It is a significant commentary on the character of the whole scheme of colonization, that a person of the speaker's intelligence should thus flatly contradict himself in half a column of his speech. It shows a large drawing on the imagination for facts, for truth is ever harmonious. It is only falsehood that thus contradicts itself. By what process degraded set" (to use the elegant language of Mr. Clay) is to learn Christian ethics in the salt sea's foam," is a mystery which the colonizers have never yet explained. This contradiction has been exposed a hundred times, and yet it is paraded with all the confidence of a new and indisputable truth.

There are other points of contradiction quite as glaring as this. In regard to the influence of colonization on slavery, the most opposite teachings are prevalent. For instance, Mr. Clay says:

This society has, with consistency, protested from its origin to the present time, that it has not, does not, and never will, interfere with the subject of slavery as it exists in the several States. It is no part of its object or office to do that."

R. J. Breckinridge, D. D., in a late speech before the Kentucky Colonization Society, declares that "no well informed person believes that the number of slaves will be reduced by the action of the Colonization Society." This is what the abolitionists have always asserted. Yet we find in this day, religious papers (so called) the editors of which would, no doubt, like to be thought "well informed persons," gravely setting forth the colonization scheme as the remedy for slavery. For instance, the Cumberland Presbyterian, a paper of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, published at Brownsville, Pa., uses this language:

"It may be asked, as we are opposed to slavery, and also to denouncing it in the Church, what measures we adopt as proper to secure ultimate emancipation? To this we answer, we are decidedly in favor of the colonization scheme, as set forth and carried out by the American Colonization Society. "The measure adopted" by men who boast that they "have availed themselves of all the light that has been cast on the subject," to "secure ultimate emancipation," is the colonization scheme; this, too, in the face of the declaration of the most distinguished advocates of the cause, that the society "has not, does not, and never will, interfere with the subject of slavery," and that "no well informed person believes that

the number of slaves will be reduced by the action of the society."

The foregoing are mere specimens of the opposite teachings on this subject, which have been current for many years. Yet this scheme of contradictions and absurdities is extolled as "the greatest enterprise of the age." A persevering effort is made to induce Congress to tax the people for carrying it on; and Christian people are exhorted to support it as God's own chosen means for removing slavery, converting Africa, and saving the free people of color from degradation and ruin.

CO-EXISTENCE OF LIBERTY AND SLAVERY IMPOSSIBLE.

The following is from the Richmond Enquirer:

"Social forms so widely differing as those of domestic slavery, and (attempted) universal liberty CAN NOT LONG COEXIST IN THE GREAT REPUBLIC OF CHRISTENDOM. They can not be equally adapted to the wants and interests of society. The one form or the other must be very wrong, very ill suited to promote the quiet, the peace, the happiness, the morality, the religion and general well-being of the community. Disunion will not allay excitement and investigation, much less beget lasting peace. The war between the two sys tems rages elsewhere; and will continue to rage TILL THE ONE CONQUERS AND THE OTHER IS EXTERMINATED."

This is the exact truth, clearly and definitely stated. It is truth which abolitionists have been preaching for years. When they first announced it they seemed to the nation as those that mocked. Now, however, this truth is becoming manifest to all. The slaveholders see and assert itand at last the besotted North begins to realize it. The Christ of liberty can have no concord with the Belial of slavery. The conflict between them is joined, and one or the other must perish. The war on the side of slavery is one of extermination. It will give no quarter to freedom. It will, if successful, leave it no foothold on this continent. It will hunt the fair form of freedom from every inch of territory between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Already the death's head of this piracy gleams balefully over Central America. It is compassing sea and land to plant its black banner on the plains of Kansas. Already its deadly folds wave over New Mexico, and the home of the modern Sodomites in Utah.

From there, if its other schemes succeed, slavery will push its conquests to the Pacific. That point gained and all Mexico and Central America will be speedily absorbed. Then the rapacious hordes of despotism will turn north, and soon the feeble remnants of freedom left us in the free States will be trodden to death under their bloody feet.

Such are the purposes of slavery, and such the spirit in which they are prosecuted. Would that the same uncompromising spirit actuated all its professed opposers. Would that the avowed friends of freedom were as resolutely bent on hunting the demon of slavery from its last resting-place. Would that they too were resolved on a war of extermination. But such, alas! is not the case. The vast majority of the professed friends of freedom in this country are at the utmost pains to disclaim all purpose of interfering with slavery where it now exists. They vehemently deny that they have any intention of driving slavery from the strongholds-political, social and ecclesiastical-in which it has already entrenched itself. They will share the empire of this continent with the slave power. They ask only a part of the fair heritage, which should all be the birthright of freedom. They will leave to slavery the undisputed power it now exercises over the Church and the State, if it will just forego the privilege of extending its domain into free territory.

