more highly, and pursue them more zealously, because they think, that success in them will set in motion very powerful, if not indeed resistless influences against slavery in the slave states, you are right in this also.  I am aware, that the latter concession brings abolitionists under the condemnation of that celebrated book, written by a modern limiter of “human responsibility”—­not by the ancient one, who exclaimed, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” In that book, to which, by the way, the infamous Atherton Resolutions are indebted for their keynote, and grand pervading idea, we find the doctrine, that even if it were the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, the North nevertheless should not seek for such abolition, unless the object of it be “ultimate within itself.”  If it be “for the sake of something ulterior” also—­if for the sake of inducing the slaveholders of the slave states to emancipate their slaves—­then we should not seek for it.  Let us try this doctrine in another application—­in one, where its distinguished author will not feel so much delicacy, and so much fear of giving offence.  His reason why we should not go for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, unless our object in it be “ultimate within itself,” and unaccompanied by the object of producing an influence against slavery in the slave states, is, that the Federal Constitution has left the matter of slavery in the slave states to those states themselves.  But will President Wayland say, that it has done so to any greater extent, than it has left the matter of gambling-houses and brothels in those states to those states themselves?  He will not, if he consider the subject:—­though, I doubt not, that when he wrote his bad book, he was under the prevailing error, that the Federal Constitution tied up the hands and limited the power of the American people in respect to slavery, more than to any other vice.

But to the other application.  We will suppose, that Great Britain has put down the gambling-houses and brothels in her wide dominions—­that Mexico has done likewise; and that the George Thompsons, and Charles Stuarts, and other men of God, have come from England to beseech the people of the northern states to do likewise within their respective jurisdictions;—­and we will further suppose, that those foreign missionaries, knowing the obstinate and infatuated attachment of the people of the southern states to their gambling-houses and brothels, should attempt, and successfully, too, to blend with the motive of the people of the northern states to get rid of their own gambling houses and brothels, the motive of influencing the people of the southern states to get rid of theirs—­what, we ask, would this eminent divine advise in such a case?  Would he have the people of the northern states go on in their good work, and rejoice in the prospect, not only that these polluting and ruinous establishments would soon cease to exist within all