servants, and came into the camp to buy the children of Israel for slaves" (1 Macc. 3: 41). And how "Nicanor undertook to make so much money of the captive Jews as should pay the tribute of two thousand talents, which the king was to pay to the Romans. Wherefore immediately he sent to the cities upon the sea-coast (Tyre, the great slave-trader, being of course one), proclaiming a sale of the captive Jews, and promising that they should have fourscore and ten bodies for one talent" (2 Macc. 8: 10, 11). But especially, as appears from Josephus' "Jewish War," B. 6, chap. 9, § 3, were vast multitudes of Jews sold into slavery throughout the empire by the Ro

mans.

SECTION V.

During the personal ministry of Christ, though slavery in fact, as part of the social order, and the question of slavery, in thesi, in the interpretation of the law of Moses, must have been forced upon His attention; yet He did not repeal the permission of slavery as He repealed the permission of divorce and polygamy. Nor did He claim to teach a purer ethics than Moses. When actual cases of slaveholding came before Him, He not only did not rebuke the relation, but blessed both master and slave; and in His preaching referred without rebuke to the relation of master and slave.

THERE cannot be the least doubt, therefore, that at the appearance of Jesus Christ as a minister of the Church, slavery existed throughout the civilized world. Indeed, classical scholars compute the number of slaves then in the Roman Empire at sixty millions. The historian Gibbon, after describing the condition and character of slaves in

the empire, thus sums up the conclusion as to their numbers: "After weighing with attention every circumstance which could influence the balance, it seems probable that there existed in the time of the Emperor Claudius, about one hundred and twenty millions of persons. The slaves were at least equal in number to the free inhabitants of Rome." (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall," vol. i. p. 53.) It should be borne in mind, too, that, while generally they were degraded barbarians, many of the slaves were Jews, as well as of other civilized nations; many of them, therefore, men of culture and great skill in the higher arts. For, according to Gibbon, "almost every profession, either liberal or mechanical, could be found in the bouse of an opulent senator." It must be borne in mind, moreover, that among the communities in which Jesus and His Apostles preached the gospel, the civil law of Moses had been superseded by the slavery laws of the Roman Empire, which, though at that era modified and mollified in a great degree, were still less restrictive of the rights of the master than either the Mosaic code or the modern American code.* And bearing in mind how fanatically the Jews, in their subjection, still clung to the Mosaic code, turning even its

* It may assist materially the ordinary reader of the Bible, and give definiteness to his views of the teachings of Prophets and Apostles concerning slavery, as a practical question, to present, in one summary view, the parallels and the contrasts between the three codes-of Moses, which exhibit the law of slavery in the Old Testament Era; of Justinian, which exhibit the slavery law under which the Saviour and his Apostles preached; and of the American Southern States, under which the question is, at this day, discussed. Nothing more can be attempted here than a comparison of the three codes, in reference to three germinal points-viz., the principle of the code, its theory of its own ethical right, and its limitations of the master's rights; both in their agreements and differences. The foolish clamors and falsehoods concerning the details and abuses of the American code will be noticed elsewhere. Not having at hand the laws of any of the Southern States, I can

civil enactments into ethical laws, and regarding it as apostasy from the faith that one should, by paying tribute, recognize Cæsar's rule, over the kingdom of which Jehovah was Theocratic King, it is utterly inconceivable that the

not refer specifically to the statute, but state the principles of the American codes, simply as current notorious fact.

POINTS OF AGREEMENT.

1. All three of these codes contemplate the slave as both a person and a property.-(Ex. 20: 20-Just. Inst. Lib. 1: Tit. 3.)

2. All three recognize the property rights of the master, as superseding and contravening the personal right of the slave to a permanent marriage relation, and the control of his children, by permitting, in certain cases, the separation of the slave from his wife, and ordaining, in all cases, the children of a slave woman to be her master's property.-(Ex. 20: 4-Just. Inst. Lib. 1: Tit. 3.)

3. All three recognize the personal rights of the slave, to the extent of protecting him against maiming or loss of life, by the cruelty of the master.—(Ex. 21: 26-7—Just. Inst. Lib. 1: Tit. 4.)

POINTS OF DIFFERENCE.

The Mosaic code granted the right to enslave men of all nations -except Hebrew fellow-citizens-who could be held only temporarily. (Lev. 25.)

The Justinian code recognized the right to enslave people of all nations, according to ancient Roman law (but was amended afterwards by Leo, so as to forbid the enslaving, even by his own consent, a free citizen of the empire)-(Just. Inst. Lib. 1: Tit. 3.)

