treated them as such, and when they found it necessary to raise money for any purpose, they sold as many of them as they chose, to such buyers as would give them the highest price. As an English farmer sells his cow to one, and his calf to another, his horse to a third, and his pigs to a fourth, so the slave-owner has sold his slaves; the father to one, the mother to another; one child to this estate, another to that, and a third and a fourth to others. Thus trampling upon the strong laws of consanguinity, and tearing those

"In sunder Whom love had knit, and sympathy made one." At the application of such language to slaves, no doubt such parsons as Bridges, and such Jamaica ex-Attorney-Generals as Burge, will smile. Let them smileit is perfectly natural that men accustomed to look upon slaves as mere brutes, and to treat them as such, should smile at the idea of their possessing the sensibilities and sympathies of our common nature.

Against these monstrous and outrageous attacks on every principle and feeling of humanity, the British public raised its voice, and a British parliament called upon the colonial legislatures to put an immediate stop to the abomination. And what have they done? The Circular of the 40 gentlemen slave-holders answers the question; and the following is their own account of the matter;-from which it appears, that some have not pretended to do any thing; others have pretended to do much, but have done absolutely nothing; whilst only two have, even on paper, done any thing effectually.

Under the head of Barbadoes, the article is omitted altogether; and under that of St. Vincent, though we have the title, Separation of Families, &c." there is not the slightest reference to it.

In Jamaica, Grenada, Dominica, St. Christopher, Tobago, Bermuda, Antigua, Demerara, Berbice, Trinidad, and St. Lucie, we have the law, but no penalty to enforce it. Such law therefore is a dead letter.

In Nevis, the law forbidding the separation of families by sale is enforced by a penalty of £50; and in the Bahamas, by a penalty of £100.

Such, then, is the present improved state of slavery! In every colony, except two, they may be sold separately; and even in these they may be driven to the slave mart by families, and sold like droves of pigs in an English market!

The particulars in the Circular, entitled, "Evidence, Trial and Defence, Right of Property, and Right of Action, and Legal

Protection," are so much in character with the particulars already examined, that it would be little better than a waste of time to dwell upon them. In some of the colonies slave evidence is admitted, but under such restrictions as, in a court composed as colonial courts generally are, would in many, if not in most cases, exclude it; whilst in other colonies, slave evidence is not received against his owner; so that he may do whatever he likes in the presence of his slaves with impunity. Rape and murders in such case would go unpunished.

And is such a state of things to continue year after year, under the eye of a British parliament and a British public? It cannot be. Every thing British, and every thing christian, denounces it. Slave-holders say, they wish to put an end to slavery, but this is not the time. Suffer slavery to go on, and they will say the same 50 years hence. Put an end to it at once, and let no question of remuneration hinder it another year. Let the subject of remuneration be submitted to a dispassionate, impartial, and enlightened committee, and in their decision the country will cheerfully acquiesce.

But after all the outcry of slaveholders about the loss which they will sustain in case of emancipation, they have never, as far as I have seen, defined that loss. Suppose slavery were abolished to-morrow, and I were a proprietor of a West India Plantation, upon which I had 600 slaves, where would be my loss? Would abolition annihilate my estate, pull down my mills, destroy my sugar canes, or coffee, or any other produce of my estate! No, the land, and the buildings, and the sugar, and the cotton, would remain as before the abolition took place. Would the abolition destroy the 600 men and women on the estate? No, not one of them. It would merely change their relation from that of slave to that of servant. The loss, then, that I should sustain by the abolition, would simply be the difference between what the 600 cost me as slaves, and what they will cost me as servants. And if what slave-holders tell us be true, about the good living of their slaves, and good clothing, and good accommodation, and good medical attendance, and good nursing in sickness and in old age, the difference will be trifling indeed; especially when it is remembered, that under this new relation, they will have motives to labour, which have no existence in slavery. Remuneration being in proportion to their labour, they will accomplish more in four days than they now perform in six.

But however great the sacrifice to be made, whether by the planter or the public, or both, humanity, sound policy, and christianity, alike require it. It is indeed urged by the advocates of slavery, that if slavery be relinquished by Britain, it will still be carried on by other nations; an argument this, which may with equal force and propriety be employed by pickpockets and horse-stealers," If you, gentlemen, don't pick pockets, and steal horses, others will, and therefore we may as well do it as any body else." Such, precisely, is the argument used to cool the zeal of the friends of humanity. Whatever other nations may do, let the British nation no longer sanction a system of the most cruel oppression and injustice, but, in the face of the nations, let her break the chain of the slave, and set the captive free-an act of moral chivalry, which will invest her with a glory far surpassing that which was obtained on the plains of Waterloo.

Weymouth, June 17, 1831.

ABEDNEGO.

ON CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS. MR. EDITOR, It is lamentable to perceive men of talents and real piety uniting with Deists and Freethinkers, Arians, Neologians, and Socinians, in their attempts to overturn the established church, and consequently, in all probability, with it our present form of government. It was painful to the writer of this article, and, no doubt, to many of your readers, to perceive the severe attack made by one of your correspondents, in your number for February, on our established church, but which was so ably answered by Mr. Tucker, in that for April

last.

