the relation of master and slave is not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians.  Nay, servants should in such a case, a fortiori, do their duty cheerfully.  This sentiment lies on the very face of the case.  What the master’s duty in such a case may be in respect to liberation, is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of.

3.  Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified and at looser ends than among Christian nations.  Slaves were property in Greece and Rome.  That decides all questions about their relation.  Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the temper of their masters.  The power of the master over the slave was, for a long time, that of life and death.  Horrible cruelties at length mitigated it.  In the apostle’s day, it was at least as great as among us.

After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been exhibited, the good old Book remains the same.  Paul’s conduct and advice are still safe guides.  Paul knew well that Christianity would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will.  He knew too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth; for it is fundamentally a doctrine of true liberty and equality.  Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor ad interim.

    With sincere and paternal regard,

    Your friend and brother,

    M. STUART.

* * * * *

—­This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is Bible doctrine.  The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course.  They have traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must take a different position, and approach the subject in a different manner.  Respectfully yours,

    W. FISK

“SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP.”

What are we taught here?  That in the ecclesiastical organizations which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted as a relation, that did not violate the Christian faith; that the relation may now in like manner exist; that “the abuse of it is the essential and fundamental wrong;” and, of course, that American Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring guilt or inflicting injury.  Thus according to Prof.  Stuart, Jesus Christ has not a word to say against “the peculiar institutions” of the South.  If our brethren there do not “abuse” the privilege of exacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their hearts’ content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the Savior or laying their Christian character open to the least suspicion.  Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater latitude?  And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly aid earnestly subscribes.  He goes further.  He urges it on the attention of his brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace.  According to him, it is “Bible doctrine,” showing, that “the abolitionists are on a wrong course,” and must, “if they would succeed, take a different position.”