time: how long we cannot say. Evidently they continued there after they "had made peace with Israel," [x. 1;] for there were they attacked by the five kings of the Amorites, [x. 5;] and successfully defended by Joshua. The fact that "Kirjath-baal, which is Kirjath-jearim" is mentioned as "a city of Judah,” [xv. 60, xviii. 14;] and "Gibeon, Beeroth, and Chephirah,” as "cities of Benjamin," [xviii. 25, 26,] will not disprove it. For Jebusi or Jerusalem is classed with the cities of Benjamin, [xviii. 25, 36,] though long inhabited by unconquered Canaanites, [Judg. i. 21;]-Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Tannach, and Megiddo, with those of Manasseh, [Josh. xvii. 11, 12,] though “when Israel was strong, they did not utterly drive out their inhabitants, but put them to tribute," [Judg. i. 27, 28;]-and Rehob, Zidon, &c., with the cities of Asher, [Josh. xix. 24-31;] though the last named was never possessed by the Asherites; but always inhabited and held by the Zidonian Canaanites. In later times, the Gibeonites seemed to have been removed from, or to have exchanged, their possessions. They probably did not reside in Kirjathjearim when the ark of God was there; [1 Chron. xiii. 5, 6; 2. Chron. i. 4;] nor in Gibeon, when the tabernacle was pitched in that city; [1 Kings iii. 4, 5. 1 Chron. xxi. 29. 2 Chron. i. 3–6, 13.] After the return from Babylon, the children of Gibeon, Kirjathjearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, are numbered with "the men of the people of Israel,” in distinction from the Nethenims, who are regarded as descendants of the Gibeonites. [See Ezra. ii. 20, 25, 43–58. and Neh. vii. 25, 29, 46-60.] The prophets of Gibeon, too, [Jer. xxviii. 1,] were, most likely, Jews. Still, the Gibeonites had their own possessions and cities. The whole tenor of the narrative respecting Saul's war of extermination upon them, and of the vengeance subsequently inflicted on his family, implies, that in the time of David they were a distinct people, having their own business, and pursuing their own interests. Indeed, their cities are expressly mentioned, [Ezra. ii. 70.] "So the Priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethenims, [the given, devoted ones, that is, to the temple service, as the word Nethenims signifies,] dwelt in their cities, and all Isracl in their cities." This passage might seem to countenance Bishop Patrick's supposition,

that they "were dispersed into the cities of the Priests and Levites." [Quoted in M. Henry, Josh. 9.] But Nehemiah records the same event in somewhat different language: "So the Priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethenims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities," &c. [vii. 73;] from which we as naturally infer that the Nethenims had cities to themselves, as that the priests and common Israelites had. If, however, Bishop Patrick's supposition be correct, our argument is unaffected. They dwelt in their own houses, keeping together their own families, and occasionally "serving at the altar, out of the profits of which, it is probable, they were maintained."-[Henry.]

[3.] The Gibeonites were not reduced to personal slavery; nor were they rendered the private property of the Israelites. In other words, they were not slaves. When Israel found that the Gibeonites were neighbors, "all the congregation murmured against the princes. *** And the princes said unto them, Let them live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the congregation." [Josh. ix. 18-21.] But "Joshua called for them, and he spoke unto them, saying, **** There shall none of you be freed from being bond-men, [ebed,] and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." (vs. 22, 23. M. Henry well observes, "The princes would have them slaves to all the congregation, at least they choose to express themselves so, to pacify the people; but Joshua mitigates the sentence, both in honor to God, and in favor to the Gibeonites: it would be too hard to make them every man's drudge; if they must be hewers of wood and drawers of water, than which there cannot be a greater disparagement, especially to citizens of a royal city, yet they shall be so to the house of my God, than which there cannot be a greater preferment." Let it be observed, also, that the Hebrew word, ebed, bond-man, only, is employed. There is no mention of the amah or shiphhah, maid-servant: nor is there the slightest reason to believe that any service was required of the female Gibeonites. If verse 27, be appealed to as against this position,-"and Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord,"-let Henry remove

the difficulty: "They were employed in such services as required their personal attendance on the altar of God, &c. **** They were herein servants to the congregation too; for whatever promotes the worship of God, is a real service to the commonwealth.”

