There is nothing but the most _enlarged_ view of a great question, that can fairly determine its merits; and it cannot be denied, that slavery is _one_ of the great questions appertaining to the social state of mankind, and to the political state of the world. It is so great, in our opinion, that it can neither be disposed of by the logic of visionary theorists, nor by a _coup du main_ of an ill-considered and intemperate effort, nor by any legerdemain of political quackery. Ever since human society was set up, so far as history deposes, slavery has been a component element in one form or another. We suppose, there are some good reasons for saying, that there is no institution--we beg pardon of the Abolitionists for using this term, and assure them that we mean nothing by it but the fact--none, that can assert a more ancient date, except that of matrimony, and the natural relations accruing therefrom; and none that has been more uninterrupted, since it was first set up. Reason might teach us, therefore, that a custom thus sanctioned by time and the history of human society, so deeply rooted, so thoroughly interwoven, and incorporated with the social fabric of large portions of the human family, however wrong it may be, so long as there is not a uniform opinion on the subject among those who have the charge of it, cannot be eradicated and put out of the way by a single blow. We are aware, that the Abolitionists have published some very strong and significant doctrines, intended to be applied to the evils of the social system. For example in their last Annual Report:--“The very _vitality_ of human society for these six thousand years, has consisted in the victories of certain institutions over others--_of the new over the old_--of the better over the worse--just as the heart, by successive tides of regenerated blood, chases corruption and death from the bodily system. Tyranny in all ages, has striven to carry this moral (political) non-intercourse (non-interference) law into practice, but never with success. Had it succeeded, where would have been our Christianity and its successive reformations?” &c. Who would not say, “Good Lord deliver us” from the operation of a principle, thus boldly avowed, which asserts the right and necessity of everlasting revolution! and which plants itself on the platform, _that might is right_! Christianity itself is not protected from its invading sweep: “its successive _reformations_!” Where is the man in history, or living, that can lay claim to have _reformed_, or now to _reform_, Christianity? The very suggestion is blasphemous. And yet, it would seem, an ACT of this kind is even now, and among us, proposed to be enacted, because, forsooth, Christianity, after all “its reformations” and improvements, is not quite bold enough, is rather doubtful, and has even thrown out some suggestions a little adverse to the necessities of present exigencies!