sin.

Immediate repentance and the proclamation of their freedom are duties to be done without the least delay. Stolen goods, the fruit of robbery, they say, are not to be retained a single hour, after the man who has obtained them has come to a proper sense of his duty.

Is all this really so? Is this alleged malum in se, a case so entirely clear as it is said to be, in all its extent and in all its ramifications? Will the Scriptures bear us out in this position? For after all, this must be the ultimate test to which all sincere Christians are bound to appeal. A thorough Protestant, at least, professes to believe, that "the Scriptures are the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice."

We begin our investigation with the Old Testament. Our first object is to develop the matter as it there stands; our next will be to subjoin some remarks on this development.

Of the great antiquity of slavery no one can doubt. The curse of Noah that lighted on the progeny of the unfilial Ham, was, that Canaan his son should be a servant of servants unto his brethren, Gen. 9:25. This language, uttered soon after the flood, shows plainly that slavery had an existence before the flood; for otherwise, it would not have been intelligible. No wonder it was so, " for the earth was filled with violence" (Gen. 6: 11); and slavery, for the most part, originates in violence, and has its deepest foundation in the simple but utterly unjust principle, that might is right.

Under many modifications, however, did slavery exist among the patriarchs of the Jewish nation. Abraham, "the father of the faithful," (when his nephew Lot was taken captive, his goods rifled, and himself carried off by marauding banditti), could bring into the field 318 armed and disciplined servants, born in his own great household, and make pursuit after the robbers, and disperse them, Gen. 14: 12-16. If one fifth be taken as the proportion among his servants of such men, viz. those who were capable of bearing and using arms, Abraham's family of slaves must have consisted of at least 1590 persons; somewhat larger, I think, than any like family among our fellow citizens of the South. However, we must call to mind here, that Abraham's relation to these slaves was somewhat different from that of master to slave among us. The patriarch resembled, in his mode of life, the Nomades who still roam over the very country from which he sprung. The Sheikhs among them often have under

their control a whole tribe; and this tribe stand in such relation to their Sheikh, as the serfs under the old feudal law bore to their master. Bodily service in the way of labor when needed, and special military service in predatory and warlike expeditions, were always at the command of the master. So, moreover, did the administration of justice, and the power of life and death, pertain to him. But in the East, where servitude everywhere prevails, the slaves, for the most part, are generally treated with less rigor, and more as human beings should be treated, than they are in most countries called Christian. Especially do the family-servants find much favor in the eyes of their master. It is a frequent custom now, among the Persians for example, to bestow legacies on this class of slaves, and nearly always (if they have behaved well) to give them their freedom. See how exactly the case of Abraham illustrates this. He had no child until he was 100 years of age; and in making arrangements for the disposition of his property after his death, (before the promise of a son), he had made the steward of his house his heir who was a slave of Damascene origin, one born as a slave in his own house, Gen. 15: 2, 3. When, therefore, the example of the patriarch is referred to as justifying modern slavery, it should be remembered, that what the Arabian Sheikhs now are to their petty tribes, Abraham was to his 1590 servants.

One striking circumstance respecting slavery, quite revolting to our occidental and Christian views, deserves mention here. If the mistress of the house was childless, a favorite female slave was selected by her, and offered by her to her husband, to take the place of a wife. In case of offspring, the children of this slave were regarded as the children of the real wife. The case of Sarah and Hagar fully illustrates this, as told in Gen. 16: 1—3; and it was as Abraham's son, that the blessing came upon Ishmael, Gen. 17: 20. And when Abraham was about to die, he bestowed gifts on all his sons born of his concubines, and sent them away free from the domination of his heir, Gen. 25: 5, 6.

Of Isaac, the patriarch's regular heir, we read that he “had in possession a great store of servants," Gen. 26: 14. When Rechel, the favorite wife of Jacob, Isaac's son, found herself childless, she, like Sarah, gave to her husband her favorite female servant, in order that she might claim the rights of a mother, and this slave bore to Jacob two sons, Gen. 30: 1-8. Jacob's other wife Leah, although

she had already borne four sons, was so ambitious of outstripping her rival in progeny, that she too gave her handmaid to her husband; and she increased the motherly rights and joy of the mistress, by bearing two sons, Gen. 30: 9—13. Thus four of the twelve patriarchs were the sons of favorite bond-women, voluntarily substituted by lawful wives to take their own place. Nor do we ever find any

difference made between those four and the other sons, as to the treatment they received, or the rank which they held.