Many great and learned men, who have taken a widely different view of this subject, agree in opinion, that an established religion is one of the greatest blessings any kingdom can enjoy. And not only members of the church of England have written in defence of an established church, but men of different denominations have expressed themselves favourably on this subject, particularly Dr. Adam Clarke-one of the greatest scholars of the age-a man of uncommon talents, great abilities, extensive reading, and of deep erudition and unfeigned piety. His words, which I am about to quote, are in his commentary on the second chapter of the first book of Samuel.

"An established religion, when the foundation is good, as in ours, I consider a

great blessing-and if the bishops be faithful, the establishment will be an honour to the kingdom, and a praise in the earth." And in his notes on the xiiith chap. of the 1 Kings, are the following observations :"A holy priesthood, a righteous ministry, is a blessing to any state, because it has a most powerful effect on the morals of the community, inducing order, sobriety, and habits of industry among the people. This is the principle in which all national establishments of religion were originally formed. The state thought proper to secure a permanency of religion, that religion might secure the safety of the state, because it was supposed, from the general aversion of man from good, that, if left to themselves, they would have no religion at all. When the religion of the country is pure, founded solely on the oracles of God, it deserves the utmost sanction of the state, as well as the attention of every individual. A Christian state has surely authority to enact, ❝The Christian religion is, and shall be, the religion of this land;' and, prejudice apart, should not the laws provide for the permanence of this system? Is the form of Christianity likely to be preserved in times of general profligacy, if the laws do not secure its permanence? What would our nation have been, if we had not had a version of the sacred writings established by the authority of the laws; and a form of sound words, for general devotion, established by the same authority? Whatever the reader may do, the writer thanks God for the religious establishment of this country." "God is the only ruler of princes," observes the same learned and pious commentator; "and as the peace of the world depends much on civil government, hence kings and civil governors are peculiar objects of the Almighty's care. Woe to him, then, who labours to bring about a general disaffection, as such things almost invariably end in general disappointment and calamity. It is much easier to unsettle than to settle, to pull down, than to build up."

And when shall we learn wisdom? will not experience teach us? How many thousands of lives were destroyed in the time of Charles the First, in order to establish a Protector on the throne, instead of a King; and were there not disgraceful dissensions, and violent contentions, between different sectarists at that period, in order to gain influence and superiority, parti. cularly between the Presbyterians and In. dependents?-and after verging to the extreme of puritanical sectarianism, the whole nation nearly relapsed again, in the time of

Charles II, to popery, deism, free-thinking, libertinism, licentiousness, and dissipation. And it is greatly to be apprehended, that a similar crisis is now approaching, for the whole nation seems to be on the tiptoe of expectation, hoping for great and wonderful events, and indescribable improvements, from this new bill of reform. Many people expect a second golden age will come, from the abolition of tithes the confiscation of church property, and the downfall of the clergy; and vast numbers, of all ranks and denominations, seem to be uniting with this view; but if the church be plundered, the property of the nobles and of the higher ranks will not long be respected.

The cravings and demands of an infuriated mob, and of a licentious and disorganized populace, will not easily be satisfied. I pray God matters may not proceed to such extremities; but in all probability such would soon be the result of general suffrage and vote by ballot. Democrats and radicals might be generally elected, who would vote the house of lords and a monarchical government as worse than useless. On a moderate computation, there are ten men of desperate fortunes, persons who may be said to have nothing to lose, for one who is independent, or in easy circumstances; and the former are naturally lovers of change, and advocates for reform, alias, revolution, as they hope to pick up something in the general scramble. And there are many, no doubt, who vote for reform for the sake of popularity.

It was at one time thought that the Bible Society would have united together the church of England and all denominations of dissenters in one bond of charity and brotherly love; but now it is to be feared, that many of the latter are uniting with neologians, infidels, &c. against the clergy of the establishment, whether from jealousy and envy, or from an idea that the plunder of the church will probably be allotted to them, or assigned by government to reduce the taxes.

There are many evils, no doubt, to be purged out of the establishment, and there is no want of those who will submit it to the severest regimen. But our source of anxious wish, in this time of trial and peril, of rebuke and blasphemy, is, that men of God, whether in or out of the establishment, should act as becomes their high calling, should humbly keep in view their own failings, and the manifold imperfec. tions of their respective systems; and instead of joining with those who hate all godliness, whose hearts are enmity against

God, whose object it is to root out the christian faith from under the face of heaven; instead of joining and mingling with such, we say, to destroy the venerable establishment of the country, that they will join in all lawful measures for supporting our common christianity, and cherish warm christian affection for all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. There are, in the country, hundred of thousands of the members of the establishment, conspicuous for every Christian grace: with men of this character (wherever they are found) may we live; with them may we die; and with them may we be finally gathered. LLANRUG. Peris.

