Bethuel and Laban gave slaves to their daughters. None of these were Hebrews, yet they held slaves by a good title; for the very act of acceptance, in all these cases, is proof that the title was good. Besides, the Divine law itself instructed the Israelites to buy slaves of the surrounding nations. See Lev. xxv. 44. Can there be a stronger proof of the purity of a title, than this gives of the title by which the "nations round about" held slaves? The same law which permitted the Israelites to buy slaves of the "heathen round about," also permitted the "heathen round about" to hold slaves, because it acknowledges their title to be good. By an inquiry into the history of these "heathen round about," their religion, civil condition, their manners and customs, as well as the final state to which they arrived, we may form some idea how a good title to hold slaves and to sell them arose among them; and since the laws of God are everlasting, and always applicable to every case where all the circumstances are similar, we may reasonably conclude that the same race, or any other race, then, or at any other period of time, to whom the same descriptions will apply, will also be found attended with the same facts in regard to slavery. The conclusion therefore is, that from such a people, who have a good right to hold and sell slaves, other people, whose civil laws permit them to do so, may purchase slaves by a good title. It may not then be wholly an idle labour to compare the history and race of these "heathen round about," with the history, race, and present condition of those African heathen who have from time immemorial held and sold slaves. But it being shown that the Divine sanction to hold slaves, did, at one time, exist, it devolves on them, who deny its religious legality, now to prove that the sanction had been withdrawn. LESSON V. WE proceed to prove, by a variety of documents, that the Church of Christ did, at all times during its early ages, consider the existence of slavery and the holding of slaves compatible with a religious profession and the practice of Christian duties. It is first in order to present the sermons of St. Paul and St. Peter direct upon this subject. Having heretofore quoted them, we now merely repeat the references, and ask for their perusal : See 1 Cor. vii. 20-24; Eph. vi. 5–9; Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1; 1 Tim. vi. 1-14; Tit. ii. 9-15; Philemon entire, and 1 Pet. ii. 18-25. These scriptures distinctly teach the doctrine of the Christian church. But it remains to see what was the practice that grew up under it. Upon the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the mind cannot well conceive how the apostles could have avoided, from time to time, meeting together for the purposes of consultation and agreement among themselves as to the particulars of their future course; and that such was the fact, we have in evidence, Acts i. 15-26, where they did thus meet, and elected Matthias to fill the vacancy in their number. Also, Acts ix. 26-31, where Paul was received by them and sent forth as an apostle; but the book in question only gives us the outlines of what they did. Now, there is found among the ancient records of the church what is called "The Canons of the Apostles," which, if not actually written by them, is still known to be in conformity with their doctrine, as developed in their own writings and the earliest usages of the church. Among these, the canon lxxxi. is the following: Servos in clerum provehi sine voluntate dominorum, non permittimus, ad eorum qui possident molestiam, domorum enim eversionem talia efficiunt. Siquando autem, etiam dignus servus visus sit, qui ad gradum eligatur, qualis noster quoque Onesimus visus est, et domini concesserint ac liberaverint, et ædibus emiserint, fiat. We do not permit slaves to be raised to clerical rank without the will of their masters, to the injury of their owners. For such conduct produces the upturning of houses. But if, at any time, even a slave may be seen worthy to be raised to that degree, as even our Onesimus was, and the masters shall have granted and given freedom, and have sent them forth from their houses, let it be done. This is the first of a series of similar enactments, and it should be observed that it recognises the principle of the perfect dominion of the master, the injury to his property, and requires the very legal formality by which the slave was liberated and fully emancipated. The slave had the title, without his owner's consent, to the common rights of religion and the necessary sacraments. In using these, no injury was done to the property of his owner; but he had no claim to those privileges which would diminish his value to the owner, or would degrade the dignity conferred, and which could not be performed without occupying that time upon which his owner had a claim. There are eight other books of a remote antiquity, known as "The Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles," said to be compiled by Pope Clement I., who was a companion of the apostles. It is generally believed that, though Clement might have commenced such a compilation, he did not leave it in the form which it now holds, but, like the Canons of the Apostles, the exhibition of discipline is that of the earliest days. In book iv. ch. 5, enumerating those whose offerings were to be refused by the bishops as unworthy, we have, among thieves and other sinners, (Qui) famulos suos dure accipiunt et tractant; id est, verberibus, aut fame afficiunt, aut crudeli servitute premunt. They who receive and treat their slaves harshly; that is, who whip or famish them, or oppress them with heavy drudgery. There is no crime in having the slave, but cruelty and oppression are criminal. In the same book, ch. 11 regards slaves and masters. De famulis quid amplius dicamus, quam quod servus habeat benevolentiam erga dominum cum timore Dei, quamvis sit impius, quamvis sit improbus, non tamen cum eo religione consentiat. Item