I cannot say encouraged, for evidently this is not the case. He allowed it for the same reason that he allowed divorce at the will of the husband. Our Saviour has told us what this reason was, viz. "The hardness of their hearts." The light of the gospel dissipates all these deeds done in claro-obscure light. All reasoning of this kind is null, if it be at variance with the spirit and precepts of the gospel; which is now our supreme law.

I have only one remark more to make, and then I go from Moses to his disciples in later periods. This is, that it is well worth, the labor of every serious man, who prizes his Bible, to look into the accounts we have, in books of Grecian and Roman antiquities, of the state of slavery among the two leading nations of the world, most renowned for learning and civilization. They gave to masters the power of life and death; they authorized them to scourge and imprison at pleasure; see Juvenal Sat. vi. 219. The master could put to death by crucifixion, at Rome; and this was the usual punishment. If the master of a family was slain at home, and the murderer could not be discovered, all his domestic slaves were liable to be put to death. Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 43) mentions a case, in which 400 slaves in one family were put to death under this law. Slaves were not supported among heathen nations, except by special kindness and comity; see Julius Pollux, Onomast., on the word navolκάπη. They were rarely permitted to marry, or even to enter into that connection with a female, which the Romans called contubernium. Slaves, moreover, were debarred from all participation in the civil and religious festivals and rights of the citizens. Compare all this now with the laws of Moses. Does it not lie on the very face of his legislation, that he far outstripped all the legislators and sages of antiquity? How came he, issuing from Egypt the very hot-bed of polytheism and slavery, to know so much about the rights of men, and to do so much for the interests of humanity? There is but one satisfactory answer to these questions; and this is, that he had light from above.

But we come now to his followers. The first question which spontaneously presents itself here, is: Did subsequent prophets and teachers undertake to repeal or amend the laws of Moses?

The ready answer is in the negative. Repeal them they could not; for their commission and business was, to explain and enforce them. Amend them they could not; for they were already what

God designed they should be, under the Jewish dispensation. All they could do was to rectify mistaken views of them, correct popular errors, and urge the strict observance of all the Mosaic code.

Yet we are every day presented with examples of quotation, from the prophets or other sacred Hebrew writers, which, by the interpretation given them, are made to speak in direct contradiction to Moses. This practice has become so familiar and popular, that a multitude of Old Testament texts are pressed into the service of Abolitionists, which have no special bearing whatever on slaves or slavery. Oppression is forbidden; defrauding the laborer of his hire is forbidden; and (in a word) every injury which a man might do to his neighbor is prohibited. All this is put, by Abolitionists, under the category of denunciation against slavery. How little foundation this reasoning has, for the most part, we shall soon see. It becomes necessary to adduce examples, in order that the reader may fully understand what I am intending to say.

Of all the prophetic texts, I believe Is. 58: 6 has been the subject of appeal most frequent, and confident too. What says it? "Loose the bands of wickedness; undo the heavy burdens; let the oppressed go free; break every yoke." The prophet further enjoins, that they shall give bread to the hungry, house-shelter to poor wanderers, and clothing to the naked. He then adds: "Hide not thyself from thine own flesh." And who then are they that are thus described? Plainly fellow-countrymen, citizens of the same commonwealth, and kindred by blood. Let the reader, if he doubts this interpretation of the expression one's own flesh, open his Bible at Gen. 29: 14 and 2 Sam. 5: 1. 19: 13, 14. Judg. 9: 2. It is clearly the oppressed and degraded Hebrews, then, of whom the prophet is speaking in this whole passage. It has no special relation to slaves at all, whether heathen or Jewish. Surely heathen slaves would not be called, by Isaiah, the "own flesh" of the Hebrews. Yet this passage is printed in staring capitals every day, as the sentence of an ultimate and supreme tribunal, which decides the cause of the Abolitionists in their favor.

For the sake of further illustration, let me revert once more to the respectable religious journal, to which I have made reference on p. 10 seq. above. The same keen sighted Ariel, who dates from Boston, and who has already been noticed (p. 10 above), after quoting some eight or ten names of subscribers to the commendation of

Mr. Webster's Speech, and putting Dr. Woods's name and mine in capitals, goes on to quote a sentence from Mr. Webster's reply to the communication he had received. The quotation is: "The day has come, when we should open our ears and our hearts to the advice of the great Father of his country," (Washington). Ariel then asks: "When will the day come, in which we will open our ears and hearts, to hear that Father who is in heaven ?” Forthwith he cites some five different texts from the Bible, and joins them into one mass, without any reference to the places where they may be found, just as if they all stood in juxta-position in the sacred volume. The first passage is Jer. 22: 13, which runs thus: "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work." It seems not to have occurred to him, that it would be strange to hear the prophet speak of defrauding slaves of their wages. Did Moses ever expect or demand, that a slave should have wages? This inquiry would of itself set a considerate man to examining the case, in order to find out what such language But no; the text sounds all to Ariel's purpose, and so it is brought in. Unluckily however for him, the context (v. 11) shows us plainly, that the oppressive and tyrannical Shallum, the degenerate son of Josiah and heir of his throne, is the sole object of the denunciation. He built "large chambers, wide houses. . . ceiled with cedar and painted with vermillion," by exactions upon his subjects. The woe, therefore, is applicable to him, and (in this place) only to him.

means.

