although abolitionism may be, and has been demonstrated, (and has been all but unanimously pronounced by the Old-school Presbyterian Church,) to be contrary to the word of God, so that practically and virtually a man must either give up abolitionism or give up the Bible. It matters not how good he may appear to be, or how orthodox he may profess himself to be, the man who refuses to submit his judgment as to what is true and right, to the authority of the word of God, or who labours to pervert the obvious meaning of that word to justify his judg ments, is governed by the spirit of infidelity. The real question between faith and unbelief in the Bible is, whether the word of God or our own understanding shall decide for us what is true and right. By abolitionism is meant, the doctrine that slaveholding is in itself sinful, and that immediate and universal emancipation is, for that reason, a moral duty. This is the well-established meaning of the word in this country, from which no one is justified in departing. Taking the word in this sense, we assert that abolitionism is contrary to the word of God, and contrary to the faith and practice of our church, and of the church universal. It would, therefore, be a great evil, if, because slavery and slaveholders have brought such fearful calamities on our country, we should renounce our own faith and the faith of our fathers, and turn abolitionists. Let us adhere to the truth and to our recorded testimony, and not be driven about either by our own passions or by the passions of the people. It is the first duty of the church to teach the truth, whether agreeable or disagreeable, whether popular or unpopular, and to be governed in deciding what truth is only by the authority of Him whose word is truth.

Another principle which it is especially necessary that we should preserve in its integrity is the authority and prerogative of the church. It is the doctrine of the Scriptures and of the Presbyterian Church, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world; that it is not subject as to faith, worship, or discipline, to the authority of the state; and that it has no right to interfere with the state, or give ecclesiastical judgment in matters pertaining to state policy. It is no less, however, the doctrine of the Scriptures, that the church is God's witness on earth, and has the right to bear testimony against all error in doctrine

and all sin in practice, whether in magistrate or people. The clear principle of discrimination between what the church may, and what it may not do, is this. Any question which is to be decided by the teachings of the word of God, the church may, and when the occasion calls for it, is bound to decide, and to urge or enforce that decision by her spiritual authority. All questions, which are to be decided by any other standard, lie beyond her jurisdiction. In opposition to these plain principles, there are some among us, who assert that the church is so purely spiritual, it cannot pronounce judgment, or in any way rightfully interfere, either in the pulpit or church courts, in reference to any political question. What was meant by this theory is determined beyond doubt or denial by the illustrations employed by its advocates, and especially by its author. The church, it was said, is so spiritual that she cannot recommend the colonization society, and cannot condemn the slave trade. But are not these matters, the right or wrong of which may be determined by the word of God? Is there nothing in the Bible which teaches that it is right to send Christianized and civilized Africans, with their own consent, to the land of their fathers, to introduce among its pagan inhabitants the light of the gospel and blessings of civilization? Is there nothing in the Bible which prove man-stealing and devastating wars for the sake of procuring slaves to be diabolically wicked? And is it not the very object for which the church was founded, that she should teach God's truth, and apply it to all the concerns and emergencies of life, for instruction, exhortation, and consolation? She has nothing to do with politics as politics, with questions of banks and tariffs, with regard to which the rule of decision is human laws or secular interests. But with all that pertains to faith and holy living, it is her prerogative and duty to hold forth the word of life. On the other hand, however, it cannot be denied that zeal for a good cause, or the fervour of patriotic feeling, has led, and may again lead, the church to forget the limits set to her authority as a teacher or judge. She cannot decide whether the Salic law is in force in Spain; whether the expulsion of the Stuarts from the throne of England was lawful; whether the American Constitution recognizes the right of a state to secede from the Union; or whether

Louis Napoleon was lawfully elected emperor of the French. These are all political questions, to be decided, not by the law of God, but by historical facts and human laws. Of course, questions of duty which depend on the solution of these political questions, are all without the sphere of the church's authority. The church could not discipline a Jacobite who conscientiously believed that the Pretender had a right to the throne of England; nor can we excommunicate such a man as Leighton Wilson, who believes that his first duty as a citizen is to the state of South Carolina. As in these times of agitation, we are in so much danger of forsaking the only sure and infallible rule of faith and practice, and of giving ourselves up to the control of passion, instead of principle, it becomes us to be the more thoughtful, humble, and prayerful.

ART. VI.-Slavery and the Slave Trade.

