Slavery In The Churches

We published last week the rule adopted by the session of the Presbyterian church in Webster, excluding slaveholders from the fellowship and membership of the church. We think this is the right ground. If slaveholding be a sin, why should it not be put upon the same footing with other sins? During the last five or six years, the Synod of Michigan, and some, if not all the presbyteries, have borne their testimony against slaveholding as a sin of no ordinary magnitude, and have published to the slaveholder and the world, their solemn convictions of its wickedness. Shall they leave the matter there? Would any church Judicatory feel that they had done all their duty toward a brother of the church who continued to get intoxicated year after year, simply because they had continued to admonish him from time to time? They would feel that when the sin was persisted in, something further than mere admonition was demanded alike by the honor of the church,and the good of the offender. - It is the same in the case of the slaveholder. The Presbyterian churches have borne testimony against the evil for a long time. The General Assembly has refused to do any thing on the subject, and has solemnly referred the whole matter to the lower Judicatories. The whole jurisdiction of the case has been put into the hands of each individual church, and it is time for each individual church to act. There is no reason for delaying the matter. If it is proper ever to act on the subject it is proper now. We would wish to ask every abolitionist connected with the Presbyterian church in Michigan, whether that church with which he is connected ought not to take some action on this subject, and if so, whether he is not the man to propose what that action shall be, and see that it is immediately made effectual.