1. A distinction was made between their brethren and the Canaanites. The former could be held in slavery only for six years, but strangers might be held for life.

2. The slaves of the stranger were circumcised and admitted to the ordinary privileges of the Hebrew church and commonwealth.

3. If a master in any manner maimed such a servant, even to the breaking of a tooth, he was obliged to manumit him.

4. The Hebrews were not only positively forbidden to deliver up a slave who had escaped from his master, but were commanded to allow him to dwell in the place which he chose, in any of the gates where it liked him best. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. It is not necessary that I attempt to contrast these laws with the laws of the Southern States, respecting slavery. Every one must, I think, perceive the unreasonableness of pleading the Jewish laws as authority for an institution so entirely dissimilar, and so forgetful of the limitations by which that practice was originally guarded. If it be said that the Jewish commonwealth was so peculiar that it is impossible for us to conform ourselves to its laws in this respect, this I think establishes the very point in dispute; namely, that the Jewish law was made exclusively for that people, and can be pleaded in justification by no other people what

ever.

And again, this last precept, I think, clearly shows that Moses intended to abolish slavery. How could slavery long continue in a country where every one was forbidden to deliver up a fugitive slave? How different would be the condition of

slaves, and how soon would slavery itself cease, were this the law of compulsory bondage among us!

I have already been so long detained upon the first proposition of the argument derived from the Old Testament, that I have room for but few words to devote to the second. The remarks above will, however, render extended discussion unnecessary. The second proposition is as follows: "God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews."

If by the word sanctioned it is meant that God in any manner testified his approbation of slavery, I am obliged to say, that the evidence of such sanction nowhere exists, to my knowledge, in the Old Testament. Precisely as in the case of divorce, the institution was permitted and regulated; absolutely nothing more. In the mean time principles were inculcated, and laws were enacted, which must naturally, in the end, undermine and overthrow it. Slavery, so far as I can perceive, is no more sanctioned in the Old Testament than polygamy and divorce, and these institutions were, in precisely the same manner as slavery, tolerated and regulated, while they were, both before and afterwards, declared to be totally at variance with the whole will of God. From the fact of toleration and regulation of these practices, therefore, we can no more infer the approbation of God in the one case than in the other.

The passage from Leviticus xxv. 44-46, is not, that I can see, at all at variance with the view which I have taken on this subject. "Both thy bond-men, and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about

you; of them shall ye buy bond-men and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bond-men for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." If any one will take the trouble to turn to the chapter and read from the beginning, he will perceive that its general intention is to inculcate the duty of kindness to their Jewish brethren as distinguished from the heathen. The verses above quoted are a particular exemplification of a general law. They really say no more than that the Hebrews might hold slaves for life of the Canaanites, but not of the Hebrews. I know that the word "shalt" is used when speaking of this subject, but it is clearly used as prophetic and not as mandatory; it tells what would or what might be, and not what should or must be. No one can for a moment confound this use of it with that in the ten commandments; nor can any one suppose it to impose any obligation on the Hebrews to hold slaves, either of their own brethren or of strangers. As this is the strongest passage in the Old Testament in favor of the view which we are examining, I do not know that it is necessary to extend this part of the discussion any farther.

Let us now review the ground which we have passed over. I have supposed that the argument by which slavery is justified from the Old Testa

ment is properly expressed by the following syllo. gism.

1. Whatever God sanctioned among the Hebrews he sanctioned for all men and at all times. 2. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews. Therefore,

3. God sanctioned slavery among all men and at all times.

I suppose myself to have shown that the first of these propositions is at variance with reason and the Scriptures, whether the word sanction mean tolerate or enact; that the second proposition is untrue, if the word sanction mean any thing more than tolerate; and as with this meaning it can at the present day afford no justification of slavery, therefore the conclusion that God in the Old Testament sanctions slavery to all men, that is, to us, is without foundation.

I merely use this technical formality, as I have said before, because I wish to expose my views in the clearest light, so that if I err, I may the more easily be corrected. There is no one, my dear brother, who is more capable of detecting my error, if it exist, than yourself; and there is no man living before whom I would more willingly stand corrected.

I am, my dear brother, yours with every sen. timent of Christian affection,

THE AUTHOR of the MORAL SCIENCE.

LETTER V.

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D.

MY DEAR BROTHER

In my last letter I attempted an examination of the argument derived from the Old Testament in favor of slavery. It becomes me next to consider the manner in which this institution is treated in the New Testament. Before, however, I do this, it will be proper to offer a few suggestions on the subject of expediency. This topic, as I am aware, is introduced only incidentally into the discussion. Nevertheless, as it is liable to embarrass our judg. ments, in the further prosecution of this inquiry, I propose briefly to consider it in this place.

It gives me great pleasure to declare that I cheerfully and heartily coincide with you in the spirit and intention of your remarks on this subject. I admire the indignation with which you repel the suspicion that the Saviour or his apostles would, for the sake of escaping persecution, shun to declare the whole counsel of God. I sympathize in the scorn with which you contemplate that craven spirit, which, while it "speaks great swelling words," yet has "men's persons in admiration because of advantage." I know of nothing more utterly contemptible. Disgraceful, however, as it is everywhere, it is specially so in the Christian church, and more than all in the Christian ministry. We have all seen the evils of this sort of expediency. It has too frequently brought the ministry of the gospel into contempt in the eyes of