barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws of their nature, sell their own children? Will the record that the Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unof fending inhabitants of Africa, or buy them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold into hopeless bondage? Why then should the fact that there is a record that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any expressed disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of society? The truth is, that the mere record of a fact, even without any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a record? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of future ages? Are we tc maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good of mankind? Shall the biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and Alexander VI., and Cæsar Borgia, be held responsible for approving of all that these men did, or of commending their example to the imitation of mankind? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus judged. Why then shall we infer that God approved of all that the patriarchs did, even when there is no formal disapprobation expressed; or infer, because such transactions have been recorded, that therefore they are right in his sight?

CHAPTER IV.

Slavery in Egypt.

THE will of God may often be learned from the events of his providence. From his dealings with an individual, a class of men, or a nation, we may ascertain whether the course which has been pursued was agreeable to his will, It is not, indeed, always safe to argue, that because calamities come upon an individual, they are sent as a punishment on account of any peculiarly aggravated sin, or that these calamities prove that he is a greater sinner than others, (Luke xiii. 1—5,) but when a certain course of conduct always tends to certain results; when there are laws in operation in the moral world as fixed as in the natural world; and when there are uniformly either direct or indirect interpositions of Providence in regard to any existing institutions, it is not unsafe to infer from these what is the divine will. It is not unsafe, for illustration, to argue from the uniform effects of intemperance in regard to the will of God. Those effects occur in every age of the world, and in reference to every class of men. are no exceptions in favour of kings or philosophers; of the inhabitants of any particular climate or region of country; of either sex, or of any age. The poverty, and babbling, and redness of eyes, and disease engendered by intemperance, may be regarded without danger of error as expressive of the will of God in reference to that habit. They show that there has been a violation of a great law of our nature ordained for our good, and that such a violation must always incur the frown of the great Governor of the world. The revelation of the mind of God in such a case is not less clear than were the enunciations of his will on Sinai.

There

The same is true in regard to cities and nations. We

need be in as little danger, in general, in arguing from what occurs to them, as in the case of an individual. There is how no doubt among men why the old world was destroyed by a flood; why Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed; why Tyre, Nineveh, Babylon, and Jerusalem were overthrown; and there can be as little doubt, since the excavations have been made at Herculaneum and Pompeii, why those cities were buried under the ashes and lava of Vesuvius. If a certain course of conduct long pursued, and in a great variety of circumstances, leads uniformly to health, happiness, and property, we are in little danger of inferring that it is in accordance with the will of God. If it lead to poverty and tears, we are in as little danger of error in inferring that it is a violation of some great law which God has ordained for the good of man. If an institution among men is always followed by certain results; if there is no modification of it by which it can be made to avoid those results; if we find them in all climes, and under all forms of government, and in every stage of society, it is not unsafe to draw an inference from these facts on the question whether God regards the institution as a good one, and one which he designs shall be perpetuated for the good of society.

It would be easy to make an application of these undeniable principles to the subject of slavery. The inquiry would be, whether in certain results always found to accompany slavery, and now developing themselves in our own country, there are no clear indications of what is the will of God. The inquiry would be pursued with reference to the bearing of the institution' on morals and religion; on the industry and population of a state; on agriculture, commerce, literature, and the arts.

I propose, however, only to consider the application of the principle to one important transaction in history-the rescue of an enslaved people from Egyptian bondage. The object is to inquire what light that transaction throws on the question, Whether God regards slavery as a good institution,

⚫ and one which he desires should be perpetuated. The principle on which this inquiry will be conducted is, that if we can find a case in history concerning which God has de clared his sentiments, we may draw a safe conclusion in regard to the estimate which he forms of a similar institution now.

The case referred to is that of Hebrew servitude in Egypt. The obvious inquiries are, I. Whether there was any thing in that servitude so similar to slavery now as to make it safe and proper to argue from the one to the other; and, II. Whether the act of God in delivering the Israelites from bondage makes it proper to draw any conclusion as to his general, sentiments about slavery.

I. The resemblance between the servitude of the Hebrews in Egypt and slavery now; or the inquiry whether they are so similar as to make it proper to argue from the one to the other respecting the divine will.

It is not to be denied that there were some important points in which the servitude of the Hebrews in Egypt differed from slavery now, but most if not all of those points were of such a nature as not particularly to affect the inquiry before us.

(a) The Hebrews were not essentially distinguished from the Egyptians, as the Africans are from their masters in this land, by colour. There could be no argument drawn from the fact that they were of different complexion, or were of an inferior caste of men, in favour of holding them in bondage.

(b) They do not appear to have been claimed by individuals, or distributed on plantations or farms as the property of individuals. It was the enslaving or oppressing of them as a people, or nation, rather than subjecting them, as is done in our country, as individuals, to the service of others. They were in the service of the government, and held by the government, without particular reference to the will of individuals.

(c) On many accounts, also, the servitude in Egypt was

much more mild than it is in this country. Though characterized as hard,' oppressive, grievous,' and a 'fur nace;' and though it was such as to lead to most decided and marked interpositions of God to rescue a down-trodden people from it, yet there were features in it which greatly softened it as compared with the system in our own land. This circumstance will increase, as will be seen in the sequel, the force of the argument which I deduce from the interposition of God in the case; for if the oppression there was so grievous as to call forth the strong expressions of God in regard to it recorded in the Bible, and to lead to the heavy judgments which fell on Egypt in order to testify his disapprobation of the system, what are we to infer in reference to the divine views of the still more grievous oppressions in our own land? In order to see this difference, and to appreciate the force of this consideration, it is of importance to have a just conception of the nature of servitude in Egypt. The following summary, made in part by another hand, ("The Bible vs. Slavery, pp. 55, 56, 57,") will present this with sufficient distinctness. (1.) The Israelites “were not dispersed among the families of Egypt, but formed a separate community. Gen. xlvi. 34; Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. (2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen, the best part of the land of Egypt. Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27; Ex. viii. 22; ix. 26; xii. 4. have been at a considerable distance from those parts of Egypt inhabited by the Egyptians; so far at least as to prevent their contact with the Israelites, since the reason assigned for locating them in Goshen was, that shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians;' besides, their employments would naturally lead them out of the settled parts of Egypt to find a free range of pasturage for their immense flocks and herds. (3.) They lived in permanent dwellings. These were houses, not tents. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side posts, and the upper door posts, and the lintel of the

Goshen must