Such was, and still is, the manner of slavery in the East. If an appeal be made to the example of the patriarchs in order to defend slavery, we must carry the matter through all their domestic arrangements. We should soon come in this way to the conclusion, that wives among us, not blest with children, may readily supply the deficiency, as Sarah, and Rachel, and Leah did, and the children thus born would become lawful heirs of the husband; a matter that now and then would be of serious importance to slighted wives, for whom no adequate provision had been made. But modern Christian views have introduced a very different taste and manner of conduct among our wives. Few, even if it were allowable, would be so fond of the mere name of mother, as to give up their husbands to their servants. If we appeal to the patriarchs to justify slavery, then why not appeal to them in order to justify polygamy and concubinage? Undoubtedly they neither thought nor intended to do wrong in either of the cases that are before us. But this will not justify us in imitating them. The gospel has given us better light.

I shall enter into no argument here in defence of the patriarchs, as to the usages now in question. In one sense they do not concern us; for the blessed God, by his gospel, having scattered the darkness of early ages, has made us to walk in the clear light of the Sun of Righteousness, so that polygamy and concubinage are no more regarded, in Christian lands, as lawful or proper. Perhaps we may see, before we are through, that slavery is as little commanded or even permitted by the highest form of Christianity, as those practices. Still, it is proper to say in relation to the patriarchs, that every man's conduct is to be judged of in most cases, at least in some good measure, by the light he has, and by the age and circumstances in which he lived. When Sir John Malcolm was introduced as English ambassador to the Shah of Persia, the first question after the formal salutations were over was How many wives has the

Shah of England got? Sir John replied: May it please your Majesty, ONE. One, said the astonished monarch, One? Why not more? Because, replied the ambassador, our customs and laws permit but one. Then, rejoined the Shah with great emphasis, nothing would tempt me to be the Shah of England. Had George the Fourth then been on the throne of England, Sir John might have replied, that the Shah of England would very much like to be in his Persian Majesty's place; for the latter had then 1800 wives and 100 sons. Instead of this being regarded by him, however, as a disgrace and a stain upon his character, he gloried in his preëminence above all who had been seated on the throne of Persia, in respect to the multitude of his wives and children.

This now is a specimen of oriental feeling. Much of the like feeling is evident even in the patriarchal history that has just been brought to view. Christianity alone makes marriage a sacred, an exclusive, an inviolable compact. Christianity alone has brought us back to the primitive state of man, in regard to this matter. Adam had but one Eve. But Abraham and the other patriarchs lacked our light. If they had possessed it, there cannot be a doubt that they would have followed its guidance, and rejoiced in it. Noble traits of character they had; but it needs the blessed gospel of God to make men "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work." What Christ has commanded is our rule; and not what the patriarchs did, who lived when the light was just beginning to dawn.

We proceed at once to the Mosaic Constitution and Laws. The foundation of all the ordinances respecting slavery, is disclosed in Ex. xxi. But it should be noted here, that the regulations there exhibited have respect only to Hebrew servants, and not to those of foreign origin. It will be seen by an inspection of this chapter, that Moses, at the outset, provided for many mitigations of the usual rigors of slavery. Hebrew men might be bought and sold; yet only for the term of six years. The seventh year set them free. If the man, who was sold into bondage, had a wife and children before the sale, they also were freed with him. If he married a wife given him by his master, then she and her children were to be regarded as belonging to the master; unless the year of jubilee intervened, when all were to be free, Lev. 25: 39-41. If a man purchased a concubine, and lost his fondness for her, then she might be redeemed by her friends for a moderate sum. If he betrothed her to his son,

then he must treat her after the manner of daughters. If the master took another in her room, her support and comfort and conjugal rights were not to be disregarded. If they were, then she was ipso facto free. If a man should smite his servant, male or female, so that he or she should die, his punishment was made imperative. If, however, the smitten servant survived, and continued for some time, the presumption was that the master did not mean to kill; and the loss of the slave was regarded as his fine. If a man smote out an eye or a tooth, i. e. if he in any way maimed his man-servant or maid-servant, then freedom was of course to follow. I subjoin the passages here, for convenience' sake, which show the ground of the preceding statements:

....

Ex. 21: 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. (3) If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. (4) If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (7) And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. (8) If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. (9) And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. (10) If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. (11) And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. (20) And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

....

(26) And if

a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. (27) And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

Of the treatment of slaves, something will be said in the sequel. It is proper to show, first, HOW MEN MIGHT BECOME SLAVES. (a) As a general thing, all captives in war were regarded as slaves, I believe, by all the ancient world; see Num. 31: 18, 32, 35, 40. But this does not apply to the case now before us, which is that of Hebrew slaves, Deut. 20: 14. 21: 10-12. (b) By debt; see 2 K. 4: 1. Is. 50: 1. Matt. 18: 25. (c) By theft; for the thief, if poor, was sold to repay the property which he had stolen. (d) By birth, when the mother was a slave; so that children of the house, or born