evidence that one of them was held as a slave, or was ever sold or offered for sale as a slave. They were not even attached as serfs or villeins to the soil, nor were they exported to be sold in a foreign market.

There are two occurrences referred to in their history which are decisive on this point, and which prove that not even the survivors of those tribes were regarded as slaves. The first is, the fact that a few of the inhabitants of Canaan, from the fear of death, became, by art and duplicity, voluntary servants to the Hebrews. I refer to the case of the Gibeonites. Josh. ix. They came to Joshua with the representation that they had travelled a great distance, and in such raiment as to appear as if they had come from afar. They stated to him and the elders, that they had heard of all that had been done by the Hebrews in their conquests, and they came to enter into a league of peace. The artifice succeeded, and the request was granted, and a solemn compact was entered into between them and the leaders of the Jewish host. Soon the deception was found out, (ver. 16,) and it became a serious question what course was to be pursued in regard to them. The command to destroy all the inhabitants of the land was positive; the fact of fraud in this case was undoubted; and yet a solemn league had been made with them, and the faith of the nation pledged that they should be spared. The matter was compromised, and the honour of the nation secured; since by the compact they were regarded as 'bondmen ;' (literally ‘servitude ay shall not be cut off from you;' see the margin;) and they were made "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for the house of God.' They were employed in the service of the "congregation and of the altar," (ver. 27,) and were continued in this menial occupation. Yet there is no evidence that they were reduced to slavery, properly so called. They were not held as property. They were not bought and sold, nor does it appear that the obligation to servitude descended to their children. They were held in subjection, and were employed to perform the more

laborious duties connected with the public services of the sanctuary. Undoubtedly they were regarded as menials, and were probably subjected to much indignity and contempt, but the essential features of slavery were wanting in their case. They had voluntarily put themselves in this position. They obtained what they asked, and though it was a laborious and debased condition, yet they preferred it to death. No argument can be derived from this in favour of the supposition that the Hebrews designed to perpetuate the institution of Slavery.

The other occurrence referred to in their history, which may illustrate the subject, is one that took place in the time of Solomon. Upon the remnant of that people in the land, who it would seem up to this time had been free, Solomon is said to have levied a tribute of bond-service' in building the temple. "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 utterly to destroy, upon these did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service (3-D) unto this day." 1 Kings ix. 20, 21. An express distinction was made between them and the children of Israel. "But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen, (,) but they were men of war, and his servants," (that is, in a higher sense than the others,) “and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen."-Ver. 22. Yet there is no evidence that the descendants of the Amorites, &c., were regarded as slaves. They were pressed into a temporary service for the purpose of procuring the materials of building the temple, and were doubtless dismissed as soon as the temple was completed. There is no evidence that they were held as property, or that they were in any case sold, or that they were held in perpetual servitude of any kind. The phrase "unto this day,” ver 21, proves only that they were held until that part of the book of Kings was composed.

Two remarks, however, may be made in view of this transaction. First, that until this time they were not regarded as slaves, or as servants of any kind. The bond-service' was then laid upon them. They were before freemen, and were now pressed into the service for a temporary purpose. Second, slavery was not common at that time, or at least Solomon had not slaves of his own. If that had been the case, we should have heard something of it on an occasion like this, and his slaves would have been required to perform this laborious service. The fact that Solomon was obliged to lay this burden on a people heretofore free, demonstrates that there was no large body of slaves under his control, to whom the work could be intrusted.

II. There was no foreign traffic in slaves. The proof of this is as complete as it can be where there is no express declaration, and the fact is of great importance, for if there were provisions made for the periodical emancipation of all who were held in servitude, then it is clear that the system could be perpetuated only by an active foreign traffic. It is needless to say that, though chiefly an agricultural people,* the Hebrews, especially in the time of Solomon, had considerable foreign trade. Palestine was favourably situated for commerce, and particularly for a commerce in slaves. It was adjacent to the Mediterranean, and the rich productions of India, in all ages the most desirable objects of commerce, almost of necessity passed through some part of it. It was undoubtedly to facilitate or secure this trade, that Solomon built Tadmor or Palmyra, and it was this which, in subsequent times, made Tyre, and Petra, and Alexandria, and Venice what they were. Solomon also had the advantage of a port at Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea, and secured also from that direction the rich productions of India and Africa. The vicinity of Egypt to Palestine, and the intercourse which Solomon had with that

See Michaelis' Com. on the Laws of Moses, art. xxxix.

66

country, made it easy, if he had chosen to do it, to import slaves from northern Africa. An active commerce in slaves has, in nearly all ages, been carried on through Egypt; and the different parts of Turkey, at the present day, are supplied with those which are procured in the interior of Africa, and conveyed through Nubia and Egypt. An extensive slavemart is established at Shendy, in Nubia, and the slave traffic is among the most profitable that now passes through Egypt. The number of slaves sold annually in the slave market at Shendy is about five thousand, a large part of whom go to Egypt, and thence to various parts of Turkey.* It may be added here, that slavery has always prevailed in Egypt, and in the adjacent countries. According to the most moderate calculation," says Burckhardt, "the number of slaves actually in Egypt is forty thousand. There is hardly a village in which several of them are not found, and every person of property keeps at least one. All the Bedouin tribes. also, who surround these countries, are well stocked with slaves."p. 307. It would not be possible to refer to a period in the history of Egypt in which slavery did not exist, and in which the traffic in slaves did not constitute an important part of the commerce with other countries. There was every temptation, therefore, if the Hebrews engaged in commerce at all, to make this a part of the traffic, and there is a moral certainty, if slavery was regarded as in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, that this species of trade would have extensively prevailed.

Yet, in every allusion to the commerce which was carried on with other nations, there is not a single instance where the traffic in slaves is mentioned. There happens to be quite an extended specification of the articles of trade-a specification which would be sufficient for a custom-house officer in ascertaining the amount and value of imports-and yet there is no case in which a slave constituted an item in the imports.

* See this traffic fully described in Burckhardt's Travels in Nubia, pp. 290-308.

Thus we have an enumeration in 1 Kings x. 22, of the articles which were imported in the " navy of Tharshish.' "For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram; once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." Comp. 2 Chron. ix. 21. So also Solomon had a seaport at Ezion-Geber, "on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom," (1 Kings ix. 26,) from whence the traffic with Ophir was carried on, but there is no intimation that any of those vessels were employed in the slave trade. If the traffic in slaves constituted any part of this commerce, it is incredible that " apes and peacocks" should have been specified, and no allusion to what must have been a much more important branch of commerce.

The considerations here suggested receive confirmation, if we advert to two circumstances mentioned in regard to the commerce of Tyre. The one is, that a part of the commercial operations of the Tyrians consisted in slaves. Thus it is said, (Ezek. xxvii. 13,) “Javan, Tubal, and Mesech, they were thy merchants; they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market." Comp. Rev. xviii. 13. The other circumstance is, that in the mention of the trade which the Hebrews carried on with Tyre, there is no allusion to any such traffic, and the enumeration of other things as the articles in which they traded, precludes the supposition that they dealt in either the purchase or sale of slaves. "Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants: they traded in thy market wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm."-ver. 17. These circumstances make it morally certain that in the transactions with Tyre, and in the foreign commerce carried on from Ezion-Geber, no part of the merchandise consisted of slaves. I do not find in the whole history of the Hebrew people under the Mosaic institutions, a hint that they were ever engaged in this species of comThere is no enumeration of slaves among the articles of importation; there is no allusion to them in the account

merce.