, under color of sympathy for the slaves in the Southern States, is to gratify their own fanatical propensities, and to kindle a flame of passion at the north, out of which their audacious selfishness and ambition may be supported, and their power rendered conspicuous and formidable by the control of associated followers, voters, and peradventure, in the end, fighters.

Any one at all conversant with their publications, must be sufficiently aware that the whole scope of their proceedings is fanatical and insurrectionary. Witness their incessant appeals to the worst passions of the excitable, the restless, the ignorant, deluded and reckless portions of the community; their bold and unscrupulous denunciation and ridicule of civil and ecclesiastical rulers, politicians, literary and professional men, and of all classes and descriptions of men who stand aloof from their headlong course, and favor any other scheme but theirs; and their incendiary attempts to excite the feelings and mould the sentiments of their followers in opposition to the authority of every kind of government, and of those sacred and social institutions by which licentiousness and depravity are restrained. Witness the whole aspect of their undertaking and proceedings; the demand of individuals at the north upon the government and people of the South, of instant and unconditional emancipation upon pain of whatever consequences may follow the enforcement of such demand; their disgusting egotism and odious adulation of each other; their boasts of persecution and martyrdom; and their blustering claims of an onward progress-namely a progress in deluding the imaginations, exciting the passions, and collecting the money of new recruits. Witness their disagreements, suspicions and denunciations of each other; their opposing creeds, their rival prints, their quarrels, in short, about the loaves and fishes, and the honors and powers to be enjoyed in the scramble and tumult of their crusade.

What have they accomplished better or different from the things indicated above? And pursuing the same course, what else is it, in the nature of things, possible for them to

accomplish? When they commenced their efforts, a movement was in progress in Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky similar to that by which slavery had been abolished in the Eastern and middle States. That movement was arrested by their exciting and violent proceedings. Have they benefitted the condition or prospects of the slaves in these states or elsewhere? Is it possible to account for their proceedings except on grounds above referred to ? Does any rational man deem their scheme practicable after what they have done, and under their system of measures, without such revolution and violence as will destroy both white and blacks.

We said that the abolitionists had neither established nor attempted to establish any new political principle with regard to the nature or effects of slavery. On the contrary, they have been most industrious in circulating the opinions of distinguished divines and statesmen, both at the north and south who had given one concurrent sentiment on the subject before abolitionism commenced. Indeed we believe that there was entire unanimity on this subject at the north ten years ago, and at the south the difference was more as to the means or practicability of removing the evil than any doubt as to its nature. The present generation found slavery existing in its strength, interwoven with their forms of government, so intimately connected with all their social relations, that any sudden removal of it would have been impossible or fatal. Immediate emancipation like that which England had effected in her colonies, was out of the question. The states governments whose jurisdiction alone extended to this subject, even could they have construed their powers in such a manner as to require of their citizens the relinquishment of such an amount of property, had like England no equivalent to bestow in return. But at the south no man contended that it was right to introduce slavery to any country on any pretext whatever, much less that it was right to reduce a fellow being to a state of servitude. On the contrary, although their fortunes and political influence in the union depended to so great an extent on the existence of slavery, several of the southern states were preparing to take the same stand with New England and the middle states, though at a far greater sacrifice. Virginia was just on the eve of passing a bill which provided for gradual emancipation of her slaves. Other southern gov

ernments would soon have modelled their institutions according to their views of political justice.

Politicians and philanthropists were becoming of one opinion as to the importance of removing slavery; the only question was, how shall it be effected. Immediate emancipation was out of the question as it was beyond the powers both of the states and the general government. Besides a great and radical change of sentiments as to its safety, must have preceded and prepared the way for it. The only question was what scheme of gradual emancipation was most promising, and the question was awakening no small interest at the south.

But just at this crisis abolitionism makes its appearance. Societies and combinations are formed in the middle and northern states to affect the legislation and change the political institutions of neighboring states.

We contend for the full liberty of the press, but where societies and combinations with immense funds, numerous agents, and extensive power over the press are formed for the express purpose of affecting legislation and changing the framework of government by ceaseless agitation, we believe that they are wholly of an insurrectionary character and inconsistent with the peace, stability, or even durability of government. This has been evinced to some extent in England and on a pretty large scale in this country. Abolitionism instantly paralysed the efforts of southern philanthropists and legislators in behalf of the slaves. But did it succeed? Far from it. It was soon found that the mere question of immediate emancipation as compared with gradual where it gained a hearing, did not excite much interest, and something exciting was required to direct attention to it. It was found necessary to assert an authority over the conscience where the Bible had left it free, and immediately the relation of master and slave was pronounced to be sinful, and its continuance under whatever circumstances was placed on the same footing as the continued cohabitation of parties living in an adulterous intercourse and an immediate separation was urged upon the same principle.

This assumption of the sinfulness of the relation has served its turn, it has been the ground not for kind addresses to the conscience of the slaveholder, but for applying to him the most insulting and opprobrious epithets, for exciting against him the worst passions of the worst part of the