IN May, 1607, the first permanent English settlement in the western hemisphere was made at Jamestown, in Virginia. At the end of twelve years, the population numbered but six hundred souls, mostly males. It was then strengthened by the addition, in one year, (1619,) of twelve hundred and sixty-one colonists, including ninety unmarried females, "young and uncorrupt," who were selected and sent over, to supply wives for the fathers of "the Old Dominion."

The next year witnessed an accession of a different kind to the strength and population of the rising colony. A Dutch vessel, from the African coast, appeared in the river, and sold to the colonists twenty "Guinea negroes," the pioneers of those millions of that race, which have aided to swell the population of the United States, and to subdue its wilds. They were landed in August, 1620; and it is a coincidence worthy of notice, that the first cotton grown on the continent was planted on James river the next year, and constituted a part of the earliest crop cultivated in America by their labour.

Thus early introduced, the institution of slavery soon struck its roots firmly into the soil, and, gradually following in the path of colonization, became domesticated throughout the continent.

The manner of the entrance of slavery, thus, in the earliest forming period of the colonial history, accounts for the fact that its introduction was, with slight exceptions, accomplished silently and almost unobserved, alike unsanctioned and unchallenged by legal authority. "There is not," says Bancroft, "in all the colonial legislation of America, one single law which recognises the rightfulness of slavery in the abstract."* There is not one that assumes to authorize, or establish and give legal validity to the enslaving of the negroes. In a few instances, their introduction and bondage was met, at the outset, with warm and active opposition in the colonies. But, generally, the subject seems at first to have been passed in silence, and wherever any measure was adopted by the colonial authorities having a tendency to impede or prohibit the trade in negroes, it was promptly set aside by the royal veto, which was employed with the most watchful jealousy in defence of this cherished institution. And it was not until entrance had thus been secured, and domicil acquired by the system-until after it had gained some degree of maturity and strength in the colonies that the statutes begin to take cognizance of, and make regulations respecting it, as already existing. Nor was it until the colonies had passed the first stage of early helplessness-until they had acquired such a measure of maturity and growth as developed a distinctive colonial sentiment, and gave birth among them to views of policy independent of those which were cherished in England, and patronized by the crown, -that a course of legislation began to be pursued having systematic reference to the purpose of restraining the slave-trade, and excluding the institution of slavery from their territories.

During a century and a half, from the first settlement of the American colonies until their independence, the African slave trade constituted by far the most important branch of British commerce, the nursery of her maritime power, and foundation

* History of the United States, vol. iii., p. 409.

of that gigantic system of empire which has since been reared by her sons.

The pioneer of English enterprise in this direction was Sir Thomas Wyndham, who visited the African coast in 1551 and 1552, and returned with one hundred and fifty pounds' weight of gold-dust. An expedition was thereupon fitted out by a London company, consisting of two ships, and one hundred and forty men, under the command of Wyndham, with whom was associated Pinteado, a Portuguese, well acquainted with the trade, which had been carried on by the Portuguese for nearly a century and a half. But the imperious and headstrong course of Wyndham resulted in the sickness and death of himself, Pinteado, and one hundred of the crew. The forty survivors were compelled to abandon and sink one of the ships, and return to England. The company immediately organized a yet larger expedition of three ships, under the charge of Captain John Lok. After a prosperous voyage, he returned to England, freighted with thirty-six butts of Guinea pepper, two hundred and fifty elephants' teeth, four hundred pounds of gold-dust, and "certain black slaves"-the first brought into England by British vessels. These latter, however, do not seem to have been recognised as included in the proper objects of the voyage, but as incidental to the more legitimate commerce which supplied the principal part of the cargo.

To Sir John Hawkins belongs the infamous distinction of having fitted out the first English vessel for the trade in slaves. Having learned that negroes were in demand in Hispaniola, he sailed, in 1562, with three ships for the African coast, secured three hundred slaves, and conveyed them to Hispaniola. The Spanish regulations for the colonies were designed to confer the monopoly of slave supply upon the kindred Portuguese. But Sir John managed to evade all obstacles, and to smuggle his cargo into a profitable market. "The rich returns of sugar, ginger, and pearls, attracted the notice of Queen Elizabeth; and when a new expedition was prepared, she was induced, not only to protect, but to share in the traffic. In the accounts which Hawkins himself gives of one of his expeditions, he relates that he set fire to a city of which the huts were covered with dry palm leaves, and, out of eight thousand inhabitants,