He approves of the principle of claiming freedom, not for _men_, but for _Christians_.

He says: "That Christianity opened its arms at all to the servile class was enough; for in its embrace was the sure promise of emancipation....

Is it imputed as a disgrace, that Christianity put conversion before manumission, and _brought them to God, ere it trusted them with themselves_ ?...

It created the simultaneous obligation to make the Pagan a convert, and the convert free." ...

"If our author had made his attack from the opposite side, and contended that its doctrines 'proved too much' against servitude, and _assumed with too little qualification the capacity of each man for self-rule_, we should have felt more hesitation in expressing our dissent." I feel unfeigned surprize at these sentiments from one whom I so highly esteem and admire; and considering that they were written at first anonymously, and perhaps under pressure of time, for a review, I hope it is not presumptuous in me to think it possible that they are hasty, and do not wholly express a deliberate and final judgment.