We pass this proposition also without remark. All the passages cited to sustain it, will be fully examined in their proper place. We cannot, however, forbear to notice the gross slanders which the author has been pleased, in this connection, to heap upon abolitionists. "Modern anti-slavery doctors," says he, "teach that slaves may and ought to disobey their masters— to run off, to steal their master's, or any other person's horse, saddle, bridle, food, clothing, any thing that may be necessary to facilitate their escape. Such morality may be found in the abolition journals of the day. * * * * Now we put it to our brethren, whether this course of conduct, in christian slaves, is not much more likely to win their masters **** to embrace the doctrine from which it springs, than the stealing, and running off, which they recommend."-(pp. 55, 56.) "The morality of modern abolitionism**** recommends the slave to disobey, to steal, to run off," &c. [p. 60.] These charges are made in general terms; against abolitionists as a body. And although met and refuted, on the floor of Synod, and their utter falsity, as far as the great body of abolitionists are concerned, plainly demonstrated, Doctor J. has not scrupled to repeat them, mere assertions as they are, in his printed speech. True, a few individuals, a local society or two, may have advocated such doctrines; but they have, in multiplied forms, been disavowed, opposed, denounced, by the mass of abolitionists throughout the country. We cannot conceive how any honorable motive could prompt the author to reiterate these miserable accusations.

The pamphlet closes with a reply to an argument, offered on the floor of Synod, by an esteemed brother. "One excellent brother," says the author, "seeing no room for denial, proceeded to argue this against me, admitting the position I have elaborated, as true.”—(p. 73.) Now the fact is, brother Steele, who is the individual referred to, preceded Doctor J. in the order of debate; and therefore could not have admitted a position which had not been elaborated. How sadly, (though, we doubt not, unintentionally,) that brother's real sentiments are misrepresented by Doctor J., may be seen by examining a series of able articles in the Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine, [vol. 3, and vol. 4;] correctly attributed to his pen. The argument offered

by brother S., is thus mistated by Doctor J. "All things which involve many great and crying moral evils, ought immediately to be abandoned and abolished. But slavery, as it exists and is practised in the United States, involves many great and crying evils. Therefore, &c." [p. 75.] Doctor J. replies, that the marriage and parental relation, and even civil government, involve many great moral evils; and should therefore, by parity of reasoning, be abolished: and he adds, "Before you can infer that slavery ought to be immediately abolished, you must prove that it necessarily involves many great and crying moral evils." (p. 77.) Now this was, in fact, the very argument of Mr. S.; (we say this on his own authority;) and a most conclusive argument it is. "Slavery," said he, "necessarily involves great moral evils." So said the General Assembly of 1818, whose language he quoted. After depicting those evils, they add, "Such are some of the consequences of slavery; consequences not imaginary—but which connect themselves with its very existence." (Digest. 342.) So says the truth itself. Grant, what Doctor J. has endeavored to maintain, that A may justly hold B as property, as he holds his land, cattle, &c.; and it necessarily follows that A may justly sell B to be separated from his wife; and B's children, to be severed from their parents. B and his family may be rightfully divided among the heirs of A; or sold by executors to pay his debts. Thus the claim to property in human flesh conflicts with the marriage and parental rights; and tramples them under foot. Rightly, therefore, did our brother argue that a system founded on the claim of property in man, should be immediately abolished.

With a heavy draught upon the patience of our readers, we have passed in review the various propositions and arguments of Doctor J. We beg their continued attention, while we endeavor to establish, on our part, the following propositions: 1. THAT THE SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS WERE NOT

SLAVES.

2. THAT THE SERVITUDE PERMITTED BY THE MOSAIC SYSTEM,

WAS NOT SLAVERY.

3. THAT THE APOSTLES DID NOT TOLERATE SLAVEHOLDING IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

4. THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS, AND POSITIVELY FORBIDS SLAVE

HOLDING.

We wish our readers to remember, in the outset, the true meaning of the word slave. Due attention to it is a matter of vital consequence in this whole discussion. Every kind of servitude is not, under all circumstances, slavery. Subjection, entire subjection, even perpetual subjection, not only in act, but even when every thought is brought into obedience, will not always constitute slavery, if that subjection be voluntary. Dr.. J. seems surprised with such a statement. "We are told," says he, "that voluntary servitude is not slavery. To my utter, but agreeable surprise, this was distinctly and strongly avowed on the floor of Synod, by the principal debater on the abolition side of the house. *** Let us look at so large a concession from our opponents. It is more than I expected. For, [1.] it maintains, that the moment the man consents to become an ebed forever, he is not an ebed at all. Let slavery become voluntary, and it is no longer slavery. * * * Then, [2.] Charles Clay is not a slave. His master said to him, when in Canada, "Charles, you are now a freeman, I have no power to take you to the United States and keep you as a slave.' But Charles chose to come back. He felt that American slavery is better than British freedom. *** Then, [3.] all that is necessary, according to the brethren's own showing, to restore the slaves of the South to freedom, is to treat them so kindly, that they will voluntarily abide with their masters."-[p. 33, 34.]

