it is necessary constantly to violate in order to its perpetuity. Among those principles are the following:

(a) The doctrine that all the race are on a level before God; that all are redeemed by the same blood; that all are equally the heirs of life; that all are moral and responsible beings; that all are descended from the same parent. The instructions of the Saviour do not go against all distinctions in life. They recognise the relations of father and son; of ruler and subject; of the rich and poor, as those which are not inconsistent with his grand fundamental position-that in the matter of redemption all men are on a level. In these relations all are to be recognised as men; as capable of redemption; as free moral agents; and no one by nature is supposed to have any priority or superiority over the other. But slavery always supposes that there is a distinction among men in these respects a distinction different from that which arises from regarding them as sustaining the relation of parent and child; as qualified to govern or not, and as fitted for different occupations of life where all may be free. It is supposed to be such a distinction in nature as to make it proper that one should be a master and the other a slave; that one should be regarded as a freeman, and the other 'a chattel and a thing;' that one should have a right to buy and sell, and that the other should be bought and sold. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that the advocate of slavery should regard all men as, in every respect, on a level in regard to redemption. There is inevitably, in his apprehension, some reason, in the nature of the case, just in proportion as there is any reason for the existence of slavery at all—why the present master SHOULD BE the master, and the present slave SHOULD BE the slave;-why the white man should be the master, and why the man of colour should be the slave. Yet it is clear that this view of the matter is entirely at variance with the fundamental doctrine in the plan of redemption.

(b) Under the gospel, and in accordance with its principles, no relation was to exist, which would be inconsistent with the

honest recognition of all who bore the Christian name and image as brethren. They were to be regarded as Christian brethren in all respects, and there was to be nothing in their condition which would make the application of the term to any and to all improper. Matth. xxiii. 8. "One is your master-zadnyntǹs: and all ye are brethrennávtes dè úμeis ådeλpoí ¿ote.* 'Ye all:'—that is, 'all who profess to be my followers-all who compose the true church, no matter what their rank, colour, condition, age. There is to be nothing in your condition or relations which shall be inconsistent with the fair and honest application of the word brethren—ådɛxpoi. Any thing which would not allow that, would be a violation of the principles of my religion.' This is the uniform language of the New Testament. Now, the employment of this term is entirely appropriate in all those relations where freedom is enjoyed. There is nothing to hinder its fair use when the rich address the poor, or princes their subjects, or preachers their people, or men of years and experience those who are just entering on life. But there is much to prevent its fair use when applied by masters to their slaves, or still more by slaves to their masters. It cannot be used except it be constructively and metaphorically, by those who regard their slaves as chattels and as property, and who have the constant feeling that they are at liberty to sell them at any moment, as they do their cattle. To apply the term brethren to those who are slaves, is a departure from all just use of language, and is a mockery of the feelings which it is condescendingly designed to soothe. Does it ever occur that slaves address their masters in this manner; and would they be allowed to do so?

* It is remarkable that even here the Saviour is careful not to employ a term which would even suggest the relation of master and slave. He uses the term zayntǹs—a leader, conductor (Anführer, Anleiter, Passow;) a leader, guide, teacher, master, (Robinson, Lex.), and not the term expressive of the relation of master, in contradistinction from a servant or slave—dɛoñóτys.—1 Tim. vi. 1, 2; Titus ii. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 18.

(c) One of the great and leading principles of the religion of the Saviour is expressed in the golden rule: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. vii. 12. This rule he evidently designed should be incorporated into his religion as essential to the system, and it is manifest that nothing inconsistent with the fair application of it can be in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. Yet its bearing on slavery is obvious. Its influence in securing the emancipation of all those now held in bondage, if fairly applied, would be certain and inevitable. (1) No one, under the influence of this rule, ever made a man a slave. No one ever felt that in tearing him away from his home, in separating him from country and friends, in exposing him to sale, and in dooming him to perpetual bondage for no other crime than that of being

66

Guilty of a skin not coloured like his own,"

he was doing that which he would wish another man to do to him. (2.) No one in exacting from another unrequited toil, or feeding him on coarse fare, or clothing him with coarse raiment, far inferior to what he himself possesses, or in depriving him of the privileges of reading the Bible, or of rising in political life, or of being eligible to office, ever did that which he would wish others to do to him. (3.) No one ever subjected a fellow-being to the operation of the laws of servitude, as they exist in this country, by the fair operation of this rule. He would not wish any one to subject him or his children to the operation of these laws. (4.) It may be added, that few or none, under the fair operation of this rule, would ever continue to hold another in slavery. Those cases must be exceedingly rare on the earth, where a man would desire that he himself should be in the condition of his slave, or that, if he were already a slave, the bonds of servitude should be riveted perpetually on him. Freedom is sweet to man; and it cannot be doubted that if a man were in all circumstances

to act towards those under him, as he would desire to be treated if in their places, the bonds of servitude would soon be loosed.

If these principles are correct, then it is clear that neither the example nor the silence of the Saviour can never be referred to as sanctioning slavery. It is one of the plainest of all propositions, that if we had had only his instructions and his example to guide us in this matter, slavery would never have been originated; and that where it had before existed, it would soon cease. The application of these principles to the system in this country, as we shall see in another part of the argument, would inevitably abolish the system.

II. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE APOSTLES TREATED THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.

§ 1. They found it in existence when they organized churches out of the limits of Judea.

We have seen above, that there is no evidence that when the Saviour appeared, slavery in any form existed in Judea, and consequently there is no proof that he ever encountered it. We have also seen that his silence on the subject cannot be construed as any evidence that he did not disapprove of the system, and did not design that the principles of his religion should abolish it, wherever it might be found. It is of great importance, therefore, to inquire how his apostles treated the system when they encountered it, and whether the manner in which they met it can be construed as an evidence that they regarded it as a good institution, and as one which it was desirable to perpetuate in the world.

There can be no doubt that slavery existed in the countries to which they went to preach the gospel, and that they often encountered it, and were called to act in view of it in organizing churches. There are evidences of this, as we shall see, in their epistles; and from what is known of the condition of the Roman empire at that period, it cannot be doubted that

they came in contact with it, and that in preaching the gospel they would be called to address those who sustained the relation of master and slave.

It is unnecessary to enter into a proof that slavery abounded in the Roman empire, or that the conditions of servitude were very severe and oppressive. This is conceded on all hands. If any one desires to see it demonstrated beyond the possibility of a doubt, he may consult an article by Professor B. B. Edwards, in the American Biblical Repository for October, 1835, pp. 411-436. The purpose of my argument does not require me to go into an examination of this point, in detail. All that the argument does require, whatever conclusion we may reach as to the manner in which the apostles treated the subject, is, the admission of the fact that slavery everywhere abounded; that it existed in forms of great severity and cruelty; that it involved all the essential claims which are now made by masters to the services or persons of slaves; that it was protected by civil laws; that the master had the right of transferring his slaves by sale, donation, or testament; that in general he had every right which was supposed to be necessary to perpetuate the system; and that it was impossible that the early preachers of Christianity should not encounter this system, and be constrained to adopt some principles in regard to the proper treatment of it.

In order to allow to those who suppose that slavery is sanctioned by the New Testament, and that the conduct of the apostles may be appealed to in justification of the system as it exists in this country, all the advantage in the argument which can be derived from the actual state of slavery as they found it, it seems necessary, however, to advert to the form in which slavery was found when they preached the gospel. It is proper to concede that the state of things was such that they must have encountered it, and that it then had all the features of cruelty, oppression, and wrong which can ever exist to make it repellant to any of the feelings of humanity, or revolting to the principles of a Christian. It is fair that that