universal emancipation at the jubilee, it would not be easy to begin the system again. It is not probable that they who were released would sell themselves again into servitude; and as all who were slaves were to be the result of purchase, and not of conquest or kidnapping, it is clear that the places of those who had been emancipated could not be soon supplied. If in this country there were an article of the constitution that there should be a jubilee once in fifty years, in which all who were held in slavery should be restored to freedom, even if it were permitted to procure slaves again by purchasing them from foreigners, it is clear that slavery would soon cease. The slave would at once lose a considerable part of his value, for he and his children would soon be free. It would be impossible at once to supply the places of those who were emancipated at the jubilee, for the most active traffic, and the most numerous importations practicable, would not meet the demand. The plantations, in the mean time, must lie waste, and all the operations usually carried on by slave labour would be suspended, unless there could be found some substitute for that labour. But here would be all those who had been set at liberty, now dignified as freemen; stimulated to make an effort for themselves and their families, because they were free; acquainted with the business to be done on a plantation; many of them attached to their old masters, and ready to engage in their service for a reasonable compensation. The consequence would be, that in by far the greater number of instances, there would be no desire to purchase slaves again. Those who had been slaves, and who were emancipated by law, would be at once engaged, not as bondmen,' but as hired labourers,' and the same work which they performed before under the lash, they would now perform, in a better manner, under the higher incentives applicable to freemen. It may be safely said that slavery, as a system, would not survive the operation of two such jubilees in this land; and the conclusion is inevitable, that Moses was not a friend of the system, and did not design its perpetuity.

I have thus examined, at length, the nature and the prac tical operation of the Mosaic institutions in regard to servitude. But one point remains, to settle the inquiry whether we can derive an argument from the Mosaic institutions in defence of slavery as it exists in our land, or to determine whether it is proper to infer, as is often done, that because the Hebrew institutions tolerated slavery, that, therefore, the system is right as it exists in the United States. This will make it necessary to compare the Mosaic arrangements already described, with those existing in this country.

§3. Comparison of the Mosaic institutions in relation to Slavery with those existing in the United States.

The Mosaic institutions are, as has been before remarked, often appealed to in support of slavery as it exists at the present time. It is inferred, that because Moses permitted it, under the sanction of God, that therefore it is lawful now. This argument supposes that slavery, as Moses tolerated it, had substantially the same features which it has now, and that consequently it is right to argue from one to the other. It is important, therefore, to bring into comparison the features of slavery as it exists now, with those which were tolerated under the Mosaic laws; for nothing can be clearer than that if an argument can be constructed at all in favour of slavery from the fact that it was tolerated by Moses, that argument can be adduced only in favour of those features of servitude which he himself imbodied in his civil code.

Before proceeding, however, to notice the things in which slavery in this country differs essentially from that tolerated under the Mosaic laws, there is one remark which it is important to make, in order to obtain a clear view of the argument. It is, that it is no certain evidence that a thing is approved, or is regarded as best, because it is tolerated. The circumstances may be such that the evil could not at once be prevented without tearing up the very foundations

of society, and, therefore, it may be necessary to connive at it. The ultimate good may on the whole be more promoted, if it is permitted, with arrangements to modify it, and ultimately to remove it, than it would be if there were a violent effort to remove it at once. We have certain evidence that there were some things allowed by Moses, and for which he legislated, which were not regarded as arrangements most conducive to the happiness of society, and which it was never intended should always exist. Among these things we may mention (a) polygamy. Nothing can be clearer from the New Testament than that polygamy was not originally designed when man was made, (Matt. xix. 4,) and that it was not regarded as the best institution for society, or to be perpetuated for the good of mankind, (1 Tim. iii. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 2;) and yet this was practised by nearly all the patriarchs, and was tolerated by the Mosaic laws. I am aware that it is denied by the advocates of slavery,* and by some most decided abolitionists -extremes meeting here—that Moses tolerated polygamy, or that he ever legislated for it, and that even Dr. Dwight denies it. ‡ The argument on which Dr. Dwight rests, and the only one, is the marginal reading in the English version of Lev. xviii. 18, "Thou shalt not take one wife to another." The reading in the text is, "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, besides the other, in her lifetime." But, that the reading in the text is the correct one, is apparent, (1.) because the main discussion in the chapter is not about polygamy, but about marrying near relations. Having stated the general principles on that subject, nothing was more natural than for the lawgiver to add, that though, in itself, it was not unlawful to marry the sister of a wife, and he did not mean to prohibit that—a question