The American code forbids the enslaving of any people, except of the African race only.

2. In the theory of the Mosaic code the ethical right of enslaving, as against the admitted natural equality of men before God," rests for its sanction upon the will of Jehovah, directly revealed through Noah and Abraham and Moses.

In the theory of the Justinian code-heathen in its origin-the ethical right of enslaving-which is expressly declared to be contrary to the law of nature-rests for its sanction upon the "Law of Nations," as deduced from the usages of war.-(Just. Inst. Lib. 1: Tit. 3.)

In the theory of the American code-Christian in its origin— the ethical right of enslaving-admitted, in the sense of the Justinian code to be contrary to natural right-rests upon the sanction of the will of God, as revealed in his Word and Providence, con

question of slavery should not have become a matter of earnest discussion. Certain it is that, precisely for the same reason that they raised the question of tribute to Cæsar in a country of which Jehovah had said “The land is Mine," and, therefore, cannot be alienated by My tenants, they must also raise the question at least of the lawfulness of enslaving Jews, of whom Jehovah had said, "They shall not be sold as bondsmen. For they are My servants (slaves).

Now, during the brief era of Christ's personal ministry, confined to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel,” with the Mosaic moral and ritual codes still in full force as their ethical and ritual rule of faith, but with the authority of his civil and political code set aside by the Roman lawhow did He treat this question? We have but a few inci

cerning a degraded race, and also upon the "local law" of the country.

3. The Mosaic law protected the personal rights of the slave by ordaining the freedom of the slave, as the penalty to the master, for maiming, by cruel usage; and treated the murder of a slave as any other murder.--(Ex. 21: 20; and Lev. 24: 17.)

The Justinian code, though the original Roman law, gave no protection, even of life, against the master; yet, by the amendment of Antonine, punished the murder of one's slave as the murder of another man's slave, and, in case of cruelty, ordered the slave to be sold to another master.-(Just. Inst. Lib. 1: Tit. 5.)

The American code agrees with the Mosaic in protecting the personal right of a slave to life, by punishing the murder of a slave as any other murder; and, with the Justinian code, in making cruelty to a slave an indictable offence, and providing for the sale of the slave, cruelly used, to another master.

It may be added to this last statement, however, that a still more powerful protection of the slave than formal enactments of law, in the Southern States, is the great unwritten law of public opinion. Notoriously, the surest provocative of "Lynch law" against a master, is cruel usage of his slaves; and it is equally notorious, that the slave suing for his freedom, with a reasonably fair case, can always command the highest legal counsel of the locality. Under all codes, the interest of the master is the best protection.

dental facts recorded relating to the subject; but these are very significant.*

A case of slavery came before Him in one of the first recorded of his miracles. A Roman centurion appeals to Him to save the life of a highly-valued slave (Matt. 8: 6, and Luke 7: 2). There can be no doubt that he was a slave in the fullest sense, for his master calls him "pais mou," "my boy," precisely the term applied to full-grown slave men in the Southern States at this day, so greatly to the horror of anti-slavery sentimentalism; while, on the other hand, Luke terms him "doulos," "his slave." So far from rebuking the master as a "manstealer," "thief," or by any other epithet of the anti-slavery vocabulary, and demanding his instant emancipation, Jesus heals the slave, and at the same time pronounces his master a hero of the faith beyond any yet met with in Israel. †

In the Saviour's teachings He manifestly uses the language of a slaveholding people, alluding to the existence of such a relation as master and slave as a fact familiar to his hearers. And, more particularly, in His parables does

*As the subject and structure of the discourse admits of a discussion of slavery in the New Testament only incidentally, and, therefore, briefly, the author feels the more free to fill up the outline of the argument of the text by means of fuller citations of authorities in the notes, and additional suggestions in the form of notes, in order to present, as completely as the space will admit, the whole of the Bible argument.

That the reference to, and argument from the case of the centurion, is not overstrained in aid of the author's view, will be apparent from its accordance with the latest, and, perhaps, highest authorities in Biblical criticism. Thus, Lange, on this place (v. 6):

"My servant," o pais mou.-The SLAVE, or domestic servant, as distinguished from the common soldier, who was only officially subject to him and not a son. From the more detailed narrative in Luke, we learn that he was held in special esteem by his master, which, indeed, may be gathered from this passage also."-(Lange, Com, Matt. 8: 6.