Had their servitude been involuntary, they could have made themselves free at any moment. Is this the case with slaves in the South? But it is said that he had servants “born in his house." Very true; he was a prince, or nobleman, and had no doubt a large household. It is a fact with respect to many noblemen of the present day, that numbers of their servants were born in their houses; for the children of servants often live with the same family, as domestics, for many generations. It is a voluntary arrangement, however, for there are no slave laws compelling them to remain. As it respects the phraze "bought with money,' we shall meet with it in treating of Jewish servitude. Other considerations might be added, which go to show that there is hardly a feature in common between the service of the Patriarch and the slavery which exists in this land; but it is certainly unnecessary, as our opponents never use this case, so far as I It appears know, as their scriptural warrant for slavery in America. to be thrown into the scale at times, to make up in number, what ever may be lacking in weight.

Let us attend next to the oft repeated assertion that slavery is a divine institution, being authorized and regulated by the Mosaic law. It is stated in the Biblical Repertory of 1836, that "Moses finding this institution among the Hebrews and all surrounding nations, did not abolish it. He enacted laws directing how slaves should be treated, &c." It is a fact that slavery existed in Egypt, and other heathen nations-the Israelites knew this to their cost. Moses however had no authority to legislate for surrounding nations. God himself abolished slavery in Egypt; and in such a remarkable manner, too, that no Hebrew could fail to see his utter abhorrence of the system. This whole transaction will stand as a memorial of God against slavery, as long as the Bible shall endure. What are we to think however, of the assertion that Moses found it established among the Hebrews? Did they not receive the law in less than fifty days after their own manumission? And is any one so credulous as to believe that during this period they found time to institute slavery. Yet professor Hodge gravely asserts it as a fact, that it was found among them, and says that Moses did not abolish it!! The law, be it remembered, emanated from Jehovah-not from Moses-and to present him as licensing his own people to make slaves of men and hold them in bondage, just after the terrible overthrow of Pharoh for similar conduct, is certainly an awkward way to exact his justice, The service which and bring honor to his name among the nations. an Israelite was authorized to receive from his brother was voluntary in its nature. It was also limited in duration, and so hedged round with wholesome regulations as to make it a real blessing to the poor Jew. We need not dwell upon it, as none but the wilfully blind can confound it with slavery, as it exists among us. Let us turn our attention then specially, to the nature of that service which God directed the children of Israel to receive from the heathen round about; for this is the chosen ground of our opponents, and if they cannot make a successful stand here, their cause must be abandoned.

The law which regulates this servitude is found in Lev. xxv. 44. 46.-where we are told that the children of Israel might "buy

bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen round about, &c."—"Ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever."

The expression bondmen in this case has a powerful influence with many in fixing the meaning of the passage; yet there is no word for it in the original, save that which is elsewhere and properly rendered servants. Obed is applied to Jesus Christ, Is. 42: 1, It is applied also to Ziba. He is called Obed, yet he had twenty Obeds himself; of course he was no slave. The word is in fact applied to all persons who do service for others of any kind. Its use therefore makes nothing in favour of slavery. In reply to those who assert that the above passage sanctions slavery, it is common to use language of the following import-"It is often pleaded that in the Old Testament, God himself expressly permitted his people to enslave the Canaanites. True; for God may punish any of the children of sin as he sees fit-He has a right to do so, and he alone has a right. He may commission winds, or waves, or pestilence, or their fellow men to work his purpose of vengeance upon any people. But man has no right to arrogate the prerogative of the Almighty-he has no right uncommissioned by his maker, either to enslave or destroy his fellow. God commissioned Saul to exterminate the Amalekites -could we plead this an excuse for the massacre of an Indian tribe? &c."-This is certainly a valid argument on the ground assumed by both parties, viz, that God authorized the Jews to hold the heathen in slavery. It was a peculiar dispensation, and if any one pleads it in justification of slavery in this land, he is bound to show that the cases are parallel. He must furnish the instrument, stamped with divine authority, which designates the colored race as the proper subjects of punishment, and the whites as the chosen agents of God to execute his vengeance. This can never be done, for under the gospel dispensation all men are brethren. But notwithstanding the acknowledged force of this argument to silence the advocate of slavery, it rests we believe on a false interpretation of the word of God; an interpretation depending for its support on a misunderstanding of the technical terms mentioned above, and so misapplied as to lead to a conclusion totally at variance with the whole spirit and intention of the passage, when taken in its entire connection. Now it is evident that this position will be fully sus tained by proving the two following facts-first, that the servitude of the heathen in Israel, so far from being intended as a punishment was really designed by the Almighty as a signal blessing to those of them who chose to avail themselves of the privilege. And second, that this servitude, so far from being similar to the slavery in America, was in direct contrast with it; the one having a tendency to produce injurious results both in time and eternity, while the other was directly adapted to secure all proper spiritual privileges, and consequently made provision for happinesss beyond the grave, as well as in this life. If these two points can be fairly established, no candid man will say that slavery in this land finds its sanction in Jewish servitude. As it regards the benevolence of Jew. *Address of the Committee of the Synod of Kentucky.-p. 19.

