the latter case, want and invidious distinction will prompt to revenge." p. 101. So it seems, gradual is no less dangerous than immediate emancipation, of course Mr. Dew will pray that slavery may continue forever, and to this prayer the whole south with almost one voice, will respond a loud

amen.

Having shewn that slavery ought to be perpetual, the Professor next proceeds to discuss its morality. One would have thought that this discussion would have been the first in order of time, but the place assigned to it, perfectly accords with the standard of duty assumed in it. "It is said, slavery is wrong in the abstract, at least contrary to the spirit of christianity. To this we answer, that any question must be determined by its circumstances, and if as is really the case, we cannot get rid of slavery without producing a greater injury to both masters and slaves, there is no rule of conscience, or revealed law of God which can condemn us." p. 106. In other words, the commands of God are binding upon us only so far as we think it expedient to obey them; and hence expediency, as determined by frail, ignorant and selfish creatures, is the test of moral obligation! Let us try the application of this test. A poor wretch is imprisoned for crime, and his jailor compels him to work, and pockets the avails of his labor. At length the term for which he was sentenced, expires, and he becomes legally entitled to his liberty. Now it is certain, that if he goes out of his cell, not only will the jailor's profits go with him, but a tale will be told of extorted labor, and embezzled proceeds that may prove very injurious to his keeper. Moreover, he is now well fed, clothed and lodged; but if released from his present wholesome restraint, his vicious propensities will probably subject him to penury and suffering. Now, if in the opinion of the jailor, greater injury will result both to himself, and to the prisoner, from the discharge of the latter, than from his detention; then according to Mr. Dew, there is no rule of conscience or revealed law of God, that can condemn the jailor for retaining his prisoner, and enjoying the fruits of his labor! Would that the Virginian Professor had a patent right for this standard of morality, and was exclusively entitled to use it. But alas, it is daily employed at the north by every reverend apologist for slavery, to prove that however wrong the institution may

to remove it. The fair presumption then is, that, however great he may conceive the evil to be, he does not conceive it to be precisely the same thing that abolitionists conceive it to be. And conceiving the disease to be different, he naturally conceives of a different remedy. A consumption is 'a great evil.' And so is a dropsy. So likewise is a drought, a famine, a conflagration, a bad memory, and a discreditable representation in Congress. But no one would ever think of curing all these 'evils' by one and the same process! If we would agree in our measures, we must first agree in respect to the facts upon which we wish our measures to operate.-Who stops to think of this? Among all who have criticised anti-slavery principles and measures, what writer has undertaken to prove from the facts of slavery, as it now exists in our land, that the remedy proposed is not the true one, or that the mode of operation is unsuitable?

What then is American slavery? This was the question discussed in our previous article. The system was 'tested by its own code; and the following items were found to comprise the definition.

"1. The assumed right of man to hold property in man -to transform moral beings into mere THINGS-chattels personal-human brutes."

"2. The denial of God's moral government over the slave-the usurpation of His authority-the annihilation of the rights of conscience."

"3. A direct infringement of religious liberty, by specific acts of legislation for the express purpose."

4. The prohibition of obedience to Gods law-the prohibition and discouragement of moral purity and chastity --the legalization of concubinage-compulsory excite

ments to vice.

5. Theft-robbery-plunder-piracy-man-stealing. 6. The absence of "protection for the lives and persons of the slaves."

This is SLAVERY.-The necessary existence in the slave system, of the THINGS signified by the terms above mentioned, according to the common use of language, by the definitions of our lexicons, our bibles, and our American statute books, was proved from facts furnished by those statute books themselves.

In calling slavery piracy, robbery, and theft, we only call

ed it by the names which our own laws, in other cases, call the actions which they permit and legalize in respect to the slave. In its laws against the foreign slave trade, the national code goes farther, and declares that these actions even when committed against Africans, and against slaves, on the African coast, are piracy, man-stealing and robbery.—We will insult no man's understanding by a formal attempt to prove that the same act, committed on the American coast, is essentially and morally the same thing; whether allowed or prohibited by human laws.

If these statements express facts, and if no one dares ques. tion the proofs by which they are sustained, then those who undertake to criticise the course of abolitionists, are morally bound to recognise them as facts: and they cannot themselves maintain a fair claim to that character for candor, wisdom and justice which they deem so essential in others, if they refuse to bear these facts in mind, and give them their full weight, in all their reasonings in respect to the right mode and means of operating against slavery.-With these preliminaries let us proceed to canvass some of the current objections against anti-slavery views and measures.

1. " Vituperation-abusive epithets-slander." Abolitionists are accused of these. Many, it is said, agree with them in their general principles, and would gladly join them in their efforts, if it were not for the vituperation, abuse and slander with which they assail the slaveholders.—This is the charge. What are the facts of the case ?-Abolitionists affirm slaveholding to be man-stealing-theft-robbery. -Therefore they are deemed abusive, slanderous, vituperative. But do they merit the imputation ?--Not if slavery be, in fact, the thing they affirm it to be. To treat of slavery, and not represent it to be what it is, would be to fall short of the truth, and make it less odious than God sees it to be less odious than men ought to view it.-We must therefore enquire again" What are the facts?- Is slavery theft, or is it not?Is it robbery, or is it not? Is it man

stealing, or is it not?-Words are nothing apart from the things they signify; otherwise no one would be annoyed by them. If it be a fact that slaveholding is man-stealing, theft, and robbery, then abolitionists cannot vary their practice of calling it by these names without direct disobedience to the commands of God.

2. But would it not be better to approach the slaveholders in a different manner? Would it not be better to cease reproving them, and propose to them some practical remedy? Not if slaveholding be the thing which its own code proves it to be.-Slaveholding is sin. Repentance is the only remedy-conviction the indispensible preliminary— the truth the only adequate means of producing it. If slavery were a mere calamity it would require a different treatment. If it were a mere error in political economy, it might be remedied by a mere lecture on that science.-But this is not the fact, and therefore it is folly to act as if it were otherwise.

3. But the slaves should first be prepared.-Prepared for what? For emancipation.--And what is emancipation?— Relief from slavery.-And what is slavery? Its own code informs us. How does the objection look in view of the facts of the system?

The law deems the slave mere "goods and chattels ?" The objection says this law must not be repealed till the slave (continuing in this condition) is prepared to be deemed in law a human being? How is such a preparation to be effected?-By education? What! The education of "goods and chattels?" How educated? By laws which forbid the slave to be considered a human being? By laws which forbid education?

The slave law inflicts a penalty on every one who teaches a slave. The objection says this law must not be repealed until the slave is first educated!

The slave law takes the slave out from under the moral government of God, to the full extent of its power, and places him under the control of an irresponsible mortal.-The objection says that this law must not be repealed, until the slave has received all the moral culture afforded by being placed under the moral government of God!

The law secures no religious privileges to the slave, and prohibits the master himself from teaching him to read the Bible. The objection says that this law must not be repealed until the slave possesses all the qualifications of those who have read the Bible and enjoyed the best religious advantages!

The slave code withholds the hire of the laborer. The objection says that a man must not be paid for the labor he

has performed until he has gotten the education which the wages are necessary to pay for.

The slave code breaks up the family condition and forbids the enjoyment of it. The objection says the law must not be repealed until the slave possesses the intellectual and moral qualities of those who enjoy the family condition!It says the husband must first be prepared, before he can be allowed to protect his wife and enjoy her society! The wife must first be prepared, before she can be allowed the protection of her husband! The mother must first be prepared, before the law is repealed which permits a ["Chistian"] barbarian from tearing her infant from her bosom! The babe must first be prepared before it can be allowed the care and protection of its parents!

The slave laws do not protect the life and limbs of the slave from brutal and lawless outrage. The objection says this protection must not be given, until the slaves, without this protection, are prepared to be protected!

4. But immediate emancipation would be dangerous." What is it that would be dangerous? Does the objector remember what emancipation is? He cannot, unless he remembers the precise facts of the slave system itself.

Emancipation is deeming and holding the laborer to be a man, and not mere "goods and chattels personal." Would there be any thing dangerous in this?

Emancipation is placing the laborer under the government of God, and of law, instead of the capricious control of the individual master. Would there be any thing dangerous in this?

Emancipation is giving the laborer fair wages for his services. Would there be any thing dangerous in this?

Emancipation is allowing the laborer to live in the family condition. It is admitting the right of the husband to live with the wife-the wife with the husband-the child with the parent-the parent with the child. Can there be any thing dangerous in this?

Emancipation restores the intellectual and religious rights and liberties of the laborer-admits his right to education-to the advantages of Christian instruction and worship-to the perusal of the Sacred Scriptures. Can there be any thing dangerous in this?

Emancipation extends protection to the life and limbs of the slave. Can there be any thing dangerous in this?