of which their capacities were susceptible, they could not have done wrong by contending for their liberty, nor could St. Paul as an expounder of "the Scriptures of the New-Testament," have done right to teach them otherwise; but admit the conclusion, which is inevitable, that the condition of bondage was better adapted to their wants and capacities than any other, an by no means prevented them from the enjoyment of religious privileges, then is the lesson of the Apostle justified by every principle of humanity and moral truth.

No sentiment has saluted our cars more frequently, or with more pleasure from the sacred desk, than that which portrays the object of the Saviour's mission.

It was for this purpose he came, says the minister at the North, and for this purpose did he come, says the minister at the South. Who then can doubt it? And who should presume to question his moral ability to accomplish the benevolent object? Surely those who greet in the holy sanctuary the votaries of emancipation, should be the last to advance a sentiment so extremely absurd. But is not the absurdity with which it is marked displayed in their moral essays on slavery? We think so for if "slavery be a crime for which humanity blushes, and the angel of mercy weeps," the Saviour did either not possess the moral ability to abolish it, or he did not possess the philanthropy to denounce it; for it is manifest that he did neither abolish the institution, nor denounce its advocates. What then is the conclusion? It should not be told but in terms of human compassion, for the heart sickens at the thought

of that morality which exalts itself above the Gospel, and that philanthropy which assumes more than the Saviour. It is not true that the Gracious Redeemer did not possess the moral ability to correct the errors of man, nor is it true that the measure of his philanthropy, was beneath the standard of his creatures. No circumstances nor events, neither principalities nor powers, could arrest his omnipotent arm in the accomplishment of his benevolent purposes. The rich and poor, the bond and free, were all permitted to hear the admonitions of his compassionate voice, in accents alternately gentle as the dews of Heaven. Nor were transgressors excluded from its hallowed influence. "I will have mercy," said he, "and not sacrifice; for I am not come to call the righteous; but sinners to repentance." Why then did he not address the slave owners of Rome, as sinners and transgressors of the Moral Law? If he regarded slavery" a moral evil and a curse to the poor," could he in the plenitude of his mercy have refused to admonish them of its baneful effects? The poor, (and surely the Slaves of Rome were included among the number,) seemed to be the objects of his most tender regard. And did he look upon their bondage as "a grievous burthen, a curse to their posterity," and an object of his compassion? Certainly not, for where is recorded his compassion for their bonds? And where in the spirit and words of the Abolitionists, did he rebuke their masters as "cruel oppressors -tyrannical lords-destitute of the finer feelings of humanity." We have not found the semblance of such epithets in his admonitions, but in our research

es for the truth on this subject, we found the Centurion,* one of the wealthy slave owners of Rome, beseeching the Saviour to come and heal one of his slaves afflicted with the palsy-his petition was granted, and the Saviour said of him, "I have not found so great faith; no, not in Israel"-How marvelous that the best man in all Israel should have been a slave owner-and how much more marvelous that the compassionate Redeemer should not have torn from the bosom of that honest slave owner, a principle opposed to "the Scriptures of the New Testament," if indeed slavery was that principle-Away with the sentiment, "the finer feelings of humanity dwell not in the bosoms of slave owners.' The Saviour found in at least one of that class of human beings, all the virtues of the christian faith; and if an angel was now sent to select those from whose hearts the milk of human kindness pours its thousand streams of charity, we honestly believe that he would make his selection among the vilified "KIDNAPPERS OF THE SOUTH." We may be regarded selfish in this opinion, but we have so often seen the hand of compassion and bounty extended to the aged, helpless slave, and the most menial offices performed for the comfort and happiness of such objects as are doomed in the "Classic land of Liberty," to beg their crums in the Streets and Highways, we can but indulge it.

We have assumed the position that slavery was and is a merciful dispensation to that class of men

* See St. Matthew Chapter, 9 verse, where the distinction of the terms man and servant is observed according to the custom of the Romans—the former denoting a soldier-the latter a slave.

who have neither the means nor capacities to provide for their wants; and our position is sustained, not only by the moral truth, that the Supreme Being is not accountable for the deficiency of the means and capacities of his creatures, but by the passive acknowledgment of the morality of the Institution observed by the Saviour in all his precepts. He is a merciful man, says the voice of Christianity, who meliorates the condition of his fellow men-hence, our Lord rebuked not the Centurion for holding his slaves in bondage, because their condition was thereby materially benefitted, nor did he forbid him to bequeath them to his posterity, in conformity with the Mosaic Law. "But he came not destroy, but to fulfill the Law," say the Abolitionists, "consequently he could but be silent on the subject of slavery." This is another of the many sophisms which seem to have been strained from the sacred Code, to mar the peace of the slave and excite his vindictive passions. It is true the Saviour came not to destroy the Moral Law delivered to Moses on Sinai, but every precept of the Ceremonial Law which he regarded contrary to the spirit of christianity he did abolish. And why? Because the former bore the impress of Deity, and was therefore perfect-the latter was a human production and therefore imperfect-and having come to correct the errors of man, he was bound by all his attributes to correct every immoral precept of the Ceremonial Law; accordingly, in his sermon on the Mount, particularly that part of it recorded in the 5th Chap. St. Matthew, he performed that office. And why may we ask, if he regarded slavery "a moral evil," was it not inclu

ded among the number of moral evils denounced on that solemn occasion? The descendants of Ham were then in bondage-and the poor Hebrew had not heard the glad sound of a Jubilee since the days of Nehemiah, a period of 415 years anterior to the christian era. Why was the compassionate Redemer silent on a subject so momentous? Was it because "his kingdom was not of this world," as we have been told? True, his kingdom was not of this world, for his word assures us it was "a kingdom of righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Ghost." And who but the righteous could have been received as its subjects-who but the righteous could have been partakers of its joy and peace? The Centurion was not excluded, nor were the saints and faithful Brethren at Colosse. Were they received as probationers only until they had atoned for "the accursed sin of slavery?" Why then were not their privileges as subjects of that kingdom suspended on the emancipation of their slaves? Did the INFINITE WISDOM of the Saviour perceive that such an injunction would meliorate their condition and the condition of myriads yet unborn, but his INFINTE MERCY could not enforce it? Did his DIVINITY look through the events of distant ages, and perceiving that the present and future happiness of millions would be destroyed by the bonds of servitude, would fain have rebuked the world—but it was more than his HUMANITY could do? Did he in• deed regard slavery, "a reproach to christianity—a principle at war with every emotion of humanity and mercy," and refused to lift his voice against it? Was the measure of his compassion so far beneath the Ab