It is said that _Slavery is an agitating subject, which cannot be discussed without disturbing the peace and harmony of our churches_. Why so? This subject can be discussed in the churches in Great Britain without discord and division. We think it could be here, were it not for the corruption of our public sentiment, which can be corrected only by free discussion. It is where the truth needs most to be heard, that it creates most opposition and variance. Primitive christianity was accused of turning the world upside down. The temperance cause has occasioned strife, and separated “very friends.” We hold to the Apostolic injunction: “_first_ pure, _then_ peaceable.” We love a virtuous peace. A truce with sin we abhor. If we must surrender our liberties, and connive at iniquity, to avoid a war, we say with Patrick Henry, “The war is inevitable, and let it come; I repeat it, sir, let it come.” Who does not see that if polygamy were common in our churches, it would create a terrible excitement to preach against it, and lead to the dismission of pastors? Yet any one would acknowledge, that religion could never prosper, while the church was so corrupt; and that she had better be torn into ten thousand fragments, than that polygamy should continue in vogue; for she would soon be re-organized in greater purity and strength. So it is with a _slave-holding_ Church; and with a Church in which the _spirit_ of Slavery is so rife, that she will not live in peace with her Anti-Slavery members, nor tolerate the exercise of their Constitutional rights. But we do not believe this of our Churches. We think the more this “delicate and agitating” subject is discussed among us, the less unpleasant excitement will prevail. It is said _that our measures to overthrow Slavery are unconstitutional_. Our opponents may easily test this question by bringing it before the U. S. Court. We claim to be acting constitutionally. Our plan of operations is essentially the same as that pursued by the early Anti-Slavery Societies, of which such men as John Jay, Benj. Franklin, Benj. Rush, and Jonathan Edwards, were active members; some of whom were engaged in forming our federal Constitution. Did they not understand that instrument? Did their contemporaries ever dispute their right to discuss the merits of Slavery? Have not our citizens, from time immemorial and without restriction, exercised this right? Does not the Constitution, instead of guaranteeing Slavery against this moral influence, guarantee to us the right of employing it, by forbidding Congress to pass any law abridging the freedom of speech and of the press?