of the proposed abolition of the slave trade, declared that "the measure was fit only for the bigotry and superstition of the twelfth century.' Lord John Russell asserted that Abolition was" visionary and delusive, a feeble attempt without the power to serve the cause of humanity."

Lord Sheffield could "trace in the arguments for Abolition nothing like reason, but on the contrary, downright phrensy."

66

66

In 1792, the Abolitionists were denounced in Parliament, as a junto of sectaries, sophists, enthusiasts, and fanatics." In 1793, the Duke of Clarence, now William the IV., in his place in the House of Lords, declared the Abolitionists to be fanatics, and hypocrites," and so far violated parliamentary decorum, as to apply these epithets to Mr. Wilberforce by name. Yet has he lived to crown the labors and fulfil the hopes of Wilberforce, by giving his assent to the bill abolishing slavery throughout the British dominions.

In 1804, Lord Temple declared in Parliament, that to abolish the slave trade, would be "the death-warrant of every white inhabitant in the islands."

Ten times did Mr. Wilberforce bring the subject of the abolition of the traffick before Parliament, and ten times was he doomed to witness the failure of his efforts; nor was this detestable commerce suppressed, till thirty years after the first motion against it had been made in the House of Commons. Now, it is prohibited by the whole Christian world.

When the Abolitionists of the present day, think of these facts, and recollect the reproaches heaped on Wilberforce and his colleagues, by a Chancellor and dignified Senators, well may they thank God and take courage. And who are these men, we would ask, whom colonizationists are honoring with epithets similar to those which the advocates of the slave trade so liberally applied to the philanthropists who opposed it? We will suffer an authority justly respected by the religious community to answer the question.

Abbott's Religious Magazine, in an article on the mobs against the New-York Abolitionists, says,

66

The men against whom their fury was directed, were in general ministers of the Gospel, and other distinguished members of Christian churches. The more prominent ones, were the very persons who have been most honored in times past,

on account of their personal exertions and pecuniary contribu'tions for every benevolent purpose. Let the whole land be searched, and we believe that no men will be found to have done so much for the promotion of temperance, purity, and every benevolent and religious object."

CHAPTER III.

FANATICISM OF ABOLITIONISTS.

ONE of the most usual terms by which Abolitionists are designated by their opponents is, "the fanatics." It seems they are fanatics, because they believe slavery to be sinful. The grounds for this belief, have been already stated. But is the sinfulness of slavery a new doctrine; or has it been held only by weak and misguided men? Is Wilberforce to be denounced as a "wretched fanatic," because he declared, "slavery is the full measure of pure unsophisticated wickedness, and scorning all competition or comparison, it stands alone without a rival, in the secure, undisputed possession of its detestable pre-emi

nence.

Was Jonathan Edwards a poor "misguided" man, for thus addressing slaveholders. "While you hold your negroes in slavery, you do wrong, exceedingly wrong-you do not, as you would men should do to you; you commit sin in the sight of God; you daily violate the plain rights of mankind, and that in a higher degree than if you committed theft or robbery." Were Porteus, Horseley, Fox, Johnson, Burke, Jefferson, and Bolivar, "miserable enthusiasts ?" Yet hear their testimonies.

"The Christian religion is opposed to slavery, in its spirit and in its principles; it classes men-stealers among murderers of fathers and of mothers, and the most profane criminals upon earth."-Porteus.

Slavery is injustice, which no consideration of policy can extenuate."-Horseley.

Personal freedom is the right of every human being. It is a right of which he who deprives a fellow creature, was absolutely criminal in so depriving him; and which he who withheld, was no less criminal in withholding."—Fox.

"No man is by nature the property of another.

The rights of nature must be some way forfeited, before they can be justly taken away."-Johnson.

"Slavery is a state so improper, so degrading, and so ruinous to the feelings and capacities of human nature, that it ought not to be suffered to exist."-Burke.

'The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us, in such a contest.' (A contest with insurgent slaves.)— Jefferson.

"Slavery is the infringement of all laws-a law having a tendency to preserve slavery, would be the grossest sacrilege." -Bolivar.

We would take the liberty of recommending to the consideration of certain Methodist Colonizationists, the following language of John Wesley.

66

Men-buyers, are exactly on a level with men-stealers. Indeed, you say, I pay honestly for my goods, and am not concerned to know how they are come by. Nay, but you areyou are deeply concerned to know that they are honestly come by. Otherwise, you are a partaker with a thief, and are not a jot honester than him. But you know they are not honestly come by; you know they are procured by means nothing so innocent as picking of pockets, or robbery on the highway. Perhaps you will say, I do not buy my negroes, I only use those left me by my father. So far is well, but is it enough to satisfy your conscience? Had your father, have you, has any man living a right to use another as a slave? It cannot be, even setting Revelation aside."

