mouth. In addition to this stream the canal passes along the side of it. These water passages and the roads keep the town alive with business. The canal is a thoroughfare to the lakes which enables the merchants to make quick passages to the East for goods and sell them remarkably cheap. The river (though only navigable a few months in the year) connects it to the Ohio, and by it to the Mississippi and her tributaries. Already have I seen six steamboats in one day lying at her wharf. It is surprising to see the amount of business done in this place. From the following facts you may form an idea of it. During last winter there were about 31,000 hogs slaughtered, and about 38,000 packed. There are six packing houses. There are 35 dry good stores, 2 drug and 2 boot and shoe stores. One hard ware and 2 tin stores, and 3 groceries. Two merchant tailor establishments, and two carding machines and fulling mills, one paper mill, and two grist mills, &c. These give a powerful impetus to business. It is only about twenty years since this town was laid out, and now its population amounts to nearly 3000, and is increasing so rapidly, that the demand for houses cannot be supplied. Preparation is being made for erecting a number of houses during the coming summer. Nor is it merely increasing in number, but also in grandeur of buildings and intelligence. The houses are generally frame & brick. There are six common schools and one county seminary, which in point of grandeur would do honor to an older town. There are five churches, 2 Presbyterian, Old and New School; one Episcopalian; one Baptist, and one Methodist church; besides four or five other organized religious societies. From these facts you may see that this place is the nucleus of a great populous and commercial city. Nothing can prevent its growth but an evil report concerning its health. It is surrounded by a rich and level country, interspersed with numerous bogs, which with the decomposition of vegetables, produce chills and fever. But as cultivation advances the health of the country improves. Judging from five months experience, observation and other facts, 1 am convinced that the health of the place is misrepresented. I have had no chills nor fever; and with little exception I never enjoyed better health: The inhabitants also have enjoyed good heaith.

I have examined the record to ascertain the number of interments during the past year, and find that from March 16th 1843 to March 20th 1844, the burials from the town and surrounding country, amount to 93. Of these 26 were children under one year old, and a number under five. Of the adults 9 died of fever, 3 of putrid sore throat, and 8 of consumption.

There is some rumor of milk sickness but the inhabitants use milk, butter, cheese and beef, with little or no hesitancy. I never knew of a case, but believe that it exists in some parts of the country. Care should be taken.

From these criteria you can judge of the prospects of increase of this town; of the suitableness for a location, the prospects of our church and the health of the place.

Lord give you understanding.

Consider these thing, and the

A MISSIONARY.

For the Evangelical Guardian,

ON SLAVERY. No. 2.

Dr. Junkin lays down this proposition: "Slavery existed during the period over which the Old Testament history extends." He however signifies his assent to Clarkson's opinion that Slavery and the slave trade had their origin in the wars of Nimrod. A very worthy origin: but not very well calculated to prove that it is lawful for Christians to use their fellow-men, as slaves! Mr. Graham, however intimates that slavery existed before the flood. That opinion is neither impossible nor improbable. There were giants in the earth in those days---monsters of iniquity, who may have enslaved their fellow-men, as they perpetrated many other enormities. Mr. G. however thinks that it was a merciful rather than a cruel disposition that first induced men to make slaves: It was more merciful he thinks to enslave than to kill. But where was the necessity for either? But the first recorded example of kidnapping and selling a human being into slavery, according to Dr. J., was the selling of Joseph by his brethren to the Ishmaelites. These facts and conjectures certainly do not prove the lawfulness of slavery. They show that mankind were then what they are now; that men not restrained by the grace of God, and devoid of a proper understanding of God's law, and a disposition to obey it, are very apt to inflict great wrongs on their fellow-men.

But it is asserted that Abraham had slaves which he 'bought, bred, and educated.' If so then the slavery which existed in Abraham's family was, at least in one respect, very different from American slavery. It is no part of that system to educate slaves---only to break them to the harness.

It is impossible at this distance of time, in the want of historical in

formation to ascertain precisely the condition of Abraham's servants ---on what conditions they served, how long; what privileges they possessed, of whom they were bought, &c. The truth, as far as information and reflection can guide us, appears to be about the following: Abraham and his servants formed a clan of Nomades, or wandering Shepherds; Abraham was the head of the clan; the servants were, of course subordinate---he directed their labor, and their labor promoted his wealth. Some of these his menials or dependents, he may have bought of themselves. That is they may have agreed to serve him a longer or shorter period, for a given sum of money. Others may have voluntarily entered his service, without any express stipulation, expecting however protection, clothing, food and such privileges as make life desirable and feeling at liberty to leave whenever they grew tired of his service. Probably he bought some from the leaders of other clans. Where he found persons in the service of others, whom he judged likely to be agreeable and profitable to him, and to those already in his service; and whom he found willing to attach themselves to his clan---he agreed to pay a certain sum of money and receive them into his service. The children born to any of these servants were in the same state of subordination as their parents. But that Abraham bought any servants of kidnappers or sold servants to any person, or refused to his servants the right of leaving his service when they deemed proper, or removed children in their minority from under the inspection of their parents cannot be made to appear. On the other hand it is plain that Abraham took special pains to instruct his servants in the principles of true religion, and in all things pertaining to their temporal welfare. It is in vain for modern slavery to seek protection and countenance, from the conduct of the 'father of the faithful.' Dr. J. has attempted to make a great deal out of the case of Hagar: in which he has worse than lost his labor. Whatever may have been the design of Hagar's servitude, it is evident that at the time of her flight from Sarah, and the command of the angel for her to return, she, and that too by Sarah's own procurement, stood in a very different relation to Abraham from that of a mere servant. The direction to her to return was given from far other considerations than to prevent abolitionists from helping negroes to escape from Kentucky to Canada. I shall only remark farther on this topic that by a way of reasoning, which the Dr uses too often, respecting the conduet of Abraham and others whose acts are recorded in the Scriptures, other practices prevalent among slave-holders and others, which are plainly contrary to the law of God, might be shown to be worthy of toleration.

There is a matter here of very small importance in this controversy; but I shall bestow on it a little attention. Dr. J. cites the case of the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt as an instance of slavery. Now suppose that the defenders of slave-holding could prove that the Israelites in Egypt were in just such a state of slavery, as the colored people of the South. what would be the inference? Why, that the people of the southern States had better liberate their slaves as fast as possible lest they share the fate of Pharaoh and his servants. It is a good argument against slave-holding. But Dr. J. may say it helps to prove his proposition that slavery existed during the period of Old Testament history. Thát nobody disputes; Slavery existed, and so did idolatry, adultery, theft, and a thousand other things contrary to the law of God. But the Israelites were not in such a state of slavery as the colored people in the south. They were held to hard service by the State. They were not the property of individuals. They had their own houses, fields and herds. Families dwelt together. The law of Pharaoh requiring the destruction of the males could only have been a short time in operation. Their condition however was a wretched one; and God released them from it. Let it be remembered that it is still a part of his character that he will save the needy from violence, and break in pieces the oppressor. I grant that no individual can claim the fulfilment of this promise for himself till he lay hold of God's covenant. But God will in due time show that this is his character. I remark in passing that Dr. J's idea that the Israelites carried slaves with them to Egypt and that they were robbed of them by the Egyptians is not to be found in the Bible.

I now call the attention of the reader to the alleged slavery of the Mosaic institutions. This is a matter of very great importance: because here are positive laws regulating servitude, which the friends of slavery construe into direct authority for holding slaves; and if they be driven from this post, they cannot find any tenable ground in the whole of the Old Testament. I am sorry to observe that Dr. J. who will not allow himself to be set down as pro-slavery, yet goes as far in attempting to justify slavery from the Mosaic laws as any slaveholder could desire. He finds slavery not only in the civil code of Moses; but in the decalogue, which is a law to all mankind till the end of the world.

In order to the clearing up of this subject it is necessary to take into view the distinction which God made between the Hebrew and the heathen, especially the Canaanites. That distinction was not founded on the law of love, nor on the principles of justice and mercy, which are by the law of God enjoined upon us in our dealings

with all mankind. Nay many commands given by God to the Isra elites relative to the heathen but especially the Canaanites enjoined the very contrary of what, but for those commandments, would have been their duty to those same heathen. They were commanded to exterminate utterly the heathen that dwelt in the land given to them for a possession and inheritance. Now this commandment was utterly inconsistent with the exercise of justice and charity by the Israelites towards the Canaanites. But it may be asked, can God command his creatures to do things contrary to his own laws? Certainly he can. He can set aside a general law to a limited extent and for a certain time, by a special commandment. But at the same time the general law is binding in relation to all persons and things not specified in the special commandment. At the same time God cannot act unjustly. He has sufficient reasons for the evils which he caused to be inflicted on any of his creatures. No one endures more evil than he deserves from the hand of God: but many a one receives more evil from the hands of men than he deserves from them. God has a right to employ any of his creatures in inflicting his judgments on others of his creatures. But then the persons acting as God's agents in this respect must be able to show their authority from God. It will not justify one to say that God formerly gave commandment to another to do such acts. He must produce his own commission. I say every one must be able to produce special authority, given to himself, to justify him in doing any thing which is contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. When God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac as a burnt offering, he certainly commanded what was contrary to the duty of parents to their children. But Abraham knew that God had a right to take away Isaac's life at any time, and to employ him as his agent in doing so. Therefore he hesitated not to obey the commandment. But no other father can infer from that special commandment that it is his duty to sacrifice his son. Now the Canaanites did not deserve extinction from the hand of the Israelites: but they did deserve it from the hands of God; and God had a right to employ the Israelites as his executioners. But no other nation can plead their example as authorizing it to wage an exterminating war against heathen tribes. On these principles we justify the command given to the Hebrews to make slaves of the heathen around them, and in the midst of them: and yet at the same time deny that it affords any authority to any modern nation to make slaves of men belonging to any other nation. The heathen in the midst of them were all doomed to destruction;