* See the Southern Literary Messenger, for September, 1845, p. 521. See the Letters of the Rev. A. A. Phelps, to Professor Stowe. Theology, vol. iii. pp. 419, 420.

which could not but occur-yet that it was not proper to do it in her lifetime.' There were obvious evils and improprieties accompanying such a step, which would render it undesirable that it should be done. (2.) This is the fair construction of the Hebrew-sa wife to her sister,' and it will not properly bear any other. So the Vulgate explicitly-Sororem uxoris tuæ in pellicatum illius non accipies-adhuc illâ vivente. So the LXX, гuvaixa in' ådɛhpy ἀντῆς, κ. τ. λ. So the Targum of Onkelos, the Samaritan, the Syriac, and the Arabic. So Coverdale renders it. Indeed, there is no interpretation of a passage better settled than this. That polygamy was tolerated by Moses, will further appear from the following remarks:

(1.) The act of legislation in Ex. xxi. 7—10, has reference to polygamy, and authorized it. "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, 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 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." The case supposed is that of an Israelite who should sell his daughter to be a 'maid-servant,' and that the daughter thus 'sold' might be 'betrothed' to him or to his son. If, after being thus betrothed to her master, she did not please him, the law was that she should be allowed to be redeemed. In no case should she be sold to a strange people. In case she was betrothed' to his son, and he chose to take to himself another wife, there were certain things which were not to be withheld from her. She was not to be discarded, or deprived of support, or treated in any other way than she would have been if the other wife' had not been taken. Her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." The argument in this passage turns on the meaning of two

6

words; that rendered betrothed,' and that rendered duty of marriage.' About the former, there can be little difference of opinion. The Hebrew word y means properly, to point out, to appoint, to fix. The idea of designating, appointing, fixing-as of a time or place for worship, for a meeting, for trial, &c., is the essential idea in the word. Job ii. 11, ix. 19; Neh. vi. 2, 10; Amos iii. 3; Jer. xlix. 19, l. 44. It is rendered in this place, by Gesenius, "to fix upon as a wife or concubine, to betroth ;" and there can be no doubt that the thing contemplated was such a designation as a wife or as a concubine, since she had already been purchased' as a maidservant. The case seems to have been such as would not unfrequently occur, in which after one had been procured as a 'maid-servant' by the promise or payment of wages, or of a 'price' to her father with the security that she could never be sold' he who had thus secured her for his employ, or his son, might be disposed to sustain to her the nearer relation of a husband. The law was designed to guard that point, so that no advantage should be taken of her condition as a servant, to oppress her, or to do her wrong. If the father who had secured her services was not pleased with her, after having designed to enter into this new relation, he should not take advantage of the fact that he was the purchaser, and sell her, but should allow her to be honourably redeemed, or restored again to freedom; if the son, who had no claim of purchase, he should be bound to treat her as a wife, even if he chose to marry another. The law, therefore, was every way humane, and was designed to prevent the worst kind of oppression that of an unprotected female in humble life. The other word on which the interpretation of the passage depends, rendered 'duty of marriage,' nay, is derived from a verb (y) which means to rest, to dwell; and the noun means a living together, cohabitation, says Gesenius, “in the conjugal sense.' So the Talmud understands it in this place. The Hebrew noun occurs nowhere else except in Hos. x. 10, where it is rendered furrows, though the reading