[Footnote A:  I will relate an incident, to show what a fiend even woman, gentle, lovely woman, may become, after she has fallen under the sway of the demon of slavery.  Said a lady of Savannah, on a visit in the city of New York, “I wish he (Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Cox) would come to Savannah.  I should love to see him tarred and feathered, and his head cut off and carried on a pole around Savannah.”  This lady is a professing Christian.  Her language stirs me up to retaliate upon her, and to express the wish that she would come to the town, and even to the dwelling, in which Dr. Cox resides.  She would find that man of God—­that man of sanctified genius—­as glad to get his enemies into his hands, as she would be to get him into the hands of his enemies:—­not, however, for the purpose of disgracing and decapitating them, but, that he might pour out upon them the forgiveness and love of his generous and abolitionized heart.  In the city of New York there are thousands of whole-souled abolitionists.  What a striking testimony is it, in behalf of their meekness and forbearance, when a southern fury is perfectly secure, in belching out such words of wrath in the midst of them!  We abolitionists never love our principles better, than when we see the slaveholder feeling safe amongst us.  No man has been more abusive of us than Governor McDuffie; and yet, were he to travel in the Northern States, he would meet with no unkindness at the hands of any abolitionist.  On the other hand, let it be known to the governor, that he has within his jurisdiction a prominent abolitionist—­one, whose heart of burning love has made him specially anxious to persuade the unfortunate slaveholder to be just to himself, to his fellow men, and to his God,—­and the governor, true to the horrid sentiments of his famous message, would advise that he be “put to death without benefit of clergy.”  Let slaveholders say what they will about our blood-thirstiness, there is not one of them who fears to put himself in our power.  The many of them, who have been beneath my roof, and the roofs of other abolitionists, have manifested their confidence in our kindness.  Were a stranger to the institution of slavery to learn, in answer to his inquiries, that “an abolitionist” is “an outlaw amongst slaveholders,” and that “a slaveholder” is “the kindly entertained guest of abolitionists,”—­here would be a puzzle indeed.  But the solution of it would not fail to be as honorable to the persecuted man of peace, as it would be disgraceful to the bloody advocate and executioner of Lynch law.]

I need not render any more reasons why the Apostles did not specifically attack slavery; but I will reply to a question, which I am sure will be upon your lips all the time you are reading those I have rendered.  This question is, “If the Apostles did not make such an attack on slavery, why may the American abolitionists?” I answer, that the difference between the course of the abolitionists and of the Apostles, in this matter, is justified by the difference in their circumstances.  Professor Hodge properly says, that our course should be like theirs, “unless it can be shown that their circumstances were so different from ours, as to make the rule of duty different in the two cases.”  And he as properly adds, “the obligation to point out and establish this difference rests upon the abolitionists.”