of accident, that it could be present or absent without the destruction of the subject; since there are a great many accidents that destroy the subject, as burning does a house, and death a man." Even so does our Doctor "form a conceit" upon the word "broken:' "let the oppressed-the broken-go free; that is, those whose teeth are broken out!"-Risum teneatis, amici?-And this is the critic who talks of abolitionists "twisting and wrenching the Scripture!" (p. 63.)

The verb ratzatz, from which comes retzutzim, "the oppressed," is evidently used "in a metaphorical sense; to break, crush, oppress greatly." (Parkhurst.) Compare the passages cited in his Lexicon: Deut. xxviii. 33, The fruit of thy land, and all thy labors, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up: and thou shalt be oppressed and crushed [ashuk weratzutz] always. Judg. x. 8, And that year, they vexed and oppressed [warotzetzu] the children of Israel. 1 Sam. xii. 3, 4, Behold, here I am: witness against me before the Lord, and before his anointed; whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed [ratztzothi?]—To these add the following: 2 Chron. xvi. 10, and Asa oppressed [waratztzetz] some of the people the same time. Job xx. 19, Because he hath oppressed [ritztzatz] and forsaken the poor. Am. iv. 1, Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush [harotztzoth] the needy; which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink. The Septuagint renders ratzatz by tethrausmenous; from thrauo; which signifies, to break in pieces, to bruise, to crush to pieces, to grind, [Donnegan:] but never, that we find, to knock the teeth out! Will Doctor J., in the second edition of his speech, favor us with a reference to the other passages in which retzutzim means slaves that have lost their teeth or eyes?

[3.] Our author interprets the clauses, "to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens," as a restoration of "the law which forbade the Hebrew to make his brother serve with rigor." Did he not observe that his favorite term, yoke, is contained in one of these clauses; that "to undo the heavy burdens" is, hatter aguddoth motah, to untie the knots of the yoke, that is, "the cords inserted into the wooden parts of it;" [Park

hurst;] and that this expression conveys the same general idea as the last clause, "break every yoke?" Why, then, does he expound it so differently?

(4.) We are told that "every yoke" is a general term, which must not be pressed too strongly; but interpreted according to the critical canon relative to all general expressions; such as, "Servants, obey your masters in all things;" "Render them all honor," &c. But are such terms never to be taken strictly? When David says, "I hate every false way," (Ps. cxix. 104,) does he mean that there are some false ways which he did not hate? When he tells us that mankind "are all gone aside," (Ps. xiv. 3,). does he not mean that "there is none that doeth good, no, not one?" Is there not a multitude of similar cases? By what authority, then, does Doctor J. decide that "every," in Isa. lviii. 6, belongs to the former, rather than the latter class of general terms?—that "break every yoke," signifies, break a few yokes, only, namely, those on the Hebrew six years' servants who have been kept beyond the legal time; but let the yoke remain on others till they have served the full period; and on the ear-bored Hebrews, and the heathen, forever? In fact, he has, with amusing inconsistency, decided the contrary; and assured us that "every," is to be construed strictly. He applies the command, "break every yoke," to the Hebrews whose term of service had been illegally protracted: and was not every one of these to be emancipated? This command, therefore, according to his own exposition, implies, that servants held according to law were not under the yoke,—that is, were not slaves. We are authorized to assert, then, that Isaiah lviii. 6, is an act of immediate emancipation, passed by the Court of Heaven, in favor of all the slaves in Israel.*

*We beg leave to introduce, here, a brief piece of Ecclesiastical history, and correspondence, which may confirm our exposition of the passage in question. In the year 1833, our General Assembly addressed a letter to the United Secession Church of. Scotland, part of which is as follows: "Allow us just to solicit your particular attention to a minute of the proceedings of our present Sessions, in which we recommend to our own churches, and take leave to invite those of other communions, to set apart the first Monday in January next, as a season of special prayer, with fastings, for the conversion of the world to God."-(Min. Gen. Assemb. 1834, pp. 57-59.) The United Secession Church wrote a reply, dated Glasgow, March 1, 1834; in which they

Having now passed in review all Doctor J.'s propositions which have respect to the Old Testament, we proceed to his arguments from the New Testament. His general positions

are stated in these words:

66

"I. There is not a sentence in the New Testament, which expressly forbids the having, and holding of a slave."

