putting on colors of some kind, adapted to the completion of the picture. But what argument has the gentleman offered in proof of his proposition? He has told of Aristotle's definition of slavery, of the supposed weeping woman upon whom a gross outrage has been committed, of the slave-gangs, &c. &c.; but what argument has he offered? I have some hope, that my work will endure for a time; but nevertheless I choose to direct my arguments to the subject before us.

I have presented two distinct arguments, to neither of which he has attempted a reply, viz: 1. The great principles of morality do, when propounded, commend themselves to the understanding and the conscience of all men, unless we except the most degraded. The truth of this declaration will scarcely be called in question. But it is a fact that the principle for which Mr. B. is contending-that slave-holding is in itself a heinous and scandalous sin-has not thus commended itself to the great body even of the wise and good. Therefore it is not true. If it be, how shall we account for this singular fact? 2. It is a fact that the history of the world affords not an example of a man or body of men heretical on one fundamental doctrine of Christian faith or of Christian morality, but sound on all others. On the contrary, one fundamental error necessarily leads to others. But it is admitted, that the ministers of the gospel and the laymen of churches in the slave-holding States, are as sound on all points of doctrine, as pure on all points of morality, as benevolent in all respects, as the abolitionists themselves, with the single exception of the question of slavery! They can see all the other great principles of morality; but the greatest of all violations of the moral law, i. e. that of slave-holding, they cannot perceive to be necessarily sinful at all! Believe it who can.

3. My third argument is this: It is admitted even by many abolitionists that there are in the slave-holding States true Christians and Christian churches-churches accepted of God, and often blessed with powerful revivals of religion. If we are to judge of their piety by Scriptural marks,

they are not deficient in evidence; and their fruits surely prove them genuine. Professor Stowe, of Lane Seminary, though he is an abolitionist, and though he bitterly denounced the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church for its action upon the subject of slavery, says "I know individuals who are slave-holders, and particular churches which include slave-holders, whom, according to all the evidence I can gather, Christ does accept-and those individuals, and those particular churches, on my principles, I cannot reject, and will not." Watchman of the Valley, Aug. 14. In these churches masters and slaves worship God together; and their prayers are heard, and a rich blessing granted. Mr. Duncan and "the Cincinnati Abolition Society" assert, that the slave-holder is guilty of the violation, in an aggravated degree, of every commandment in the decalogue; but Professor Stowe acknowledges many of them as true Christians! Now it is certain, that if they are as wicked as Duncan accuses them of being, their prayers are an abomination to God. So that either those professing Christians and those churches are wretched hypocrites, and their revivals perfectly spurious; or abolitionism is false. I leave the audience to determine which is true. [Time expired.

Wednesday Evening, 7 o'clock, P. M.

[MR. BLANCHARD'S THIRD SPEECH.]

Gentlemen Moderators and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow Citizens:

There are some things which have fallen from my brother in his last remarks which demand a brief and respectful notice. You will recollect what I advanced showing that slaves are incapable of marriage by statute and by practice: that their children are illegitimate in law and in fact: incapable of taking by will, or by descent; and that they are held and regarded as illegitimate persons. I might have added that the great majority have not even the form of marriage, and

when there is the form, (for there are southern clergymen who are willing to mitigate the horrors of slavery) some ministers add a clause in the marriage service which shows that they are not married. Rev. Mr. Smith, of Sumpter county, Ala., informed me that when he married slaves, instead of pronouncing the clause "until death you do part," that he added, " until death or some other cause beyond your control." I might also have added that one Baptist association formally decided that a slave may lawfully have several wives: That if a slave is sold off a plantation ten, twenty, or thirty miles or more, and takes another woman, it shall not ininjure his standing in the Baptist church. Now what did my friend say in reply? I confess I was pained to hear such remarks fall from such a gentleman. I was sorry, not particularly in reference to this debate, but for the sake of the public morals. He asked me to point to the place in the Bible where the recognition of the civil law was made necessary to the validity of marriage. Can it be that he means to teach that a man and a woman may meet in a private place and marry each other by the law of God; and they who do thus are married?