ish servitude to the heathen, if we look carefully at the laws regulating it, it will be seen that provision was made for the following privileges.-1. The heathen servants were brought into covenant with God; which included in its proper seasons of rest for the body and religious instruction to benefit the soul. They received circumcision, must eat the passover, attend to all the feasts, and become so identified with the household that the directions for religious training, applied to them equally with the other members of the family. "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your God." Lev. 24 22.-See also Deut. 29: 10. 13. Exodus, 12: 43. 44. Deut. 12: 12. 18. and 16: 10. 16. and 31: 10. 13. Josiah, 8: 33. 35. 2d The servant was protected by law in his life person, property, &c. as other men. See Deut. 1: 16. 17. Lev. 21: 22. Numbers, 15: 29. 3rd. The Mosaic system commanded the Israelites to exercise the greatest kindness to servants, heathen as well as Jewish. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him:" Why? "For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Exodus, 22: 21. 22. Ye were in real slavery there, put no stranger in a similar predicament. See also Deut. 10: 17. 19. Lev. 19: 34. We may add to the above that the heathen servants became such voluntarily, for by doing so he abjured idolatry, and became a proselyte to the Jewish religion. Maimonides the Jewish commentator informs us, that if the servant was unwilling to enter into covenant with God, his master was to bear with him and try to win him by his kindness and instruction, but failing in this, he must at the end of a year send him back to the strangers whence he came; for God would accept none but willing worshippers. Had he been a slave, a little stubbornness would have secured his freedom! Many other considerations might be added to the above, all tending to the same result. And what is worthy of notice, these privileges and blessings did not depend on the caprice of a master, but were secured by divine statute. How different is all this, and how benevolent, compared with the slave laws of the Southern states.

Again; it is acknowledged by almost all writers on the subject, that slavery in this country has proved a curse to the white population, as well as to the black. Its tendency to injure the temper, the revolting licentiousness to which it affords such facilities, the idleness engendered by it, and which is the fruitful source of a numerous progeny of ills, have all been depicted by Jefferson and others with a masterly hand. These things need not be repeated, for it is presumed that but few are so blinded as to deny its adaptedness to injure any community wherever it exists, in a great variety of ways. The question then arises, is it at all probable that God would establish an institution (real slavery such as ours) intended for the benefit of the Israelites at least, but which naturally and evidently leads not only to jealousy and hatred between the two races, but the many and sore evils ever inflicted by it upon the masters and their families themselves. That God should solemnly leave such a legacy to the Jews as a blessing; while all experience, under his providential dealings with men, proves it to be a curse, is an assertion too strong for any thinking mind. Grant that it was right in him

