Rev. Cod. Virg. vol. i. p. 453, sections 83, 84. Footnote B: Ibid. vol. i. p. 422, section 6. See Paulding on Slavery, p. 146. Footnote C: 2 Litt. and Smi. 1150; 2 Missouri Laws, 741, section 4. Footnote D: Haywood’s Manual, 521; Stroud on the Laws relating to Slavery, p. 102. ----- Does the mind hesitate as to the design of this laboured and lengthy argument? That its object is to do away, to destroy the scriptural force of the facts stated in these records? Does not this argument substantially deny that Abraham had slaves bought with money? And even if he did have them, then that it was just as wicked at that time as he thinks it to be now? Or, if he shall thus far fail, then to bring down the characters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a level with Nero, Caligula, Richard III., and Cæsar Borgia? And the holy books themselves to the standard of Herodotus, Tacitus, and Livy; and inure our mind to compare them with the writings of Hume and Gibbon? The writer who lessens our veneration for the characters of the ancient worshippers of Jehovah; who, as by a system of special pleading, attempts to overspread the simple announcements of the holy books with doubt and uncertainty, however conscientious he may be in these labours of his hand, while he assumes a most awful responsibility to God, must ever call down upon himself the universal and determined opposition of the intelligent and good among men. The more secret, the more adroit the application of the poison, the more intensely wicked is the hand that presents it. ------------------ LESSON VI. Mr. Barnes has devoted twenty-four pages of his book to the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt, wherein we find no instance that his _test_ is applied with either fairness of deduction or logical accuracy. Indeed, so far as our limited capacity can trace his application to the _test_, he has made but two points: I. After repeated judgments upon the Egyptians, for hesitating to set the Hebrews free, God, in his providence, effected their deliverance from slavery. Therefore, we are to infer the indignation of God against the institution of slavery. What were the facts of the case? On account of their sins rendering them unfit for the blessings promised their fathers, God imposed on them slavery four hundred years,—at the expiration of which time he delivered them from it. When a free negro becomes a public nuisance, the court will give judgment that he shall be sold to be a slave five years. The term having expired, if the purchaser holds on, and refuses to let him go, the same court will interfere, set him free, and impose heavy penalties on the master. Does the case show that the court feels indignation against the institution of slavery? We think it proves exactly the opposite!