relation, is not a new doctrine. It is laid down in the code of Justinian, which has been the fountain and spring-head of the civil law since A. D. 527. This code declares that slavery has no foundation in natural justice. "SERVITUS EST CONSTITUTIO JURIS GENTIUM, qua quis domino CONTRA NATURAM subjicitur."-(Just. code, L. 1. Title 3.)-which, translated, is "Slavery is a constitution of the law of nations, whereby a man is subjected to a foreign master against natural right." Every lawyer knows that "contra naturam" means against natural equity. And slavery is said to be a creation of “positive law," because the relation has no archetype in nature, and hence, all the claims arising out of it, perish, because rooted in a vicious relation, and all its obligations are void, because its claims are unjust; that is, the relation is wrong in itself.

Now, again: The relation is sinful, because every act which it warrants, is something which my brother himself calls sinful. I know well what I say, and I will prove it. say, the relation itself is sinful, because every act which it warrants is a sinful act. What acts does it warrant?

I

1. It warrants the taking of a man's labor without wages. My brother has almost said that the master is bound in justice to give his slave wages. He ought to say so. But what becomes of slavery when you compel wages? It has perished and the slave becomes a hired servant. Slavery excludes wages, and if withholding wages is sin, then is slave-holding sin.

2. Another act which this relation of master and slave warrants, is the separation of man and wife. My brother says, he is opposed to that. So when he has given the slaveholder a property power over mankind, by the permission of God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost; (for he does this if he proves slave-holding not sinful;) he then turns round and forbids him to use the power which he has thus given. The first property-holding act which the slave-holder puts forth, my friend tells him is an abuse of the relation. "I argue from that, that the power to hold slaves-the

relation itself, is sinful. Can the fountain be pure, if all the streams flowing from it are corrupt? Suppose a man has a spring on his land, from which flows water which kills the grass of the sod which it irrigates, and the cattle which drink of it. I tell him his spring is poisonous; and he admits that all the water which comes from it is poison, but stoutly denies that the spring is a poisonous spring, and yet agrees to stop up the well and prevent its flowing, in order to prevent its doing damage. He certainly admits his spring to be poisonous. So I say that the relation which cannot be carried out in practice without abuse, is an abusive relation. It is abusive in itself. What sort of a relation is that which cannot be acted out without sin, unless it be a sinful relation? Assuredly, it is not a holy relation. A smuggler may be a man who has never yet handled contraband goods, yet, being connected with smugglers-standing in a criminal relation, he ought to come out of it. He may say: "I But you tell him;

have never run goods across the line.”

'you are in a wicked relation, you ought to come out of it." So I say to the slave-holder; lay down the mischievous power which you have assumed. Come out of the relation, for

Who does not see that, that

it is a relation wrong in itself. is a poisonous fountain, which, to prevent its pestilent and destructive effects, must be perpetually and forever damned up?

My brother declares for the gradual abolition of slavery; he would kill it off by degrees. But why abolish slaveholding gradually, unless it is unjust? and if it be unjust, why continue it one hour? Do you not see that in admitting that it ought to be abolished, he admits it to be wrong ?

But he will have us to abolish safely. Let us lop off one abuse after another. Let us pluck out one strand after another until this scourge of the human race is taken wholly But why, when he arises to demolish one bad thing in it, does he not strike off the whole? is not the whole thing bad? Most evidently, the same reasons which require abolition at all call for it now. In the name of the God of truth

away.

and in the living light of truth, I say, abolish it at once if it be wicked. Why should injustice live one hour? There is another inquiry of serious practical moment here. Why do those men who say they are opposed to slavery, and desire its speedy gradual abolition, stand so well with incorrigible slave-holders? My brother boasts that he preaches to slave-holders, enjoys their full confidence, and yet that he is opposed to slavery. Yes, somebody has committed an immense amount of sin in the slave-system, if we could come at it. There is a forbidden part of the hog, but nobody has found out where or which it is. He is opposed to slavery.

But, if he is actually opposed to slavery, how does his doctrine happen to be acceptable to every one who is irrecoverably wedded in the slave-holding interest? The answer is:-Because it justifies slavery as a divine institution. It can be no other.

