always may have been, a great difference at the South among slaveholders; some approving the whole system, laws, practice, and all, and not wishing a change; others di-approving of certain features in slave-laws, and either acquiescing or striving to have them altered, but continuing the practice of slavery from choice; others condemning the laws and the practice but, seeing their way more or less hedged up toward emancipation, continuing still in the practice; though we think the number in this latter classification has for a long time been very small and growing beautifully less. These distinctions are palpable and real; and in judging of individuals, they cannot be properly left out of the account. So, also, we can imagine such a change to occur in the system at the South, as a possible thing, as would divest the laws of their odious features, and leave little or nothing else but the relation of master and slave, and the practice of slavery; though, unhappily, with all the ameliorating influences of Christianity (and we have the word of Dr. Stiles for it, that they are a people of purer and simpler Christianity than any other), the system of slave-laws has continued from generation to generation much the same.

But when we would speak of and characterize slavery as an INSTITUTION, as a thing standing out before all men, we must take it as a whole and take it just as it is. Nor is it material, practically, how it may be verbally defined; a point on which logomachy has run wild, and in which no two men have ever agreed. What the system, as such, is, can admit of no doubt. To speak of it properly, as an institution, all its elements must be embraced; the laws just as they are, and the practice just as it is, embracing the persons held and the persons holding them. And when the committee reported, and the Assembly enacted, that we were punished "for our continuance in this sin,”

FEATURES OF THIS REPORT.

419

we understand them to cover by these terms all that makes the institution what it is. If so, we regard it in this sense, and by these terms, as declaring what no General Assembly has ever before declared. In no sense has any previous Assembly ever declared slavery to be a “sin."*

4. It is the judgment of the Assembly that slavery is

* Some rather curious things were developed in the discussion upon this report in the Assembly. Dr. Rice is reported as saying: "He now expected to vote for the paper. The war had not taught him any thing at all about slavery. He had been accustomed to investigate the subject for a long time." "He never had believed that slavery was of itself a sin. He regarded it as an evil, and considered it a sin to undertake to perpetuate slavery." "Ile had, since the war, learned nothing new." "It had been assumed that the act of 1845 was inconsistent with that of 1818. This he denied. It was not inconsistent with that act. He proceeded to explain the act of 1845, and showed that it was less proslavery than that of 1818. Why do not brethren read the whole document before they talk about it as a proslavery paper ?"-Philadelphia Presbyterian. (1.) Although Dr. Rice may "never have "believed that slavery was of itself a sin," yet he voted for Judge Matthews's paper, which pronounces it "THIS SIN." Although the war may not have "taught him any thing at all about slavery," as his speech would indicate, yet his cote shows that he took with others an advanced position in a deliverance upon slavery. Some men advance without knowledge, and some without knowing it. Dr. Rice may have done both. (2.) Dr. Rice declares that the paper of 1845 is “less proslavery than that of 1818." If this statement should ever run the blockade with other contraband goods, we should be curious to know how it would be received in Dixie. What will "our Southern brethren" say, when they hear that it has been affirmed in the General Assembly, of the act of 1845, with which they had been "perfectly contented for sixteen years,"-and by the author of that act, who, they declare has been distinguished as a defender of slavery and the South, and as an antagonist of the antislavery party,"-that the said act of 1845 is “LESS proslavery than that of 1818 !" What will "our Southern brethren" say? If any of them have become, by the influence of the rebellion, addicted to what was currently reported in the early stage of it, of the late Major-General Bishop Polk, they may possibly do what our army did in Flanders!" (3.) "He had, since the war, learned nothing new," says Dr. Rice. Most men in this nation have no doubt learned a great many things "since the war" began. We hear this on every hand, from the President of the United States down. It is our humble opinion that the whole nation has learned much; has been led along in paths that they knew not of, in God's wonderful providence; and that the people will learn much more before "the war" is over. But Dr. Rice is perhaps the one exception, essential to prove the rule. If he has "learned nothing new" thus far, he probably will not hereafter. Some men are never willing to admit that they have any thing to learn, that they can be taught by anybody, or by any course of events. Is he one of them? Perhaps he is selfdeceived on matters concerning the war," as upon slavery, and takes a position here, too, in advance of the one he formerly was understood to hold, without being aware of it.

"the root of bitterness from which has sprung rebellion, war, and bloodshed, and the long list of horrors that follow in their train;" that hence, as it threatens our national existence, its continuance is "incompatible with the preservation of our liberty and independence;" and hence it urges all to efforts to remove it, regarding "the interests of peace and of social order identified with the success of emancipation."

5. It virtually approves of and indorses the measures of the Government, and the movements in certain Border States, looking to the entire removal of slavery from the land, in the exercise of both military and civil authority, and of the restoration of our national Union on the basis of universal freedom; regarding these things as calling for "gratitude to Almighty God."

TE DEUM LAUDAMUS.

We truly rejoice in this deliverance. We doubt not that Dr. Hodge in the Repertory is substantially correct in saying: "There cannot be a doubt that the sentiments of this paper are the sentiments of the Presbyterian Church in these United States." He of course means in the loyal States; and in this sense we say he is substantially correct we wish we could say he is entirely so. But there are some Presbyterians in some of the Border States whose souls are filled with mourning and lamentation at this act of the Assembly; and there is one "religious" journal claiming to be the organ of the only true Presbyterians left in the whole land, whose wrath has taken new fire from the fuel here furnished.

We can, without qualification, adopt another statement of the Repertory, which says: "We think it may safely be assumed, that the report unanimously adopted by the Assembly, expresses the opinions and feelings of the vast

TE DEUM LAUDAMUS.

421

majority of the people in the Northern, Western, and Middle States. In this view of the matter, we regard the adoption of such a paper a matter of great public importance. It is the revelation of a spirit of loyalty, and of devotion to the great cause for which the nation is now contending as for its life. In this view, it is matter for gratitude and encouragement."

It is of rather small consequence what that small fragment of the Church may think who groan over this deliverance. The mass of the loyal people, we verily believe, are convinced, after what slavery has attempted in this rebellion, that its death is just and its doom is near. We are, therefore, especially rejoiced, that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, by an almost unanimous vote, has so explicitly put itself upon the record; has declared for universal emancipation, as essential to "peace," "social order," "liberty and independence;" and has pledged itself and the people to sustain the Government in its measures for the restoration of our National Unity.

TO GOD BE THE PRAISE!

CHAPTER XI.

KENTUCKY OPINIONS.-THE PAST AND THE PRESENT.

As no Border State has at any time exhibited, among the religious portion of its community, more decided convictions upon Slavery, pro and con, than Kentucky, we propose in this chapter to present some of the views expressed against the system, at different periods, by some of her eminent men and religious bodies.

That which claims the pre-eminence, on account of the sentiments announced, the source whence they emanate, and the time of their utterance, is an Address issued in the year 1835. It is from a Committee of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky, to the members of this Church throughout the State.

The authority under which it was issued is as follows, as found in the minutes of the Synod: "For the purpose of promoting harmony and concert of action on this important su ject, the Synod do Resolve, That a Committee of ten appointed, to consist of an equal number of minister and elders, whose business it shall be to digest and prepare a plan for the moral and religious instruction of our slaves, and for their future emancipation, and to report such plan to the several Presbyteries within our bounds for their consideration and approval."

It is entitled: "An Address to the Presbyterians of Kentucky, proposing a Plan for the Instruction and Emancipation of their Slaves, by a Committee of the Synod of Kentucky."

The Committee were: "Messrs. John Brown, John