hall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they
shall be your bondmen forever." This language is too plain for
controversy. In regard to this very passage, in which the Hebrews are
commanded to enter upon and take possession of the land of the
Canaanites, Dr. Wayland himself is constrained to admit--"The authority
to take them as slaves seems to be a part of this original, peculiar,
and I may perhaps say, anomalous grant."[147] Now, if the principle of
slavery, and the principle of the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself, be as Dr. Wayland boldly asserts, _always and everywhere_ at
war with each other, how has it happened that both principles are so
clearly and so unequivocally embodied in one and the same code by the
Supreme Ruler of the world? Has this discrepancy escaped the eye of
Omniscience, and remained in the code of laws from heaven, to be
detected and exposed by "the author of the Moral Science"?

We do not mean that Dr. Wayland sees any discrepancy among the
principles of the divine legislation. It is true he sees there the
precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," and also this
injunction, "Thou shalt buy them for a possession," and "They shall be
your bondmen forever;" but although this looks very "anomalous" to him,
he dare not pronounce it absurd or self-contradictory. It is true, he
declares, that slavery is condemned _always and everywhere_ by "the
plainest dictates of natural justice;" but yet, although, according to
his own admission,[148] it was instituted by Heaven, he has found out a
method to save the character of the Almighty from the disgrace of such a
law. He says, "I know the word '_shalt_' is used when speaking of this
subject, but it is clearly used as _prophetic_, and not as _mandatory_."
Ay, the words "thou shalt" are used in regard to the buying and holding
of slaves, just as they are used in the commands which precede and
follow this injunction. There is no change in the form of the
expression. There is not, in any way, the slightest intimation that the
Lawgiver is about to prophesy; all seems to be a series of commands, and
is clothed in the same language of authority--"_thou shalt_." Yet in one
particular instance, and in one instance only, this language seems
"clearly" _prophetic_ to Dr. Wayland, and not _mandatory_. Now, I submit
to the candid and impartial reader, if this be not egregious trifling
with the w