to punish the heathen for their crime. Would he do it however in such a way as to carry mortal desolation among his chosen people? Such a supposition is in fact an impeachment both of the wisdom and goodness of God. Let the laws regulating this service be examined with unprejudiced minds, and instead of seeing in them a system of oppression, intended to operate as a punishment, we behold a wise provision for extending spiritual blessings to such heathen as might desire to fall in with the worshippers of the true God. They could not own the soil in Judea, but it would not do for them to be idle, hence God, in this way, kindly prepared them a home where they might, in return for assisting the Israelite to cultivate the soil; become incorporated with his family, and have a right to many of the privileges of God's house. This whole transaction on which many build the divine right of slavery, was really a type and pledge of the calling and admission of the Gentiles, under the new dispensation, to the church of Christ. Of the high standing of many servants in ancient times, and the respect paid to them, we may refer to such passages as the 21th Chapter of Genesis, 1 Samuel, ix. 22, and 1 Chronicles, ii. 34. 35. In short, the Mosaic law has no feature more remarkable than the studied manner in which it enjoins the manifestation of kindness and affection to the heathen, or stranger in judea; and the strictness with which it guards him against cruelty and oppression. In all this it is directly the reverse of our system, which places the slave at the very foot of the master, leaving him at his mercy without a restraint worthy of the name. Indeed, the single fact that the heathen servant must be circumcised, and become a member of the church of God, is wholly irreconcileable with the assumption that his situation was appointed as a punishment for crime; and this fact makes it also as a system of benevolence, directly the opposite of that which prevails in this land.

Other arguments, which we deem still more conclusive on the subject, will appear in the next number.

A PRESBYTERIAN.

PENANCE-INDULGENCE-WORSHIPPING OF RELICS.

Extracts from the speech of the Rev. H. Beamish, at the annual meeting of the Irish Society of London, on the 17th of May 1837.

It was well known, that the Roman Catholics in many parts of the country were in the habit of doing what they called penances -going round their stations-that was, going on their knees so many times round a place of supposed sanctity. This was done as self-imposed penance on themselves, or penance by their priests, or done with a view of helping the souls of their friends out of purgatory. The instance which he was about to mention was one of these, and if it were not so well attested, one could scarcely believe, that in the nineteenth century men with the alledged edu

cation and scientific acquirements, which, according to Mr. O'Connell, were possessed by the clergy-it would, he repeated, be scarcely believed, if not well attested, that such men could give their sanction to such degrading and debasing superstitions as the one he was about to notice. The authority to which he referred thus stated the circumstances:

"On Monday, 15th of May inst., early in the morning, I visited Struel, with the intention of seeing a young man who had travelled barefoot from the county of Galway, to perform what he terms stations. The following is the substance of a conversation that took place between us, at the foot of the mount called Struel, in a little cabin, after he had done his first station for the day:

"What is your name?-John Lalley.

"Where are you from?-The county of Galway.

"What induced you to come so far to do stations at this place? -Last November, a spirit in the shape of a man, appeared to me every night for three weeks, near the house in which I lived in the county of Galway, and one night I took courage and spoke to it, saying, 'In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do me no harm nor any one belonging to me, and tell me what it is that troubles you?' The spirit then replied, 'I am glad you spoke, for this is the last night I would have appeared to you. I have been dead these

nineteen years, and you were but three years and a half old when I departed. Before my death I promised to do stations at Struel, but never performed my vow, and because I did not do them I cannot rest.' "Did you inquire what was his name?—Yes; his name was Paddy Brady.

"Where did he say he lived when he promised to do the stations?-In the neighbourhood of Downpatrick, near Struel.

"What was his calling when living?-A carpenter.

"Have you made inquiry since you came to this county, if ever such a person lived about Struel?-Yes; but no one recollects him, some labourers, indeed, who are working at Down gaol, to whom I was speaking last Friday, thought that they had some recollection of him.

"Is it not strange that no people about this neighbourhood remember him, when he is only nineteen years dead?-No; he was a harmless boy, but neglected to do his stations, and therefore could

not be at rest.

"Where did he say his spirit had been for the last nineteen years? For the last five years he was up to his neck in water, under a bridge in this county; and for the last fourteen years he has been in a sand-pit in the county Galway.

"Are you certain that no person ever attempted to impose upon you in this affair; were you ever inclined to doubt about it?—No, never; for the night he was going away he took hold of my hand, and left a black mark on it, and went off in a flash of light.

"Have you been in a bad state of health lately?—No.

"Have you felt your head uneasy or in pain?-Never in my life. "Where do you believe that the spirit is now?-In purgatory. "And was he in purgatory all the time he was under the bridge, and in the sand-pit ?—Yes.