the gospel which they preached would ultimately abolish the system, they regarded it as an evil. If they left that impres sion as fairly deducible from their writings, then they were honest men, and cannot be charged with duplicity.

(c) I would remark, then, that they did not leave a false impression on this subject. They did not leave it to be fairly deduced from their conduct or their writings that they regarded it as a good system, or as desirable to be perpetuated. This point will be more fully considered in another part of the argument. Here, it may be observed, in general, that they never enjoin it as a duty, or speak of it as proper or desirable, for Christians to hold slaves; they never express any approbation whatever of the system; they never speak of it as they do of marriage and similar institutions, as honourable; they never enjoin it on the masters to continue to hold their slaves in bondage; they never even say to a slave that it is right for his master to hold him in bondage, or recommend obedience or submission on that ground; they never leave the impression on his mind that liberty would not be better than servitude. They represent it as a hard system; lay down principles which would lead every Christian master, if he followed them, to emancipate his slaves as soon as possible; endeavour to comfort slaves as in a condition that was hard and undesirable; advise them to avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming free if it is in their power, (1 Cor. vii. 21, ɛi xai dúvacα); and direct them, if they cannot obtain their freedom on earth, to look forward to that world where every fetter will be broken, and they will be free for ever. If it shall appear, as I trust it will, that the apostles gave this representation of slavery, then it is doing them great injustice to speak of them as friends of the system, or to say that their conduct was chargeable with pusillanimity or duplicity.

(d) One other remark should be made here, in inquiring whether they were honest men if they were really opposed to slavery, and how far their conduct should direct us in the treatment of this subject. It is, that they were all foreigners

in those countries where slavery prevailed. They had no agency in making or administering the laws. We have. We make and administer the laws ourselves. The apostles could not change the state of things then existing by a vote. The American people can. They had no vote; they could effect changes in a community only by a slow moral influence. The people of the slaveholding states can produce changes on this subject at the polls; can make any changes which they please. Their responsibility, then, was of a different kind from that of the people of the slaveholding states. The only thing which they could do was to lay down principles; to mould the public mind by a moral influence; and to leave the impression of their opinions on the age in which they lived. The responsibility of the people where slavery exists in our land is of a different character altogether. The question is whether they shall sustain the system by their votes; or whether, in connection with such moral influences as may be used, they shall use the power which they have, and put an end to it and whatever may be their duty on that point, it is clear that they cannot refer to the example of the apostles to guide them in it. They never could cast a vote that could in any way affect slavery; they could do nothing in making or administering the laws which sustained it.

§ 3. The question whether the general conduct of the Apostles is consistent with the belief that they approved of Slavery, and desired its perpetuity.

A very material question here presents itself, which is, whether the general conduct of the apostles, above referred to, is consistent with the supposition that they regarded slavery as a good institution, and desired that it should be perpetuated? Was it such as to make a Christian master feel that he was doing right, or acting consistently with his religion, in asserting a claim of property over those who were his fellow Christians?

In examining the method in which they treated the subject, with reference to these points, I would make the following remarks:-(1.) No argument in favour of slavery can be derived from any express statements in the New Testament affirming its justice or propriety. This is not pretended by any of the advocates of slavery, and obviously cannot be. There are no such statements of its propriety; of the desirableness of the relation; of the purpose of God that it should be perpetuated in the world. It is impossible for an advocate of slavery to appeal to the New Testament to sustain him in the right which he claims over a slave, in any such sense as a man can appeal to the New Testament to sanction his right to worship God; to search the Scriptures; to enjoy the avails of his own labour; to form his own opinions; to control his children, &c. And this, in the circumstances of the, case, is much. At a time when slavery prevailed everywhere, it could not but have occurred to those to whom the gospel was preached, to inquire whether it was right and proper, and whether it was consistent with the Christian religion. There would be tender and troubled consciences on the subject. It was in fact a matter of discussion among the heathen themselves whether it was right, and many of their philoso phers had declared themselves decidedly against it.* Thus, Alcidimas, the scholar of Gorgias of Leontium, says: "All come free from the hands of God; nature has made no man a slave." Philemon says: "Though he is a slave, yet he has the same nature as ourselves. No one was ever born a slave, though his body may be brought by misfortune into subjection." Aristotle, indeed, vindicated slavery, on the ground of the natural superiority of one man over another. Xenophon and Socrates raised no objection against the institution of slavery. Plato, in his Republic, only desires that no Greeks may be reduced to slavery. The question, therefore, among

See the article of Prof. B. B. Edwards on " Slavery in Ancient Greece," in the Biblical Repository, vol. v., pp. 155–160.

the Greeks was unsettled, and it was regarded as a debatable matter whether slavery was right or wrong. Many of the philosophers had doubts of its justice and propriety, and unquestionably many more of the common people had. Now, in these circumstances, it is much that there is no express permission of it in the New Testament; that there is no unequivocal assertion in favour of the system; that there is no unqualitied declaration of an apostle that would have put these scruples to rest.

Equally clear is it that there is no express permission given to Christians to hold slaves. There is, in the New Testament, no reference to the fact that it was tolerated in the Mosaic institutions; there is no statement that it had ever been or was right that men should be bought and sold; there is no intimation that it was regarded as a good and desirable institution, and that it was intended that it should be perpetuated. If it shall appear that the apostles laid down any principles which would seem to militate against the institution, and to raise any scruples in the minds of conscientious men who held slaves, they were at no pains to explain themselves, or to give ease to a conscience that might be troubled, on the subject. And if a Christian master at the present time, either from the workings of natural humanity in his soul, or from the influence of the principles laid down in the New Testament, should be troubled in his conscience in regard to his right to hold slaves, there is no part of the apostolic writings to which he could turn to allay his feelings and calm his scruples, by any thing like a distinct declaration that slavery is right. Now, in regard to such an institution, so much apparently against human rights, and against the principles of the New Testament, it is not too much to demand of those who suppose that it is sanctioned by the apostles, that they should adduce some express statement to that effect, or some distinct permission to Christians to hold their fellow-men in bondage. But it is clear that if

the continuance of slavery depended on this, universal freedom would be inevitable.

(2.) No argument in favour of slavery can be derived from the precepts of the apostles to the masters.

I have already conceded that the apostles admitted holders of slaves to the church, on evidence that they were truly converted; and that they addressed important precepts to them in that relation; and that among those precepts they did not require them immediately to emancipate their slaves, as a condition of good standing in the church.

The question now is, whether this fact can be fairly construed as demonstrating that they regarded slavery as right, and designed that it should be perpetuated. The affirmative of this is confidently maintained by the advocates of the system. Thus Dr. Fuller* says:

"I come now to what I have announced as proof on the question before us. It is the precepts to masters. And here let it be still remembered, that the Old Testament is constantly referred to by the apostles as of divine origin, and that there slavery had, by express precept, been sanctioned; and I put it to any one, whether the precepts to masters, enjoining of course their whole duty, and not requiring, not exhorting them to emancipate their slaves, are not conclusive proof that the apostles did not consider (and, as a New Testament precept is for all ages, that no one is now justified in denouncing) slaveholding as a sin. These precepts are so regardful of the slave that they even require the master to 'forbear threatening,' yet not an intimation as to emancipation. These pre cepts were to men anxious to know the whole will of God, and ready to die (as multitudes did die) rather than commit sin, and who were not prevented by law, as we are, from giving liberty to their bondmen. Yet the apostles do not even insinuate that slaveholding is a sin. The apostles solemnly took heaven to witness that they had 'kept back nothing;' and in addressing, not only the people, but the pastors, who were to * Letters to Dr. Wayland, pp. 194, 195.