ment obtained against a free colored person shall remain unsatisfied for five days, such person shall be sold to raise money to pay the judgment. The sale was nominally for a term of years, but practically for life.

"4. Suspected fugitives were sold as slaves. This Roman device for procuring slaves is now in operation in the District of Columbia, under the immediate sanction of Congress, and in almost every slave State. The process is simple: A man who it is deemed ought to be a slave, is arrested on suspicion of being a runaway, and thrown into prison; notice is then given in a newspaper to his supposed master, to come and claim him. If claimed, well-if not, the prisoner is sold as a slave for life, to raise money to pay the expense of his imprisonment."

The Churchman goes on to survey Slavery as it exists at the present day,' and as the Bishop of Texas, with the concurrence of the Bishops of North and South Carolina, assures us by "the order of Divine Providence." We will not now repeat this oft-told tale of horror; though every new mention discovers new atrocities. Its worst feature is that it converts rational, accountable, immortal beings, made in the image of God, and for whom Christ died, into chattels, articles of property, vendible commodities. It is not the violation of certain rights, but the annihilation of all. It is the degradation of a man to the level of a brute. It involves the denial of all domestic relations, and consequently the refusal to afford them legal protection. The infant slave may be sold or given away before he sees the light, so that, at the instant of his birth, he belongs to one master and his mother to another. A slave can possess no property; nor is any promise to him, or agreement with him, binding in law. He has no legal right to attend the worship of his Maker. Like other chattels, he can obtain no legal redress for any injury, however grievous. The master may recover compensation from any one who damages or kills his

horse or his slave; but American law refuses to notice any insult or outrage offered to male or female slaves, which does not lessen their price in the market. The whole life of a slave is appropriated by the master; no portion of it belongs to himself, to be occupied in promoting his own happiness, or that of his offspring. Such is the slavery which George W. Freeman, as a minister of the Most High God, declares to be "agreeable to the order of Divine Providence." Such is the slavery, to the defence of which in God's house, on his holy day, the Right Rev. Father in God, Levi S. Ives, listened with "most unfeigned pleasure." Such is the slavery, whose vindication the Churchmen of South Carolina spread on the wings of the wind, for "the advancement of Christianity."

The guilt of such clerical champions of slavery is tremendously aggravated by their personal knowledge of its unutterable abominations. Only five days after Bishop Freeman had declared from the pulpit of Raleigh, that "slavery as it exists at the present day is agreeable to the order of Divine Providence," the following comment appeared in the Newbern (N. C.) Spectator:

from the subscriber about three years "200 Dollars Reward.-Ran away ago, a certain negro man named Ben, commonly known by the name of Ben Fox. He had but one eye. Also, one other negro by the name of Rigdon, who ran away on the 8th of this month. I will give the reward of one hundred dollars for each of the above negroes, to be delivered to me, or confined in the Jail of Lenoir or Jones County, or for the killing of them, so that I can see them. "W. D. COBB."

In Bishop Ives's own diocese, Judge Ruffin decided as follows in the case of a white man who had deliberately shot a slave woman named Lydia, because she would not stand still to be flogged by him with that dreadful instrument

And are such masters degraded outcasts from respectable American society? Far from it. Mr. Cobb, who thus publicly offers money for the blood of two of his fellowmen, may be a very reputable churchwarden, vestryman, or communicant of the Church in Newbern. He acted legally; for he published in the same paper with his advertisement, the following proclamation, signed by two Jus tices of the Peace.

"We do hereby, by virtue of an Act of the Assembly of this State, concerning Servants and Slaves, intimate and declare if the said Slaves (Ben and Rig don) do not surrender themselves, and return home immediately after the publication of these presents, that any person may kill and destroy said Slaves, by such means as he or they may think fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime for so doing, or without incurring any penalty or forfeiture thereby. "Given under our hands and seals, this 12 November, 1836.

"B. COLEMAN, J. P.
"JAS. JONES, J. P."

This proclamation is an idle mockery; first, because the slaves are by law incapacitated from reading it, so as to take the warning; and secondly, because it assings no time for their return, so that they might legally be flayed alive on their way home (home!!) an hour after the proclamation was issued. The Wilmington (same diocese) Advertiser has the following:

"Run away, my negro man Richard. A reward of 25 dollars will be paid for his apprehension, dead or alive. Satisfactory proof will only be required of his being killed.

"DURANT H. RHODES."

Mr. Rhodes is more confiding in human nature than Mr. Cobb. The latter would not pay his money till he had glutted his own eyes with the dead bodies of his slaves; whereas Mr. Rhodes is that his man Richard has been contented with satisfactory proof slaughtered.

We will give another specimen of the taste, feeling, and morality, springing from slavery in the Bishop's diocese, extracted from the North Carolina Standard, published at Raleigh, the residence of the Bishop, and probably honoured by his constant perusal.

"Twenty Dollars Reward. Ran away from the subscriber, a negro woman and two children. The woman

is

tall and black, and a few days before she went off I burnt her with a hot iron make the letter M, and she kept a cloth over head and face, and a fly bonnet on her head, so as to cover the burn. Her children, &c." "MICAJAH RICKS."

on the left side of her face: I tried to

Good reason enough therefore was there for the suppression of Bishop Wilberforce's book; which, on account of the powerful remonstrance to the Church respecting slavery, was as hateful to the admirers of that blessed institution, as Paleario's Treatise on the Death

of Christ was to the Popish Inquisition.

One of the "duties of slaveholders," Bishops Freeman and Ives tell the planters, is to have slave children baptized. They ought, for the sake of decency, to have commanded that the address to sponsors be omitted, as it would be trifling with sacred things to tell the chattel parents or friends, that they must call upon the child as he grows up to hear sermons, and take care that he be brought to the Bishop for confirmation; whereas if the sponsors or the child attempt to leave the plantation without their master's permission, they may legally be shot, and will certainly be scourged. These servile lambs of Christ's flock are not

allowed to learn to read the Bible, as containing anything "which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health;" but Bishop Ives has constructed a catechism to supply that slight defect. He says, speaking of its admirable adaptation to its purpose:

"The plainness of its directions enables any person to apply it. If our planters, therefore. under a sense of their solemn responsibility to God for the Christian instruction of their slaves, would adopt it, and see to its faithful inculcation, the next generation of blacks in our State, at a very small exexpense, would sufficiently understand the truth as it is in Jesus, without knowing a letter of the alphabet.”—Spirit of Missions, Nov. 1842.

There's a Christian Bishop for ye! The friend of the oppressed! The curber of the proud! The man who has two catechisms for his diocese; the one for White and Yellow children, and the other for Black and Brown. Now, good slave children, learn the dear Bishop's catechism, and kiss the whip; for he is too kind to allow you to "know a letter of the alphabet," that you may read the Sermon on the Mount, or the wickedness of Joseph's brethren in selling him to the Ishmaelites.

Bishop Freeman is prudently silent on the subject of slave marriages. To make persons who are vendible commodities, and can never spend an hour together without the permission of their masters, vow, in the presence of Almighty God, to cleave to each other in riches and in poverty, in sickness and in health; till parted by death, would be mockery. The priestly prohibition, "Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," is, moreover, in utter contempt of the law of the land, and at war with the very existence of slavery. The United States would not be "the land of liberty," if every White man might not "wallop his niggers," and se

parate husband and wife, and sell them when and where he pleases. A Reverend Professor of the Methodist Church has decided that it is lawful for an owner to separate husband and wife, and that if there be any sin in the case, it rests upon the shoulders of the slaves, who ought not to have taken vows which their condition disqualifies them from keeping. A Baptist association in Virginia has granted permission to a slave member to take a second wife, his first having been sold into another part of the

country. Professor E. A. Andrews, in his letter on "Slavery and the Domestic Slave-trade," relates that a slave complaining to him that his wife's master was about selling her, remarked, “This is my third wife; both the others were sold to the speculators."

All the bishops and clergy of the Episcopal Church in the United States are not personally favourable to slavery; but in their public acts they uphold it. They allow the iniquity of the African slave-trade, and that it is wicked to buy a savage in Africa and sell him in Cuba; but they sanction buying a fellow-countryman, and possibly a fellow-Christian, in North Carolina, and selling him in New Orleans. Bishop Ives' own diocese is one of the great breeding districts in which human cattle are raised for the Southern market. The brokers in human flesh are considered as sound Churchmen, and as heavenly-minded Christians, as Bishops Ives and Freeman themselves; they are but reducing to practice the doctrines taught by these Right Rev. Fathers.

We will now allude to one of the passages in Bishop Wilberforce's book, which gave special offence, and would alone have caused its suppression. The Bishop refers to a proposal by the Editor of the "Spirit of Missions" to establish a Mission School to be supported by slaves, who shall be

remon

induced, by the promise of prospective emancipation, to perform so much extra labour in the course of sixteen years as to yield a profit of one hundred per cent. on the capital invested, over and above the ordinary profits extorted by common taskmasters. This revolting scheme, in which it was intended that the slaves should work two hours before sunrise, and two hours after sunset, in all sixteen hours out of the four and twenty, and this for sixteen successive years, was pressed upon the Church in an official magazine, published in New York under the supervision of the Missionary Committee, and by an Editor holding his appointment from the Board of Missions, including the Bishops, and other representatives of the Church elected by the General Convention. In about three months after this publication, the Board assembled, and written strances were presented to them, beseeching them, for the honour of the Church, and the cause of religion and humanity, to disavow the conduct of their Editor. These remonstrances excited warm debates, not unmingled with Southern arrogance. It was impossible for the Board to express disapprobation of the plan without indirectly censuring Bishops Ives and Elliott. If slaves be indeed property, what objection can there be to converting their bones and muscles into money for the Church? To condemn the Editor, would offend the pro-slavery Bishops and Clergy; expressly to approve his conduct, would raise a tempest at the North. So, policy was substituted for godly sincerity, and cunning for wisdom. The Board expunged from their minutes the proceedings had on the memorials, and avoiding all intelligible allusion to the scheme which had led to them, ordered the following words to be printed on the future

numbers of their own magazine : "It is to be understood by the readers of this periodical, that the Board of Missions are not responsible for the expression of editorial opinions, but simply for the accuracy of facts connected with their operations."

