this was allowable under the sanction of the Mosaic law.

:

But it seems, that in case their enemies would not come to terms of peace, then another law was to be enforced, "And if if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself." (Deut. xx. 12-14.) This was the law in reference to the hostile nations afar off. But of the nations immediately about them, the Canaanites, &c., another law was to prevail. Of these it was ordered; "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." They could not therefore make slaves or servants of the aborigines of the country. Men, women, children and all, must be utterly destroyed. Of the distant nations with whom they fought, they were to destroy all the men, consequently they could not make slaves of the men But the women and little

If

ones could be carried away as captives, (see Num. xxxi. 9.) But why were these to be carried off as captives? Evidently because the men being destroyed, the women and children required protection. But were they allowed to make slaves of them, or to bring them into oppressive service? Not at all. These women and little ones would have all the advantages and protection of the Hebrew laws. they became conformists to the Jewish religion, they were immediately entitled to all its national, civil, and social advantages. If they did not, but still remained as strangers in the land, this law threw its shield around them-"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him," (Exodus xxii. 21.) They therefore could not possibly be legally enslaved, because if there were no oppression, there could be no slavery, for a slave is one compelled to serve another without the means of redress when wronged.

I trust that in this examination of the law of Moses, I have made the matter so plain, that no one who has followed me can be disposed all in question the fair

ness of my deductions. I am sure I have not sought by ingenuity to force the scriptures to sustain my own views. It would answer me no good purpose to delude myself with a fanciful interpretation, nor could I hope to produce any permanent conviction in the minds of others, if I did not feel the assurance that I had candidly and fairly sought out and ascertained the truth.

CHAPTER V.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

Joshua ix. 23, 27.

"Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the house of my God." And Joshua made them that day hew

er

wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose."

Admitting that the Gibeonites, who were thus treated, were thereby oppressed

Ac

and enslaved, (although it does not follow, because they were hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of God, that they were slaves ;) admitting it, I say, still there is no divine sanction of slavery. Look at the history of the transaction, and it will be seen that the Jews in this case acted without asking "counsel at the mouth of the Lord." Joshua ix. 14. cording to the history, God had directed that of those people, including the Gibeonites, every thing that breathed should be killed. When therefore they spared their lives and made bondmen of them, they acted in direct violation of the command that had been given them. It is therefore in this discussion unimportant to inquire into the nature or conditions of the bondage or service imposed upon them. The history affords no evidence that Joshua and the rulers had any right to make the regulation they did. It affords no divire sanction of slavery.

2 Samuel xii. 31.

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws,

and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon."

Whether David put these people to a horrible death, or into a severe bondage, is not a settled question. But whichever it was, there is no reason to believe he had the divine sanction for it. Elisha's direction to the king of Israel in relation to the captives was in a very different spirit. He directed them to be fed and sent back to their king or master." 2 Kings vi. 22, 23.

1 Kings ix. 20, 21, 22.

"And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots,