that so beautiful a picture of a real equality between man and woman,—­founded on the love of the common Lord of both,—­such a picture of woman’s true elevation, was never realized in the ancient world, nor would have been to this day had not Christianity been promulgated; nor is now, except where Christianity is known, though, alas! not always where it is.  But if you think otherwise, beg Mr. Newman to give you a catena of passages from the “poets of Germanic culture” (he has not adduced a syllable in proof); and recollect it ought to be from Germanic poets who lived before the Germans were Christians!  Or perhaps you would wish to seek the Germanic “sentiment” towards woman pure in its source, as given in the certainly not unfavorable estimate of Tacitus.  In their respect for woman and the stress they laid on chastity, the ancient Germans transcended without doubt many savages.  Still, few readers will suppose there was much reason to boast of the elevation of women, or the presence of much refined “sentiment” between the sexes!  As long as women do all the drudgery of house and field work, while their lazy husbands drink and gamble; as long as they are liable (and their children too) to be sold or put on the hazard of a cast of the dice; as long as they are themselves ferocious enough to go out to battle with their husbands; I presume you will think the “Germanic culture” very far short of the “culture” likely to be produced by the New Testament!  Well says Gibbon, “Heroines of such a cast may claim admiration; but they were most assuredly neither lovely nor very susceptible of love.”

II.  Mr. Newman says, that undue credit has been claimed for Christianity as the foe and extirpator of slavery.  He says that, at this day, the “New Testament is the argumentative stronghold of those who are trying to keep up the accursed system.”  Would it not have been candid to add, that the New Testament has ever been also the stronghold of those who oppose it, as well in this country as in America?  It is on the express ground to its supposed inconsistency with the maxims and spirit of Christianity, that the great mass of Abolitionists hate and loathe it.  A public clamor against it was never raised in the days of ancient slavery, nor is now in any country where Christianity is unknown.  The opposition to it in our own country was a religious one; that we know full well; and so is the opposition of the American Abolitionists at the present day.  If selfish cupidity, on the one hand, appeals to the New Testament for its continuance, so does philanthropy, on the other, for its abolition; and though in my judgment the inferences of the latter are far more reasonable, the mere fact that both parties appeal to the book shows that the New Testament neither sanctions it—­rather the contrary by implication—­nor expressly denounces it;—­Mr. Newman doubtless can do it safely.  This very moderation of language, however, has to many minds, and those of no mean capacity, (the late Dr. Chalmers for example,) been regarded as an indication of the wisdom which has presided over the construction of the New Testament; it was not only a tone peremptorily demanded by the necessary conditions of publishing Christianity at all, but was best adapted,—­nay, alone adapted,—­in the actual condition of the world in relation to slavery, to make any salutary impression.