Let any one read 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14, and believe, if he can, that the Gibeonites were the personal property of the Hebrews. "Saul sought to slay them, in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah." (vs. 2.) A singular zeal, truly, for the welfare of his subjects, which would lead him to catch and destroy all their slaves! What would the reputation of that statesman be worth, who should propose such a measure in his zeal for the interest of our southern slaveholders? If these people were not slaves; but property holders in the cities of the priests; or, as is more probable, possessed of cities and farms of their own, the policy and conduct of Saul would be precisely like that of the Georgian legislators in expelling the poor Cherokees, that they might seize their houses, lands, and gold-mines; popular enough with their constituents, but abhorrent to God. King David "called the Gibeonites, and said unto them, **** what shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" A high honor, verily, for the King to ask the slaves' blessing upon the Lord's inheritance! And they said, "Let seven men of Saul's sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul." What! do the slaves wish to insult their masters by hanging seven sons of his majesty, their late king? hanging them with their own hands; and in Gibeah, too, Saul's native place? Yes, nothing less will satisfy them: and what is more astonishing, the reigning monarch says, "I will give them." Seriously, no man in his senses, not previously resolved to find slavery in the Bible, would ever dream that these Gibeonites were the slaves of Israel.

4. The only servitude imposed upon the Gibeonites was the discharge of the menial services in the temple; and these services were performed by a small number of their males, drafted, from time to time, for that purpose. The preceding facts and references prove this: we only add, that but a small

part of their number could possibly find employment in the temple, at least, on all ordinary occasions. Reasonably enough, therefore, does Bishop Patrick think that they "came up with the Priests and Levites, in their courses, to serve at the altar." (Quoted in Henry.)

In view of this plain statement of Scripture facts relative to the condition of the Gibeonites, what apology can be offered for the christian minister, in a free state, who can coolly compare the conduct of Joshua toward these people, with that of "some church in Virginia which owned slaves, hired them out, and appropriated the product towards paying their minister's salary;" about which, he says, "a great noise has been made!" (p. 24.) True; he adds, “I am not to apologize for such cases." he does apologize, and says, "It might hence be inferred that slave labor" (that is, unpaid labor,) "in building a church, in cleaning and keeping it, may not be a soul-damning sin, even under the gospel!" How refreshing to turn from the

But

(we will

not characterize it by the term it deserves)—the speech—of such a northern man with worse than southern principles, to the "Letters on Slavery," by the Rev. J. D. Paxton! He was a genuine Virginian, pastor of the Cumberland Congregation, once a slaveholder; but he emancipated his bondmen, because he "believed slavery morally wrong." Compelled to abandon his charge, for having told them "too much truth at once," in regard to the sinfulness of slaveholding, he addressed them these "Letters." "The congregation," says he, "in their associated capacity own a number of slaves-about 70. They are hired out from year to year, and the proceeds are the chief item with which they pay the salary of the pastor." Mr. P. saw the wickedness of such conduct, and said to his people. "I was greatly desirous of adopting some plan for improving the condition, and bringing about the liberation of the slave property held by the congregation." (Let. p. 11.) Verily, there is more to be hoped from southern slaveholders, than from their northern apologists.

"Proposition II. The law of Moses permitted the Hebrews to buy their brother Hebrews and to retain them in bondage or slavery, six years." (p. 30.) Three passages are quoted in proof.

Ex. xxi. 2, If thou buy an Hebrew servant-an ebed-six years he shall serve; and in the seventh, he shall go out free for nothing.-Ex. xxii. 3, if he (the thief,) have nothing (wherewith to make restitution) then he shall be sold for his theft. Lev. xxv. 39, If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, &c. The practical operation of these laws is illustrated by reference to 1 Kin. iv. 1, and Matt. xviii. 25.

Here we have a strange jumble of passages; two of which have no relation to the proposition they are brought to sustain, and none of which has any bearing upon the main question. Ex. xxi. 2, undoubtedly proves that a Hebrew might buy a Hebrew man, his brother. But to buy implies to pay for. Now when a Hebrew bought a free Hebrew, not sold for crime, to whom did he pay the money? This vital point the Doctor has not condescended to notice. We hope to prove, in due time, that the money was paid to the person purchased; and assuming this, for the present, we would inquire whether that man is a slave, who voluntarily disposes of his services, to a neighbor under whose roof he is to dwell, during a definite and brief period, and for a stipulated sum which he receives in hand? If he is, then does Ex. xxi. 2, prove that "the law of Moses permitted the Hebrews to buy their brother Hebrews and to retain them in bondage or slavery for six years."

Ex. xxii. 3, might have some connection with the proposition under which it stands, if the author had shown that the thief must be sold for six years; neither more nor less. But this is not the fact. No definite period of service is assigned by the law, and for a very good reason: common equity requires that the thief should he sold only for that period of time in which his services would equal in value the amount which he should have restored. "If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. **** If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. * * * if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." (Ex. xxii. 1-4.) Now suppose a sheep to be worth a month's labor. A and B each steal a sheep; and both are taken in the act.

The theft