"But lest even this extraordinary disclaimer should be supposed to involve a concealed censure on the late 'editorial opinions,' the resolution recommending it, and which was introduced by a Bishop from a slave State, was preceded by another, declaring, 'That, in the opinion of this Board, the Spirit of Missions has been conducted, during the year past, with commendable diligence and ability;' and the report of the committee accompanying these resolutions is careful to state that the periodical in question is gaining reputation and influence,

and that if it continues to be conducted with the same ability which it has of late exhibited, it will become a powerful auxiliary to the cause.'

"The subject of Slavery had been brought directly and prominently before the Church, by her own appropriate officers. Money, entrusted to the Board ployed through the official magazine, to for Missionary purposes, had been emadvocate the cause of human bondage, to condemn emancipation as 'ruinous, and forbidden by common sense and Christian prudence,' and to put in motion a machinery by which money was to be extorted for the coffers of the Church, from the cruel and extraordinary toil of miserable slaves. The memorialists had Fathers of the Church, in council virtually asked the Rev. and Right Rev. assembled, do, or do you not, approve of this conduct of your agent? To this interrogatory, the Rev. gentlemen thought it expedient to answer neither yes nor no.

"On this assertion of irresponsibility' we take issue, and affirm that the Board is responsible to the community, to the Church and to God, for the opinions of an Editor appointed by themselves, under their control, paid out of funds entrusted to their care, published in an official magazine, and printed at the expense of Missionary contributions. What! will the Board tell us that their Editor may make their magazine a vehicle for the dissemination of obscenity and infidelity, and that it is no concern of theirs? That he may disparage the Church, insult her Bishops, and deny responsible? But should he misdate a her doctrines, and that they are not letter, or omit half a dollar in the ac

knowledgment of a donation, then, then indeed, they will not shrink from responsibility.

"Surely the Bishops who concurred in this assertion of irresponsibility,' forget for the moment their consecration vow, to be ready with all faithful vigilance to drive away from the Church all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God's word.'

"This disclaimer, like most cunning measures, was a sacrifice of duty to present expediency; a sacrifice which, however common with politicians, we had no right to expect from such a body of men. The truth is, the Board were worried by the memorials. To take no notice of them would probably increase agitation'-to approve the course of the Editor, would disgust many at the North-to condemn it, would offend all at the South. Instead of manfully breaking down this triple hedge, within which they found themselves enclosed, they determined to crawl through it, and for this purpose, disencumbered themselves of a responsibility which God and the Church had

commanded them to bear."

Gross hypocrisy and sneaking cowardice have characterised the whole conduct of the United States Episcopal Church in regard to the relation between its White and Yellow and its Black and Coloured members. Our readers cannot have forgotten the abominable persecution of Mr. Crummell by the Trustees of the General Theological Seminary of New York; and though every body knew that his rejection, and the foul usage towards him, were solely owing to the hue of his skin, they durst not place this objection upon their minutes; though the Bishop of New York could not in a newspaper publication withhold his sneers at "amalgamation"-the union between human beings and baboons. When Crummell procured ordination in another diocese, and organized (as the phrase runs) a coloured church in Pennsylvania, the Convention would not allow him to become one of its members, as by the canonical constitution of the Church he had a full right to be; but the matter was, as on all similar occasions,

wrapt up in vague words, without one syllable about blood and skin. The Bishop said:

"In the Convention of 1795, it was declared that the African Church of St.

Thomas, in this city, was not entitled to send a Clergyman or deputies to the Convention, or to interfere with the This law is still retained (up to 1846) general government of the Church.' in our Revised Regulations. The peculiar circumstances which required this restriction may occur, and probably will, in other cases; and I submit for your consideration whether it will not tion applicable to all clergymen and be proper to enact a similar restriccongregations in this diocese under like

circumstances."

Conscious shame and guilt drove the ecclesiastical rulers, when perpetrating oppression and injustice upon coloured Christians, to hide their meaning in unintelligible and deceptive phraseology. So also Bishop Onderdonk called on the Convention to enact a similar restriction, "applicable to all clergymen and congregations," which should hereafter be in "like circumstances." What circumstances? A state of schism, insubordination, or irregular or illegal incorporation? No, he meant having black skins, but he was too cunning, or too cowardly, to say so. When the Bishop said cases may occur, and probably will," and it is best to be prepared for contingencies; he had in his possession the letter dismissory of the very clergyman against whom the proposed restriction was aimed; and who, by his advice, had been shut out of the Theological Seminary, and from whom he had vainly endeavoured to obtain a disgraceful surrender of his rights as a Minister of the Church. Ruffian mobs had on several occasions assailed the unoffending blacks in Philadelphia, sacked their dwellings, and torn down their houses of worship, and all on account of the complexion their Maker had given them. And how was this wicked, cruel prejudice against colour, rebuked by