I have used the translation of Dr. Campbell, who seems to have understood the scope of the argument better than the authors of our version.

"Now concerning this decision of our Lord, several things are to be remarked:

"1. Our Lord authoritatively lays down the law of marriage, defining it to be an exclusive engagement between two parties for life.

"2. He not only does this, but he declares that this doctrine was taught from the creation, quoting Genesis ii. 24, in confirmation of his assertion.

"3. Notwithstanding this, Moses had sanctioned divorce; that is, he had not forbidden it, and had enacted laws for the regulation of it.

"4. And moreover, the reason of this is given; it was because of the hardness of their hearts, or their untractable disposition.

"Here then is an institution sanctioned; that is, permitted and made a subject of legislation, which is wrong in itself, and therefore forbidden by our Saviour to them and to all men. Nay, it had been thus sanctioned, although a prior revelation had discountenanced it. It is therefore clear, that a practice may have been sanctioned to the Hebrews, which is not sanctioned to all men at all times; nay, which before and after a particular period was not sanctioned even to the Hebrews themselves. I think, therefore, that the teaching of the Scriptures is diametrically at variance with the proposition on which the whole argument from the Old Testament is founded."*

Keeping the Mosaic institutions on the subject of slavery in view, I shall proceed now to compare them with those existing in our own country. It will be convenient to arrange the various topics substantially in the order in which we have contemplated them; and the object will be to show that in all

*Fuller and Wayland on Slavery, pp. 54-57.

essential features, the Mosaic arrangements in regard to slavery differed entirely from those existing in this land. The inference which will be derived from such a comparison will be, that the Mosaic institutions cannot be referred to, to sanction slavery as it exists at present. The points to which I refer are the following:

(1.) The arrangements in the two systems respecting hard and oppressive usage. We have seen that under the Mosaic institutions, the rights of the slave were carefully guarded on this subject, and that if he were subjected to such usage he had a redress by claiming his freedom. We have seen that there were express statutes requiring that slaves should be treated with humanity and kindness; that if they were maimed by their masters they had a right to liberty; and that there were many solemn injunctions to treat the stranger with kindness, no matter what relation he might sustain.

The question now is, whether there are any such provisions in the laws in this land, or whether there is any security that the slave will be preserved from hard and oppressive usage? The question is not, whether there may not be masters who treat their slaves with kindness, but whether the laws furnish any security for the slave on this point? It is not whether a master may not abuse his power, but it is whether the law does not give him such power that the slave has no redress, as he had under the Hebrew commonwealth? If it be so, certainly the Mosaic enactments cannot, so far as this point is concerned, be adduced in defence of slavery in the United States. The following laws of the slave states of this Union will show what is the spirit of servitude here, and will illustrate the striking contrast between slavery here and in the Hebrew commonwealth.*

For the laws of the slave states on this subject, I am indebted mainly to "A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery in the several States of the United States of America. By George M. Stroud." This work was

"THE MASTER MAY, AT HIS DISCRETION, INFLICT ANY SPECIES OF PUNISHMENT UPON THE PERSON OF HIS SLAVE.

In particular, (a) The murder of a slave has in general subjected the murderer to a pecuniary fine only. "There was a time in many, if not in all the slave-holding districts of our country, when the murder of a slave was followed by a pecuniary fine only. In one state, a change of the law in this respect has been very recent. At the present date, the wilful, malicious, deliberate murder of a slave, by whomsoever perpetrated, is declared to be punishable with death in every state."+ It should be remembered, however, that there must be great difficulty of convicting a white man, and especially a master, of such an offence. No slave is allowed to give testimony against a white man ; and of course, in most cases it would be impossible to bring a white murderer of a slave to justice. There might be many witnesses of the deed, and yet not one of them be allowed to testify to what he had himself seen. It cannot be doubted that not a few slaves have been murdered by their masters in this land. Has there ever been a conviction for such an offence? Has a master ever been punished capitally for such a crime? Is he commonly punished at all? Is it a common occurrence to convict any white man for a wrong done to a slave, except so far as the slave is regarded as the property of another man? On the practical operation of the law of the slave states respecting testimony, and the

published in Philadelphia in 1827. It is now out of print. Of the qualifications of Judge Stroud for such a work, no one can doubt; and the accuracy of the work has never been called in question. The slave laws since the time of the publication of that work have undergone too unimportant changes to make the quotations now irrelevant to show the general spirit of slavery.

* Stroud, p. 35. The capitals are his.

† Stroud, p. 36.

+ 1 Rev. C. Virg. 422; 2 Miss. Laws, 600; Mississippi Rev. Code, 372; 2 Litt. and Swi. 1150; Maryland Laws. act of 1817, and North Carolina and Tennessee Laws, 1777.

difficulty of convicting a white man, and the fact that those laws place a slave completely at the disposal of his master, Judge Stroud well remarks, "It [the law that no slave can be a witness against a white person] places the slave, who is seldom within the view of more than one white person at a time, entirely at the mercy of this individual, without regard to his fitness for the exercise of power-whether his temper be mild and merciful, or fierce and vindictive. A white man may, if no other individual be present, torture, maim, and even murder his slave, in the midst of any number of negroes and mulattoes. Having absolute dominion over his slave, the master, or his delegate, if disposed to commit illegal violence upon him, may easily remove him to a spot safe from the observation of a competent witness."-p. 66. (b) The laws of some of the slave states expressly acquit the master for killing his slave, if it be done wHEN INFLICTING MODERATE CORRECTION. The law of North Carolina, sect. 3, of the act of 1798, on this subject, is in the following words :-" Whereas by another act of Assembly, passed in the year 1774, the killing of a slave, however wanton, cool, and deliberate, is only punished in the first instance by imprisonment and paying the value thereof to the owner, which distinction of criminality between the murder of a white person and one who is equally a human creature, but merely of a different complexion, is disgraceful to humanity, and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and principles of a free, Christian, and enlightened country: Be it enacted, &c., That if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully or maliciously killing a slave, such offender shall, upon the first conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man: Provided always, this act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of Assembly of this state, or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful owner or master, OR TO ANY SLAVE DYING UNDER MODERATE COR

RECTION." The language of the constitution of Georgia is nearly the same. "Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave, and unless such

DEATH SHOULD HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT IN GIVING SUCH SLAVE

MODERATE CORRECTION." (c) If the life of a slave is so feebly protected by law, it is not to be supposed that he would be defended from wrongs done in other respects against his person. Accordingly we find, that the slave is, not only necessarily, from the nature of the case, but by the laws, almost entirely at the disposal of the master. Wrongs done by the master to the slave are regarded as comparatively trivial offences, and even on the supposition that he could be convicted, the punishment is trifling. The act of South Carolina for 1740, says, "In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, * * * * * *, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of his limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horsewhip or cowskin, switch or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money." Here we may make the following obvious remarks: (1.) The strong contrast between this and the Mosaic law: "If any man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." (2.) The trifling penalty which the law imposes-of "one hundred pounds"for wrongs which would render a human being wretched for

*

Haywood's Manual, 530. See also the Laws of Tennessee, act of October 23, 1799, with a like proviso.

† Prince's Digest, 559.

+ 2 Brevard's Digest, 241.