Slavery

- We confess we ieelSelves grieved at the result of a kind and fraternal eflbrt on the part of "Esaex North Associatisn1"1 in entering intoacorrespondence with tlie "Charleston Union Prcsbytery," on the subject of slnvery. - The communication niade by the Rcv. Mr. JDimmick, in behalfof the Association, (though we have not seen it,) can not have been dictated by any other than the spirit of love and meekness. His well known character sufficiently vouches this. But hovv' does the Presbytery treat the comraunication? Why, they vote unanimous]y not to receive it! and order their clerk, Rev. Elipha White, to return it for the furluer disposal ot' the Association! And has it come to this, that all fraternal correspondeuce with Southern Chris tians on a matter iuvo'.ving a charge of great error, somewhere, is to be cut off? May we not, as bretnren in Christ, receive light, nor communicate light by an interciiange of vievs on the proper applicatipn of the scccncl great luw oftho universe? If we at the Norih are involved in error, if we aré 'íbünd and cannot see afar off,' will notour soulhern brethren condescend tot shed a few rays of their light upon our daiknefs? And if they,on the other hand, are in error, wiil they not accept ourproffered aid in delivering them from it? May we not understand each other, nor help each other? "Caa two walk together except they be agreed?" And how can" ihoso whodisagree ever harmonize, unless they candidly communicate wiih eacli other on the points of difference? We are very reluctantly biought nearer than we wish to some conclusions which mey b.e üeemed uncharitable, and we sincerely desire to avoid.1. Lre not our Southern brethren, in the consciousness of wrong, afraid to meet the resulis of open and fair discussiun. 2. Are they pot obeying the dictates of a carnal policy rather taan the laws of, Christ, when they decline to give satisfac-j tion to aggneved brethren, in a spirit of candor?3. Do they not manifest a servilo subjection to the poliücal leaders, in following the iniquitous course a'iopted in ihe National Legislature, toward those who question the divine right of s!avery? In other words, do they r.ot seem to fear man more than God? 4. Do they not discover an inexcusable: indiffereaco to the pre&ervation of harmoiiy aud love in the American churches? 5. Are they not desirous of the inter, ruption t)f the fraternal intercourse hither-' to maintained between Christians of the Nortn and South? Instead of pursuing such inquiries further, wo will only remark, that the course pur3ued by these southern brethren is not lesa impoiitic than uncUristiañ. Multitudes at the Norih, who are not abolitionists, have believed that by kind dealing, Chris tian3 at the South might be led to'fecl and act rightly on the subject of their right eye ski; biit the course of the Union Presbytery blasts the hope forever. ' The consequenceg it is not difficult to foresee, nor