sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. Behold I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompense upon your own head: And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off for the Lord hath spoken it," (Joel iii. 3-8.)

In these prophecies, we have it distinctly set forth that the Jews were to be servants in Babylon, that is, the sons of Shem were to serve the sons of Ham, and they were to be sold among the Grecians also. But did these prophecies justify their masters? Nay; for they too, for thus enslaving the Jews, should themselves, as a punishment, be enslaved. Thus in God's providence the wicked are made to punish the wicked, and successive generations produce revolutions in character as there are changes of condition. Thus it is evident that a mere prophecy of what will be, is no justification of its fulfilment; and it is not safe to deduce moral conclusions and consequent rules of action from mere prophetic

annunciations.

If we do, we may educe that falsehood, robbery and adultery are all right; and that it was perfectly right on the part of the Jews to crucify Jesus Christ, for such crucifixion was clearly foretold.

But still we have not come to the direct

point at issue. Did Noah prophesy any thing at all respecting slavery? Did he utter one word about it? Suppose I deny. Will any one affirm? Upon him rests the weight of proof. Can he find any testimony in the case to warrant the conclusion that slavery was the thing intended? Remember what slavery is; that it is something specific; that it cannot be slavery unless it involves the idea of oppression, and consequently an oppressor. But do we find this in the language of Noah? Certainly he does not employ the word slave; this is neither in the translation nor in the original Hebrew. How then do any get at slavery in the passage? Canaan was to be a servant, but it does not follow he was to be a slave; nay, the inference is otherwise, for he was to be a servant of servants. We can readily understand how one may be the servant of a servant; but

how one can be the slave of a slave is not so readily perceived; for a slave according to the statute of South Carolina, and according to all judicial decision, is himself a chattel, and can possess nothing but what is his master's; consequently he cannot own a slave and cannot be a master. It may therefore be inferred that Noah did not have personal slavery in view, but only national subjection. Canaan nationally would be subject to Shem; but Shem himself would be nationally subject to Japheth; and thus would Canaan be the servant of servants. The term servant is very frequently employed in the Old Testament to signify both the officers and the subjects of a national sovereignty. Give it this signification in the prophecy of Noah, and the whole is easily understood. I have myself no doubt that Noah designed a national and not an individual appropriation of the curse, a national subjection (which need not however imply an oppressive government) and not domestic slavery.

If this has been historically fulfilled, then it may be some evidence that Noah spake

as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. But I myself do not find in any history, either that Canaan ever served Japheth or that Shem and Japheth never served Canaan. I should be glad to be informed on this point. But I know no method of ascertaining it.

I think I have now clearly shown that this passage is by no means evidence of the rightfulness of slavery or of slaveholding. And I cannot but think that when the reader again hears this prophecy adduced as a demonstration of God's approval or even toleration of slavery, he will pronounce it, as the lawyers say, a non sequitur.

CHAPTER III.

SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS.

THE next argument in order generally adduced by the advocate of slavery is that Abraham possessed slaves, and that he was not censured for it. And if he who is called the father of the faithful could

own slaves, it cannot be a sin in itself to be a slaveholder. The inference, however, in this case is not a legitimate one, even supposing that Abraham was a slaveholder. If it be good logic, then both lying and adultery are also justifiable, for Abraham was guilty of virtually denying that Sarah was his wife, and also had Hagar for his concubine, without in either case having it recorded that God rebuked him for it.

But were Abraham's servants and bondmen and women slaves? To prove that they were slaves, it must be shewn that they were oppressed without the power of redress. Was that their case? I think this cannot be inferred from the History. In the case of Hagar who was a bondwoman, her mistress to punish her and her son, insisted that Abraham should cast them out, i. e. set them free. In our Southern states the mistress would have her slave sold, not set free. The inference therefore is that Hagar was not a slave, but was in that sort of bondage which did not amount to a condition of oppression. And so although it be said