were now to return to Palestine, the Old Testament would furnish no warrant by which they would be authorized, were it in their power, to devote to destruction or to enslave the Druses or Maronites of Mount Lebanon, the Arabs of Damascus, or the Turks of Acre. Much less would it authorize American citizens, residing in Palestine, to destroy or to enslave them; and much less does it authorize American citizens here at home to destroy, or to enslave, or to hold in slavery, the people of another continent. To the Jews it would have been unlawful, except by the special direction of Jehovah. To us and to all men it is unlawful to do the same thing, unless we can show the same special direction. These seem to me to be the general principles which we always apply when reasoning concerning the revelation made by the Most High to the Hebrew commonwealth. They comprehend the case of slavery; and by them is the bearing upon us of the permission in question to be determined.

The view which you take of the case, however, differs materially from this. I will now proceed to examine it. It may be stated briefly thus : Slavery was sanctioned by revelation among the Hebrews; it is therefore sanctioned to us.

Let us reduce this argument to a syllogism, and it will be expressed thus:

1. Whatever God sanctioned among the Hebrews, he sanctions for all men and at all times. 2. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews. Therefore,

3. God sanctions slavery for all men and at all times.

I believe that in these words I express the argument correctly. If I do not, it is solely because I do not know how to state it more exactly.

Let us, then, in the first place, examine the major premise. “Whatever God sanctioned among the Hebrews, he sanctions for all men and at all times."

Now this proposition surely is not self-evident. If it be true, it must be provable either by reason, or by revelation. Can it be proved by reason? The only argument by which it could be supported is, I think, the following:

1. Whatever God sanctions to any men at any time he sanctions to all men at all times.

2. The Hebrews are men. Therefore,

3. Whatever he sanctioned to the Hebrews at any time he sanctioned to all men at all times.

Now I think that the major premise of this syllogism is wholly untenable. It appears to me to be diametrically at variance with the whole theory of the divine dispensation. Every one, I think, knows that God has seen fit to enlighten our race progressively; and that he has enlightened different portions in different degrees. He has first given us the light of nature. Millions at the present day have no other light. We know from revelation that by the truth alone which this light reveals, will they be judged. They will therefore be held guilty for the transgression of no other laws than those which this light has discovered to them. The rest of their transgressions of moral law will not be laid to their account. Thus in this sense of the word, these transgressions are sanctioned to them; that is, they are not forbidden, and they are

not reckoned against them as sin. But I ask, are they sanctioned to us? Could we who have the light of the gospel go back to the morality of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Confucius, for the reason that what the light of nature allowed to them is allowable in us? Yet I see not but this proposition would lead us to precisely this conclusion.

The same principle applies to the other gradual revelations of moral light which God has at different periods made to mankind. He increased the light of the patriarchs by the direct communication of a small part of his will. A large part of that will, however, he saw fit still to withhold. The violations of this latter part he did not forbid, but on the contrary he allowed them to remain unchecked, that is, in this sense he sanctioned them. But could any of us, in the fear of God, go back to the patriarchal dispensation, and take for our moral rule the revelation, and only the revelation, made to the patriarchs ?

So of the Mosaic dispensation. By this revelation the light was more fully discovered, but still much of it was withheld. We cannot plead in this case, more than in the other, that what was permitted without rebuke in a darker age is permitted to us to whom greater light has been given. I suppose, therefore, that directly the reverse of the proposition in question is true; that God reveals his will in different degrees, at different times, and to different people at the same time; that he holds men accountable for precisely as much light as he has given them; that he allows without rebuke those actions on the moral character of which that light has not shined, and, in this sense, he sanctions

them; but that this allowance can never be pleaded in behalf of those who enjoy a more perfect revelation, that is, on whom a better light has shined.

But suppose we take the strongest meaning of the word sanction,-that of approve or commandthe proposition will not be, I think, more tenable, as I have before said. God commanded the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanites. He commanded Saul to destroy the Amalekites. But were these commands given to all men and at all times? It is therefore, I think, manifest, that this proposition, on which the argument from reason must rest, is, in every sense of the word sanction, without foundation.

I hope, my dear brother, you will excuse this use of formal syllogisms in a familiar letter. It is not done for the sake of formality, or with the design of appearing precise and logical. I have adopted this mode of discussion simply because I have thought that thus I could present the points at issue with greater distinctness than seemed possible in any other.

But can the proposition, "whatever was sanctioned to the Hebrews is sanctioned to all men at all times," be proved from revelation? It seems to me that precisely the reverse is the fact. Το arrive at the truth in this case it is only necessary to inquire whether there were any acts sanctioned to the Hebrews by Moses which are not sanctioned to all men.

Take for instance the whole Mosaic code of civil law, its severe enactments, its very frequent capital punishments, its cities of refuge, its tenure

of real estate. Could any legislator at the present day enact similar laws, and justly plead as a sufficient reason that God had sanctioned, nay enacted, such laws for the Jews? Would this be a sufficient reason for abolishing the trial by jury in a case of accidental homicide, (as for instance when the head of an axe slipped from the helve and wounded a man to death,) and enacting that the next akin might slay an innocent person if he overtook him before he arrived at a city of refuge? I think every one must immediately perceive that this law was a humane limitation to the spirit of Oriental vindictiveness, but that it would be very wrong to put it in practice at the present day.

But we are not left to our own reasonings on this subject. We know full well that polygamy and divorce are wrong, that they violate the obligations established by God between the sexes, and are transgressions of his positive law. On this subject I presume we can have no difference of opinion. Yet these sins were not forbidden by Moses. Nay more, laws were enacted by the Hebrew legislator in respect to both of these practices. When a man was already united to one wife, and chose to take another, the manner in which the first wife was to be put away was prescribed. The right of the first-born was also in such a case defined. When, again, a Hebrew wished to divorce a wife, the manner in which this should be done was a matter of positive enactment. The discussion of our Saviour with the Jews on this subject is given us in Matt. xix. 3-9. I will quote the whole passage. "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man