There was Joseph, who bought the Egyptians for Pharaoh, not with money, but with corn, and they became Pharaoh's servants. Who sold in that case? They sold themselves. See Genesis, 47. So it is said to Ahab, "Thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the Lord." 1 Kings xxi, 20. And in 2 Kings, xvii, 17, it is said the children of Israel "sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord." So the terms bought and sold are permanently applied to a mutual contract to do service for a compensation. Indeed, I may say, this is the general idea in the Scriptures. "His servants ye are to whom ye obey." In examining the Scriptures it is necessary always to take care and not suffer modern practices to fix images in our minds to exclude the truth.

I ask if there is anything to show that Abraham or any of the patriarchs ever sold a slave? Did they belong to his estate, and descend to his heirs? What became of them when Jacob went to Padan-Aram, and was a servant himself for twenty years? When he returned to Canaan, he had servants himself in large numbers. But we find after that, his sons keeping sheep. Then, after that, he went into Egypt. What became of all those servants? They were not sold. The truth is, they were voluntary servants, the obligation was at an end, and they remained in their own country.

There is another fact showing the nature of the service that existed in those early days. When the enemy came from Egypt, and took Lot and his neighbors, and all their substance, Abraham determined to pursue after them, and he took 318 of these servants, born in his own house. Is there a slaveholder in the United States, who would do this, would arm his slaves to pursue an enemy? Put arms into the hands of involuntary servants, and you may well expect they will use them against their masters. Abraham's servants, therefore, were doubtless voluntary servants, serving him by a

contract of their own, whether for wages, or for a living, and for protection Abraham was then, what many an Arab chief is now, the head of a tribe. The children of Heth understood the institutions of their own time, and they tell us just how it was, when they say to Abraham, "Hear us, my lord; thou art a mighty prince among us." Genesis xxiii, 6. And as such, he had a large number of followers, who were dependent on him, obeyed him, labored for him, and were protected and supported by him. But it was only a voluntary service. The father of the faithful was not a slaveholder, nor was he a man who would go to the slave-markets, and human shambles, to make merchandize of the bodies and souls of men.

It is commonly said by our learned men, who write on Biblical antiquities, just as it was said by the Popish writers from whom they borrow their learning on this subject, such as Calmet, Jahn, &c., that the law of Moses sanctions slavery. And the reason which is given, is, that it is said he found slavery so deeply rooted among the Jews that he could not root it out, and therefore he let it remain, and contented himself with regulating it. Now, look at this doctrine. The Jews had been slaves themselves, for generations, and were only just three months out of bondage, when the law of Moses was given. Is it credible that they could in that time have become such an incorrigible set of slaveholders, that Moses, though clothed with divine authority, was not able to manage them?

Let us now look at the law itself, in reference to the countenance it is supposed to give to modern slavery. It is said by the writers, that the Jews had slaves lawfully in several different ways. One is by captivity, as where they spared the lives of the Canaanites who were doomed to death, and these they might hold as slaves. But there is no truth in this. They had an express law respecting the Canaanites.

It is given in Deut. xx, 16-18. "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that they teach you not to do after their abominations," &c. This leaves none to be taken prisoners, without a direct violation of the commandment. Where then is there room for slavery? There is none. The Jews were never allowed, in any circumstances, to make slaves of the Canaanites.

In regard to the surrounding idolatrous nations, without the limits of the devoted Canaanites, the law is different. We have it in a preceding verse of the same chapter: "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it." And if they would not accept the offer of peace, then they were to make war, and beseige, and take it. And then they were to smite every male. There could be no male prisoners of war to be made slaves. But the females and the little ones were to be taken. What for? For slaves? That is not in the text. They were to be taken as a part of the spoil. The text does not direct what shall be done with them. It only says, "Thou shalt eat the spoil." No one would argue from this that the Jews were commanded to eat their prisoners. But there is a great deal more authority for that in the passage, than there is for enslaving them. What then were they to do with the women and children? I answer, They were to take them home and treat them kindly. And especially, they were not to be oppressed. The law is very full on this point, in Exodus xxii, 22. "Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child." You see all these women and children would be widows or orphans, and therefore not to be oppressed. And if they should oppress such, God said he would hear their cry, and would visit the oppressor with judgments. Does this look

like a permission to make slaves of them? I wish every slaveholder, and every apologist for slavery, would read the law on this point, in the following verses: "If thou afflict them in anywise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." That is the provision which the law of Moses made for the security of these widowed and orphan captives against oppression. And then they were to be incorporated with the people of Israel, and every third year a tenth part of the produce of the fields was to be set apart for the very purpose of maintaining persons in this situation for the poor, the widow, and the fatherless. God often reminds his people not to oppress strangers, because they had been strangers; and he says to them, "Ye know the heart of a stranger." Did he at the same time authorize them to seize upon strangers, and claim them as property, and reduce them to the condition of a mere appendage, a chattel, a thing? He says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Any specific action that is contrary to that, is against the law of God.

We have further evidence that God did not intend to sanction slavery. It was a standing law, that "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Another standing law of Israel was this: "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates; thou shalt not oppress him.” Deut. xxiii, 14-15. Take these two laws together, and it is impossible that slavery, or involuntary servitude should exist. It is not to be understood as applicable to men who have received the pay for their labor, and then refuse to complete their own contract, but of men who are held to involuntary

servitude, that is, to slaves from among the heathen, where slavery was a common thing; for, by the supposition. there were and could be none among the Israelites. There the law was, that if a slave escaped from bondage, and fled to the land of Israel, the whole nation should rise up and protect him. So sacredly does the law of God regard human liberty.

On the other side, we often hear it granted, that the Jews were not allowed to enslave their brethren, nor to steal slaves from the heathen. But it is said, they might go to the slave markets in the surrounding heathen nations, and buy slaves, and hold them forever. But I find it difficult to see how this can be done at any rate, without robbery. Suppose a man goes to the slave-market, and buys a slave - - can he buy any better title than the seller sells? The transfer is in fact only exchanging the robbery, and putting the stolen property into other hands. Would God sanction such a practice? See how it is spoken of incidentally in other cases.

There is the case of Joseph, who was sold to the Ishmaelites. That was as fair a slave deal as ever I heard of. But

what does Joseph say to it? "For indeed," says he, "I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews," Gen. xl. 15. Those Arabs stole him, although they bought him, and paid their money for him. This settles the question, that buying a man and paying money for him is man-stealing, according to Scripture language.

Again, it is said, that debtors, who could not pay their debts, might lawfully be reduced to slavery, and sold for payment. This is laid down as law in almost every modern commentary on the laws of Moses. Now, look at it Here is a man who has been unfortunate, and is not able to pay a debt which he has contracted, and it is said that the law enacted by the Almighty allows him to be sold into perpetual slavery, extending to his children and his poster