stood in the way, as they came forth from Pharaoh ; and they suit to them, The LORD look upon you, and image; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of is seans to put a sword in their hand to slay us. EL CIA

aws decket, mder the penalties of whipping, fine, imWR And hears that the slaves must not, and val me stred lest they should be set free, or by This Is JCLn der Berty! This is certainly an “evil

I here mold a sour to be abhorred in the eyes of Frank So à ses the Israelites did really find their NANGRY MCNsed by the very efforts which God and his SOINS WHY maing we get them free. But Moses did not

star the 4 sucent reason why he should cease to plead is that beanam. And shall we, of the present age, forbear V mad i mad because some sinners will not repent? The I Live de course of our duty, when some "harden ther has and “way wors and worse," after they “have we de bir commandment delivered unto them?" INA, VI? Men should we be so often reproached with Mu the shelten of slavery in this land? And The s the stones and a bet, about the only objection Whet many servus and good people can bring against the Anz-Sawet movements of the present day. We try to do samuching — à Nông, except to denounce our means EN MASINS, Yet we recand the abolition of slavery! The SAV N We between us and them.

There can be no doubt that the hearts of many "masters," #28 2004 re new hardened in precisely the same way tha. Paul's was; and God has just as much agency in lavenny ther hearts now, as he ever had in hardening the bearer Pharaoh God says now, as he has long been doing Let these slaves go free and they hear this rvice of God in the dietates of reason and humanity, they bear it in the precepts of the Bible, and they acknowledge it in the great charter of our national existence; yet they refuse to obey it, and in doing so they harden their hearts.

10. And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, LORD, wherefore hast thou so evil-entreated this people? Why is it that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people: neither hast thou delivered thy people at all. Ex. v, 22.

11. And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage. Ex. vi, 2.

12. And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel, but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit and for cruel bondage. Ex. vi, 9.

The different kinds of servitude allowed among the Hebrews.

1. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xxi, 2.

1. We are so much accustomed to think of a man's going to a slave market, and buying servants for a third person, just as he would buy an ox or a horse, that we can hardly imagine any other way in which a person should obtain. servants with money. But how was it in ancient times, when the Bible was written? Let us look and see what was

the usage, and who it was that sold, when they bought

servants.

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 Gen. ch.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 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, or 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 borrrow 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 was 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 inheri tance, 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. then is there room for slavery? There is none. Jews were never allowed, in any circumstances, to make slaves of the Canaanites.

Where

The

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 besiege, 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. 66 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, be. cause 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 append. age, 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.