Gentlemen, if I am asked, to point to the text requiring the recognition of the civil law to marriage; I point to the whole Bible practice of marriage, from Samson downward. The Jews of all nations, were the most ceremonious observers of the outward forms of marriage. Samson had a marriage feast of seven days, at the house of the bride, and a solemn procession at the close, like that alluded to by Christ in the parable of the virgins. Such were some of the formal outward recognitions of eastern marriages. I never heard before; I hope I shall never again hear from Presbyterian lips; that the recognition of the civil law was not necessary to constitute marriage. Joseph meets Betsey, some where, at some time or other and marries her-and that is all, according to the principle of my brother's reply, which was requisite to make them one!

One or two other remarks of his require notice.

He tells us in his printed discourse, which, being issued since it was agreed upon, is a part of this debate; and he tells us, also, orally, iterum iterum que; that the churchcourts will regulate and correct all the ills of slavery. If any thing is done amiss just go to a southern church-session —that immaculate umpire-and all will be healed, mended and remedied. Take slavery before a Presbyterian session and that will plaster it up, bleach it all white, and sweep away all its abuses by the magic of its wand.

Well the only thing I have to say in reply, is to give the testimony of Rev. James Smylie (who belongs, I believe, to the same ecclesiastical organization with brother Rice) who states over his own signature, not as a doctrine, but as a fact; that three-fourths of all the Presbyterians, in eleven States "hold slaves for gain." And these are the churchcourts to which he sends us to reform the abuses of slavery! He sends us to elders who 66 hold slaves for gain" to redress the evils of slave-holding As an example of what might be expected of such courts, I will relate a fact which was a common story in the newspapers of the day several years ago, which was as follows: Richard, a sexton of a Presbyterian church (in Danville, I think) who was a colored man and member of the church, was sold by his brother in the same communion, away from his wife and four small children, into Jessamine county. There was no church action heard of on that account. Another case is that of the REV. DR. STILES, then of Kentucky, now of Virginia, who was stated in the papers of the day, to have sold eight slaves, just before he left Kentucky, to attend the last triennial Assembly in Philadelphia. So far from disgracing him, that Assembly (with which I am connected, perhaps, until after its next meeting) appointed him one of three to administer the sacrament of the Lord's supper. Such are the men who compose the church-courts, to which my friend would send us to reform the abuses of slavery. Further, in 1818, the General Assembly adopted a rule, in reference to the subject, declaring it to be the duty of Christians to instruct their slaves, pre

pare them for emancipation, and labor for the destruction of slavery, throughout Christendom. (See Minutes of 1818.)

The Rev. J. D. Paxton, of Virginia, well known by his "letters from Palestine," which were published in this city, undertook to practice upon this injunction. He instructed his slaves, and finally set them free. This was before the date of abolitionism proper, which began in 1832, in a printing office in Boston, where a society was formed, consisting of twelve men. While that good man was thus conscientiously obeying the law of the church, he was slandered as a dangerous fanatic, and eventually driven from his church into a free State, for no offence whatever but what he had given in emancipating his slaves.

This was the only case I have heard of, where any attempt was made to obey the injunction of the Assembly of 1818. I must say, therefore, that it is not entirely fair for a gentleman as well informed on this subject as my friend, to say to this audience that the southern church-courts will forthwith, on application, redress all the abuses of slavery, when he must know that the church has never disciplined the first man for such offences.

Exception was taken to my affirmation, that slavery has not improved that it was always the same in all ages, and countries of the world-in Rome, in Greece, in Gaul, in Britain, and in America:—and that the property-holding of men is a principle which is not susceptible of amelioration. My friend insists, on the contrary, that slavery has improved, and that what I advanced on that head is without proof. In reply, I have only to state, that in the speech of Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, in the House of Representatives, on the Florida war, there is an abundance of documentary proof, that the runaway negroes who had taken refuge in Florida, actually fought for the privilege of remaining slaves to Indian savages, rather than go back and be slaves to the whites. This is a perfect illustration of the point which I made, viz: that as civilization advances, the burdens of civil society increase, and the task of the slave grows heavier in proportion.