smitten on the one cheek, we are to turn the other; and we are not to withhold our coat from him that has taken our cloak; but God's command to us, neither justifies the smiter or the robber, or in the least lessens his guilt in what he does. As a branch of the general duty of meekness and patience, and rendering good for evil, servants are commanded to bear patiently the hardships of their lot, and to obey their masters, even the froward and injurious; but it does not follow that the master's claim is just, or that his whole conduct to the servant may not be a violation of the law of love. I before observed that the word rendered servant in those places, is to be taken in its general sense, so as to include all conditions of servants. Of course it is the general condition that is properly referred to; and it has nothing to do with justifying slavery, the unlawful condition of servitude. To this I must add the fact which will appear hereafter, that that condition of servitude called slavery, is repeatedly called oppression, heavy burdens, yoke, cruel and hard bondage. These terms imply that it is wrong. An oppressor evidently is an evil-doer. God has expressed his hatred of oppression, and declared he will break the rod of the oppressor, and be the refuge of the oppressed.

Yours, &c.

72

LETTER VII.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

In my last letter I proved that the law of love, and the rule of doing as we would be done by, do condemn slavery. Various attempts, however, have been made so to explain, or limit, or qualify these rules, as to make them permit slavery. A full account of these explanations would form a curious article. This I will not attempt, but select several of the most imposing.

Some allege that Scripture does, both by precept and example, permit slavery; and that therefore the law of love and rule of doing as we would be done by, must be so explained as to agree with said permission, and not set it aside. They argue, that had it been morally wrong, Scripture would not have permitted it; and the moral law being immutably the same, what it did not condemn as morally wrong formerly, cannot be wrong now.

Others, considering the argument from the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations as not applicable to the state of things in which we are placed, lay but little stress on it; but think they find in the notices of servitude in the New Testament, and in the relations which the church now sustains to civil government, such a limitation of the law of love, and the rule of doing as we would be done by, as lets slavery alone. These two plans embrace most that can be said in justification of slavery as a moral question.

That the Scriptures are consistent with themselves, I not only admit, but maintain; and my main reasons for believing slavery morally wrong, is found in its opposition to the very spirit of the moral law; that the law of love and rule of doing as we would be done by, do, in their plain, straight-forward, and common sense meaning, condemn slavery, is to me one of the plainest cases that can be named. Now, if there be another class of Scripture passages that justify it, certainly a difficulty is presented of a very serious nature. It ought not to be taken for granted, nor even admitted, until those passages are carefully examined, together with all the other passages that may throw light on the case, and the fact be ascertained. We ought

to treat the case just as we treat other cases, when Scripture appears, or is alleged, to contradict Scripture, and I doubt not it will appear that those passages admit of explanations consistent with the moral law.

It ought to be recollected, that while the moral law is the same as a rule of duty, the extent to which its principles have been unfolded and carried out, is much greater under the New Testament than under the Old Testament. This holds good of many parts of religious truth. The ancient saints were saved through Christ; yet they had much less light as to his character and salvation than we enjoy. In doctrine, we explain the dark passages of the Old, by the more luminous passages of the New Testament. We ought to do so in morals, and it would not be more absurd to leave the doctrinal light of the New Testament, and regulate our faith by the Old Testament, than to do so in morals. Had the patriarchs enjoyed the moral light we do, they would not have practised polygamy and divorce, nor do I suppose they would have practised slavery. It may, inde on good grounds, be doubted, as will appear hereafter, whether the patriarchs and pious Jews did practise slavery, properly so called. The Jewish law most certainly contained various limitations and offsets against absolute slavery.

That the Old Testament, when fairly construed, does really condemn slavery, and did design to prevent it, will appear manifest, I think, from the following considerations. Moral duty was enjoined on the Jews, as of much higher obligation than ceremonial.

"The Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. A great God, a mighty and a terrible; which regardeth not persons nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widows, and loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Thou shalt not oppress the stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. If a stranger sojourn with you in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself: for ye were strangers in the

land of Egypt. Bring no more vain oblations. Incense is an abomination unto me; your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes. Cease to do evil; learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Go and learn what that meaneth," said our Lord, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." And in the following passage the Jews are charged with inverting the proper order of things, and neglecting the most important. "Ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."*

Here we have the law of love not only brought forward in many forms, but laid down in the same words used in the New Testament. It was to be their rule of duty towards the stranger, as well as towards their own people. Its observance was enforced on the gain and again, by referring to their former slavery in Egypt; their affliction and sorrow of heart while forcibly held in that condition. “Ye know the heart of a stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye were Pharaoh's bond-men, and the Lord delivered you, therefore I command you this thing." Deut. xv. 15.

If this be not substantially an application of the law of love, and the rule of doing as they would be done by, to the case of slavery, then I know not what it is.

The sins most frequently condemned in Scripture, the crimes for which Israel was most frequently punished, the conduct against which God declares himself most opposed, and about which most is said, are violations of the moral law, and a large portion of them is conduct of man towards man. He must have read the Scripture to little purpose, who has not observed this. Thousands of passages could be adduced in proof of it. The following is a sample

"The children of Israel sighed by reason of the bonEx. xxii. 23. Isaiah i. Mat. xxiii. 23.

** Deut. X.

dage; and they cried, and their cry came up to God by reason of their bondage. I have seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them, and have come down to deliver them. So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and I beheld the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter: and on the side of the oppressor there was power, but they had no comforter.-If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter; for He that is higher than the highest regardeth, and there be higher than they. -If a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right; hath not oppressed any; hath spoiled none by violence; hath executed true judgment between man and man; he shall surely live. If he beget a son that is a robber; that hath oppressed the poor and needy; hath spoiled by violence he shall surely die. So if he beget a son that seeth his father's sins, and doeth not such like; neither hath oppressed any; neither hath spoiled by violence; hath taken off his hand from the poor: he shall live.Is not this the fast that I have chosen: to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke."*

These passages, to which hundreds could be added, condemn all oppression. In a number of them slavery is directly referred to. The slavery of Israel is expressly called oppression, affliction, burdens, yoke, bondage, &c. and in Isaiah (lviii. 6) God expressly states the duty of letting slaves go out free, in opposition to holding them in bondage, which is called oppression, heavy burdens, yoke, &c.

Now I feel authorized to say that it will require very plain and explicit passages to prove that slavery was not considered as morally wrong, when the whole force of the above and similar passages prove that it was.

It will not be enough to find passages that mention slavery passages can be found that mention many sinful practices. It must be shown that the practice was approved. It is not sufficient to adduce passages that speak

* Ex. ii. 23, iii. 9. Eccles. iv. 1, v. 8. Ezekiel xviii. 5-17. Isaiah lviii. 6.