dominus servum diligat, et quamvis præstet ei, judicet tamen esse æqualitatem, vel quatenus homo est. Qui autem habet dominum Christianum, salvo dominatu, diligat eum, tum ut dominum, tum ut fidei consortem et ut patrem, non sicut servus ad oculum serviens sed sicut dominum amans, ut qui sciat mercedem famulatûs sui a Deo sibi solvendam esse. Similiter dominus, qui Christianum famulum habet, salvo famulatu, diligat eum tanquam filium, et tanquam fratrem propter fidei communionem. What further, then, can we say of slaves, than that the servant should have benevolence towards his master, with the fear of God, though he should be impious, though wicked; though he should not even agree with him in religion. In like manner, let the master love his slave, and though he is above him, let him judge him to be his equal at least as a human being. But let him who has a Christian master, having regard to his dominion, love him both as a master, as a companion in the faith, and as a father, not as an eye-servant, but loving his master as one who knows that he will receive the reward of his service to be paid by God. So let the master who has a Christian slave, saving the service, love him as a son and as a brother, on account of the communion of faith. Ne amaro animo jubeas famulo tuo aut ancillæ eidem Deo confidentibus: ne aliquando gemant adversus te, et irascatur tibi Deus. Et vos servi dominis vestris tanquam Deum repræsentantibus subditi estote cum sedulitate et metu, tanquam Domino, et non tanquam hominibus. Do not command your man-servant nor your woman-servant having confidence in the same God, in the bitterness of your soul; lest they at any time lament against you, and God be angry with you. And you servants be subject to your masters, the representatives of God, with care and fear, as to the Lord, and not to men. In the eighth book, ch. 33, is a constitution of SS. Peter and Paul, respecting the days that slaves were to be employed in labour, and those on which they were to rest and to attend to religious duties. Stephen I., who was the pontiff in 253, endeavoured to preserve discipline, and set forth regulations to remedy evils.. Accusatores vero et accusationes, quas sæculi leges non recipiunt, et antecessores nostri prohibuerunt, et nos submovemus. We also reject these accusers and charges which the secular laws do not receive, and which our predecessors have prohibited. Soon after he specifies : Accusator autem vestrorum nullus sit servus aut libertus. Thus, in the ancient discipline of the church, as in the secular tribunals, the testimony of slaves was inadmissible. In the year 305, a provincial council was held at Elvira, in the southern part of Spain. The fifth canon of which is— Si qua domina furore zeli accensa flagris verbera verit ancillam suam, ita ut in tertium diem animam cum cruciatu effundat: eo quod incertum sit, voluntate, an casu occiderit, si voluntate post septem annos; si casu, post quinquennii tempora; acta legitima. pænitentia, ad communłonem placuit admitti. Quod si infra tempora constituta fuerit infirmata, accipiat communionem. If any mistress, carried away by great anger, shall have whipped her maid-servant so that she shall within three days die in torture, as it is uncertain whether it may happen by reason of her will or by accident, it is decreed that she may be admitted to communion, having done lawful penance, after seven years, if it happened by her will; if by accident, after five years. But should she get sick within the time prescribed, she may get communion. Spanish ladies, at that period, had not yet so far yielded to the benign influence of the gospel, and so far restrained their violence of temper, as to show due mercy to their female slaves. It may be well to observe a beneficial change, not only in public opinion, but even in the court, by reason of the influence of the spirit of Christianity; so that the pagan more than once reproved, by his mercy, the professor of a better faith. Theodoret (1. 9, de Græc. cur. aff.) informs us that Plato established the moral and legal innocence of the master who slew his slave. Ulpian, the Roman jurist (1. 2, de his quæ sunt sui vel alieni jur.) testifies the power which-in imitation of the Greeksthe Roman masters had over the lives of their slaves. The wellknown sentence of Pollio upon the unfortunate slave that broke a crystal vase at supper,-that he should be cast as food to fish,and the interference of Augustus, who was a guest at that supper, give a strong exemplification of the tyranny then in many instances indulged. Antoninus Pius issued a constitution about the year 150, restraining this power, and forbidding a master to put his own slave to death, except in those cases where he would be permitted to slay the slave of another. The cruelty of the Spaniards to their slaves, in the province of Boetica, gave occasion to the constitution; and we have a rescript of Antoninus to Ælius Martianus, the proconsul of Boetica, in the case of the slave of Julius Sabinus, a Spaniard. In this the right of the masters to their slaves is recognised, but the officer is directed to hear their complaints of cruelty, starvation, and oppressive labour; to protect them, and, if the complaints be founded in truth, not to allow their return to the master; and to insist on the observance of the constitution. Caius (in 1. 2, ad Cornel. de sicar.) states that the cause should be proved in presence of judges before the master could pronounce his sentence. Spartianus, the biographer, informs us that the Emperor Adrian, the immediate predecessor of Antoninus, enacted a law forbidding masters to kill their slaves, unless legally convicted. And Ulpian relates that Adrian placed, during five years, in confinement (relegatio) Umbricia, a lady of noble rank, because, for very slight causes, she treated her female slaves most cruelly. But Constantine the Great, about the year 320, enacted that no master should, under penalty due to homicide, put his slave to |