cannot be transferred from one master to another, without his own consent? Suppose a law to be enacted, forbidding the master to sell his slave, except with the slave's consent, and making the slave's voluntary signature in the presence of a magistrate essential to the validity of the transfer :-is that the immediate, unconditional, and unqualified abolition of slavery? Is it said that the master has no property in the person of his apprentice, but only a property in his time and labor, a title to his services? We ask in reply, Is it necessary to the existence of slavery, that the slaveholder shall have any other kind of property in his slave than what the master mechanic has in his indented apprentice? Suppose it to be declared by legislation, or by some judicial decision, that the master's property in his slave is simply a property in his time and labor, and not in his blood and bones, and that the slave is only a "person held to service or labor" for his lifetime, and transmitting the same condition to his children would that be the immediate and complete abolition of slavery?

Shall it be said, then, that slavery consists in the obligation to work without wages? But is not the apprentice bound to work without wages? The apprentice has indeed a compensation for his labor; he does not work for nothing; he receives, ordinarily, his food and clothing, and he receives instruction in his trade. And so the slave may have a compensation. It is not essential to his condition that he shall work for nothing; it may be that he has his daily food, his cabin and his clothing; it is not impossible to imagine that he has food and cloth

ing for his children, and even a shelter and the comforts of animal existence for his aged and disabled parents; nay more, he may be provided with medical attendance in sickness, and with religious instruction on the Sabbath; and the master may regard all this as due to him in consideration of his services; while yet his service is the service of a slave. Will it be said that his compensation is inadequate? We admit it; but are all men slaves who work for an inadequate compensation? In how many parts of the world may men be hired, by thousands, to work for no other compensation than bare shelter and support?

Shall we adopt Paley's definition, that "slavery is an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant?" But may not a man sell himself into slavery? Did not the Hebrew servant, who, at the end of his sixth. year of servitude declined the privilege of becoming free, consent and contract to be a slave forever?

We know not how to define slavery more accurately than by saying, It is that artificial relation, or civil constitution, by which one man is invested with a property in the labor of another, to whom, by virtue of that relation, he owes the duties of protection, support, and government, and who owes him, in return, obedience and submission. The right which a father has in his children, is a natural right; the relation which involves it, is a relation instituted by the Author of nature. The right which the master has in his apprentice, is the right of the father transferred, within certain limits, and for the convenience and by the consent of the parties, to another person.

But the relation of master and slave has no foundation in nature; it is altogether the work of human legislation. It is a relation entirely artificial; it is an unnatural constitution of society, arbitrarily investing one party with authority and property, and binding the other party to obedient and submissive labor.

Now there are those, we have reason to believe, who think they find in the Scriptures a full justification of slavery; and who bring proof texts to quiet their consciences while they hold their fellow-men, and are resolved to hold them always, in a most degrading bondage. On the other hand, there are men who profess to regard it as one of the plainest points of revelation, that no man can exercise the ownership and government of a slave, in any circumstances for a single hour, without the most atrocious and horrible guilt. The inquiry before us has been undertaken with reference to both these opinions. In pursuing it, then, we are to examine chiefly what light the Scriptures throw on the subject.

A full investigation of the Scriptures in relation to this matter, naturally divides itself into two branches; first, the Mosaic legislation and religion, and secondly, the principles and conduct of Christ and his apostles..

The first point, then, to be examined, is the legislation of Moses on the subject of slavery. Did the great lawgiver of Israel, legislating by Divine inspiration, approve and sanction slavery? If not, did he forbid and abolish it on the plan of immediate abolition? The following positions, we think, will be found too plain to need much illustration, and too well supported to be denied.

1. Moses did not introduce slavery among the Jews. It was even in his time, as it has been ever since, in all the countries of the east, an ancient and established institution, incorporated with all the habits of the people, and with the entire structure of society. As long ago as when Abram and Lot departed out of Haran, about four centuries after the flood, they took with them, not only "the substance which they had gathered," but "the souls which they had gotten in Haran."* The patriarch, sojourning and wandering in the land of promise, was not a solitary traveler; he was respected as the master and proprietor of a body of servants, of whom "three hundred and eighteen" were able to bear arms.† And as to the nature of the servitude of the souls which he had gotten, and the tenure by which they were held, the story of Hagar, the "bond woman," seems to be a sufficiently palpable illustration. The wealth of Isaac consisted not only in flocks and herds, but in 66 great store of servants." When Jacob returned from Padanaram, his wealth was "oxen and asses, flocks, and men-servants, and women-servants."|| Whether the servants of those days were bought and sold as merchandise, and at what price, let those judge who have read of the sale of Joseph to a caravan of Arab traders-a transaction exactly like what now takes place in Africa, not to say in this country, every day. Such were the ideas and habits of the Hebrews, when Moses undertook to give them laws.

* Genesis xii. 5.

+ Genesis xvi. 1-9; xxi. 9-11.

|| Genesis xxxii. 5.

† Genesis xiv. 14.

§ Genesis xxvi. 14.

2. In these circumstances did the inspired legislator peremptorily prohibit slavery? No. He expected that the people for whom he was legislating would continue to hold bond-servants as property; and he framed his laws accordingly. Indeed, we may say, that slavery is as important a title in his laws, as it is in the statute-book of any State in this Union. He defines several modes in which persons might become slaves. (1.) The man convicted of theft, and unable to make a double or fourfold or fivefold restoration of the property stolen, was to be sold to make out the compensation.* (2.) Sometimes a man through poverty sold himself or his children, or perhaps, was sold, with his family, for the payment of his debts; a wiser method, surely, than our Gothic practice of imprisoning the debtor. This mode of enforcing the payment of debts, was probably an ancient custom. The legislator takes it for granted that this will be done, and makes provision for it. (3.) Captives in war, especially women and children, were held as slaves. (4.) In connection with a law protecting the Israelite, who through poverty had sold himself, against the rigorous treatment to which slaves were ordinarily subject, and providing for his emancipation at a fixed period, it is said, " Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids: moreover, of the children

*Exodus xxii. 1-4.

† Levit. xxv. 39, 47; Exod. xxi. 7; Nehem. v. 4. 5. See Michaelis on the laws of Moses, vol. ii. pp. 160-163, 306-308.

+ Deut. xx. 14