We rejoice that slavery rejects this compromise, and now claims universal sway. It will, by so doing, drive the free States into the same policy on the other side. It will convince them that they must exterminate this piracy, or be exterminated by it. It will force time-serving politicians into a decided position. It will explode the paltry schemes of timid ecclesiastics, who think by "capping the volcano" to prevent an eruption, while the fire is left burning within. It will turn to folly all worldly-wise projects for "settling the question." It will show that slavery will never be quiet until dead and buried, and will set all hands, not willing to be subjugated, to the work of digging its grave. When the North is at last unanimously forced to that position, the work will be cut short in righteousness. May God speed the day.

SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE-Trade.

It is one of the inconsistencies of human nature that men are often shocked with one form of a particular sin, while

they will practice another form of the very same sin without the least compunction. The clerical wine-bibber, who goes to bed every night half-fuddled on his aristocratic beverage, is piously exercised over the intemperance of the poor wretches who get drunk out-right on vulgar whisky. The genteel swindler who embezzles thousands of his employer's money, would feel insulted if placed on a level with the poor thief who steals a penny loaf from a baker's window. The woman of French morality, in "high life," grows eloquently indignant over the low debauchery of the Five Points.

Very similar to the conduct of these worthies is the opposition manifested in certain quarters to the reopening of the foreign slave trade. This opposition, in many instances, comes from those who are living in the closest political and religious fellowship with slavery; and who openly defend that system, or silently acquiesce in its existence. Their opposition to the slave-trade is precisely on a par with the wine-bibber's opposition to intemperance. Governor Adams, of South Carolina, has expressed a logical and inevitable truth, when he says that "If the slave-trade is piracy then slavery is plunder." On the other hand, if slavery is right, so, also, is the slave-trade. The one is the parent of the other. The slaves were originally stolen from Africa. The Virginia and Carolina planter bought only the slave trader's title to his chattels. That was only a pirate's title. The slaves being stolen, and the buyers knowing that fact, became partakers of the theft by purchasing the stolen property. Evidently he could transmit to his posterity no better title to his human chattels, or to their offspring, than he possessed himself. Hence, we repeat, if the slave-trade is piracy, the slaveholder, down through a hundred generations, is a manstealer" a thief of the highest rank."

But there are those in this country who insist that the slave-trade shall still continue to be branded as piracy, and yet that the slaveholder may be a very exemplary and pious Christian-fit for the pulpit, and for the very highest stations of honor in the church. They still cling to him in religious fellowship. They still hold fast to church organizations which declare that slavery is the corner-stone on which they are built, and the cement that binds their spiritual stones together.

Our brother of the Presbyterian of the West is anxious to know if the Southern pulpit and religious press will come out in opposition to the re-opening of the foreign slave-trade.

Without any pretension to prophetic lore, we can inform him that they will do nothing of the kind. We venture the prediction that outside of Maryland and Virginia, in which States public sentiment, for the most mercenary reasons, is opposed to the foreign slave-trade, not a whisper of opposition to its re-opening will be heard from Southern pulpits or religious presses. Why should they oppose it? Do not the nominal Christians of the South openly practice and defend, or silently indorse a worse traffic in human flesh than that from the coast of Africa? On this point hear the testimony of a Virginia statesman. During the debate in the year 1832, in the Virginia House of Delegates, on the abolition of slavery, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, the grandson of President Jefferson, spoke as follows:

"The gentleman has spoken of the increase of the female slaves being a part of the profit: it is admitted; but no great evil can be averted, no good attained without some inconvenience. It may be questioned how far it is desirable to foster and encourage this branch of profit. It is a practice, and an increasing practice, in parts of Virginia, to rear slaves for market. How can an honorable mind, a patriot, and a lover of his country, bear to see this Ancient Dominion, rendered illustrious by the noble devotion and patriotism of her sons in the cause of liberty, converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for market like oxen for the shambles? Is it better, is it not worse than the slave-tradethat trade which enlisted the labor of the good and the wise of every creed and every clime to abolish it? The trader receives the slave, a stranger in language, aspect and manner, from the merchant who has brought him from the interior. The ties of father, mother, husband and child, have all been rent in twain; before he receives him his soul has become callous.

"But here, Sir, individuals whom the master has known from infancy, whom he has seen sporting in the innocent gambols of childhood; who have been accustomed to look to him for protection, he tears from the mother's arms, and sells into a strange country among strange people, subject to cruel task-masters. In my opinion, Sir, it is much worse.

The Southern Church and ministry have no word of rebuke for this home traffic in slaves; why then should they be expected to brave public sentiment in opposition to a milder traffic from a foreign shore? The Southern Church and clergy daily see mothers torn from their children, and