influential abolitionist, says-" The advocates of slavery can devise but one answer, accordant with their views; namely, that the heathen round about were slave-holders, that they had captives taken in war, and whom they might sell to the Jewish purchaser. We admit that some servants of this sort might be bought of the heathen, who claimed to be their masters, and shall prove, presently, that even such persons could not be held by the Hebrews, without their consent.' Review of Junkin, p. 23. It is admitted, then, the slaves did not always sell themselves, but were, at least sometimes, sold by their masters.

2. But it is said, the Jews could not purchase servants without their consent. To this I reply, that no Christian would be willing to purchase an adult slave without his consent, nor to sell an obedient slave to a master with whom he is unwilling to live. If a professing Christian were known to purchase adult slaves, contrary to their wish, and to compel them to live with him, I admit, that he would thus manifest a spirit so inconsistent with Christianity, as to deserve the discipline of the church. But suppose I buy a slave at his own earnest request, do I buy him without his consent? Yet abolitionists denounce the slave-holder who has formed the relation with the consent, and at the request of the slave, whilst they are constrained to admit, that the Jews purchased in this way!

3. It is alleged, that the term of service of the servants bought of the heathen, was limited. Of this class of servants, Mr. Thomas says " They were never purchased for six years; but always till the jubilee." For argument's sake, we will admit the truth of this statement; and now, let me ask, what proportion of those purchased in this way, would live to enjoy the freedom proclaimed at the jubilee? Suppose a man thirty years of age, bought by a Jew immediately after the jubilee, he would be a slave forty-nine years, and would become free at the age of seventy-nine. Of what advantage would his liberty be to him at that age. How many live to

four-score years? any rate, be free.

But it may be said, his children will, at Suppose we admit this, it does not affect the question before us. We are discussing the question, whether slave-holding is in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation. If it is in itself sinful, it is a sin to hold a man in that relation one day, as truly as to hold him forty-nine years; and if it be lawful to hold a slave five years, or fifty years, he may be held a longer time, if there be no law against it. But the argument I am considering, admits that the relation might lawfully exist till the year of jubilee. This admission is all I ask; for it concedes that the relation is not in itself sinful. I thank no man for making this concession; because it is perfectly easy to prove the fact, whether it is admitted or not.

4. It is alleged, that the bondmen of the Jews received wages. I demand the proof; and I venture to say it will not be produced. The law (Levit. xix, 13) required the wages of the hired servant to be promptly paid; but where does it say a word concerning the wages of the bondman? But let it be remembered, that unrequited labor is only one of the sinful features of slave-holding, mentioned by abolitionists. If the relation was sinful, the fact that the slave received wages, would not make it right.

5. It is said that though the Jews might buy servants, they might not sell. Admitting this too, for the argument's sake, will it follow that the holding of a slave is sinful? The controversy between us and the abolitionists, is not about slave-selling, but about slave-holding. But where is his proof that they might not sell? The law expressly permitted them to buy slaves, and did not forbid them to sell. There is, indeed a law forbiding a master to sell a Jewish servant to strangers; but they might sell to their brethren. Exceptio probat regulam: the exception confirms the rule.

6. It is alleged, that some of the old patriarchs had several wives, and the same arguments which prove slave-holding not in itself sinful, prove that polygamy and concubinage are

right. It is admitted, that some pious men, at an early day, had a plurality of wives; but let the gentleman, if he can, produce the divine permission given to any man to marry more than one wife. Polygamy and concubinage are wrong ; but God never gave permission to any man to form such relations. But I have proved, that he did give the Jews express permission to buy and hold slaves.

I am under no obligation to assign the reason why God gave the Jews permission to purchase and hold slaves. I have proved the fact; and that is sufficient to prove the doctine of the abolitionists false. Yet I will give what was, as I suppose, the reason. Doubtless he intended that in this way degraded heathen should be made acquainted with that blessed religion by which they might be made happier on earth, and might secure eternal life. Those who were purchased by the Jews, were not, I suppose, thereby reduced to slavery. They were already slaves to degraded and cruel heathen masters, held in a state of bondage compared with which slavery under the Mosaic law, was almost freedom. God's permission to the Jews to purchase them, was therefore, benevolent; for their condition was greatly improved by the change.

