You ridicule the idea of the abolition of slavery, because it would make the slaveholder “so poor, as to oblige him to take hold of the maul and wedge himself—­he must catch, curry, and saddle his own horse—­he must black his own brogans (for he will not be able to buy boots)—­his wife must go herself to the wash-tub—­take hold of the scrubbing broom, wash the pots, and cook all that she and her rail-mauler will eat.”  If Paul were, as you judge he was, opposed to the abolition of slavery, it is at least certain, from what he says of the character of his life in his address to the Elders, that his opposition did not spring from such considerations as array you against it.  In his estimation, manual labor was honorable.  In a slaveholding community, it is degrading.  It is so in your own judgment, or you would not hold up to ridicule those humble employments, which reflect disgrace, only where the moral atmosphere is tainted by slavery.  That the pernicious influences of slavery in this respect are felt more or less, in every part of this guilty nation, is but too true.  I put it to your candor, sir, whether the obvious fact, that slavery makes the honest labor of the hands disreputable, is not a weighty argument against the supposition that God approves it?  I put it to your candor, sir, whether the fact, which you, at least, cannot gain-say, that slavery makes even ministers of the gospel despise the employments of seven-eighths of the human family, and, consequently, the humble classes, who labor in them—­I put it to your candor, whether the institution, which breeds such contempt of your fellow-men and fellow Christians, must not be offensive to Him, who commands us to “Honor all men, and love the brotherhood?”

In another argument, you attempt to show, that Paul’s letter to Philemon justifies slaveholding, and also the apprehension and return of fugitive slaves.  After having recited the Resolution of the Chilicothe Presbytery—­“that to apprehend a slave who is endeavoring to escape from slavery, with a view to restore him to his master, is a direct violation of the Divine law, and, when committed by a member of the church, ought to subject him to censure”—­you undertake to make your readers believe, that Paul’s sending Onesimus to Philemon, is a case coming fairly within the purview of the resolution.  Let us see if it does.  A man by the name of Onesimus was converted to Christianity, under Paul’s ministry at Rome.  Paul learnt that he had formerly been a servant—­say a slave—­of Philemon, who was a “dearly beloved” Christian:  and believing that his return to his old master would promote the cause of Christ, and beautifully exemplify its power, he advised him to return to him.  He followed the Apostle’s advice and returned.  Now, from this example, you attempt to derive a justification for “a member of a Church” to be engaged in forcibly apprehending and restoring fugitive slaves.  I say forcibly—­as the apprehension and return, referred to in the Resolution, are clearly