says that it was Christians, not men,
that the church sought to enfranchise; it little matters; she sought
to abolish all villanage. He says that even Mahometans do not like to
enslave Mahometans; I ask, can he find immense bodies of Mahometans
who contend that it is Contrary to the spirit, tendencies, and maxims,
if not precise letter, of their religion, to enslave any body? For it
was such a principle which expressly called forth the abhorrence and
condemnation of slavery in our own age and nation. It cannot be denied
that the movement by which this accursed system was, after so long a
struggle, exterminated amongst us, was an eminently religious one, as
regards its main supporters, the ground they took, and the
sacrifices they made.

"But Christian nations have defended and practised slavery!" you will say.

They have; and Christian nations have often practised the vices which
the "Book" expressly condemns,--just as all nations have practised many
things which their codes of morals or laws condemn. The question is
whether in the one case the Book, or in the other case the codes,
approve them; not, I presume, whether man is a very inconsistent animal.
But no system is made answerable for the violations of its spirit--except
Christianity.

Mr. Newman says that slaveholders make the "New Testament the
stronghold of the accursed system." It had been more to the purpose
if he had pointed out a passage or two which recommend it. He knows
that it is simply because it does not (for reasons already stated)
denounce it, that they say it approves it. Are you satisfied with
this reasoning? Then try it on another case,--for despotism is exactly
parallel. The New Testament does not expressly denounce that, and
for the same reasons; and the arguments for passive obedience have
been with equal plausibility drawn from its pages. Will the
Transatlantic republicans approve despotism on the same authority?
--Despotism has wrought at least as much misery to mankind as slavery,
and probably much more. Was it a duty of the Apostles, instead of laying
down principles which, though having another object, would infallibly
undermine it, to denounce despotism everywhere, and invite all people
to an insurrection against their rulers? If they had, the spiritual
objects of the Gospel would have been easily understood, and very
properly treated. Let me apply the argumentum ad hominem. Mr. Newman
has favored the world with his views of religious