"II. There is not a sentence in the New Testament, which, speak thus: "Dear Brethren, * * * * Since we know that God heareth not sinners, it is the more incumbent upon those who have received the truth, in the love of it, to pray for sinners, and to make prayers and intercessions for all men, that they may be saved,-not only for men of every rank, but of every kindred and nation: and since we know that if there is any thing in our hearts inconsistent with equity, or with the object for which we pray, God will not hear us, let us see to it that our hearts condemn us not in our prayers, so as to destroy, or even impair our confidence: let our fasting be such as the Lord hath chosen, accompanied with the undoing of every burden not imposed by the revealed will of God, and the breaking of every yoke not compatible with the nature and design of the gospel dispensation. These suggestions we have been induced to present, **** simply as an indication of our views on a most important subject, which we consider as intimately connected with exertions for the spread of the gospel. * * * * We have deeply lamented the organization, among professed christians, of a system of slavery worse than that which existed among the heathen, and have long deplored the accumulation of guilt it has brought on our native country. Having, as a Court, petitioned Parliament against it, and recommended the same measure to all our congregations,” (Surely they are not aware of the evils to be feared from connecting religious and political action! Will not Doctor J. send their leading men a few copies of his speech; or, at least, of his four arguments against the introduction of the slavery question into Ecclesiastical bodies?) ***** "we cannot but earnestly entreat our dear brethren in Christ to co-operate with us, and with all who are associated to obtain the abolition of the system wherever it exists." This reply embodied, unintentionally, the keenest satire upon our supreme Ecclesiastical Court, as well as upon our whole church. To appreciate it, we must remember that sixteen years previous, the Assembly of 1818 had said to the world, "We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves; and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ," &c. No wonder that when the Assembly of 1834 received this letter, it hung its head for shame. Thank God! we had virtue enough to blush. The answer was in these words of humble confession: "We receive in kindness your observations on the subject of slavery. They are the reproofs of friends, and are like precious oil. We hope they may make us more sensible of the evils of the system, and rouse us to new and increased exertions to remove the iniquity from among us. WE ARE VERILY GUILTY IN

by a fair and just interpretation according to the rules of grammar, gives ground for the logical inference, that the simple holding of a slave, or slaves, is inconsistent with christian profession, and christian character.”—(p. 45.)

The first of these assertions is in the mouth of all pro-slavery men. They deem it an irresistible argument. "If," say they in the language of this pamphlet, (p. 44,)-"If our opposing brethren had written the New Testament, or any one book of it, would you not expect to find a strong, plain, and unequivocal testimony against slavery, in it?" And yet we find no such testimony; no single sentence that, in so many words, declares, It is sinful to hold human beings as property.

May we not fairly turn this argument against our opponents? If Dr. J. had written the New Testament, or any one book of it, would you not expect to find a strong, plain, and unequivocal assertion of the right of property in man; and a declaration that holding unpaid, involuntary servants, for life, and bequeathing them to one's children, is entirely consistent with christian character?-But there is another very short and simple answer to the question asked us. The opponents of slavery will produce just such a passage as is desired, when the advocates of slavery shall have found a similar express declaration of scripture against horse-racing, gambling, dancing, theatre-going, houseburning, the exhibition of the Grecian and Roman games, gladiatorial combats, piracy, &c. &c.-Tertullian thought it necessary to write a tract, De Spectaculis, and eloquently to

THIS MATTER. * * * * * Moral means are those on which we are constrained chiefly to rely. These we are bringing into operation; and it is believed that the friends of man and the friends of God are beginning to feel on this great point, more sensibly than they have hitherto felt, and to act more efficiently than they have hitherto acted, in removing this trespass from among us. IT

HINDERS OUR PRAYERS, AND TILL THIS STUMBLING BLOCK OF OUR INIQUITY BE TAKEN AWAY, WE CANNOT EXPECT THE GOSPEL OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR TO EXHIBIT ALL ITS POWER IN THE CONVERSION AND SANCTIFICATION OF MEN." Memorable acknowledgment—But what an awful commentary upon this public and solemn declaration, is the subsequent action of the Assembly, in regard to slavery! During the nine years which have passed since 1834, that body has uniformly laid upon the table, anti-slavery petitions from members, Presbyteries, and Synods; and indefinitely postposed the whole subject as often as it has been forced upon them!

inveigh against attending the public shows. Why did not Paul as expressly condemn these spectacles? They were exhibited in every principal city of the Roman Empire. The temples and the amphitheatres were perhaps the first buildings which met his eye, as he entered Cæsarea, or Antioch, or Corinth, or Rome. Herod the Great built a theatre in Jerusalem, and a vast amphitheatre in the plain; where he celebrated games every fifth year, in honor of Cæsar, to the great scandal of pious Jews; as Josephus informs us, (Antiq. B. xv. c. 8, § 1.) Why did not Christ or his apostles denounce this innovation, which they must have beheld with grief and indignation? Witherspoon wrote a treatise against the stage. Why did not Peter pen a single paragraph? Such questions may be multiplied indefinitely.-Shall we be told that gladiatorial combats are forbidden by the command, "Thou shalt not kill?" Slaveholding is equally forbidden by the law, "Thou shalt not steal." Does the injunction to "redeem the time," condemn attendance upon theatrical exhibitions? As certainly does the golden rule, "Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you," forbid one man to hold another, against his will, as property, subject to be bought and sold like a beast of burden. The fact is, the Bible was not given to be an Index Rerum Prohibitarum, a complete catalogue of all the crimes that ever had been or would be committed. If its Divine Author has given us comprehensive general principles, of easy, natural, and universal application, accompanied with such specifications as show that application; and if these principles condemn every thing that is contrary to the law of love; we presume too much on our own wisdom when we imagine that it would have been far better to have mentioned this, that, or the other sin, in express terms.-Neither Christ nor his apostles asserted, in so many words, the right of mankind to liberty of conscience, and of speech: but, in spite of earth and hell, they exercised those rights. They did cry out against the despotic governments of the day: but they established a republican form of government in the church. Living in an empire where there were at least as many, if not twice as many slaves, as free inhabitants; (See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Romam Empire, c. 2;) that