unless "lawfully you can be made free." The Abolitionist says to the slave: "your Master has no lawful control over you—run away from him the first opportunity—take with you whatever of his property you can, for it is yours not his!—and I will shelter you!" Thus it will easily be perceived, that a very different spirit actuated Paul, from that which now actuates the Abolitionist! More about this hereafter.

If it be now enquired whether I consider slave-holding a sin and an evil, I readily reply, I do consider it an evil; but I do not consider it a sin! I am aware Abolitionists confound the two terms together, some through design, and, no doubt, many through want of reflection or ignorance. Now although every sin is an evil, yet every evil is not a sin—I hesitate not to pronounce slavery one of the effects of sin—hence an evil: for all evil is the effect of sin. Disease, famine, poverty, &c., are all evils; but who will venture to affirm that they are therefore sins—I would use means to the best of my judgment to assuage those evils—yea to remove them; but I would not in order to remove suddenly a disease, adopt a remedy which if it would not instantly cure it, would in all human probability destroy the individual, or produce a greater disease—this would be Abolition practice! Nor would I desire the poor man, in order to get rich instantly, to go and plunder a bank—this would be Abolitionism! But I would in the former case, adopt such remedies as would, with the least possible danger to my patient's life, be calculated to assuage or remove the disease; and if it could not be removed, without having recourse to a measure which would put his life in jeopardy, I would not, provided life could be sustained at all, adopt any such measures; but use every means

in my power, to mitigate his sufferings—allay all pain—and make his life as comfortable as possible. As to the latter case (the indigent person) while I would relieve him to the best of my ability, I would exhort him, not to have recourse to violent measures—not to commit evil; but to put his trust in an all-wise and benevolent Omnipotence, and by slow and sure means, by active industry, to endeavour to better his condition—the opposite course I leave to Abolitionists for adoption.

Upon the principles inculcated in the cases I have just related, would I act towards the slave, and the slave-holder; as more fully explained in another part of this treatise.

CHAPTER II.
THE PRINCIPLES, &C. OF THE LEADERS OF ABOLITIONISM EXHIBITED.

As Abolitionists are constantly taunting the friends of Colonization with the charge, that the founders of it were Slave-holders, (which, by the by, like almost all their other statements, as will be shown in a subsequent chapter, is destitute of truth,) they cannot complain at their opponents taking a peep into the principles of some of their Chief Champions, and Promoters of Abolitionism—And, as William Lloyd Garrison, Esq. stands pre-eminently distinguished as their great Apostle, we shall let the public know what this Gentleman's principles are; with his abilities, character, moral or religious worth, we have nothing to do—And as they have made him their head, and sent him as their representative to

England, we are fully justified, in concluding that he spoke his sentiments not as an individual, but as the deputed representative of those who sent him there; viz. the Promoters of Abolition in this Country:—Therefore we need not further or stronger evidence of the nature of sentiment, opinions, and objects of these Gentlemen. Ex uno disce omnes.

To begin,—

Who was sent to Europe, a few years ago, as the REPRESENTATIVE of the American Anti-Slavery Society?