They all were armed. They were led off on a distant expedition, where there could have been no power in Abraham to preserve his life, if they had chosen to rise up against him, and no power to recover them, if they had chosen to set themselves free. Yet he felt himself entirely safe when accompanied with this band of armed men, and when far away from his family and his home. What must have been the nature of servitude, where the master was willing to arm such a company, to put himself entirely at their disposal, and lead them off to a distant land?

"Compare this with the condition of things in the United States. Here, it is regarded as essential to the security of the life of the master that slaves shall never be intrusted with arms. 'A slave is not allowed to keep or carry a weapon.'* 'He cannot go from the tenement of his master, or other person with whom he lives, without a pass, or something to show that he is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer.'† 'For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or shot, or club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave incurs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice of the peace;' and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, without a conviction by the justice.§ Here, there is every precaution from laws, and from the dread of the most fearful kind of punishment, against the escape of slaves. Here, there is a constant apprehension that they may rise against their masters, and every security is taken against their organization and combination. Here, there is probably not a single master who would, if he owned three hundred slaves, dare to put arms in their hands, and lead them off on an expedition against a foe. If the uniform precautions and care at the South against arming the slaves, or allowing them to become acquainted with their own strength, be any expression of the nature of the system, slavery in the United States is a very different thing from servitude in the time of Abraham; and it does not prove that in the species of servitude existing here it is right to refer to the case of Abraham, and to say that it is a good patriarchal system.' Let the cases be made parallel before the names of the patriarchs are called in to justify the system. But

*Rev. Cod. Virg. vol. i. p. 453, sections 83, 84.

+Ibid. vol. i. p. 422, section 6. See Paulding on Slavery, p. 146.

2 Litt. and Smi. 1150; 2 Missouri Laws, 741, section 4.

? Haywood's Manual, 521; Stroud on the Laws relating to Slavery, p. 102.

"(5.) What real support would it furnish to the system, even if it were true that the cases were wholly parallel? How far would it go to demonstrate that God regards it as a good system, and one that is to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach its highest possible elevation? Who would undertake to vindicate all the conduct of the patriarchs, or to maintain that all which they practised was in accordance with the will of God? They practised concubinage and polygamy. Is it therefore certain that this was the highest and purest state of society, and that it was a state which God designed should be perpetuated? Abraham and Isaac were guilty of falsehood and deception, (Gen. xx. 2, seq.; xxvi. 7;) Jacob secured the birthright by a collusive fraud between him and his mother, (Gen. xxvii.) and obtained no small part of his property by cunning, (Gen. xxx. 36-43,) and Noah was drunk with wine, (Gen. ix. 21;) and these things are recorded merely as facts, without any decided expression of disapprobation; but is it therefore to be inferred that they had the approbation of God, and that they are to be practised still, in order to secure the highest condition of society?

"Take the single case of polygamy. Admitting that the patriarchs held slaves, the argument in favour of polygamy, from their conduct, would be, in all its main features, the same as that which I suggested, in the commencement of this chapter, as employed in favour of slavery. The argument would be this:-That they were good men, the 'friends of God,' and that what such men practised freely cannot be wrong; that God permitted this; that he nowhere forbade it; that he did not record his disapprobation of the practice; and that whatever God permitted in such circumstances, without expressing his disapprobation, must be regarded as in itself a good thing, and as desirable to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach the highest point of elevation. It is perfectly clear that, so far as the conduct of the patriarchs goes, it would be just as easy to construct an argument in favour of polygamy as in favour of slavery-even on the supposition that slavery existed then essentially as it does now. But it is not probable that polygamy would be defended now as a good institution, and as one that has the approbation of God, even by those who defend the domestic institutions of the South.' The truth is, that the patriarchs were good men in their generation, and, considering their circumstances, were men eminent for piety. But they were imperfect men; they lived in the infancy of the world; they had

6

comparatively little light on the subjects of morals and religion; and it is a very feeble argument which maintains that a thing is right, because any one or all of the patriarchs practised it.

