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 of 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 posterity forever. If God has sanctioned this, I will yield the point; but let us look at the proof, and see if he really has lent his sanction to such a method of procedure. What is the spirit of the Levitical law in regard to debts? Read Deut. xv, 1-10.

Does that look like selling poor debtors into slavery? Our hearts are so calculating and avaricious now, that we cannot receive such a law in its simple and obvious meaning. We can hardly conceive of society organized on such a principle, as that no debt should be binding over seven years. Such a society would be almost like Heaven. Every kind disposition, every generous feeling is encouraged, and no sanction or authority given to any harshness or severity towards unfortunate debtors. That law places the poor under the special protection of Heaven, and leaves them no longer subject to the gripe of the unmerciful. No wonder David loved the law of God. How his mind glows and burns as he contemplates that law. It was sweeter to him than honey, or the honey-comb.

But was there no servitude among the Jews? Yes, doubt. less there was. The relation of servant is as necessary to the happiness and comfort of society as any other relation. The chapter before us, Deut. xv, assures us that "the poor shall never cease out of the land." And the poor have need of the rich, as well as the rich need of the poor. There is a mutual dependence, and mutual obligation. But their natural rights are the same, and both are recognized and established and secured by the laws of Moses.

But it is said that some are born slaves. So it is said in the schools; so it is said in the commentaries; so it is extensively believed and practised; that if a parent is a slave, that alone condemns the child to slavery. But how say the Scriptures? "They shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." Jer. xxxi, 29. Here it is laid down as a maxim of the divine

2. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no

law that children shall not suffer the penalty of their father's sins but that "every one shall die for his own iniquity." And therefore it is not reasonable to suppose that God would sanction the practice of enslaving children on account of either the conduct or the condition of their parents.

But if we look further into the Scripture usages, we shall find that a home-born servant, instead of being enslaved, was considered entitled to peculiar privileges. David alludes to this relation, and claims or asks for the benefit of it, in Psalm 116, where he exclaims, "I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid, thou hast loosed my bonds." Jeremiah alludes to it, Is Israel a servant? Is he a home-born slave? Why is he spoiled ?" Jer. ii, 14. There, if you will look in your Bibles, you will see that the word slave is in Italics, because there is no word for it in Hebrew, but the translators put it in to fill up the sense, as they thought, but it is plain, from what follows, that they erred. The inquiry is this, 66 Is Israel a servant, yea, a home-born, i. e. a privileged one? Why is he spoiled?" The prophet wonders to see him despoiled of the rights and privileges which belonged to him. The truth is, that a home-born servant, so far from being a slave, had advantages secured to him which a hired servant was not entitled to.-[Rev. James H. Dickey.]

2. If a man sell his daughter. "This the Jews allowed no man to do," says Dr. A. Clarke on this place, “but in extreme distress, when he had no goods, either moveable or immoveable, left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange, that such a law should be given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us; where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from his master so much for work during that time."

power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. Ex. xxi, 7.

3. If a thief be found breaking up-he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Ex. xxii, 2.

4. And if a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or to, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20.

3. He shall be sold for his theft. And how many slave masters in this nation would now have to be sold themselves into slavery, were they to be judged by this law! 4. He shall be surely punished. And here is another feature of the Mosaic law, in relation to servants, which shows how unjust and cruel that system of slavery is, which prevails in this land. Among the Jews, if a servant was killed by the cruel treatment of his master, that master was punished with death. See Gen. ix, 5-Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. But not so now among us; in the United States, scores and hundreds of slaves have been killed by the treatment of their "masters" and "drivers," and not a single instance was ever known here of a white man being hung for the murder of a slave! And yet these very persons refer us to this passage of Scripture, as a justification of slave-holding, because it is added, notwithstanding, if he remain a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. That is, if the servant survive a day or two after he had been deservedly beaten by his master, and then died, it might be presumed in that case that he died from some other cause, and consequently the only punishment which the master should suffer was