this point, I referred to the rendations of geneology, the remnants of ancient literature, to authentic history, to late events, to the signs visible in the present state of things of what is coming in the eternal future.

I referred to the remnants of ancient literature, as rendations of the intellectual, the manual, the social, the political and religious state of the people among whom they originated, and of the ages which gave them birth. Under this head I referred to the Jewish and Christian scriptures, or the collection of books called the Bible. Some of those books were regarded as among the most ancient remains of early literature; others of them as less ancient; and from comparing the sentiments and opinions of their authors with the sentiments and opinions of the more enlightened of modern writers; and by contrasting the pictures of domestic, social, religious, political and moral life given in those ancient Jewish books, with the higher forms of domestic, social, religious, political and moral life presented to the world as it now is, we might, I contended, satisfy ourselves that mankind had ever been advancing, both in knowledge and virtue—had ever been approaching nearer and still nearer to intellectual, moral, religious, and to domestic, social and political perfection. In doing this, I said not a word against the bible. Sure, I treated the bible as I treated other remnants of ancient literature, going on the supposition that it was a collection of human productions, revealing simply the thoughts and feelings of the men who produced them. I could do not other. For though I regard the bible with indescribable interest, and consider it, in some respects, of incalculable worth. I have not the least belief in the prevailing notions of its supernatural origin, or its divine authority. As, therefore, a believer in the supernatural origin and divine authority of the bible will naturally, in his references to the book, let out his belief, and make use of its contents in a way agreeing with his views. So I, in my references to the bible, could do not other than allow my belief with respect to the bible to appear, and make use of its contents in a way agreeing with my belief. But what was there blameable or objectionable in all this? Would A. R. Dempster forbid all those who differ from him with respect to the origin and authority of the bible to speak at an anti-slavery meeting? I suppose not. How, then, would he have them to speak? Would he have them to conceal their views, and speak as if they held opinions which they do not hold? Or would he have them speak as they think, and argue on the subject in the way which to them seems best? I suppose the latter.—Then why find fault with me? This was all I did. He says he will give you a report of my speech, as a specimen of what is made to pass for anti-slavery at Leesville, thus trying to make the impression that my speech was not anti-slavery. I ask, supposing the account I have given of the object and subject of my speech to be correct, what could the speech be else than anti-slavery? Sure, the drift of my argument was not what the dift of A. R. Dempster's argument would have been. Is nothing anti-slavery but what is in keeping with Mr. Dempster's theological views? Suppose a Mahometan had spoken at the meeting, and, among other things, had undertaken to show that slavery was inconsistent with the doctrines of the Koran, going all the while on the supposition that the Koran was the word of God; would A. R. Dempster have thought himself called