"But after all, what real sanction did God ever give either to polygamy or to servitude, as it was practised in the time of the patriarchs? Did he command either? Did he ever express approbation of either? Is there an instance in which either is mentioned with a sentiment of approval? The mere record of actual occurrences, even if there is no declared disapprobation of them, proves nothing as to the Divine estimate of what is recorded. There is a record of the 'sale' of Joseph into servitude, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to Potiphar. There is no expression of disapprobation. There is no exclamation of surprise or astonishment, as if a deed of enormous wickedness were done, when brothers sold their own brother into hopeless captivity. This was done also by those who were subsequently reckoned among the 'patriarchs,' and some of whom at the time were probably pious men. Will it be inferred that God approved this transaction; that he meant to smile on the act, when brothers sell their own brothers into hopeless bondage? Will this record be adduced to justify kidnapping, or the acts of parents in barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws of their nature, sell their own children? Will the record that the Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, or buy them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold into hopeless bondage! Why then should the fact that there is a record that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any expressed disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of society? The truth is, that the mere record of a fact, even without any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a record? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of future ages? Are we to maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good or mankind? Shall the

biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and Alexander VI., and Cæsar Borgia be held responsible for approving of all that these men did, or of commending their example to the imitation of mankind? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus judged. Why then shall we infer that God approved of all that the patriarchs did, even when there is no formal approbation expressed; or infer, because such transactions have been recorded, that therefore they are right in his sight?”

Does the mind hesitate as to the design of this laboured and lengthy argument? That its object is to do away, to destroy the scriptural force of the facts stated in these records? Does not this argument substantially deny that Abraham had slaves bought with money? And even if he did have them, then that it was just as wicked at that time as he thinks it to be now? Or, if he shall thus far fail, then to bring down the characters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a level with Nero, Caligula, Richard III., and Cæsar Borgia? And the holy books themselves to the standard of Herodotus, Tacitus, and Livy; and inure our mind to compare them with the writings of Hume and Gibbon ?

The writer who lessens our veneration for the characters of the ancient worshippers of Jehovah; who, as by a system of special pleading, attempts to overspread the simple announcements of the holy books with doubt and uncertainty, however conscientious he may be in these labours of his hand, while he assumes a most awful responsibility to God, must ever call down upon himself the universal and determined opposition of the intelligent and good among men.

The more secret, the more adroit the application of the poison, the more intensely wicked is the hand that presents it.

LESSON VI.

MR. BARNES has devoted twenty-four pages of his book to the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt, wherein we find no instance that his test is applied with either fairness of deduction or logical accuracy. Indeed, so far as our limited capacity.can trace his application to the test, he has made but two points:

I. After repeated judgments upon the Egyptians, for hesitating to set the Hebrews free, God, in his providence, effected their

deliverance from slavery. Therefore, we are to infer the indignation of God against the institution of slavery. What were the facts of the case? On account of their sins rendering them unfit for the blessings promised their fathers, God imposed on them slavery four hundred years,-at the expiration of which time he delivered them from it. When a free negro becomes a public nuisance, the court will give judgment that he shall be sold to be a slave five years. The term having expired, if the purchaser holds on, and refuses to let him go, the same court will interfere, set him free, and impose heavy penalties on the master. Does the case show that the court feels indignation against the institution of slavery? We think it proves exactly the opposite!

If the four hundred years of slavery operated to fit the Hebrews for the reception of the blessing; if the five years of slavery re-fitted the negro for the rational enjoyment of liberty, we think the providence of God places the institution of slavery in a valuable point of light.

II. In this review of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt, Mr. Barnes has noticed the fact of their rapid increase, to the extent of their becoming dangerous to the Egyptian government; and he has compared it with the more rapid increase of the slaves over the whites in the Slave States; and suggests a similar danger to the government of the United States,-adding, that such increase 'can be arrested by nothing but emancipation." Now all this may be true; but in what light does it show forth the institution of slavery? Does Mr. Barnes really mean to say, what is the fact, that the condition of slavery is so well adapted to the negro race, that, by it, their comforts, peace of mind, and general happiness are made so certain and well-secured to them, that they increase rapidly? And that, as they are a race of people whom we do not desire to bear rule over us, or become more numerous than they now are, it would be good policy, and he desires, to set them free, in order that they may be deprived of their present comforts, peace of mind, and happiness, with the view to lessen their increase, and waste them away? If such really be his view, we may regard it as an extraordinary instance of his Christian counsel, and form some idea of what he would be as a slave-holder. But the same increase of the slaves happened in Egypt in a different age, and in reference to a different class of men; nor could any exertion correct it. We may apply the test, and safely infer, THAT GOD

SMILES ON THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY.