Chapter 3

period between the jubilees, _eight whole years,_ including the jubilee year, of unbroken rest.

(b.) _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years._

(c.) _The three annual festivals._ The _Passover_, which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the 6th day of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xvi. 10, 11. The Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As all met in one place, much time would be spent on the journey. Cumbered caravans move slowly. After their arrival, a day or two would be requisite for divers preparations before the celebration, besides some time at the close of it, in preparations for return. If we assign three weeks to each festival--including the time spent on the journeys, and the delays before and after the celebration, together with the _festival week_, it will be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the year, the main body of the servants would be absent from their stated employments at least _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the Sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.

(d.) _The new moons._ The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish Calendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx. 18, 19, 27. This in forty-two years, would be two years 280 days.

(e.) _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.

(f.) _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month. Lev. xxiii. 27.

These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not reckoned above.

Thus it appears that those who continued servants during the period between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor, TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this calculation, besides making a donation of all the _fractions_ to the objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; I Sam. ix. etc., and the various _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at marriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; at the making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam. xx. 28, 29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a later period of the Jewish history. The feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and of the Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time which, if distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this time were distributed over _every day_, the servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.

THIS IS A REGULATION OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.

V. The servant was protected by law equally with the other members of the community.

Proof.--"Judge righteously between every man and his neighbor, and THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM." "Ye shall not RESPECT PERSONS in judgement, but ye shall hear the SMALL as well as the great." Deut. i. 16, 17. Also Lev. xxiv. 22. "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the STRANGER, as for one of your own country." So Numb. xv. 29. "Ye shall have ONE LAW for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel and for the STRANGER that sojourneth among them." Deut. xxvii. 19. "Cursed be he that PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER."

VI. The Mosaic system enjoined the greatest affection and kindness toward servants, foreign as well as Jewish.

Lev. xix. 34. "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shall love him as thyself." Also Deut. x. 17, 19. "For the Lord your God * * REGARDETH NOT PERSONS. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE STRANGER, in giving him food and raiment, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." So Ex. xxii. 21. "Thou shalt neither vex a STRANGER nor oppress him." Ex. xxiii. 9. "Thou shalt not oppress a STRANGER, for ye know the heart of a stranger." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. "If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a STRANGER or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury of him or increase, but fear thy God." Could this same stranger be taken by one that feared his God, and held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights?

VII. Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil and religious rights. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14. Deut. i. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22.

III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_.

I. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[A], be circumcised in token of it, bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial law. Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they _compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that enjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations? We repeat it, to became a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. And did God authorize his people to make proselytes, at the point of the sword? by the terror of pains and penalties? by converting men into _merchandise_? Were _proselyte and chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole passport to the communion of the saints?

[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant."

"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that is bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him, unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown slave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year. After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a willing heart"--Mamon, Hilcoth Mileth, Chap. 1st, Sec. 8th.

The ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers who at the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish religion and was on that account sent back to his own people, received a _full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite), of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the scope of this inquiry. ]

II. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him."

As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his _choice_--proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force him back and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." It may be said that this command referred only to the servants of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We answer, the terms of the command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely shift the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God require them to protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_ servant flees to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper who _bought_ him of his master, and _forced_ him into a condition against his will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, provided in _addition_ to this last outrage, the _previous_ one had been committed of forcing him into the nation against his will? To commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant is forsooth a horrible enormity, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_ on the _other side of the line_; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a third person against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah! that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer than to the old residents--those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise toward _him_, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_ the covenant? But, the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations would adopt retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives. As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in their midst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men whose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same command which protected the servant from the power of his foreign _master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not, "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of thy gates where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in any condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to such persons and in such places as they pleased? Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of _foreign_ servants merely, there was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped servants. These verses contain 1st, a command, "Thou shall not deliver," &c., 2d, a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free choice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, "If you restrain him from exercising his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his residence, it is _oppression_."

III. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar opportunities and facilities for escape. Three times every year, all the males over twelve years, were required to attend the national feasts. They were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks at each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters?--a corporal's guard at each pass of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the defiles? The Israelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking their "_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are hand-cuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement introduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," the Sanhedrim appointing special religious services for their benefit, and their "drivers" officiating at "ORAL instruction." Mean while, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp look-out at night.

IV. Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance of various rites necessarily VOLUNTARY.

Suppose the servants from the heathen had upon entering Jewish families, refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of emancipation! Their _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose they had refused to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten unleavened bread during the Passover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, they would have been "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_.

V. We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from the impossibility of their having been held against their wills. Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ born in his house. His servants of all ages, were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How Abraham and Sarah contrived to hold fast so many thousand servants against their wills, we are left quite in the dark. The most natural supposition is that the Patriarch and his wife _took turns_ in surrounding them! The neighboring tribes, instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household. Besides, there was neither "Constitution" nor "compact," to send back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon them, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their "honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," _provided_ they had a description of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by _pieces of silver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully trained "his household to do justice and judgment," though so deplorably destitute of the needful aids.

VI. We infer that servants were voluntary, as there is no instance of an Israelitish master SELLING a servant. Abraham had thousands of servants, but seems never to have sold one. Isaac "grew until he became very great," and had "great store of servants." Jacob's youth was spent in the family of Laban, where he lived a servant twenty-one years. Afterward he had a large number of servants. Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, "thou and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Jacob took his flocks and herds but _no servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 16. They doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country. The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a _right_ to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right of choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, "to give the master a right to _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_." Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a different thing to have a right to buy him of _another_ man[A].

[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose even the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers whom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not the argument.]

Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as wives. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be redeemed."[B]

[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows: "A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and take her to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her espousal."]

VII. We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his service, because he was pre-eminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his master, law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more, his master was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get rid of him.

VIII. The method prescribed for procuring servants, was an appeal to their choice. The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to buy them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they had earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, _stands by itself,_ and has nothing to do with the condition of servants.]

IX. Various incidental expressions corroborate the idea that servants became such by their own contract. Job xli. 4, is an illustration, "Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt thou take him for a SERVANT forever?"

X. The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they came to Joseph and said, "We have not aught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy us_;" then in the 25th verse, "we will be servants to Pharaoh."

XI. We infer the voluntariness of servants, from the fact that RICH Strangers did not become servants. Indeed, so far were they from becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish servants. Lev. xxv. 47.

XII. The sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present, were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.

XIII. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were manifestly and pre-eminently VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. The word, translated master, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1. Joshua was the servant of Moses. Num. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27.

IV.--WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?

As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,

I. Because God rebuked in thunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, and giveth him not for his work." Jer. xxii. 13. God here testifies that to use the service of others without wages is "unrighteousness" and pronounces his "wo" against the doer of the "wrong." The Hebrew word _Rea_, translated _neighbor_, does not mean one man, or class of men, in distinction from others, but any one with whom we have to do--all descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us in lawsuits and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"As when a man riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR." Ex. xx. 16. "If any man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." Ex. xxi. 14, &c.

II. God testifies that in our duty to our fellow men, ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS hang upon this command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of Strangers, "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others _as_ ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of love! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard saying against human nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it."

III. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 57-59, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be _redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable property _after_ he became a servant. If it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if servants, could "own nothing, nor acquire any thing," to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft[B]. But since it was common for servants to own property he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, while rebuking him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him; but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from it's being a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the Gibeonites, who after becoming servants, still occupied their cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, who worked out their "tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically relieving each other, are additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]

[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_" quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make detection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in the footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if, after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried on around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellences," and to emulate the illustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very Reverends_! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their _situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as well as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take a _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who would slay him?"]

IV. Heirship.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property; especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, Jarha the servant of Sheshan, and the _husbandmen_ who said of their master's son, "this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are illustrations; also Prov. xvii. 2--"A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This passage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and plunder of earnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their daughters?

V. ALL were required to present offerings and sacrifices. Deut. xvi. 15, 17, 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13. Servants must have had permanently, the means of _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.

VI. Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle. Deut. xv. 11-14. "Thou shall furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy flour, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shall give him[A]." If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a like bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows--"Thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. "That is to say, '_Loading, ye shall load him_,' likewise every one of his family, with as much as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be avariciously asked, "How much must I give him?" I say unto _you, not less than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3]

VII. The servants were BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course received the compensation for themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their children till they became of age[B], a mere reference to the fact is all that is required for the purposes of this argument.

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen years.]

VIII. We find masters at one time having a large number of servants, and afterwards none, without any intimation that they were sold. The wages of servants would enable them to set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and was the master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, xxxii. 15. But all these servants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32.

IX. God's testimony to the character of Abraham. Gen. xviii. 19. "For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep, THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGEMENT." God here testifies that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service WITHOUT WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their DUES." Rom. xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY OF HIS HIRE." Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to "_do justice_" to others? By doing injustice to them? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying them "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples, patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against human perverseness!

X. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles_. Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," or literally, while he thresheth. Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment _of a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man_?--MAN with his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR SAKES? that he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, and that he that thresheth in hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE," (2.) "If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize them to "use his services without wages;" force him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS?

V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?

The discussion of this topic has already been somewhat anticipated, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.

1. Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to the contingencies of property. (1.) They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts, though children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isa. l., 1; Matt. xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the soil; Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26-29, Deut. xxiv. 10-13, Matt, v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. (2.) Servants were never given as pledges. Property of all sorts was given in pledge. We find household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers other articles of property, used as pledges for value received; but no servants. (3.) All lost PROPERTY was to be restored. Oxen, asses, sheep, raiment, and "whatsoever lost things," are specified--servants _not_. Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the runaway servant. Deut. xxiii. 15. (4.) The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents. They made costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of animals, merchandise, family utensils, precious metals, grain, armor, &c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to superiors and persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were given as presents--though it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14. It may be objected that Laban GAVE handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent suffice it to say that the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1; also by the equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban given them as _articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his "GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches; how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit: invoking his protection, and the benediction of his "GODS!" "Again, it may be objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories of _mere property_ if servants are included, it is in such a way, as to show that they are not regarded as _property_. See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the design is to show not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ of any personage, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if _greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. "And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." So in the fifth verse, "And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned, "And there was a strife between the HERDMEN of Abraham's cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle." See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job i. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, xxvi. 13, xxx. 43. Jacobs's wives say to him, "All the _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle," "all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." He had a large number of servants at the time but they are not included with his property. Comp. Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18. When he sent messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had "oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men-servants, and maid-servants." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants; though he seems to have sought as much variety as possible. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of cattle, which would require many herdsmen. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word _Mikne_, is an illustration. It is derived from _Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, _a possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to _mere property_, generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in distinction from the _Mikne_. And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE that they had gathered; and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan."--Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)--that they were slaves taken with him in his migration as a part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten_?" Until the slave trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, "The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers, "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan all render it, "All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present translation of the Bible, renders it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they had converted from idolatry."--Paulus Fagius[B]. "Quas instituerant in religione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke Francke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago. "Quas legi subjicerant"--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law."

[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament. The Targum of Onkelas is, for the most part, a very accurate and faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about the commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably about five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their captivity in Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These translations into the Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus called for by the necessity of the case.]

[Footnote B: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to superintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the patronage of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a century before the date of our present translation.]

II. The condition and treatment of servants make the doctrine that they were mere COMMODITIES, an absurdity. St. Paul's testimony in Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of all." That Abraham's servants were voluntary, that their interests were identified with those of their master's family, and that the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being armed.--Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him, "Drink, MY LORD," as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the brother of Rebecca, "ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his feet and the men's feet that were with him!" In 1 Sam. ix. is an account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only "about thirty persons" were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of the city. Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and _both_ of them, at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And Samuel took Saul and his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR(!) and made THEM sit in the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden." A _servant_ invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, who was at the same time anointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by Samuel into the PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but "_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after asses. Again: we find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity.--1 Kings xvi. 8, 9. See also the intercourse between Gideon and his servant.--Judg. vii. 10, 11. Jonathan and his servant.--1 Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant.--2 Kings iv. v. vi.

III. The case of the Gibeonites. The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to _mock_ them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites? (1.) _It was voluntary_. Their own proposition to Joshua was to become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in the Tabernacle. (2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being distributed among the Israelites, and their internal organization as a distinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it was rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities. Josh. x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement?" At their demand, he delivered up to them, seven of Saul's descendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at Gilgal, a day's journey from their cities; and then at Shiloh, nearly two day's journey from them; where it continued about 350 years. During this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_. It is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into classes, ministering in rotation--each class a few days or weeks at a time. This service was their _national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to have been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition, and lying, we might assuredly expect that they would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels if there was _any_ case in which God permitted them to do so.

IV. Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns the Israelites against holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the Egyptians. How often are they pointed back to the grindings of their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and kindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened judgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all within them that could feel; by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"--waking anew the memory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them.

God's denunciations against the bondage of Egypt make it incumbent on us to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what they retained.

EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among the families of Egypt[A], but formed a separate community. Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5. (2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen[B]. Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. (3.) They lived in permanent dwellings. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, 22, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_,--Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4--and judging from the regulation about the eating of the Passover, they could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4, probably contained separate apartments, and places for concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. To have their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv. 11. (4.) They owned "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds," and "very much cattle." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. (5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16, 18. (6.) They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time,--Ex. xxiii. 4; iii. 16, 18, xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. And to have practiced the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4; xxxv. 22-35. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii. 27. (8.) They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable. No intimation is given that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of property. (9.) All the females seem to have known something of domestic refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26. (10.) Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could he inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. (11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was abundant, and of great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3; xxiv. 1; xvii. 5; iv. 29; vi. 14; "they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5; x. 18; xx. 5. (12.) The great body of the people were not in the service of the Egyptians. (a.) The extent and variety of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have furnished constant employment for the main body of the nation. (b.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "ALL the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were _there_ to enjoy it. (c.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_. Probably one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the Israelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it from their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor was exacted only from the _poorer_ Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their tribute in money. Ex. iv. 27-31. Contrast this bondage of Egypt with American slavery. Have our slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, "sit by the flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread to the full?" Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of country for the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of their own cattle--and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are our female slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own time and the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. True, "all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor." But what was this when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the power to "own any thing, or acquire any thing?" a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food[C]! their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[D]!" _two hours and a half only_, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[E]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human residence, with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field. Add to this, the ignorance, and degradation; the daily sundering of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." HE DID COME, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her. If such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with religion a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can that God commissioned his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he denounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_ oppression of Egypt--which robbed it's victims of only the least and cheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered even of these. What! Is God divided against himself? When He had just turned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He license the victims of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_ did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes, and his hosts, till "hell was moved to meet them at their coming?"

[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in their families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in Ex. ix. 14, 20, 21.]

[Footnote B: The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east of the Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of the Red Sea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly have been less than sixty miles from the city. The border of Goshen nearest to Egypt must have been many miles distant. See "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832.]

[Footnote C: Law of N.C. Haywood's Manual 524-5.]

[Footnote D: Law of La. Martin's Digest, 610.]

[Footnote E: Law of La. Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12.]

We now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless be set in array against all the foregoing conclusions.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery find themselves at their wits end in pressing the Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard-pushed. Their ever-varying shifts, their forced constructions, and blind guesswork, proclaim both their _cause_ desperate, and themselves. The Bible defences thrown around slavery by professed ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy, predominates in the compound; each strives so lustily for the mastery it may be set down a drawn battle. How often has it been bruited that the color of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Cain's posterity started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and fill out for slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God to man?

OBJECTION 1. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Gen. ix. 25.

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece for sudden occasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, and a magnet to draw around their standard "whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie." But "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to ease a throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, to unquiet tossings, and vainly crying "Peace be still," where God wakes war, and breaks his thunders. Those who justify negro slavery by the curse of Canaan, _assume_ all the points in debate. (1.) That _slavery_ was prophesied rather than mere _service_ to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_ subjection and tribute. (2.) That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; at least absolving those whose crimes fulfill it, if not transforming the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharoahs might have quoted the prophecy _"Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and they shall afflict there four hundred years."_ And then, what _saints_ were those that crucified the Lord of glory! (3.) That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and they were settled by Mizraim and Cush. For the location and boundaries of Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So a prophecy of evil to one people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy is yet unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled Egypt and Assyria, and, conjointly with Shem, Persia, and afterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman empires. The history of these nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas, the history of Canaan's descendants for more than three thousand years, records its fulfilment. First, they were put to tribute by the Israelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians, Grecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan has been for ages the servant mainly of Shem and Japhet, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham. It may still be objected, that though Canaan alone is _named_ in the curse, yet the 23d and 24th verses show the posterity of Ham in general to be meant. "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said," &c. It is argued that this "_younger_ son" can not be _Canaan_, as he was the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham._ We answer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any_ of _one_ the posterity of an individual. "_Know ye Laban the SON of Nahor?_" Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth the SON of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24. Mephibosheth was the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. "_There is a SON born to Naomi._" Ruth iv. 17. This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. "_Let seven men of his (Saul's) SONS be delivered unto us._" 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_ were delivered up. "_Laban rose up and kissed his SONS._" Gen. xxi. 55. These were his _grandsons_. "_The driving of Jehu the SON of Nimshi._" 2 Kings ix. 20. Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nimshi. Shall we forbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson? Further; Ham was not the "_younger_" son. The order of enumeration makes him the _second_ son. If it be said that Bible usage varies, the order of birth not always being observed in enumerations, the reply is, that, enumeration in that order is the _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if a younger member of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of pre-eminence, either in endowments, or providential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, stands first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history shows him pre-eminent; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkatan_ rendered "the _younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. xl. 22. "_A LITTLE ONE shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All vessels of SMALL quantity_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that fear the Lord both SMALL and great_." Ex. xviii. 22. "_But every SMALL matter they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus. "When Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) had done unto him, he said cursed be Canaan," &c. Further, even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption that their enslavement fulfils this prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, only a _fraction_ of the Africans have at any time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been slaves _at home_, we answer: _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and _if it were true_, how does it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be _unto his_ BRETHREN," not unto _himself_!

[Footnote A: The French follows the same analogy; _grandson_ being _petit fils_ (little son.)]

OBJECTION II.--"If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, and an assurance, that if they beat them to death, the offense shall not be _capital_? This is substantially what commentators tell us. What Deity do such men worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered from Sinai's flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_? Whoever analyzes the Mosaic system, will find a moot court in session, trying law points--settling definitions, or laying down rules of evidence, in almost every chapter. Num. xxxv. 10-22; Deut. xi. 11, and xix. 4-6; Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex. xxi. 18, 19, are a few, out of many cases stated, with tests furnished the judges by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them. Their ignorance of judicial proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them to get at the _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill. (1.) "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num. xxxv. 16, 18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant die _under his hand_, then the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he _dies_, argues a great many blows and great violence, and this kept up to the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence "He shall _surely_ be punished." But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length of time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,") all made a strong case of circumstantial evidence, showing that the master did not design to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered _punished_, is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is translated "_avenge_," in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to pay a _sum of money_; and yet our translators employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal. The other, an accidental, and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same thing! "He shall surely be punished." Now, just the discrimination to be looked for where God legislates, is marked in the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says, "It (the death) shall surely be _avenged_," that is, the life of the wrong doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury, in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_," (_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19: "They shall amerce him in one hundred shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3: "He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of gold." That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine, but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer, (1.) From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen. iv. 24; Josh. x. 13; Judg. xiv. 7; xvi. 28; I Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; xxv. 31; 2 Sam. iv. 8; Judg. v. 2: I Sam. xxv. 26-33. (2.) From the express statute, Lev. xxiv. 17; "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death." Also Num. xxxv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall be put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." (3.) The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem. "Vengeance shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi, the same. The Samaritan version: "He shall die the death," Again the clause "for he is his money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's property, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. The assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY." proves not only that the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article of property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking the principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let them stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as the following: "This (bread) is my body;" "this (wine) _is_ my blood;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass and tin;" "this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and the seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this case. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he." The objector's principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into _solid silver!_ Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase, "_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since, if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the fact of his living some time after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all together make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property!_ The other inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, the loss of the slave would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. God would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. "Ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest. Numb. xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it prescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law in all cases where man took the life of man, whether with or without the intent to kill. In short, the objector annuls an integral part of the system--makes a _new_ law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine legislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him free. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he dies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's tooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both cases is the same_. If the loss of the slave's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing him, would _God_ command the _same_ punishment for the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth?_ Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertantly_, the loss of the servant's services was only a _part_ of the punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the _main_ punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the _community_. To set the servant free, and thus proclaim his injury, his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of _public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender. That "those that remain might hear and fear." "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev xxiv. 19, 20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out his servant's tooth the law smote out _his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for the injury done, and exempting him form perilous liabilities in future.

OBJECTION III. "Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the stranger that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance of your children from you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever." Lev, xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses urged as proof, that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." and 4. "FOREVER."

The _buying_ of servants was discussed, pp. 17-22, and holding them as a "possession." pp. 37-46. We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."

1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called "_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," is quoted as proof that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The Hebrew word "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated "bondmen," is in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen." So Isa. lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to _King Rehoboam_. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_ unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_ forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is applied to _all_ persons doing service for others--to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to younger sons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _Lord_ and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old Testament.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if Abraham had thousands and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system, why had their language _no word_ that _meant slave_? That language must be wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most common and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by the same word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a solecism. Ziba was an "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_! In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we have both the _things_ and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_. But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_ if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_ servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestic servants so rarely that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, under _heathen laws and usages_ proclaimed their _liabilities_, their _locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, but a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, would have been indispensable for every day convenience. Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the outposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages between the without and the within.

2. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation. No such idea is contained in the passage. The word "forever," instead of defining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their _permanent domestics_ should be of the Strangers, and not of the Israelites: it declares the duration of that general provision. As if God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from the nations round about you--your servants shall always be of that class of persons." As it stands in the original it is plain--"Forever of them shall ye serve yourselves." This is the literal rendering.

That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_, rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the _heathen_. Of THEM shall ye buy," &c. "THEY shall be your possession." To say nothing of the uncertainty of _those individuals_ surviving those _after_ whom they are to live, the language used, applies more naturally to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants. Besides _perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter, limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound * * throughout ALL your land." "And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse, there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, in which servants and Strangers are included; and in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day of atonement. What did these institutions show forth? The day of atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to Jews only? Were they types of sins remitted, and of salvation proclaimed to the nation of Israel alone? Is there no redemption for us Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and impiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earth quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple veil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of our salvation lives "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people." One shout shall swell from all the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from the _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. It not only eclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal to release servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's redemption. Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to _individual_ service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served who did not go out in the _seventh_ year. And all admit that they went out at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" in the 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. "The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the land is mine"--since it would hardly be used in different senses in the same general connection. As _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the _general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does not touch the argument. Besides in the 46th verse, the word used, is _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_.

3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION," "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a possession." This refers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_ servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance; that they became servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages; that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the days in each year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were _protected_ in all their personal, social and religious rights, equally with their masters &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in _just such a condition_ Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages--and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words _nahal_ and _nahala_, inherit and inheritance by no means necessarily signify _articles of property_. "The people answered the king and said, we have none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they moan gravely to disclaim the holding of their kin; as an article of _property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a _heritage_" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "_I_ am their _inheritance_." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_." Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his _inheritance_." Ps. xciv 14. see also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"_possession_," has been already discussed--pp. 37-46--we need add in this place but a word, _ahuzza_ rendered "_possession_." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of _having it to live in_. In what sense were the Israelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their children_? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of _them_ shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_ shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ provision for your children after you, to hold as a _constant source of supply_. Always _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the _class_ of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which they were to get them.

OBJECTION IV. "If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a BOND-SERVANT, but as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee." Lev. xxv. 39, 40.

As only _one_ class is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of the _other_ class were _not paid_ for their labor. That God, with thundering anathemas against those who "used their neighbor's service without wages," granted a special indulgence to his chosen people to force others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in selecting their victims, they spared "the gentlemen of property and standing," and pounced only upon the strangers and the common people. The inference that "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those servants not _called_ "hired" were not _paid_ for their labor, is a mere assumption. The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is to procure for a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word "_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who constituted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinction on this subject, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics perform only the _regular_ work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the washing of a family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose. The familiar distinction between the two classes, is "servants," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both classes are paid_. One is permanent, the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this case called "_hired_[A]."

[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is not called a _hired_ servant is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but if _I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he works my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer called my "_hired_" man. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same time, and with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of work in the year, and perhaps earns twenty dollars a month, instead of twelve. Now as he is no longer called "_hired_," and as he still works my farm, suppose my neighbours sagely infer, that since he is not my "_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ him of his earnings and with all the gravity of owls, pronounce the oracular decision, and hoot it abroad. My neighbors are deep divers!--like some theological professors, they not only go to the bottom but come up covered with the tokens.]

A variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing _hired_ from _bought_ servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily at the close of their work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2; Matt. xx. 8. "_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being called _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a _gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. (2.) The "hired" were paid _in money_, the "bought" received their _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The "hired" _lived_ in their own families, the "bought" were part of their masters' families. (4.) The "hired" supported their families out of their wages: the "bought" and their families were supported by the master _besides_ their wages. The "bought" servants were, _as a class, superior to the hired_--were more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied a higher station in society. (1.) They were intimately incorporated with the family of the masters, were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Ex. xii, 43, 45. (2.) Their interests were far more identified with those of their masters' family. They were often, actually or prospectively, heirs of their masters' estates, as in the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. When there were no sons, or when they were unworthy, bought servants were made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We find traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is the _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours._" Luke xx. 14. In no instance does a _hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.) Marriages took place between servants and their master's daughters. Sheshan had a _servant_, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife. 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a _hired_ servant forming such an alliance. (4.) Bought servants and their descendants were treated with the same affection and respect as the other members of the family.[A]. The treatment of Abraham's servants, Gen. xxv.--the intercourse between Gideon and his servant, Judg. vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam. iv. 5, 22; Jonathan and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant, are illustrations. No such tie seems to have existed between _hired_ servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was proverbial. John ix. 12, 13. None but the _lowest class_ engaged as hired servants, and the kinds of labor assigned to them required little knowledge and skill. Various passages show the low repute and trifling character of the class from which they were hired. Judg. ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is manifest in the high trusts confided to them, and in their dignity and authority in the household. In no instance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. The _bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in the family--with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his servant not to take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites. The servant himself selected the individual. Servants also exercised discretionary power in the management of their masters' estates, "And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, _for all the goods of his master were under his hand_." Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned for taking them, is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the servant had discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power in the _disposal of property_. See Gen. xxiv. 22, 23, 53. The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So in Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New Testament, Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii, 42, 44. So in the parable of the talents; the master seems to have set up each of his servants in trade with a large capital. The unjust steward had large _discretionary_ power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly regulated with his debtors, the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8. Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.

[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ who is an Israelite, or proselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine bread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give his servant new; nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant on straw. I say unto you, that he that gets a _purchased_ servant does well to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as if he got himself a master."--Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1, Sec. 2.]

The inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hunger among the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; "I will arise," he cried, "and go to my father." And then to assure his father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add, "Make me as one of thy _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class--to apply for the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature _climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humility sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The design of the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, as he beholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injured father's face" who runs to clasp and bless him with unchiding welcome; and on the other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert he sobs aloud. "The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can abide no other." Or in those inimitable words, "Father I have sinned against Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy HIRED servants." The supposition that _hired_ servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that _one_ class of servants, was on terms of equality with the children and other members of the family. (Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal. iv. 1, "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of all.") If this were the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of humility. Would our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one held up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its deep sense of an ill-desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts, and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in apeing it.

Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former class, whether Jews or Strangers, rose to honors and authority in the family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely _political_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more favored than even the bought servants from the _Strangers_. No one from the Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to have been one reason for the different periods of service required of the two classes of bought servants--the Israelites and the Strangers. The Israelite was to serve six years--the Stranger until the jubilee. As the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within walled towns, most would attach themselves to Israelitish families. Those who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Stranger's to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. Lev. xxv. 47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, that the Jewish polity offered a virtual bounty, to such as would become permanent servants, and thus secure those privileges already enumerated, and for their children in the second generation a permanent inheritance. Ezek. xlvii. 21-23. None but the monied aristocracy would be likely to decline such offers. On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance was with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the control of one's inheritance, after the division of the paternal domain, or to be kept out of it after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to be borne. To mitigate as much as possible such a calamity, the law released the Israelitish servant at the end of six years[A]; as, during that time--if of the first class--the partition of the patrimonial land might have taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might have been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume his station as a lord of the soil. If neither contingency had occurred, then after another six years the opportunity was again offered, and so on, until the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the Israelite to discontinue his service as soon as the exigency had passed which made him a servant, every consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of service; and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as a general rule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who had every inducement to protract the term. It should be borne in mind, that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary expedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be such when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them to it was a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a measure of prevention; not pursued as a permanent business, but resorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of their lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a _permanent employment_, pursued both as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, and that of their posterity, and as an _end_ for its own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not otherwise attainable.

[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the seventh year, seems to have been the coincidence of that period with other arrangements, in the Jewish economy. Its pecuniary responsibilities, social relations, and general internal structure, were _graduated_ upon a septennial scale. Besides as those Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, till other expedients to recruit their finances had failed--(Lev. xxv. 35)--their _becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of a _course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]

We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_,) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_. (2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ than that of the other class. (3.) As a class they doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land were _tributaries_, required to pay an annual tax to the government, either in money, or in public service, (called a "_tribute of land-service_;") in other words, all the Strangers were _national servants_ to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates _national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron. viii. 7-9. Deut xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv. 21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they paid tribute to other nations. 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judg. iii. 8, 14. Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought servants, was in their _kinds_ of service. The servants from the Strangers were properly the _domestics_, or household servants, employed in all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such mechanical labor, as was required by increasing wants, and needed repairs. The Jewish bought servants seem almost exclusively _agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for it by previous habits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations. After Saul was elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, the next report of him is, "_And behold Saul came after the herd out of the field_." 1 Sam. xi. 7. Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen." 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon _was "threshing wheat_" when called to lead the host against the Midianites. Judg. vi. 11. The superior honorableness of agriculture, is shown, in that it was protected and supported by the fundamental law of the theocracy--God indicating it as the chief prop of the government. The Israelites were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was with them the grand claim to honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_ employment, to assign a native Israelite to other employments as a business, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed degrading. In short, it was in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of Abraham and the Strangers.--_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, God instituted the regulation which stands at the head of this branch of our inquiry, "If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant." In other words, thou shalt not put him to servant's work--to the business, and into the condition of domestics. In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not assign to him the work of _servitude_." In the Septuagint, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic_." In the Syriac, "Thou shalt not employ him after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan, "Thou shalt not require him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of Onkelos, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a household servant." In the Targum of Jonathan, "Thou shalt not cause him to serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants."[A] The meaning of the passage is, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same service, with permanent domestics._ The remainder of the regulation is,--"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee._" Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their masters: they still retained their own family organization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this even though they resided under the same roof with their master. While bought servants were associated with their master's families at meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants and sojourners were not. Ex. xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Hired servants were not subject to the authority of their masters in any such sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures as practicable to masters, is that _of keeping back their wages_. To have taken away such privileges in the case under consideration, would have been pre-eminent "_rigor_," for it was not a servant born in the house of a master, not a minor, whose minority had been sold by the father, neither was it one who had not yet acceded to his inheritance: nor finally, one who had received the _assignment_ of his inheritance, but was working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession and control. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who had known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his fathers, with the competence and respectful consideration its possession secured to him, and to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment. So sad a reverse, might well claim sympathy; but one consolation cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage; he is an _Israelite--Abraham is his father_, and now in his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred by his birth-right. To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all." To have assigned him to a grade of service filled only by those whose permanent business was serving, would have been to "rule over him with" peculiar "rigor." "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," or literally, _thou shalt not serve thyself with him, with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and a kind and grade of service, comporting with his character and relations as an Israelite. And "as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee," secures to him his family organization, the respect and authority due to its head, and the general consideration resulting from such a station. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a household, the law so arranged the conditions of his service as to _alleviate_ as much as possible the calamity, which had reduced him from independence and authority, to penury and subjection. The import of the command which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, ("Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,") is manifestly this, you shall not disregard those differences in previous associations, station, authority, and political privileges, upon which this regulation is based; for to hold this class of servants _irrespective_ of these distinctions, and annihilating them, is to "rule with rigor." The same command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the distinction between servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, the disregard of which would be _rigorous_ in the extreme[B]. The construction commonly put upon the phrase "rule with rigor," and the inference drawn from it, have an air vastly oracular. It is interpreted to mean, "you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal protection, nor force him to work without pay." The inference is like unto it, viz., since the command forbade such outrages upon the Israelites, it permitted and commissioned their infliction upon the Strangers. Such impious and shallow smattering captivates scoffers and libertines; its flippancy and blasphemy, and the strong scent of its loose-reined license works like a charm upon them. What boots it to reason against such rampant affinities! In Ex. i. 13, it is said that the Egyptians "made the children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor." This rigor is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted and the _mode_ of the exaction. The expression, "serve with rigor," is never applied to the service of servants under the Mosaic system. The phrase, "thou shalt not RULE over him with rigor," does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, nor inflictions of cruelty. Such were provided against otherwise. But it forbids confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, for the same term of time, and under the same political disabilities as the latter.

[Footnote A: Jarchi's comment on "Thou shall not compel him to serve as a bond-servant" is, "The Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any thing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal attendance, as loosing his master's shoe-latchet, bringing him water to wash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his master as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor, until his legal release."]

[Footnote B: The disabilities of the Strangers, which were distinctions, based on a different national descent, and important to the preservation of national characteristics, and a national worship, did not at all affect their _social_ estimation. They were regarded according to their character, and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments, and political condition.]

We are now prepared to review at a glance, the condition of the different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each class. In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of servants were on an absolute equality, all were equally protected by law in their persons, character, property and social relations; all were voluntary, all were compensated for their labor, and released from it nearly half of the days in each year; all were furnished with stated instruction: none in either class were in any sense articles of property, all were regarded as _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes and destinies of _men_. In all these respects, _all_ classes of servants among the Israelites, formed but ONE CLASS. The _different_ classes and the differences in _each_ class, were, (1.) _Hired Servants._ This class consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were different. The _Israelite_ was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_; both were occasional and temporary. Both lived in their own families, their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done. (2.) _Bought Servants_, (including those "born in the house.") This class also, consisted of Israelites and Strangers, the same difference in their kinds of employments noticed before. Both were paid in advance[A], and neither was temporary. The Israelitish servant, with the exception of the _freeholders_ was released after six years. The stranger was a permanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. A marked distinction obtained also between different classes of _Jewish_ bought servants. Ordinarily, they were merged in their master's family, and, like his wife and children, subject to his authority; (and, like them, protected by law from its abuse.) But the _freeholder_ was a marked exception: his family relations, and authority remained unaffected, nor was he subjected as an inferior to the control of his master, though dependent upon him for employment.

[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened the price of the purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money, and the master assuming all the risks of life and health for labor: at the expiration of the six year's contract, the master having suffered no loss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by law to release the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason assigned for this is, "he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving thee six years," as if it had been said, as you have experienced no loss from the risks of life, and ability to labor, incurred in the purchase, and which lessened the price, and as, by being your servant for six years, he has saved you the time and trouble of looking up and hiring laborers on emergencies, therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c.]

It should be kept in mind, that _both_ classes of servants, the Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed by those of their own people who were _not_ servants. They also shared in common with them the political disabilities which appertained to all Strangers, whether the servants of Jewish masters, or the masters of Jewish servants. Further, the disabilities of the servants from the Strangers were exclusively _political_ and _national._ (1.) They, in common with all Strangers, could not own the soil. (2.) They were ineligible to civil offices. (3.) They were assigned to employments less honorable than those in which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as fundamental to the existence of the state, other employments were in less repute, and deemed _unjewish._

Finally, the Strangers, whether servants or masters, were all protected equally with the descendants of Abraham. In respect to political privileges, their condition was much like that of naturalized foreigners in the United States; whatever their wealth or intelligence, or moral principle, or love for our institutions, they can neither go to the ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a native American, be suddenly bereft of these privilege, and loaded with the disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light matter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_. The recent condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, is another illustration. Rothschild, the late banker, though the richest private citizen in the world, and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government, inferior to the lowest among them. Suppose an Englishman of the Established Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, of eligibility to office and of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen think it a misapplication of language, if it were said, the government "rules over him with rigor?" And yet his person, property, reputation, conscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the right of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects, are just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor's.

FINALLY,--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, rife with meaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the whole, depended upon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations which constituted its significancy. Hence, the care to preserve serve inviolate the distinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, even when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the Israelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Ex. xxi. 2-6, is an illustration. In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term expired in six years, married one of his master's _permanent female domestics_; but her marriage, did not release her master from _his_ part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor from his legal obligation to support and educate her children. Neither did it do away that distinction, which marked her national descent by a specific _grade_ and _term_ of service, nor impair her obligation to fulfill _her_ part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew out of a distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic system. To render it void, would have been to divide the system against itself. This God would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would he permit the master, to throw off the responsibility of instructing her children, nor the care and expense of their helpless infancy and rearing. He was bound to support and educate them, and all her children born afterwards during her term of service. The whole arrangement beautifully illustrates that wise and tender regard for the interests of all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system in robes of glory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the kingdom of our Father. By this law, the children had secured to them a mother's tender care. If the husband loved his wife and children, he could compel his master to keep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or not. If he did not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case, the regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family. It is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant in the seventh year, either absolved him from the obligations of marriage, or shut him out from the society of his family. He could doubtless procure a service at no great distance from them, and might often do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better suited to his taste and skill. The great number of days on which the law released servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much more time with his family, than can be spent by most of the agents of our benevolent societies with _their_ families, or by many merchants, editors, artists &c., whose daily business is in New York, while their families reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country.

We conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, which, though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the whole tenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,--"The slavery of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by God as a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against them for their sins." If the absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to _death_, and at the same time to perpetual _slavery_, did not sufficiently laugh at itself, it would be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by a general contribution. For, _be it remembered_, only _one_ statute was ever given respecting the disposition to be made of the inhabitants of Canaan. If the sentence of death was pronounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_, when? where? by whom? and in what terms was the commutation, and where is it recorded? Grant, for argument's sake, that all the Canaanites were sentenced to unconditional extermination; as there was no reversal of the sentence, how can a right to _enslave_ them, be drawn from such premises? The punishment of death is one of the highest recognitions of man's moral nature possible. It proclaims him _man_--rational, accountable, guilty, deserving death for having done his utmost to cheapen human life, when the proof of its priceless worth lived in his own nature. But to make him a _slave_, cheapens to nothing _universal human nature_, and instead of healing a wound, gives a death-stab. What! repair an injury to rational being in the robbery of _one_ of its rights, by robbing it of _all_, and annihilating their _foundation_--the everlasting distinction between persons and things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment_, but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of _all_ human beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, into perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery! Alas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and by a timely movement rescued the Divine character, at the very crisis of its fate, from the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it! Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate dissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few paragraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY GOD TO INDIVIDUAL AND UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? As the limits of this inquiry forbid our giving all the grounds of dissent from commonly received opinions, the suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, rather than laid down as _doctrines_. The directions as to the disposal of the Canaanites, are mainly in the following passages: Ex. xxiii. 23-33; xxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 16-25; ix. 3; xxxi. 3-5. In these verses, the Israelites are commanded to "destroy the Canaanites," "drive out," "consume," "utterly overthrow," "put out," "dispossess them," &c. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the _inhabitants_ or merely of the _body politic?_ The word _haram_, to destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction, the destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to mean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we give to the expressions, "throw out before thee;" "cast out before thee;" "expel," "put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same passages? "I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all thine enemies_" were to _turn their backs_ and "_all the people_" to be "_destroyed_." Does this mean that God would let all their _enemies_ escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would _first_ kill "all the people" and THEN make them "turn their backs," an army of runaway corpses? If these commands required the destruction of all the inhabitants, the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for directions as to the treatment of native residents form a large part of it. See Lev. xix. 34; xxv. 35, 36; xx. 22. Ex. xxiii. 9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17, 19, xxvii. 19. We find, also that provision was made for them in the cities of refuge. Num. xxxv. 15;--the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22;--the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. 10;--the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev. xxii. 18; and stated religious instruction provided for them, Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now does this same law require the _individual extermination_ of those whose lives and interests it thus protects? These laws were given to the Israelites, long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from them that a multitude of the inhabitants of the land were to _continue_ in it, under their government. Again Joshua was selected as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Canaan. He had no _discretionary_ power. God's commands were his _official instructions_. Going beyond them would have been usurpation; refusing to carry them out rebellion and treason. Saul was rejected from being king for disobeying god's commands in a _single_ instance. Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanites. Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance_. For at his death, the Israelites still "_dwelt among them_," and each nation is mentioned by name. Judg. i. 5, and yet we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses;" and that he "took all that land." Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that "there _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies before them." How can this be, if the command to _destroy_ enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to _drive out_, unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion from the _possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil? True, multitudes of the Canaanites were slain, but not a case can be found in which one was either killed or expelled who _acquiesced_ in the transfer of the territory, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and her kindred, and the Gibeonites[A]. The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the Israelites; and that their land had been transferred to them as a judgment for their sins. Josh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance. Others defied God and came out to battle. These occupied the fortified cities, were the most inveterate heathen--the aristocracy of idolatry, the kings, the nobility and gentry, the priests, with their crowds of satellite, and retainers that aided in idolatrous rites, and the military forces, with the chief profligates of both sexes. Many facts corroborate the general position. Such as the multitude of _tributaries_ in the midst of Israel, and that too, after they had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at the terror of their name--the Canaanites, Philistines, and others, who became proselytes--as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite--Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah--Ittai--the six hundred Gitites--David's body guard. 2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, adopted into the tribe of Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron. xxvi. 45--Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh the father of Caleb, the Kenite, registered in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred and fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of the Temple[B]. Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to save a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. Further--the terms employed in the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites, such as "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c. seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c., and thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an illustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar terms, we refer to the history of the Amelekites. "I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven." Ex. xxvii. 14. "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19. "Smite Amelek and _utterly destroy_ all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Saul smote the Amelekites, and took Agag the king of the Amelekites, alive and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." Verses 7, 8. In verse 20, Saul says, "I have brought Agag, the king of Amelek, and have _utterly destroyed_ the Amelekites." In 1 Sam. xxx. we find the Amelekites marching an army into Israel, and sweeping everything before them--and this in about eighteen years after they had _all been_ "UTTERLY DESTROYED!" Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view. We argue that the command in these verses, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of the _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ of these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." Cities then, as now, were pest-houses of vice--they reeked with abominations little practiced in the country. On this account their influence would be far more perilous to the Israelites than that of the country. Besides, they were the centres of idolatry--there were the temples and altars, and idols, and priests, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned in the 18th verse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,--"that they teach you not to do after all the abominations which they have done unto their gods." This would be a reason for exterminating _all_ the nations and individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but God commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with _any_ of them would be perilous--with the inhabitants of the _cities_ peculiarly, and of the _Canaanitish_ cities pre-eminently so. The 10th and 11th verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to be summoned to surrender. They were first to receive the offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became _tributaries_--but if they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. The 15th verse restricts this lenient treatment to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th directs as to the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities. They were to save alive "nothing that breathed." The common mistake has been, in supposing that the command in the 15th verse refers to the _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the 12th, 13th, and 14th, making a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that fought--in one case destroying the males and females, and in the other, the _males_ only. The offer of peace, and the _conditional preservation_, were as really guarantied to _Canaanitish_ cities as to others. Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated unless they came out against Israel in battle. But let us settle this question by the "law and the testimony." "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses." Josh. xix. 19, 20. That is, if they had _not_ come out against Israel in battle, they would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "_destroyed utterly._" The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty in every respect_; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, and jurisprudence and their system of religion, with all its rights and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. In a word the people were to be _denationalized_, their political existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, images groves and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under tribute. Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose were to be killed, while those who quietly submitted to it were to be spared. All had the choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the land[C]; or acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries, under the protection of the government; or resistance to the execution of the decree, with death. "_And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth as they taught my people to swear by Baal_; THEN SHALL THEY BE BUILT IN THE MIDST OF MY PEOPLE."

[Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command of God. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation. If God had strictly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites_, their pledge to save themselves was neither a repeal of the statute, nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was the import of the command, would God have permitted such an act to pass without rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel had hardly passed the threshold of Canaan, and was then striking the first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ passed their word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than God's command? So Saul seems to have passed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated God's command. When Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in "his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah," God sent upon Israel three years famine for it. When David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, "The man that devised against us, that we should be destroyed from _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Sam. xxii. 1-6.]

[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to unconditional extermination, to have employed them in the erection of the temple,--what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they pollute its altars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pass through the fire to Moloch.]

[Footnote C: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their territory at the tidings of Israel's approach, did God's command require the Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth and hunt them out, until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to mean unconditional, individual extermination.]

[The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider range of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline would be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been thrown into a mere series of _indices_, to trains of thought and classes of proof which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some facilities to those who have little leisure for protracted investigation.]

THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER NO 4.

THE

BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE

PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS

ON THE SUBJECT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS.

Fourth Edition--Enlarged.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1838.

This No. contains 7 sheets:--Postage, under 100 miles, 10 1/2 cents; over 100 miles, 14 cents.

Please read and Circulate.

CONTENTS.

DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,

NEGATIVE,

AFFIRMATIVE,

LEGAL,

THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY

"THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,"

"THOU SHALT NOT COVET,"

MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,

SEPARATION OF MAN FROM BRUTES AND THINGS,

IMPORT OF "BUY" AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY,"

SERVANTS SOLD THEMSELVES,

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED BY LAW TO SERVANTS,

SERVANTS WERE VOLUNTARY,

RUNAWAY SERVANTS NOT TO BE DELIVERED TO THEIR MASTERS,

SERVANTS WERE PAID WAGES,

MASTERS NOT "OWNERS,"

SERVANTS NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES OF PROPERTY,

SERVANTS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPERTY,

EXAMINATION OF GEN. xii. 5.--"THE SOULS THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN," &c.

SOCIAL EQUALITY OF SERVANTS AND MASTERS,

CONDITION OF THE GIBEONITES AS SUBJECTS OF THE HEBREW COMMONWEALTH,

EGYPTIAN BONDAGE CONTRASTED WITH AMERICAN SLAVERY,

CONDITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES,

ILL FED,

ILL CLOTHED,

OVER-WORKED,

THEIR DWELLING UNFIT FOR HUMAN BEINGS,

MORAL CONDITION--"HEATHENS,"

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

"CURSED BE CANAAN," &c.--EXAMINATION OF GEN. ix. 25,

"FOR HE IS HIS MONEY," &c.--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 20, 21,

EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 44-46,

"BOTH THY BONDMEN, &c., SHALL BE OF THE HEATHEN,"

"OF THEM SHALL YE BUY,"

"THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOREVER,"

"YE SHALL TAKE THEM AS AN INHERITANCE," &c.

EXAMINATION OF LEV. xxv. 39, 40.--THE FREEHOLDER NOT TO "SERVE AS A BOND SERVANT,"

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIRED AND BOUGHT SERVANTS,

BOUGHT SERVANTS THE MOST FAVORED AND HONORED CLASS,

ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS BELONGED TO BOTH CLASSES,

ISRAELITES SERVANTS TO THE STRANGERS,

REASONS FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ISRAELITISH SERVANTS IN THE SEVENTH YEAR,

REASONS FOR ASSIGNING THE STRANGERS TO A LONGER SERVICE,

REASONS FOR CALLING THEM THE SERVANTS,

DIFFERENT KINDS OF SERVICE ASSIGNED TO THE ISRAELITES AND STRANGERS,

REVIEW OF ALL THE CLASSES OF SERVANTS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF EACH,

POLITICAL DISABILITIES OF THE STRANGERS,

EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 2-6.--"IF THOU BUY AN HEBREW SERVANT,"

THE CANAANITES NOT SENTENCED TO UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION,

THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.

The spirit of slavery never seeks refuge in the Bible of its own accord. The horns of the altar are its last resort--seized only in desperation, as it rushes from the terror of the avenger's arm. Like other unclean spirits, it "hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its deeds should be reproved." Goaded to phrenzy in its conflicts with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every covert, it vaults over the sacred inclosure and courses up and down the Bible, "seeking rest, and finding none." THE LAW OF LOVE, glowing on every page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming touch, as demons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, "Torment us not." At last, it slinks away under the types of the Mosaic system, and seeks to burrow out of sight among their shadows. Vain hope! Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of refuge, the city of destruction. It flies from light into the sun; from heat, into devouring fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest of His thunders.

DEFINITION OF SLAVERY.

If we would know whether the Bible sanctions slavery, we must determine _what slavery is_. An element, is one thing; a relation, another; an appendage, another. Relations and appendages presuppose other things to which they belong. To regard them as the things themselves, or as constituent parts of them, leads to endless fallacies. Mere political disabilities are often confounded with slavery; so are many relations, and tenures, indispensible to the social state. We will specify some of these.

1. PRIVATION OF SUFFRAGE. Then minors are slaves.

2. INELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE. Then females are slaves.

3. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Then slaveholders in the District of Columbia are slaves.

4. PRIVATION OF ONE'S OATH IN LAW. Then atheists are slaves.

5. PRIVATION OF TRIAL BY JURY. Then all in France are slaves.

6. BEING REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A PARTICULAR RELIGION. Then the people of England are slaves.

7. APPRENTICESHIP. The rights and duties of master and apprentice are correlative. The _claim_ of each upon the other results from his _obligation_ to the other. Apprenticeship is based on the principle of equivalent for value received. The rights of the apprentice are secured, equally with those of the master. Indeed while the law is _just_ to the former it is _benevolent_ to the latter; its main design being rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. To the master it secures a mere compensation--to the apprentice, both a compensation and a virtual gratuity in addition, he being of the two the greatest gainer. The law not only recognizes the _right_ of the apprentice to a reward for his labor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment. The master's claim covers only the _services_ of the apprentice. The apprentice's claim covers _equally_ the services of the master. Neither can hold the other as property; but each holds property in the services of the other, and BOTH EQUALLY. Is this slavery?

8. FILIAL SUBORDINATION AND PARENTAL CLAIMS. Both are nature's dictates, and intrinsic elements of the social state; the natural affections which blend parent and child in one, excite each to discharge those offices incidental to the relation, and are a shield for mutual protection. The parent's legal claim to the child's services, is a slight return for the care and toil of his rearing, exclusively of outlays for support and education. This provision is, with the mass of mankind, indispensable to the preservation of the family state. The child, in helping his parents, helps himself--increases a common stock, in which he has a share; while his most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot cancel.

9. CLAIMS OF GOVERNMENT ON SUBJECTS. Governments owe their subjects protection; subjects owe just governments allegiance and support. The obligations of both are reciprocal, and the benefits received by both are mutual, equal, and voluntarily rendered.

10. BONDAGE FOR CRIME. Must innocence be punished because guilt suffers penalties? True, the criminal works for the government without pay; and well he may. He owes the government. A century's work would not pay its drafts on him. He will die a public defaulter. Because laws make men pay their debts, shall those be forced to pay who owe nothing? The law makes no criminal, PROPERTY. It restrains his liberty, and makes him pay something, a mere penny in the pound, of his debt to the government; but it does not make him a chattel. Test it. To own property, is to own its product. Are children born of convicts, government property? Besides, can _property_ be guilty? Can _chattels_ deserve punishment?

11. RESTRAINTS UPON FREEDOM. Children are restrained by parents, pupils, by teachers, patients, by physicians, corporations, by charters, and legislatures, by constitutions. Embargoes, tariffs, quarantine, and all other laws, keep men from doing as they please. Restraints are the web of civilized society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then a government of LAW, is the climax of slavery!

12. INVOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY SERVICE. A juryman is empannelled against his will, and sit he _must_. A sheriff orders his posse; bystanders _must_ turn in. Men are _compelled_ to remove nuisances, pay fines and taxes, support their families, and "turn to the right as the law directs," however much against their wills. Are they therefore slaves? To confound slavery with involuntary service is absurd. Slavery is a _condition_. The slave's _feelings_ toward it cannot alter its nature. Whether he desires or detests it, the condition remains the same. The slave's willingness to be a slave is no palliation of the slaveholder's guilt. Suppose he should really believe himself a chattel, and consent to be so regarded by others, would that _make_ him a chattel, or make those guiltless who _hold_ him as such? I may be sick of life, and I tell the assassin so that stabs me; is he any the less a murderer? Does my _consent_ to his crime, atone for it? my partnership in his guilt, blot out his part of it? The slave's willingness to be a slave, so far from lessening the guilt of his "owner," aggravates it. If slavery has so palsied his mind that he looks upon himself as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually to hold him as such, falls in with his delusion, and confirms the impious falsehood. These very feelings and convictions of the slave, (if such were possible) increase a hundred fold the guilt of the master, and call upon him in thunder, immediately to recognize him as a MAN, and thus break the sorcery that cheats him out of his birthright--the consciousness of his worth and destiny.

Many of the foregoing conditions are _appendages_ of slavery, but no one, nor all of them together, constitute its intrinsic unchanging element.

ENSLAVING MEN IS REDUCING THEM TO ARTICLES OF PROPERTY--making free agents, chattels--converting _persons_ into _things_--sinking immortality into _merchandize_. A _slave_ is one held in this condition. In law, "he owns nothing, and can acquire nothing." His right to himself is abrogated. If he say _my_ hands, _my_ body, _my_ mind, MY_self_, they are figures of speech. To _use himself_ for his own good, is a _crime_. To keep what he earns, is _stealing_. To take his body into his own keeping, is _insurrection_. In a word, the profit of his master is made the END of his being, and he, a _mere means_ to that end--a mere means to an end into which his interests do not enter, of which they constitute no portion[A]. MAN, sunk to a _thing!_ the intrinsic element, the _principle_ of slavery; MEN, bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on executions, and knocked off at a public outcry! Their _rights_, another's conveniences; their interests, wares on sale; their happiness, a household utensil; their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable article or a plaything, as best suits the humour of the hour; their deathless nature, conscience, social affections, sympathies, hopes--marketable commodities! We repeat it, THE REDUCTION OF PERSONS TO THINGS! Not robbing a man of privileges, but of _himself_; not loading him with burdens, but making him a _beast of burden_; not restraining liberty, but subverting it; not curtailing rights, but abolishing them; not inflicting personal cruelty, but annihilating _personality_; not exacting involuntary labor, but sinking man into an _implement_ of labor; not abridging human comforts, but abrogating human _nature_; not depriving an animal of immunities, but despoiling a rational being of attributes--uncreating a MAN, to make room for a _thing_!

[Footnote A: To deprive human nature of _any_ of its rights is _oppression_; to take away the _foundation_ of its rights is slavery. In other words, whatever sinks man from an END to a mere _means_, just so far makes him a slave. Hence West-India apprenticeship retained the cardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourths of his time, was forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so far forth he was a _mere means_, a slave. True in other respects slavery was abolished in the British West Indies August, 1834. Its bloodiest features were blotted _out_--but the meanest and most despicable of all--forcing the poor to work for the rich without pay three fourths of their time, with a legal officer to flog them if they demurred at the outrage, was one of the provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the glories of that luminary, abolitionists thanked God, while they mourned that it rose behind clouds and shone through an eclipse. [West India apprenticeship is now (August 1838) abolished. On the first of the present month, every slave in every British island and colony stood up a freeman!--Note to fourth edition.] ]

That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states. Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery," says, "The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among _things_--obtains as undoubted law in all of these [the slave] states." The law of South Carolina says, "Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER." _Brev. Dig._, 229. In Louisiana, "A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs; the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but what must belong to his master."--_Civ. Code_, Art. 35.

This is American slavery. The eternal distinction between a person and a thing, trampled under foot--the crowning distinction of all others--alike the source, the test, and the measure of their value--the rational, immortal principle, consecrated by God to universal homage in a baptism of glory and honor, by the gift of his Son, his Spirit, his word, his presence, providence, and power; his shield, and staff, and sheltering wing; his opening heavens, and angels ministering, and chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in heaven proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirming the word with signs following.

Having stated the _principle_ of American slavery, we ask, DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION SUCH A PRINCIPLE?[A] "To the _law_ and the testimony?"

[Footnote A: The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral character. It vouches for them as _facts_, not as _virtues_. It records without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, and the lies of Jacob and his mother--not only single acts, but _usages_, such as polygamy and concubinage, are entered on the record without censure. Is that _silent entry_ God's _endorsement?_ Because the Bible in its catalogue of human actions, does not stamp on every crime its name and number, and write against it, _this is a crime_--does that wash out its guilt, and bleach it into a virtue?]

THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY.

Just after the Israelites were emancipated from their bondage in Egypt, while they stood before Sinai to receive the law, as the trumpet waxed louder, and the mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from the midst of clouds and thunderings. Two of those commandments deal death to slavery. "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL," or, "thou shalt not take from another what _belongs_ to him." All man's powers are God's gift to HIM. Each of them is a part of himself, and all of them together constitute himself. All else that belongs to man, is acquired by the _use_ of these powers. The interest belongs to him, because the principal does; the product is his, because he is the producer. Ownership of any thing, is ownership of its _use_. The right to use according to will, is _itself_ ownership. The eighth commandment presupposes and assumes the right of every man to his powers, and their product. Slavery robs of both. A man's right to himself, is the only right absolutely original and intrinsic--his right to anything else is merely _relative_ to this, is derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the _foundation right_--the _post in the middle_, to which all other rights are fastened. Slaveholders, when talking about their RIGHT to their slaves, always assume their own right to themselves. What slave-holder ever undertook to prove his right to himself? He knows it to be a self-evident proposition, that _a man belongs to himself_--that the right is intrinsic and absolute. In making out his own title, he makes out the title of every human being. As the fact of being _a man_ is itself the title, the whole human family have one common title deed. If one man's title is valid, all are valid. If one is worthless, all are. To deny the validity of the _slave's_ title is to deny the validity of _his own_; and yet in the act of making a man a slave, the slaveholder _asserts_ the validity of his own title, while he seizes him as his property who has the _same_ title. Further, in making him a slave, he does not merely disfranchise of humanity _one_ individual, but UNIVERSAL MAN. He destroys the foundations. He annihilates _all rights_. He attacks not only the human race, but _universal being_, and rushes upon JEHOVAH. For rights are _rights_; God's are no more--man's are no less.

The eighth commandment forbids the taking of _any part_ of that which belongs to another. Slavery takes the _whole_. Does the same Bible which prohibits the taking of _any_ thing from him, sanction the taking of _every_ thing! Does it thunder wrath against the man who robs his neighbor of a _cent_, yet commission him to rob his neighbour of _himself?_ Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eight commandment. To take from a man his earnings, is theft. But to take the _earner_, is a compound, life-long theft--supreme robbery that vaults up the climax at a leap--the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers among other robberies a solitary horror. The eight commandment forbids the taking away, and the tenth adds, "Thou shalt not _covet_ any thing that is thy neighbor's;" thus guarding every man's right to himself and property, by making not only the actual taking away a sin, but even that state of mind which would _tempt_ to it. Who ever made human beings slaves, without _coveting_ them? Why take from them their time, labor, liberty, right of self-preservation and improvement, their right to acquire property, to worship according to conscience, to search the Scriptures, to live with their families, and their right to their own bodies, if they do not _desire_ them? They COVET them for purposes of gain, convenience, lust of dominion, of sensual gratification, of pride and ostentation. THEY BREAK THE TENTH COMMANDMENT, and pluck down upon their heads the plagues that are written in the book. _Ten_ commandments constitute the brief compend of human duty. _Two_ of these brand slavery as sin.

MANSTEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. XXI. 16.

The giving of the law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulgation of that body of laws called the "Mosaic system." Over the gateway of that system, fearful words were written by the finger of God--"HE THAT STEALETH A MAN AND SELLETH HIM, OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH[A]." Ex. xxi. 16.

[Footnote A: A writer in the American Quarterly Review, commenting on this passage, thus blasphemes. "On this passage an impression has gone abroad that slave-owners are necessarily menstealers; how hastily, any one will perceive who consults the passage in its connection. Being found in the chapter which authorizes this species of property among the Hebrews, it must of course relate to _its full protection from the danger of being enticed away from its rightful owner."_--Am. Quart. Review for June, 1833. Article "Negro slavery."]

The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, and the wonders wrought for their deliverance, proclaim the reason for such a law at such a time. They had just been emancipated. The tragedies of their house of bondage were the realities of yesterday, and peopled their memories with thronging horrors. They had just witnessed God's testimony against oppression in the plagues of Egypt--the burning blains on man and beast; the dust quickened into loathsome life, and swarming upon every living thing; the streets, the palaces, the temples, and every house heaped up with the carcases of things abhorred; the kneading troughs and ovens, the secret chambers and the couches, reeking and dissolving with the putrid death; the pestilence walking in darkness at noonday, the devouring locusts, and hail mingled with fire, the first-born death-struck, and the waters blood; and last of all, that dread high hand and stretched-out arm, that whelmed the monarch and his hosts, and strewed their corpses on the sea. All this their eyes had looked upon; earth's proudest city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying in desolation, and the doom of oppressors traced on her ruins in the hand-writing of God, glaring in letters of fire mingled with blood--a blackened monument of wrath to the uttermost against the stealers of men. No wonder that God, in a code of laws prepared for such a people at such a time, should uprear on its foreground a blazing beacon to flash terror on slaveholders. "_He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."_ Ex. xxi. 16. Deut. xxiv, 7[A]. God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Mosaic system!

[Footnote A: Jarchi, the most eminent of the Jewish Commentators, who wrote seven hundred years ago, in his comment on this stealing and making merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus:--"Using a man against his will, as a servant lawfully purchased; yea, though he should use his services ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his arm to lean on to support him, _if he be forced so to act as a servant_, the person compelling him but once to do so, shall die as a thief, whether he has sold him or not."]

The word _Ganabh_ here rendered _stealeth,_ means, the taking of what belongs to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is used in the eight commandment, and prohibits both robbery and theft.

The crime specified, is that of depriving SOMEBODY of the ownership of a man. Is this somebody a master? and is the crime that of depriving a master of his servant? Then it would have been "he that stealeth" a _servant_, not "he that stealeth a _man_." If the crime had been the taking of an individual from _another_, then the _term_ used would have been expressive of that relation, and most especially if it was the relation of property and _proprietor!_

The crime is stated in a three-fold form--man _stealing_, _selling_, and _holding_. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one penalty--DEATH[A]. This _somebody_ deprived of the ownership of a man, is the _man himself_, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said, "Indeed I was _stolen_ away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How _stolen?_ His brethren sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast this penalty for _man_-stealing with that for _property_-stealing, Ex. xxii. 14. If a man had stolen an _ox_ and killed or sold it, he was to restore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. But in the case of stealing a _man_, the _first_ act drew down the utmost power of punishment; however often repeated or aggravated the crime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for _man_-stealing was death, and the penalty for _property_-stealing, the mere restoration of double, shows that the two cases were adjudicated on totally different principles. The man stolen might be diseased or totally past labor, consequently instead of being profitable to the thief, he would be a tax upon him, yet death was still the penalty, though not a cent's worth of _property-value_ was taken. The penalty for stealing property was a mere property-penalty. However large the theft, the payment of double wiped out the score. It might have a greater money value than a thousand men, yet death was not the penalty, nor maiming, nor braiding, nor even stripes, but double _of the same kind_. Why was not the rule uniform? When a _man_ was stolen why was not the thief required to restore double of the same kind--two men, or if he had sold him, five men? Do you say that the man-thief might not _have_ them? So the ox-thief might not have two oxen, or if he had killed it, five. But if God permitted men to hold _men_ as property, equally with oxen, the man-thief, could get men with whom to pay the penalty, as well as the ox-thief, oxen. Further, when property was stolen, the legal penalty was a compensation to the person injured. But when a _man_ was stolen, no property compensation was offered. To tender money as an equivalent, would have been to repeat the outrage with intolerable aggravations. Compute the value of a MAN in _money!_ Throw dust into the scale against immortality! The law recoiled from such supreme insult and impiety. To have permitted the man-thief to expiate his crime by restoring double, would have been making the repetition of crime its atonement. But the infliction of death for man-stealing exacted the utmost possibility of reparation. It wrung from the guilty wretch as he gave up the ghost, the testimony of blood, and death-groans, to the infinite dignity and worth of man,--a proclamation to the universe, voiced in mortal agony, "MAN IS INVIOLABLE."--a confession shrieked in phrenzy at the grave's mouth--"I die accursed, and God is just."

[Footnote A: "Those are _men-stealers_ who abduct, _keep_, sell, or buy slaves or freemen." GROTIUS.]

If God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish for stealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any other kind of property? Why punish with death for stealing a very little of _that_ sort of property, and make a mere fine the penalty for stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of property--especially if by his own act, God had annihilated the difference between man and _property_, by putting him on a level with it?

The guilt of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character, and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft; to steal it from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my neighbor's property, the crime consists not in altering the _nature_ of the article, but in taking as _mine_ what is _his_. But when I take my neighbor himself, and first make him _property_, and then _my_ property, the latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, dwindles to nothing. The sin in stealing a man, is not the transfer from its owner to another of that which is already property, but the turning of _personality_ into _property_. True, the attributes of man remain, but the rights and immunities which grow out of them are annihilated. It is the first law both of reason and revelation, to regard things and beings as they are; and the sum of religion, to feel and act toward them according to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin; and the degree of violence done to their nature, relations, and value, measures its guilt. When things are sundered which God has indissolubly joined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite extremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished with glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, sin reddens to its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing violence to the _nature_ of a _man_--to his intrinsic value as a rational being. In the verse preceding the one under consideration, and in that which follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, "He that smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Verse. 17, "He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death." If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely smote him in return; but if the blow was given to a _parent_, it struck the smiter dead. The parental relation is the _centre_ of human society. God guards it with peculiar care. To violate that, is to violate all. Whoever tramples on that, shows that _no_ relation has any sacredness in his eyes--that he is unfit to move among human relations who violates one so sacred and tender. Therefore, the Mosaic law uplifted his bleeding corpse, and brandished the ghastly terror around the parental relation to guard it from impious inroads.

Why such a difference in penalties, for the same act? Answer. 1. The relation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents and others self-evident, dictated by a law of nature. 2. The act was violence to nature--a suicide on constitutional susceptibilities. 3. The parental relation then, as now, was the focal point of the social system, and required powerful safe-guards. "_Honor thy father and thy mother_," stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the duties of man to man; and throughout the Bible, the parental state is God's favorite illustration of his own relations to the human family. In this case, death was to be inflicted not for smiting a _man,_ but a _parent_--_a distinction_ made sacred by God, and fortified by a bulwark of defence. In the next verse, "He that stealeth a man," &c., the SAME PRINCIPLE is wrought out in still stronger relief. The crime to be punished with death was not the taking of property from its owner, but violence to an _immortal nature_, the blotting out of a sacred _distinction_--making MEN "chattels."

