those evil practices are going on, you can see no evil or sin in slavery. May God, of his mercy, provided your day of visitation be not over, grant you to see slavery in its true light, before your "houses are left unto you desolate.".

Matt. xxiii. 38.

Now, remember that the question between Dr. Rice and us, is, "Is slave-holding sinful?" I have read you Clarkson's opinion on the point; yet, my friend has printed, in his lectures, that Clarkson is "far from being an abolitionist in the modern sense.'

But, beside our doctrine that "slave-holding is sin," we are for turning unrepenting slave-holders out of the church, and the refusing our pulpits to slave-holding ministers. Perhaps brother Rice means that Clarkson is " far from being an abolitionist in this sense.' Let us see what he holds as to this practical application of our principles. I still read from page 22d, of his letter:

gos

"And now, gentlemen, (the southern clergy,) I am going to address you on a different branch of the subject and in a manner somewhat different from that before. I feel it my duty to warn you, if you be honorable men, that you ought to withdraw yourselves from the sacred office of ministers of the pel of Christ, since your doctrines, as they relate to slavery, are at variance with the revealed word of God. You are doing no good, with your present sentiments, to genuine Christianity, but lowering the excellence of its standard, and leading your flocks astray."

Amen and amen, to these just and honest sentiments. I wonder if my friend will confess that Clarkson is an abolitionist ? [Time expired.

[MR. RICE'S TENTH SPEECH. ] Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellow Citizens:

[I am happy to observe, that those of the audience who hear me, usually hear the brother who is opposed to me. I desire that all who have thought with me, and those, even, whose minds are fully made up upon the question, would

remain, in quiet and respectful attention, and listen to every word he has to say.]

The truth never gains, nor seeks to gain, any thing by misrepresentation. There are causes, however, which never gain much in any other way; and, if I mistake not, abolitionism is of this class. I have remarked, that when any thing occurs bearing on the subject of slavery, the gentleman is sure to get hold of that end of the story, which suits his views, and equally sure never to hear the other end. In the progress of this discussion, he told us of a colored man, a member of the Presbyterian Church, in Danville, Ky., who was sold by his master, a member of the same church, so as to be removed to a distance from his wife. So much of the story was adapted to promote abolitionism, and bring reproach upon a church of Christ. But he was careful not to tell the whole truth on the subject. Now it so happens, that there is in this house a minister of the gospel who resided in Danville at the time, and who received that colored man into the church; and he informs me, that the church session did take cognizance of the case, and enforce the discipline of the church against the master. To tell only a part of the truth, is often the most effectual method of telling a falsehood. The impression made upon the audience, by the gentleman's statement, was wholly at war with the truth in the case. I have little doubt that the other facts of the same character, which he has so eloquently detailed, are equally incorrect.

He told you that the Church of Scotland had declared, that whoever regarded his slaves as mere property, ought to be turned out of the church; but that our Assembly, at its late meeting, did not express this sentiment. I have already proved, that the Assembly strongly condemned the sin of regarding and treating men as mere property; and he knows it to be a law of our church, declared by the Assembly of 1818, that any member of the church who is guilty of cruelty toward his slaves in any way, especially by traffic for gain, and the separation of husbands and wives, shall be ex

cluded from the church. Is it necessary, that the same law should be declared every year, in order to satisfy the gentleman? None are so blind as those who are resolved not to see.

In attempting to reply to my argument, founded on the fact, that no man or body of men was ever known to be heretical on any one fundamental point of morality, or of Christian faith, and sound on all others, Mr. Blanchard referred us to the Pharisees, who, as he informed us, were quite orthodox on all points except one, viz.: they rejected Christ, and regarded him as an impostor !

