Communications: Letter From Rev. Mr. West: No. 6

Monroe, Mich. 14th Aug. 1843. To the. edilors Sig. of Liberty, Ann Arbor, Mich. Gentlemen: - In my last I glanced at the Unity of theChurch, and the reason the real frionds of that holy confraternity have, for aiding in the preservation of that unity. It :s hoped your readers will see that the mojority of our Assembly had difièrent motives impelling them to the course they adopled than inerely to admit sïavcry to, or sbield it in the church, which is the impression your paper ams to enstamp upon the public mind witli so much ardor. I will now attcmpt to show that the action the General Assembly took on the subject of slavery was better,circumstanced as that body wa?, than if the tesiimony, sousht ogainst the institulion of legal and compulsory bondage,had been conceeded without such discussion; and that therefore, the Assembly took the most effectual method shc could then have adopted, to destroy slavery. Il' the General Aesembly had given a direct testimony condemnatory of the institution of slavery, it would have failed to have convinced the Southern members of the evils of that institution, rny more than they were already convinced. But such a testimony, in lts legitímate interpretation,voi)ld have been asclear as to say in plain English; 'Walk out of the Assembly. gentlemen, if you please, for you are no longer worthy of beiug called brethren, or of having part or lot with us.'r This wou'd have been aiding in the work of división wilhont any justifiable cause. Besides: no action of the kind could have passed the Assembly, with satisfaction to the sound AntiSlavery members of that body. Few only, perhaps none of these, were prepared to take the responsibility before God and man, of saying by their vote, that the relation of Master and Slave, under all circumstances constitutesthe master as gullty of Hhe sum of al' villanies,' or as guilty of any villany at all. - Again, any decisión passed in condemnalior of slavery, would, in the circumstances cf the Assembly, have carried wilh it, comparatively. but a small moral f orce; because the mojority, in such an event, must necessarially have been small. On the whole then, if no resolution could have been carred condemning the system of slavery, which would not haveunited in it, in a harmonious manner, a formidable majority, the obviously best method to pursue, was, to give the question a full nnd free discussion, and let every man's opinión pass for what t was worth. This discussion took place in a most courteous, dignified, and praise'-vorthy manner,ar.d for longcontinuance. Our excellent moderator gave every degree of latitude to the speakers thaí could reasonably have been thought proper for patience, politeness, and urbanity to extend. The controvertists on both sides expressed their satisfaction with the discussion; North and South were pleased with it - The impartial religious periódica! expressed delight in it - The poütical Press rejoiced over it. The numerous body of spectators attending the Assembly were happy at sucha mnnifestntion of moral heroism as they witnessed. Even the Penn. pylvania Frccmnn recorded its salisfaction on this point, and doubtless evory impartial person, who understands the matter in its true light, will agree that this famous diseussion wasbetter for the South, better for the North, belter for the slave, and better for thp church, than a testimony carried by a small majority condemning the institution of slavory, could possibïy have been, without euch a discussion as then took place. None indeed,, appear dissatisfied wilh the Assembly's decisión of this subject, but those who calcúlate .beforehand upon convertí ng the decisión so anxiously looked for, had they obtained it, into pohtical capital at the ensuing elections. And, what is marvelous in this matter is, that any body of political men should expect io gain any thingcreditable f rom the discussion of an Assembly of puch misereante, such ,'men-stcalers' and 'slave-brceders,' and 'blasphomcrs,' as your paper statcs the mojority of that General Assembly to have been composed of ! But the position assumed by our oppononts in this controverey - that the church is no church of Christ, lecause she [does not stand rid of every evil, is equally fallacious with the other ultra positions they maintain. I have shown by ampie proof what sort of slavery existed in the days of the Aposiles. Can itbeattested with the least shadow even of presumptive ovidence, either from the bible or from Ecclesiastical history, that amongsl all the churches, ecaltered over the Roman Empire in the npostolic age, or for ages succeedins:, that no slaveholder of any sort was permitted f o hold communion with the church of Chrisl, just because he was a slaveholder? Ifit can, let the evidence be shown. Now this is a vital point; and on this very point■■a ■■ ■!■ i imji - -... !