ON THE EVIDENCE, FROM SCRIPTURE, THAT THE THE SOUL, IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEATH OF THE BODY, IS NOT IN A STATE OF SLEEP, ETC.-NO. VIII.

(Continued from p. 402.)

"I AM in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better," Phil. i. 3. The sophistical construction put upon this passage, to obstruct its force from bearing upon the sleeping system, needs only to be mentioned, to expose its futility.

Some maintain that the apostle does not mean to say, that his soul should enjoy the presence of Christ immediately after its having left the body; but that, as the space of time between death and the resurrection would appear so short, that he speaks of it in some sense as not existing. This was the gloss which Crellius, the Polish Socinian, put upon it, and whose opinion many of the same school have imbibed. But what sober-thinking man would ever imagine that the apostle would be guilty of such ambiguity of meaning? Is it possible, that he who counted every thing but refuse, in comparison with the knowledge of Jesus Christ, would prefer a state of insensibility to a life of faith and communion with Christ? Can it be supposed that the man who submitted to every deprivation, with a view to save the souls of others, and who esteemed the preaching of the gospel the highest honour that could be conferred upon him, would have preferred a temporary annihilation to a continuance in exhibiting the unsearchable riches of Christ? It is, in fact, impeaching the probity of the apostle to assert that he believed in a doctrine, which we find him contradicting in his preaching, and denying in his letters.

Others say, that the apostle alludes to the resurrection, and the last judgment, which he believed would take place in his

time, when both soul and body would be with Jesus Christ. The abettors of this unscriptural notion incautiously rush upon the horns of a dilemma. For, if Paul's being with Christ, refers to the resurrection and the last judgment; then his remaining in the flesh, implies that there will be a church upon earth after the last judgment. If they deny this, then the apostle must be with Christ before the last judgment.

That the apostle did not believe the resurrection would take place in his day, is evident from his own epistles, "He who raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you," 2 Cor. iv. 14. If words have any meaning, St. Paul, in this passage, speaks of his own resurrection in connexion with that of others. The resurrection could not take place till after his death; and there fore could not be in his day. "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, nei. ther by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition," 2 Thess. ii. 1-3. That the coming of Christ here alludes to his coming to judge the world, and not to destroy Jerusalem, is evident from its connexion with the man of sin, which is another name for the beast mentioned in the book of Revelation. But the beast was to reign twelve hundred and sixty years; and as he did not appear till after Paul's time, it will add to the twelve hundred and sixty years, and make the idea, of the apostle's supposing that the resurrection would take place in his time, purely ridiculous. It is therefore legitimately inferred, that St. Paul wished to inform the Philippians, that as soon as his spirit should be dismissed from his body, it would immediately be with Christ.

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held," Rev. vi. 9. Lowman and Bishop Newton say, that this fifth seal refers to the brutally outrageous persecutions of the church by the emperors Dioclesian and Maximian. According to the opinion of these vener able men, the "souls under the altar" were the immortal spirits of those servants of the Lord Jesus Christ who had suffered every kind of torture which the ingenuity of men and the malice of devils could 2D. SERIES, No. 10.-VOL. I.

invent, because they believed and openly professed the gospel. These scenes dis graced this earth above sixteen centuries ago, and could have no connexion with the resurrection. Lowman justly observes upon the passage,-"This representation seems much to favour the immediate happiness of departed saints, and hardly to consist with that uncomfortable opinion, the insensible state of departed souls till after the resurrection."

"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth, yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them," Rev. xiv. 13. As the meaning of this passage depends upon the signification attached to the original word anapre it will be necessary to ascertain its grammatical sense. Stockius, who was not among the least respectable lexicographers, defines and explains aπаρтi, ab hoc tempore. Est compositum ex ἄπο a, ex et aori nunc tempus hoc præsens. Legitur saltem Apoc. xiv. 13. Maxapio οι νεκροι δι ἔν Κύρω ἀποθνησκοντες anapri: Beati mortui qui in Domino moriuntur ab hoc tempore scilicet mortis ipsorum." Thus he limits the word, which is in our version henceforth, to the day of their death. Agreeably with this is the opinion of the celebrated Witsius, whose praise is in all the churches.-It seems more natural to think that arаρтi, from henceforth, denotes the moment of their death; because from that time the more perfect happiness of their souls will commence; they then rest from their labours; which rest consists not in a sleep that deprives them of all sense, but in a freedom from all vexations, and in the most calm, and never to be interrupted, participation of the divine glory; and, in a word, in a continued serenity of conscience.

That their works do follow them; that is, that they enjoy the free reward of their good actions, which can then, as little as afterwards, be unattended with any sensible feeling of the intelligent soul.

Daubuz's observation upon this passage is very just, "The blessedness promised consists in their being happy in their separate intermediate state, and in their having, at the resurrection, their full reward."

Lowman remarks, "The expression from henceforth, arapri, may admit of different interpretations; it will well meanthat, as they who die in the Lord have from that time finished their state of temptation and affliction, and from thenceforth rest from their labours; in like manner their works follow them, and from that time they receive their reward."