ke with
disapprobation of Abolitionists in the United States, "for
undertaking," as he said, "to decide, without sufficient evidence,
upon the irreligious character of ministers and church-members.
_They_, forsooth, undertake to exclude men from the Lord's table, who
are in good and regular standing in the church of Christ, because they
happen to hold slaves! _They_ pretend to decide who, and who are not
Christians!" It is marvellous that so learned and so distinguished a
man should have fallen into such a mistake; and, on hearsay, ventured
to utter a most calumnious accusation against the friends of the
slave.

The Abolitionists might, perhaps, make decisions in the case not wide
of the mark, founded upon the rule given by Jesus Christ: "By their
fruits ye shall know them." But, in declaring that slaveholders ought
not to be fellowshipped as Christians, they do not say whether a
slaveholder is or is not a Christian. On the contrary, they leave each
one with his Maker, the INFALLIBLE JUDGE. But this they do:--they hold
that no slaveholder, professing to be a Christian, is entitled to
Christian FELLOWSHIP, _because_ slaveholding is a sin, and should
subject the offender to discipline. Neither Dr. Chalmers nor any other
divine could deny the propriety of this, provided they believed that
slaveholding is a sin, or an ecclesiastical offence. The apostle Paul
directed that Christians should not _eat_ with an _extortioner_. A
slaveholder is an extortioner. If, then, a Christian may not eat a
common meal with such an offender, may he sit at the Lord's table with
him? I trow not.

LEWIS TAPPAN.

A Leaf from my Scrap Book.

MAY, 1849.

SAMUEL R. WARD AND FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

Perhaps a fitter occasion never presented itself, nor was more
properly availed of, for the exhibition of talent, than when Frederick
Douglass and Samuel R. Ward debated the "question" whether the
Constitution was or not a pro-slavery document.

With the "question" at issue we have, at present, nothing to do; and
with the arguments so far only as they exhibit the men.

Both eminent for talent of an order (though differing somewhat in
cast) far above the common level of great men.

If any inequalities existed, they served rather to heighten than
diminish the interest of the occasion, giving rise to one of the
severest contests of mind with mind that has yet come to my no