Prov. 31: 8, 9 is next cited. It runs thus: "Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." And who then are "the dumb, and those appointed to destruction?" The next verse shows that they are "the poor and needy," whose mouth has been stopped by some unrighteous and bribed judge, who refused to hear their plea, and so forced them to be dumb. And were slaves permitted to bring causes before the Hebrew courts? Possibly our Ariel may think so; but no one of course, who understands the matter, will be inclined to think with him.

The third passage is Ps. 82: 3, 4. and needy... Rid them out of the

"Do justice to the afflicted hands of the wicked." The

Psalmist is addressing judges who act unjustly, (v. 2). The wicked here are such persons as bring the poor and needy into court, in order to enforce exactions upon them by bribing the corrupt judges. Were the slaves of the Hebrews, then, sued in court by their masters? I trust not; their masters needed no court but their own, and had a summary process within their own power.

The next appeal is to Jer. 34: 17. "Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor." The context (vs. 12-16) informs us, that the Jews of that day paid no regard to the liberation of Hebrew slaves, when the seventh or liberty-year had come. The masters still continued their bondage. Jeremiah threatens them, therefore, with divine judgments, on account of their perfidy to the law of Moses. But not a word or syllable is here, about the bondage of heathen slaves.

"Hide the outcasts;

The fifth and last appeal is to Isa. 16: 3. bewray not him that wandereth." And who are the outcasts and the wanderer? They are the fugitive daughters of Moab, who flee from the conquering invaders of their country, and seek safety in the land of Israel. The prophet presents them as addressing the Hebrew people, beseeching them, in the words quoted, to conceal them in a place of safety, and not to tell the pursuing enemy where they are, i. e. not to bewray them. This is all. But how this is to be put to the justification of concealing runaway slaves, or made into a command to aid and protect them, I have not sagacity enough to divine.

I should not refer to Ariel, who has thus exhibited his profound acquaintance with the Old Testament, if it were not, that he has merely given utterance to what is resounding on all sides. Such are the conclusive texts, which are every day appealed to with the most undoubting confidence, as speaking to the point which the Abolitionists are eager to establish. How much reason they have for such a confidence, has now been shown. Probably, however, it will be labor lost on most of them; for they seem very much prone to ignoring. Be it so; I still hope that the cautious and sober inquirer after scriptural truth, will at least be put on the alert, as to such quotations, and as to the interpretations which are given to them. As to Ariel himself - I know not who he is, and am glad that I do not, because I can now speak the more freely, without subjecting

myself to the imputation of personalities. I suppose, by his frequent appeals to the Scriptures, that he may be a minister of the Gospel. If so, I can only condole with his people, that they have not a more dicriminating guide, to lead them to a right knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures. If the quotations above, and the construction put upon them, do not show him to be a mere sciolist in the knowledge of the Bible, it would be difficult to say what could exhibit proofs of such a predicament. I add only, that the last three texts above are printed in staring capitals; why, I know not, unless it be to proclaim to the world what a capital exegete he is.

I stop with these examples; for if I were to follow up and examine all the texts of Scripture which are every day abused in this manner, it would of itself require a little volume. I add here only a few brief reflections.

Where do the Hebrew

Let us now take a momentary retrospect. Scriptures place and leave this whole matter? The answer is plain and undeniable. The Jews were permitted to purchase and hold slaves, who were of their own nation, i. e. native Hebrews. But this could be done only for six years at a time. When the seventh year came, each Hebrew was free; and so at the jubilee-year they were all free, whether the six years had expired or not. Many privileges were granted to such persons, which were not usually granted among other nations. Moses made great advances in the matter of humane treatment. But the unlawfulness of such slavery, so modified, is a thing that Moses never once intimates.

But how was it with slaves purchased from the heathen? The Jews had unlimited liberty to purchase them, and to hold them as heritable property. There was no seventh year, and no jubilee-year, to them. Lev. 25: 44-46 has put this matter at rest, for all sober and honest inquirers. There it stands, (and even Abolitionists cannot abolish it), that the Jews might have slaves ad libitum.

Have the prophets contradicted this? Did the expounders and enforcers of Moses' laws occupy themselves with repealing and contradicting them ? So the Abolitionists virtually conclude and declare, every day. I do not mean that they venture directly upon such assertions, but that they quote and apply the words of the prophets in such a way, as to set them in direct opposition to Moses. If they are not conscious of this, (as many of them do not seem to

4.