In view of this whole argument we are forced to the solemn conclusion that one of two things are true: either God gave permission to men to form a sinful relation, and to become according to our brother, kidnappers and man-stealersor, it is not true, that the relation of master and slave is in itself sinful.

The gentleman who imagines himself peculiarly illumined, pours upon me his denunciations, and calls upon all Kentuckians to abandon such a man. In the fulness of his compassion he commisserates my blindness and moral degradation; and his abolition brethren may sympathise with him. But after all, I am inclined to think, he will find himself in the condition of a certain monomaniac of whom I have somewhere heard. A visitor asked him how it happened

that he had become an inmate in the Asylum. He answered-"The world said, I was deranged; and I said, the world was deranged; and they outvoted me." [A laugh.]

Suppose the question put to vote, how many of the eminently wise and good, in past time and at the present day, would be found with the gentleman? Doubtless, he feels deep commisseration for such men as poor blinded Dr. Scott, the Commentator! for his views concerning Jewish servitude precisely accord with mine. I will read a single extract from his commentary on Levit. xxv, 44,-46. "The Israelites were permitted to keep SLAVES of other nations; perhaps in order to testify, that none but the true Israel of God participated of that liberty with which Christ hath made. his people free. But it was also allowed, in order that in this manner the Gentiles might become acquainted with true religion, (Gen. xvii, 10-13. xviii, 19,) and when the Israelites copied the example of their pious progenitors, there can be no reasonable doubt, that it was overruled for the eternal salvation of many souls," &c.

Poor ignorant Dr. Scott! how our abolitionist friends must pity him!

Bishop Horne, too, the author of the celebrated "Intro. duction to the study of the Scriptures," in 4 volumes-one of the most learned men of his day, takes precisely the same view of the subject. He says: (Vol. 3, p. 419.

"Slavery is of very remote antiquity. It existed before the flood, (Gen ix, 25;) and when Moses gave his laws to the Jews, finding it already established, though he could not abolish it, yet he enacted various salutary laws and regulations. The Israelites indeed might have Hebrew servants or slaves, as well as alien-born persons, but these were to be circumcised," &c. After stating the various ways in which slaves might be acquired, he says:-" Slaves received both food and clothing, for the most part of the meanest quality, but whatever property they acquired, belonged to their lords: hence, they are said to be worth double the value of a hired servant. (Deut. xv, 18.) They formed marriages at the will

of the master; but their children were slaves, who, though they could not call him a father, (Gal. iv, 6. Rom. viii, 15,) yet they were attached and faithful to him as to a father, on which account the patriarchs trusted them with arms. If a married Hebrew sold himself, he was to serve for six years, &c., but, if his master had given one of his slaves to him as a wife, she was to remain, with his children, as the property of her master."

The compassionate brother no doubt is all this while pitying blinded Dr. Scott, and blinded Dr. Horne, and poor blinded Dr. Chalmers and poor stone-blind Matthew Poole, (the author of the Synopsis and Annotations,) who fell into the same heresy and while he is weeping, he may as well include, at once, all the best critics on the Old Testament who have enlightened and blessed the church of God. I defy the gentleman to show a single commentator, critic, or theologian of any admitted pretensions to scholarship, who does not give the same exposition which I have given of the passages in relation to servitude among the Jews. That an overwhelming majority of the wisest and best men the church ever saw, agree with me in this view of those scriptures, I am prepared to prove.

The brother wants very much to show that Dr. Cunningham is an abolitionist, and is with him in sentiment. I will therefore quote a little from his testimony, just to show that he is as blind, as stupid, or as corrupt, as I am, and as all other Bible critics and commentators.

"They [slave-holding Christians,] submit to what they cannot help. Slavery is sinful as a system, but not necessarily in those who stand related to it. A very little consideration of the whole state of things, then, would show, that this is really the case. A man may be a slave-holder innocently. Every man of right feeling, who has true notions of what man is, as made in the image of God, and of man's duties and obligations, would, as much as possible, avoid ever coming into such a relation. ** * But then we ought to make distinctions, and enter into the position in which we perceive