Driven from that refuge, he now refers us to John Newton, as a case in point. Newton, he informs us, wrote excellent hymns at the very time he was engaged in the slave trade on the coast of Africa. I do not know precisely the time when he commenced writing his hymns, but I do know, that he himself informs us, that the light entered his mind very gradually and almost imperceptibly; and at the time to which the gentleman refers, he was in such darkness, that he could afterwards scarcely determine whether he was a converted man or not. We know also how the early period of Newton's life was spent; that his mind was enveloped in midnight darkness on the whole subject of religion; and that he was most hardened in sin, and degraded in moral character. Yet, this man, just emerging from the midnight gloom, is brought forward to prove that the Christian ministers and churches in the slave-holding States, may be orthodox on all other points of faith and morals, and yet fundamentally erroneous in regard to the horrible sin of slaveholding!-to prove, that such men as Chalmers, and Cunningham, of Scotland, and Tyler, of Connecticut, and the great body of eminently wise and good men, may be in the same predicament!!!

The brother says, that most of the slaves at Rome were Africans.

[Mr. Blanchard here rose to explain. I said that Africa

was one of the chief sources from which they were drawn, but not that a majority came from there.]

Well, be it so. I will not inquire, whether all slaves born in Africa were black: whether they were or not, my remark will hold good, that there did not exist, at Rome, in that day, the same prejudice in regard to slaves which exists at this day and in this country.. In the Roman empire, as he very well knows, slaves generally did not differ in complexion from their masters, and therefore they were required to wear a cap and a coat of a peculiar shape, to distinguish them from free citizens. The slave had only to change his cap and his coat, and wear the dress of a free man; and he would stand on a perfect equality with other citizens. It could not be known that he had ever been a slave. But with us, the color of the slave creates a prejudice against him; and so strong is that prejudice, that even a free colored man is not, in fact, free. He does not, and cannot, enjoy the privileges of a white man. There are insuperable difficulties in the way of his enjoying all the rights and privileges of a free man. As I have said before, I am in favor of the gradual emancipation of the slaves, and of having them. placed, with their own consent, where these difficulties do not exist where they will be free, not in name, but in reality.

I' will here notice the statement of the gentleman, that in the Report adopted by the General Assembly, there is no intimation of a wish that slavery should ever be abolished at all. What is the language of that Report? I will read it:

"We feel constrained further to say, that however desirable it may be to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in the Southern and Western States, or TO REMOVE SLAVERY FROM OUR COUNTRY, these objects, we are fully persuaded, can never be secured by ecclesiastical legislation. Much less can they be attained by those indiscriminate denunciations against slave-holders, without regard to their character or circumstances, which have, to so great an extent, characterized the movements of the modern abolitionists, which, so

far from removing the evils complained of, tend only to perpetuate and aggravate them. The apostles of Christ sought to ameliorate the condition of slaves, not by denounc ing and excommunicating their masters, but by teaching both masters and slaves the glorious doctrines of the gospel, and enjoining upon each the charge of their relative. duties. Thus only can the church of Christ, as such, now improve the condition of the slaves in our country."

Did not the Assembly intend to say, and does not their language clearly express the idea, that it is desirable to ameliorate the condition of the slaves? and did they not immediately add, in precisely the same connection, and in the same sentence, "or to remove slavery from our coun

?" There stand the words in the printed report; yet my urate brother tells us, that it says nothing on the subject; tains not even an intimation of the faintest wish upon the abject! I will not charge him with a deliberate purpose to misrepresent; but the truth is, that he reads, and sees, and feels, and talks one-sided-he is one-sided all over. [Laughter.]

The gentleman says, that my words look one way, and my actions the other-that I am anti-slavery in words, but pro-slavery in deeds. I now challenge him to refer to one single action of my life which shows that I am opposed to what I advocate in words, viz.: the gradual emancipation of every slave in the land; or which can afford the least justification of his ungenerous charge. He cannot point to one; unless, indeed, he chooses to consider the colonization of free blacks, with their own consent, opposed to emancipation.

The gentleman is very indignant at the removal of Cassius M. Clay's paper from Lexington, which, he tells us, was done simply because of an unfortunate expression-a mere flourish, to turn a period. I know Mr. Clay. We were, for a short time, school-fellows; and I regard him as a man of talents. But it is not true, that the tremendous excitement which resulted in the removal of his paper, was