You may read his allegation to the soul-driver at the head of the slave cofile; "that God permitted his ancient people to hold slaves." "Ah," says the driver, "that is the doctrine for me. I am one of Abraham's descendants in line direct. I am the good old patriarch's agent. My employer stands in the place of principal, and I as agent, and we shall both go to Abraham's bosom together." Oh! gentlemen, the reason why his doctrine is so popular with the slave men, is, that they well know that if ministers give them God's permission to hold men as property, they will easily get man's permission to use them as such. That is the reason that my brother's popularity will carry the book South. Slavery never will be put down in this way. My brother is pro-slavery, and they know it. He gives them God's permission to hold slaves, and that is all they want of him. He tells them they may hold slaves without sin, but tells us that he is opposed to their using their slaves as their property. He puts a saddle on a man's back, and the bit in his mouth, vaults the slave-holder into the saddle, and as he places the reins in his hand, cries, “Easy, sir, I never meant you should ride." [A laugh.]

I have also proved slave-holding relation sinful, because where slavery goes into a family at one door, every Godordained relation goes out at the other. I know my friend tells you that it is not slavery that separates man and wife; that they are not separated till the master sells the husband into Georgia, and the wife to Alabama. Is it the mere placing a man and woman at a distance, that dissolves marriage? Is it miles and leagues that tear and separate heart from heart, whom God has pronounced one? No! It is not distance. It is slavery. A relation which has no sanction in Heaven, and will have no place on earth when God's "kingdom is come, and his will done on earth as it is in heaven."

I say, therefore, that when slavery goes to a house, and constitutes the husband property, the wife property, and the child property; every God-ordained relation has perished out of that house. All that is wanting to complete the ruin is the will of the master to separate them actually, as they are virtually taken apart by the slave-making statute.

I have one more point to make, and then, after adverting to my friend's golden rule argument, I shall proceed in the course which I have prescribed.

I will here make one observation, which is this: Though I might, as my friend suggests, flinch in the trial, if actually called to lay down my life; yet, I solemnly aver that I should esteem my life a profitable outlay, if by death I could convince every person in this assembly of the truth which I am here to sustain. I am at least sincere in this. Though I will not say but that if put to the test I might shrink from the sacrifice, as many good men have done. But, Kentuckians, I call upon you; I address you with the utmost solemnity as men, as men who are soon to die. 1 beseech you, let us reason together. Take what course you may in practice, I know you must abhor, you cannot help abhorring slavery in your understandings and hearts. Its foul deformities are so obvious in every joint and limb and feature, that when once your attention is fairly directed to them, you can never, go where you will, and do what you may,

shake off your impressions of disgust. Do not make me your enemy because I tell you the truth. I speak in the spirit of humility. I am willing to wash your feet. My master did the like, and I am content if I may but be as he. I am sincere and solemnly earnest in the position I take. I am willing to sacrifice to it whatever I must. I did not embrace this cause when a young man, and incur obloquy on account of it, because I loved ignominy and reproach. I was not then reckoned inferior to my equals in age, in scholarship and the hope of usefulness, and I have not been insensible to the desire of popularity with good men. But in the course I have taken I followed what I thought my duty, and I well knew what I was to meet in discharging it. While yet a student, I was preaching in a church where the salary was a thousand dollars, and where to oppose slavery was to be unacceptable. But I told them I was an abolitionist. I knew no pettifogging distinctions by which to reconcile the conscience to slavery, while condemning it in words; and I determined to take the consequences of a straightforward and honest utterance of correct principles, derived, not from collating the opinions of men, but by listening to the voice of God. Do not therefore, make me your enemy because I speak plainly, and tell you the truth. My labors are almost done in Cincinnati. I am about to leave the church of my first labor and first love, to live in an interior town of Illinois, where I have little to expect from your approbation or esteem. But I beseech you, Kentuckians, to remember David Rice; to remember Barlow, and listen with candor and patience while I seek to show you, that, if slave-holding is not sinful then I can justify all those acts which my brother calls the "abuses of slavery," and prove them innocent and good.

My first proposition is this; if slave-holding is not sinful, then kidnapping is right. For what is the moral difference? Suppose one man snares and steals your game, and another man knowing the fact, eats it; where is the difference in their guilt? Now the kidnapper is the hunter for the slave-holder,