■■■■ - TmnrrriThangs the righteousness Or iniquity of separating from the church in whose communion some slavcholders may be members. It is assumed that t is wicked permit any slaveholder to communion with Ihe churcli, beca use any such ihing as nvoruntary holding ia denied by thosc who take ground against tis in this case. But, if our opponents cannot show a proof sustaining them on this head, how then can they account for all the directions inculcating uni'y among christians, and all the solemn warnings ogainst divisions in the church of Christ, sound in the New Testament, but upon admisEion that a slave, in some circumstanccF, was not considered a bar to díe communion table? Do we look for a proof c" this being the fací in the case in the apostolic writings? Let any man read altentively Acts, 15: 22, L0, comparing it with its parallels in Chap. 16. 4. and 24; 25, and he will find that the General Assembly of Apostles and Elders, met in Jerusalem in anno Domini 52, in their solemn decrees, laid on the churches. under their care, 'no greater buiden than these necessary things: that they should abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from vvhich if they would keep themselve?, they would do well.' Now if therc was one slaveholder of any sort, in any church, to their knowlcdge, why did they not include slaveholding as well as the rest, in the burden of their apostolic decrees? Why did they cloak over this hideous sin? Why did they observe such a cold eilence about it? Did they favor 'man-stealing, and slaveholding, and maintnin the liell- begotten system,' because they did nof, in a formal ecclesiastical decree condemn it? But we may, still be asked, would it not have been right enongh in the apostles to havecondemned slavery in the churches urder their care? No one will deny that it would have been right to have condemned it, jflhey had thought so; and no one can prove that it was wrong for I hem not to have passed any condemnation on it at all, because they might not have thought it best, on the whole, to have so acted. The Assembly at Jerusalem acted according to the best judgment the spirit of God gave them at the time; nor did they yield that judgment to the wishes6S direct.ion of others. Now this was the very ground taken by our last General Assembly. They acted on every question brought before them, according to the best direction, and they yielded their judgment to the wishes or diclation of none: and this is a sufficient jnstification of their course; and also a sufficient answer to the question put to puzzle the generality of readers - 'Why did the Assembly condemn mixed dancing, and not slavery?' Let such nsk,vhy did the apostles condemn the ealing of blood, with other things, and not slavery? Perhaps, Gentlemen, you will accuse me again of sustaining 'the hell-begotten system, for writing as I do. But no, I am not, I am i only endeavoring-, howcver I may fail in the performance, to elucídate factf, and to defend our Assembfy and myself, in the eyes of the enlightened public of this State and elsewhere, from the foul aspersions heaped upon u. To ex peet a church in every thing perfect in this world, while the vast majorily of mankind are vet enslaved in sin, is a vain thing indeed. Anñ to cause división because every class of persons in the church cannot have to their entire satisfaclion whut they wish and want, i s a very wicked thing: besides, it is absolutely foolish. So thought many of the nncient worthies before us. Let us then not fly from the church, because some wicked men and wicked practices may, in our opinión be in it. The famous Augustine on this point says - JYon propter malos bom sunt deserendi, sed propter bonos mali sunt tolerandi; Forsake.not the good because of the evil; bnt suflèr the evil because of the good. The same venerable writer says: - fttgio paleam, nc hoc sine non aream, rte nihil sim, Sec. - I avoid the chaff, lest I become chafF, I keep the floor, lest I become nothipg. And he fn.rther adds - 'I hold the church," says he, 'to be full of both whent and chaff: I better whom I can, whom I cannot, I suffer.' And nearer to us than Augustine Culvin says - 'We should know in the church that when we can bear no imperfection in others, then, 'Diabolum nos tumefacere superbia' - The devil blows us up wih pride. Let us then, beware of applying too much rigor, and too severe censures to oüierf, while we know that if all our own sina were severely markcd against us we should have nelther name nor placo in the kingdom of God or of Christ. 'If thou Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O, Lord, who shall stand?' Ps. lSo,3. In my next, which will be my last in this series, I shall dweil upon the spirit and principies whick chriftians s'aouhd possesa in relationto things whercin they moy differ. And believe me, Gentlemen, Respectfully Your?, NATH'L WEST. Tlie fortificationsof Paris, which are estimated to have cost 200,000,000 francs, are termed "the strait waistcoat for the Parisians."