Let us examine this flimsy sophistry. The Jewish servant, in the case referred to, (pp. 32, 33,) must "plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free. Then his master shall bring him to the judges: he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post: and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." (Ex. xxi. 5, 6.) Now upon what rests the master's claim to him after this transaction? Clearly, upon the servant's free choice; a choice which the law requires to be expressed publicly, before the judges. Suppose such a master were called to establish his right to the service of such an ebed, before a Jewish court: how would he prove it? By

showing that he had once' paid money for him, as indeed he had? (Ex. xxi. 2.) No: but by reference to the record of his choice to serve him until the year of jubilee; and his avowal of that choice when his ear was bored in the presence of the Magistrates. The servant's deliberate act of will was the only legal foundation of the Jewish master's claim to his service. The moment he consented to become an ebed forever, he was an ebed, but not a slave. Far otherwise is it with "Charles Clay," and the other southern bondmen who may choose slavery rather than freedom. Were their masters required to establish their right to A, B, and C, they would appeal, not to their choice of slavery; but to the money paid for them, and the laws of the land allowing them to hold purchased slaves, willing or unwilling, as property. Cannot the Doctor's usually acute mind perceive the difference between the cases? We say that servitude is not slavery, in which the choice of the servant is the sole foundation of the master's claim to control: and on the other hand, that condition is slavery, in which the master's legal right to hold and dispose of his servant, rests in no degree, upon the servant's will. The former is the definition of Jewish servitude: the latter, of American slavery. Let the slaves of our country be held as servants, only when they have given their consent, and on the ground of that consent, and we freely grant that they would be slaves no longer. Bearing this distinction in mind, and especially the true meaning of the term slave, let us proceed with our argument.

PROPOSITION I. THE SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS WERE NOT

SLAVES,

66 The

Preliminary. The Hebrew words ebed, a man-servant, and amah, or shiphhah, a maid-servant, employed in reference to the patriarchal and Jewish servants, do not necessarily, nor even generally, denote slaves. This, Doctor J. seems to admit. word ebed *** in itself properly signifies a worker, a laborer, a person who does work of any kind at all, for another. It is very similar to our word servant." [p. 25.] And yet, throughout his argument, wherever he meets with this word, he speaks of it as meaning a slave, and nothing else. (See his remarks

on the fourth and tenth commandments, &c.) Indeed, if ebed does not mean slave, but servant, his whole argument from the Old Testament is worthless. A few remarks, therefore, upon these words, are necessary. The term ebed is used with great latitude of application in the Hebrew Scriptures: its signification is, a person who serves another, without respect to the length of time, for which, or the principle on which, he renders service. It is employed to denote,

1. Frequently, a servant of God; one who does the will of God from the heart. Ex. xiv. 31, believed the Lord, and his servant (abdo) Moses. Lev. xxv. 42, they (the Israelites) are my servants (ki-abda). 2 Kings, ix. 7, my servants, (abda,) the prophets, ** and ** all the servants (abde) of the Lord. Job i. 8, my servant [abdi] Job. Ps. lxxxvi. 2, Preserve thy servant, [abdeka,] O Lord.—lxxxix. 3, [Hebr. 4,] I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David, my servant, [abdi.] This passage is applicable to Christ; [see Hebr. i. 5.] To argue that ebed, in such connections, means a slave, because believers are bound to render perpetual service to God, is to trifle. A note of admiration, an elevation of the eye-brows, is a sufficient reply.-A sailor who visited a display of fire-works, was thrown, by some accidental explosion, to a considerable distance, and lodged in a cabbage garden. Supposing this to be a part of the exhibition, he jumped up, rubbed his eyes, and eagerly exclaimed, "I wonder what he will show next?"When D. D.'s undertake to prove, in defence of slavery, that David was God's slave, because he said, "I am thy servant, thy servant, the son of thy hand-maid," we rub our astonished eyes, and involuntarily ask ourselves, What will they attempt next?

2. Spoken of one's self, by way of respect toward superiors. Gen. xviii. 3, And Abraham said [to one of his three guests,] my lord, * * * pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant [abdeka.] xix. 2, xxxii. 18, [Heb. 19.] They be thy servant Jacob's-xlii. 10, to buy food are thy servants come-xliv. 24, thy servant, my father, &c.

3. To denote the subjects of a king, prince, &c. Ex. ix. 20, he that feared the Lord among the servants (abede) of Pharaoh. Gen. xlvii. 19, 25, Buy us ** and we ** will be servants