But Abolitionists are fanatics, not merely because they believe slavery sinful, but also because they contend it ought immediately to be abolished. In their fanaticism on this point, as well es on the other, they are kept in countenance by a host of divines and statesmen, and by the unanimous opinion of thousands, and tens of thousands of Christians. Men of all ranks and characters, from John Wesley to Daniel O'Connel, have exhibited this fanaticism-it has been borne by the republicans of France, the Catholics of South America, the people of England, Scotland and Ireland.

So long ago as 1774, John Wesley declared: "It cannot be that either war or contract can give any man such a property in another, as he has in his sheep and oxen. Much less is it

possible that any child of man should ever be born a slave. If, therefore, you have any regard to justice, (to say nothing of mercy, nor the revealed will of God) render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature."

Jonathan Edwards was fanatic enough to assert :-" Every man, who cannot show that his negro hath, by his voluntary conduct, forfeited his liberty, is obligated immediately to manumit him."

One million five hundred thousand persons petitioned the British Parliament for the total and immediate abolition of slavery. Indeed, Mr. O'Connel expressed the nearly unanimous sentiment of the whole nation, when he exclaimed:

"I am for speedy, immediate abolition. I care not what creed or color slavery may assume, I am for its total, its instant abolition."

We have not yet exhausted the proofs of the alleged fanaticism of Abolitionists. It seems they are fanatics, for wishing to elevate the blacks to a civil and religious equality with the whites. Certain Colonization editors deny to Abolitionists, as we have seen, the constitutional right of freedom of speech, the press, and pulpit, and even of peaceably assembling together; and multitudes seem to think, that they have forfeited the protection of the ninth commandment. Men of all ranks have united in charging upon them designs which they indignantly disclaim, and in support of which, not a particle of evidence has been, or can be adduced. One of the designs falsely imputed to them, is that of bringing about an amalgamation of colors by intermarriages. In vain have they again and again denied any such design; in vain have their writings been searched for any recommendation of such amalgamation. No Abolitionist is known to have married a negro, or to have given his child to a negro; yet has the charge of amalgamation been repeated, and repeated, till many have, no doubt, honestly believed it.

During the very height of the New-York riots, and as if to excite the mob to still greater atrocities, the editor of the Commercial Advertiser asserted, that the Abolitionists had "sought to degrade" the identity of their fellow citizens, as a nation of white men, by reducing it to the condition of MONGRELS."—Com. Adv. 11th July, 1834.

No one, in the possession of his reasoning faculties, can believe it to be the duty of white men to select black wives; and Abolitionists have given every proof the nature of the case will admit, that they countenance no such absurdity.

But most true it is, that the Anti-Slavery Society avows its intention to labor for the civil and religious equality of the blacks. It has been found expedient to accuse it of aiming also at their social equality. He must be deeply imbued with fanaticism, or rather with insanity, who contends, that because a man has a dark skin, he is, therefore, entitled to a reception in our families, and a place at our tables.

We all know white men whose characters and habits render them repulsive to us, and whom no consideration would induce us to admit into our social circles; and can it be believed, that Abolitionists are willing to extend to negroes, merely on account of their color, courtesies and indulgences, which, in innumerable instances, they withhold, and properly withhold, from their white fellow citizens. But who pretends that, because a man is so disagreeable in his manners and person that we refuse to associate with him, that therefore he ought to be denied the right of suffrage, the privilege of choosing his trade and profession, the opportunities of acquiring knowledge, and the liberty of pursuing his own happiness? Yet such is our conduct towards the free blacks, and it is this conduct which the Society aims at reforming. The Society does contend, that no man ought to be punished for the complexion God has given him. And are not black men punished for the color of their skin? Read the laws of the slave States relative to free negroes; alas! read the laws of Ohio, and Connecticut; read the decision of Judge Daggett; behold them deprived of the means of education, and excluded from almost every trade and profession; see them compelled to wander in poverty and in ignorance. Now, all this, Abolitionists contend is wrong, and their opposition to this system of persecution and oppression is fanaticism! Be it so, but it is only modern fanaticism, and it was not so regarded when in 1785, JOHN JAY declared: "I wish to see all unjust and unnecessary discriminations every where abolished, and that the time may soon come, when all our inhabitants, of every COLOR and denomination, shall be free and EQUAL PARTAKERS OF OUR POLI

TICAL LIBERTY.