religious teachers, nor did they regard it as a political institution in such a sense that they were not to advert to it.

It is often said in our country that slavery is a civil institution; that it pertains solely to the states where it exists; that it is sustained and sanctioned by law; that the Constitution of the Union makes provision for its perpetuity, and that it is not appropriate for the ministers of religion, and for ecclesiastical bodies, to intermeddle with it. This plea, however, might have been used with much more propriety among the Hebrews. Their Constitution was, what ours is not, of divine origin, and it would have been easy for a friend of slavery to have said to the prophets that the institution was sanctioned by the laws which all acknowledged to be of divine appointment, and that arrangements were made for its perpetuity in the constitution of the commonwealth. Why would not such an argument have as much weight then as it should be allowed to have now? Yet

(2.) The prophets felt themselves at entire liberty to exhort the people to restore their slaves to freedom. They considered that slavery was as proper a subject for them to discuss as any other. They treated it as if it were entirely within their province, and never appear to have hesitated about expressing their views of it.

(3.) They never speak of it as an institution which it was desirable to perpetuate, as contributing to the welfare of the community. In the few notices which we have of it, there is a uniform representation of its nature. It is, in their view, a

hard and oppressive system; a system which should be abandoned if there were acceptable service rendered to God. There is no apology made for it; no pleading for it as a desirable system, and no attempt to show that it was in accordance with the laws of the land. In their writings there is no such effort to defend it or apologize for it, as, I am grieved to say, may often be found in the preaching and the writings of ministers of the gospel in the United States. It would not be difficult to imagine what would have been the emotions

of Isaiah, after he had written the fifty-eighth chapter of his prophecies, were he to read some of the apologies for slavery issued by ministers of the gospel, and by professors in theological seminaries at the present day; or should he hear the sentiments uttered in debate in ecclesiastical synods, assemblies, conferences and conventions.

(4.) From the whole view, also, it may be inferred that the prophets did not suppose that the institution of slavery was in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, or was designed to be perpetuated. Their treatment of it is just such as would be natural on the supposition that they considered those institutions to have been so arranged that, while it was for a while tolerated, the tendency and design was ultimately to remove the evil entirely, and to make the Hebrews throughout a free people.

As one of the results of this inquiry, it is apparent that the Hebrews were not a nation of slaveholders. There is no evidence that they engaged in the foreign slave-trade; there is none that the domestic slave-trade prevailed; there is none that there were any marts for the purchase or sale of slaves; there is none that they purchased or sold slaves at all. There is no evidence that they even purchased of others the captives made in war; and there is none that, as was usual among other people, a Hebrew ever sold a captive made in war to a Hebrew brother or to a stranger. The fair inference from all this is, that the Mosaic institutions were not fitted to foster the spirit of slavery, and that while it prevailed among other people, there was some process going on in Judea adapted to separate its inhabitants from all connection with the system.

As another result of this inquiry, it may be inferred that slavery altogether ceased in the land of Palestine. On what evidence would a man rely to prove that slavery existed at all in that land in the time of the later prophets, of the Maccabees, or when the Saviour appeared? There are abundant proofs, as we shall see, that it existed in Greece and Rome; but what is the evidence that it existed in Judea?

So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no declarations that it did, to be found in the canonical books of the Old Testament, or in Josephus. There are no allusions to laws and customs which imply that it was prevalent. There are no coins or medals which suppose it. There are no facts which do not admit of an easy explanation on the supposition that slavery had ceased, and that the Hebrew people, though themselves often sold into captivity as slaves, had long since ceased all connection with it themselves. The only intimations of the existence of servitude at all between the time of the closing of the canon of the Old Testament and the advent of the Saviour, consist of a very few notices in the books of the Apocrypha. Thus in the book of Judith, ch. xiv. 13, it is said, "So they came to Holofernes' tent, and said to him that had charge of all his things, Waken now our lord; for the slaves," or servants, (oi dovλo,) "have been bold to come down against us to battle." This proves that the Hebrews were regarded as servants to the Assyrians, for in fact many of them, under Holofernes, had been reduced to bondage. So in 1 Macc. iii. 41: "And the merchants of the country, hearing of the fame of them, took gold and silver very much, with servants, and came into the camp to buy the children of Israel for slaves." This proves that it was not uncommon for surrounding nations to purchase slaves, about which, indeed, there can be no dispute; but it does not demonstrate that this was practised in Judea, or by the Jews themselves. The following passages also in the Apocrypha show that there was servitude existing of some kind among the Hebrews, but do not, unless in a single instance, determine its nature. Wisdom, xviii. 11; Ecclesias. iv. 30, vi. 11, vii. 20, 21, xix. 21, xxiii. 10, xxxiii. 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, xxxvii. 11, xlii. 5; 2 Macc. viii. 35; Tobit x. 10; Judith, x. 23; Esth. xv. 16; Susan. 27; 1 Macc. i. 6, 8; 2 Macc. vii. 6. 33. One of these passages only alludes to the fact that servants were bought with money. Ecclesias. xxxiii. 30: “If thou have a servant, let him be unto thee as thyself, because

thou hast bought him with a price." Marg. as in Gr. in blood, (iv apari.) The meaning probably is, that he was a captive taken in war. In what way the others who are mentioned were obtained, or what was the nature of their servitude, is in no case stated. It is only intimated that they would escape if they could. Ecclesias. xxxiii. 25, 31. Comp. 2 Macc. viii. 35.

If, therefore, it be true that slavery did not prevail in Judea; that there is no evidence that the Hebrews engaged in the traffic, and that the prophets felt themselves at liberty to denounce the system as contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, these facts will furnish an important explanation of some things in regard to the subject in the New Testament, and will prepare us to enter on the inquiry how it was regarded by the Saviour. For if slavery did not exist in Palestine in his time; if he never came in contact with it, it will not be fair to infer that he was not opposed to it, because he did not often refer to it, and expressly denounce it. He was not accustomed to go out of his way to denounce sins with which he did not come in contact. The inquiry whether there were slaves in Judea in his time, will be appropriately considered in the next chapter.

CHAPTER VII.

The relation of Christianity to Slavery.

In the previous chapters, I have examined at length all that seems to refer to the subject of slavery in the Old Testament. If the train of reasoning which has been pursued is correct, we have reached the conclusion that, so far from its being true that the Mosaic system was designed to uphold and perpetuate the institution, the fact was, that under the fair operation of that system, slavery would at no distant period come entirely to an end. The fair and honest application of the Mosaic laws to slavery in the United States would speedily remove the evil from our country.

In approaching the New Testament with reference to this subject, the true points of inquiry may be stated in few words-Did Christ and his apostles look benignly on the institution? Did they regard it as a good institution, or as one adapted to promote permanent good? Did they consider it to be desirable for the highest comfort of social life? Did they consider that they who held slaves could illustrate the power and excellence of the Christian religion in the best manner, while continuing in that relation? Did they suppose that they who were held in slavery were occupying the most desirable condition in life, and that they should consider that the Christian religion contemplated the continuance of that relation? Was it the design of the Saviour, that the fair application of the gospel to this system should perpetuate it in his church?

The affirmative of these questions it is necessary for the advocates of slavery to make out, in order to show that the