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

I do not by any means call in question the sincerity of the gentleman in his abolition sentiments; and I can sympathise with him in his zeal for a cause which he imagines to be the most important of all others. But whilst I give him due credit for his sincerity, I cannot forget, that his declamation and exhortation are not argument.

I called on my friend to prove the truth of his assertion, that bondmen purchased by the Jews from the heathen, could hold property. In reply he has not once quoted the Bible, but has referred me to the Roman Catholic professor Jahn— Yet Jahn does no where say, either that they went out of servitude at the end of six years, nor that they held property. He says only that they were numbered among the people of Israel. So they were, as to all church privileges. They were so ecclesiastically. But this they could be, and neither hold property nor be free. I have seen Jahn's book to which Mr. B. refers; and he expressly says the Jews had a right to buy bond-servants from the heathen.

I cannot but remark here, that one of the most unpleasant features of modern abolitionism, is its utter recklessness in relation to the characters of even the most eminent, and honored, and useful servants of Jesus Christ. I cannot hear charges the most injurious, so frequently recurring, as we have heard them from the gentleman, without being constrained to think, that there must be something in abolitionism itself, which produces in its advocates a self-sufficient, conceited spirit, that leads them to regard themselves as wiser and better than all other men.

Dr. Adam Clarke has been lauded by the gentleman, and quoted as authority: but the moment I shew that he confirms my exposition of the Old Testament on the subject of slavery, he is ridiculed as a "monkey commentator." Such a man and such a scholar as Professor Stuart, of Andover, is not to be trusted in his exposition of the scriptures,

we are told, because some of the young men whom he taught, are settled in the southern States !

[MR. BLANCHARD rose to explain. I said he had sons, (not students,) in slave-holding families.]

Very well and because he has sons settled at the South in slave-holding families, he can be so influenced, so warped in judgment by that circumstance, that he has grossly perverted the Word of God, and on his responsibility as a biblical expositor, has said, that it is "impossible to doubt" that the Bible teaches a certain doctrine, which is most detestable ! Is it not truly strange that a wise and good man, whose reputation is such as that of Prof. Stuart, is to be condemned, as blindly, or perversely teaching the most abominable and cruel doctrines, on grounds so trivial-and this too, by a professed minister of the gospel!

In the same manner, the American Board is to be treated. They sometimes sit at one of our watering places, where they see the face of a slave-holder; and behold! they never can see the truth again!

The eminent learning of many of them, their character for vital piety, and for wisdom and prudence, cannot shield them from the charge of sinister motives, of sacrificing the truth to the influence of slavery! Slave-holders were seen by them at the watering-places; and therefore they are blinded! And the gentleman has even ventured to denounce one of those ministers as "an ecclesiastical Talleyrand!" I had learned from an inspired apostle, that the character of ministers of the gospel, was to be respected, and that no charge was to be received against them, unless sustained by at least two witnesses; but abolitionism practices according to a different rule.

The Methodist church, even in the North, I have said, has never made slave-holding a bar to Christian fellowship. This statement is true. It is admitted, that the Methodists forbid trafficking in slaves; and so do I condemn it.

The gentleman, by way of proving that the Jews had no slaves, refers us to the law of Moses against man-steal

of the Carinan turk mi a te lewed boges of me ge Pe. there are no debris ir de ale of the Lari the ninest man ska ha sex by the poorest of the poor! Beta daga a king so forgi ha meanest riier a n a par with timelif in the thing of religion. The equity da me on the great plation of Christan prvega od togs don not prevent great inequalites a ther on 205tot. I go for t-in kading ther equity a Chris Sian prilega, will I would not interfere with the order of wociety in tonga touching this life. The egality of a Jew and it's slave in their right to the passover, did in no wise destroy their relation to each other as master and slave

The gentleman has repeatedly asserted the sinfulness of slaveholding in itself, on the ground that the master takes the labor of the slave without wages. Now. on this subject, what says God's law? That law, as I have proved, expressly required that the wages of the hired servant (sckir) should be promptly paid; but it says not a word about the wages of the bondservant (ered) bought from the heathen. How shall we account for this fact? The reason is obvious,

if the doctrine for which I contend is true; but the thing is wholly unaccountable, if Mr. B.'s principles are correct. The law did not require wages to be paid to the bond-servant, because the master had already paid for his labor what, under the circumstances, it was worth, and because the master was bound to provide his slave food and raiment, and shelter, in sickness and health, until death. This support was the servant's wages-quite as much, by the way, as most men obtain for their labor.

Mr. B. proves, that the primitive Christians were not slaveholders, from the fact that they were generally poor people, in the lower walks of life. Admit the truth of the statement; does it follow that the apostles excluded slave-holders, as such, from their churches? Surely the premises are at a great distance from the conclusion.

But he tells us, that the first converts at Jerusalem sold their houses and lands, and had all things in common; and he asks, what became of their slaves? I answer-1. He has himself informed us, that the Jews, after the Babylonish captivity, had no slaves. If his statement is true, the question is answered. 2. But Paul and Peter teach us, as plainly as language can teach, that there were in many of the churches, as at Ephesus and Colosse, both masters and slaves; and they give such directions to both, as cannot apply to employers and hired-servants. They exhort the slaves to obey their own masters" with fear and trembling," not only the "good and gentle," but also the froward. 3. If there had been slave-holders amongst those converts, they certainly would not have sold their slaves for money for the church. Any Christian would have cheerfully given up his other possessions for the general interest, but not the servants of his family, whose happiness he is solemnly bound to regard, and whom God requires him to instruct in the things pertaining to their salvation. Doubtless every Christian master would, if he consistently could, liberate his slaves; but certain it is, that the servants of the family are amongst the last of a pious master's possessions with which,

when in difficult circumstances, he would part. The silence of the inspired record concerning slaves, therefore, affords no evidence that slave-holders were not received into the churches organized by the apostles.

The gentleman asserts, that the word doulos does not mean slave. This is merely assertion; but we call for evidence. I called upon him to tell us what word in the Greek language does mean slave, if this word does not. He has not given us the information. A similar question was asked concerning the Hebrew eved; but the gentleman could find no other word signifying slave. Indeed he told us, virtually, that there is no word either in the Hebrew of Greek language, which does definitely signify slave! a statement contradicted by every Greek Lexicon, by classic usage, by Bible usage, and by all Greek and Hebrew scholars. Stuart, McNight, Barnes, and a host of others, commentators, critics and theologians, say unhesitatingly, that the literal and proper meaning of doulos, is slave.

But Mr. B. presents a supposed case which he regards as entirely conclusive. "Suppose," says he, "a church member had come to one of those churches and claimed as his servant a man who had run from him, and had become pious and had married in the place. Which relation would the church regard, the conjugal or the property relation?" How this supposed case proves, that there were no slave-holders in the apostolic churches, I know not. It is not difficult, however, to answer the question. The church, so far as it had authority, would, of course, sacredly regard the marriage relation, and so would every pious master. It would not be difficult, however, if the master were not pious, to satisfy him, if he were a reasonable man, by paying him what his slave was worth. Precisely in this way did primitive Christians liberate the slaves of men, when they liberated them at all. Instead of combining to run them off from their masters, as do many modern abolitionists, they united to purchase them. Our abolition