_Some object to our employing severe epithets in speaking of Slavery and slave-holders._ They say our condemnation is too hard, denunciatory and indiscriminate. We wish all who allege this against us would illustrate their meaning and sustain their charge by quoting the offensive expressions. It would put them to great inconvenience. They may think the language “hard” and “too hard,” when it barely expresses what ought to be said, and cannot be better said. We do indeed tell slave-holders their sins plainly, calling things by their right names; but it is only in the conclusion of an argument to prove the charge, that we justify making it. Nor is our language any harder than the sober language of moral philosophers, and of the most eminent fathers of the church. Wesley says: “You, [the slave-holder,] first acted the villain in making them slaves, whether you stole them or bought them.” “This equally concerns all slave-holders, of whatever rank and degree: seeing _men-buyers are exactly on a level with men-stealers_.” The younger President Edwards says: “To hold a man in a state of Slavery is to be every day guilty of _robbing_ him of his liberty, or of _man-stealing_.” Grotius says: “Those are men-stealers, who abduct, _keep_, sell or buy _slaves_ or freemen. To steal a man is the highest kind of theft.” Adam Clarke says: “Among the heathen Slavery was in some sort excusable; among _christians_ it is AN ENORMITY AND A CRIME FOR WHICH PERDITION HAS SCARCELY AN ADEQUATE STATE OF PUNISHMENT.” We use no language more hard, more true, or more indiscriminate. We think these great men understood how to do good, at least as well as our critics. We are also fully persuaded, that the South is far less incensed at our _language_ than at our _sentiments_. She is indignant at what we say, not the manner of saying it. Dr. Channing had this vulgar prejudice, that we were injuring our cause by using abusive language. And Mr. Leigh of Virginia, took the very book, in which he reproves us, and quoted passages which he declared in the United States Senate, rivalled the most insulting language of Garrison. So difficult is it to tell the truth about Slavery in palatable terms. We are also censured for _sending pictures to the South illustrative of the horrors of Slavery_. We do indeed employ the art of painting, as well as the arts of printing and speaking, to awaken sympathy for the Slave; but our pictures are designed for the North, not the South. Though some of them may find their way there, they are _never sent_ to the slaves, are not apt to fall into their hands, and not adapted to make them uneasy and turbulent. Were they painted as large as life, and set up at the corner of every street and on every plantation, the sole effect would be to awe the slaves into subjection, by reminding them of the consequences of disobedience.