The incessant pains taken in the Old Testament to separate human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard for this, his own distinction. "In the beginning" he proclaimed it to the universe as it rose into being. Creation stood up at the instant of its birth, to do it homage. It paused in adoration while God ushered forth its crowning work. Why that dread pause and that creating arm held back in mid career and that high conference in the godhead? "Let us make man in OUR IMAGE after OUR LIKENESS, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth." Then while every living thing, with land, and sea, and firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to swell the shout of morning stars--then God created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE; IN THE IMAGE OF GOD created he him." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, CREATED HE HIM. This distinction is often repeated and always with great solemnity. In Gen. i. 26-28, it is expressed in various forms. In Gen. v. 1, we find it again, "IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD MADE HE HIM." In Gen. ix. 6, again. After giving license to shed the blood of "every moving thing that liveth," it is added, "_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for_ IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN." As though it had been said, "All these creatures are your property, designed for your use--they have the likeness of earth, and their spirits go downward; but this other being, MAN, has my own likeness: IN THE IMAGE OF GOD made I man; an intelligent, moral, immortal agent, invited to all that I can give and he can be. So in Lev. xxiv. 17, 18, 21, "He that killeth any MAN shall surely be put to death; and he that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth a MAN he shall be put to death." So in Ps. viii. 5, 6, we have an enumeration of particulars, each separating infinitely MEN from brutes and things! 1. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels."_ Slavery drags him down among _brutes._ 2. _"And hast crowned him with glory and honor."_ Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_. 3. _"Thou madest him to have dominion_[A] OVER _the works of thy hands."_ Slavery breaks his sceptre, and cast him down _among_ those works--yea, _beneath them_. 4. _"Thou hast put all things under his feet_." Slavery puts HIM under the feet of an "owner." Who, but an impious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy One, who saith, _"Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did it unto ME._"

[Footnote A: "Thou madest him to have dominion." In Gen. i. 28, God says to man, _"Have dominion_ over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth," thus vesting in _every_ human being the right of ownership over the earth, its products and animal life, and in _each_ human being the _same_ right. By so doing God prohibited the exercise of ownership by man over _man_; for the grant to _all_ men of _equal_ ownership, for ever _shut_ out the possibility of their exercising ownership over _each other_, as whoever is the owner of a _man_, is the owner of his _right of property_--in other words, when one man becomes the property of another his rights become such too, his _right of property_ is transferred to his "owner," and thus as far as _himself_ is concerned, is annihilated. Finally, by originally vesting _all_ men with dominion or ownership over property, God proclaimed the _right of all_ to exercise it, and pronounced every man who takes it away a robber of the highest grade. Such is every slaveholder.]

In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic systems will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and as many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine institutions previously existing. As a _system_, the latter alone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs God has not made them our exemplars.[B] The question to be settled by us, is not what were Jewish _customs_, but what were the rules that God gave for the regulation of those customs.

[Footnote B: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit with such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good old slaveholders and patriarchs," might at small cost greatly augment their numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal _concubinage_, winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarchal _drunkenness_, would be a trumpet-call, summoning from brothels, bush and brake, highway and hedge, and sheltering fence, a brotherhood of kindred affinities, each claiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, "My name is legion." A myriad choir and thunderous song!]

Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under these two states of society, we will consider the import of certain terms which describe the mode of procuring them.

IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY."

As the Israelites were commanded to "buy" their servants, and as Abraham had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants were articles of property! The sole ground for this belief is _the terms themselves!_ How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be proved were always _assumed_! To beg the question in debate, is vast economy of midnight oil, and a wholesale forestaller of wrinkles and gray hairs. Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage, painfully collating passages, to settle the meaning of terms, let every man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages of his own time and place, and the work is done. And then instead of one revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, and every man have an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, in the dialect of his own neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon, to take it for granted that the sense in which words are _now_ used, is the _inspired_ sense. David says, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its revolution! Two hundred years ago, _prevent_ was used in its strict Latin sense, to _come before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the nineteenth century, would be "Before the dawning of the morning I cried." In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense now nearly, or quite obsolete, and sometimes in a sense totally _opposite_ to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I purposed to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four _beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshiped God,"--"Whosoever shall _offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into the highways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your _conversation_ (habitual conduct) be as becometh the Gospel,"--"The Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the _quick_ (living) and the dead,"--They that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me," So when tribulation or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (immediately) they are offended." Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like bodies, are always throwing off some particles and absorbing others. So long as they are mere representatives, elected by the whims of universal suffrage, their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak within bounds) for a modern Bible-Dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by showing what it means _now_. Pity that fashionable mantuamakers were not a little quicker at taking hints from some Doctors of Divinity. How easily they might save their pious customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings of fashion, by proving that the last importation of Parisian indecency now "showing off" on promenade, was the very style of dress in which the modest and pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels. Since such a fashion flaunts along Broadway _now_, it _must_ have trailed over Canaan four thousand years ago!

The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the fallacy, that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of your paying for it, _proves_ it property. 1. The children of Israel were required to purchase their firstborn from under the obligations of the priesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; iii. 45-51; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20. This custom still exists among the Jews, and the word _buy_ is still used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their firstborn were or are, held as property? They were _bought_ as really as were _servants_. 2. The Israelites were required to pay money for their own souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were their souls therefore marketable commodities? 3. When the Israelites set apart themselves or their children to the Lord by vow, for the performance of some service, an express statute provided that a _price_ should be set upon the "_persons_," and it prescribed the manner and _terms_ of the "estimation" or valuation, by the payment of which, the persons might be _bought off_ from the service vowed. The _price_ for males from one month old to five years, was five shekels, for females, three; from five years old to twenty, for males, twenty shekels, for females, ten; from twenty years old to sixty, for males, fifty shekels, for females, thirty; above sixty years old, for males, fifteen shekels, for females, ten, Lev. xxvii. 2-8. What egregious folly to contend that all these descriptions of persons were goods and chattels because they were _bought_ and their _prices_ regulated by law! 4. Bible saints _bought_ their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (bought) to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10.[A] Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of Barley, and an half homer of barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, and not having money, paid for them in labor--seven years a piece. Gen. xxix. 15-23. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of her father.[B] Exod. ii. 21. Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, "Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me." Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased Michael, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services for the fathers of the damsels. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judg. i. 12, 13. That the purchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the general practice, is plain from such passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a mere form, there being no _real_ purchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is one called "marrying by the penny." The similarity in the methods of procuring wives and servants, in the terms employed in describing the transactions, and in the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Comp. Deut, xxii. 28, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The _medium_ price of wives and servants was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems to have paid one half in money and the other half in grain. Further, the Israelitish female bought-servants were _wives_, their husbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If _buying_ servants proves them property, buying wives proves _them_ property. Why not contend that the _wives_ of the ancient fathers of the faithful were their "chattels," and used as ready change at a pinch; and thence deduce the rights of modern husbands? Alas! Patriarchs and prophets are followed afar off! When will pious husbands live up to their Bible privileges, and become partakers with Old Testament worthies in the blessedness of a husband's rightful immunities! Refusing so to do, is questioning the morality of those "good old slaveholders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

[Footnote A: In the verse preceding, Boaz says, "I have _bought_ all that was Elimelech's * * * of the hand of Naomi." In the original, the same word (_kana_) is used in both verses. In the 9th, "a parcel of land" is "bought," in the 10th a "wife" is "bought." If the Israelites had been as profound at inferences as our modern Commentators, they would have put such a fact as this to the rack till they had tortured out of it a divine warrant for holding their wives as property and speculating in the article whenever it happened to be scarce.]

[Footnote B: This custom still prevails in some eastern countries. The Crim Tartars, who are poor, serve an apprenticeship for their wives, during which they live under the same roof with them and at the close of it are adopted into the family.]

This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac, the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." Even so late as the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B."

The word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have _gotten_ (bought) a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, that is _bought_. "He that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding," Prov. xv. 32. So in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_) the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. "He brought them to his mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren the Jews, that were sold unto the heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons reduced to servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. viii. 22. "The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix. 8. "He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to _buy_ is a _secondary_ meaning of the Hebrew word _kana_.

Even at this day the word _buy_ is used to describe the procuring of servants, where slavery is abolished. In the British West Indies, where slaves became apprentices in 1834, they are still, (1837,) "bought." This is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten years since servants were "_bought_" in New York, and still are in New Jersey, as really as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the word is used in those states, puts no man in a quandary. Under the system of legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are "_bought_."[A] Until recently immigrants to this country were "bought" in great numbers. By voluntary contract they engaged to work a given time to pay for their passage. This class of persons, called "redemptioners," consisted at one time of thousands. Multitudes are "bought" _out_ of slavery by themselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a slave; when "bought," she was a slave no longer. Alas! for our leading politicians if "buying" men makes them "chattels." The Whigs say, that Calhoun has been "bought" by the administration; and the other party, that Clay and Webster have been "bought" by the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British gold, and that Williams, Paulding, and Van Wert, could not be "bought" by Major Andre. When a northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country gossip thus hits off the indecency, "The cotton bags _bought_ him." Sir Robert Walpole said, "Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it, can _buy_ him," and John Randolph said, "The northern delegation is in the market; give me money enough, and I can _buy_ them." The temperance publications tell us that candidates for office _buy_ men with whiskey; and the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were _bought_, yet we have no floating visions of "chattels personal," man-auctions, or coffles.

[Footnote A: The following statute is now in force in the free state of Illinois--"No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time _purchase_ any servant other than of their own complexion: and if any of the persons aforesaid shall presume to _purchase_ a white servant, such servant shall immediately become free, and shall be so held, deemed and taken."]

In Connecticut, town paupers are "bought" by individuals, who, for a stipulated sum become responsible to the town for their comfortable support for one year. If these "bought" persons perform any labor for those who "buy" them, it is wholly _voluntary_. It is hardly necessary to add that they are in no sense the "property" of their purchasers.[A]

[Footnote A: "The select-men" of each town annually give notice, that at such a time and place, they will proceed to _sell_ the poor of said town. The persons thus "sold" are "bought" by such persons, approved by the "select-men," as engage to furnish them with sufficient wholesome food, adequate clothing, shelter, medicine, &c., for such a sum as the parties may agree upon. The Connecticut papers frequently contain advertisements like the following: "NOTICE--The poor of the town of Chatham will be SOLD on the first Monday in April, 1837, at the house of F. Penfield, Esq., at 9 o'clock in the forenoon,"--[Middletown Sentinel, Feb. 3, 1837.] ]

The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the use of "buy" and "bought with money." Gen. xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain that neither party regarded the persons _bought_ as articles of property, but merely as bound to labor on certain conditions, to pay for their support during the famine. The idea attached by both parties to "buy us," and "behold I have bought you," was merely that of service voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in return, for _value received_, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of _services_ (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. This case claims special notice, as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is detailed--the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the mere fact is stated without particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open. 1. The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and of their own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent _service_ of persons, or even a portion of it, is called "buying" those persons; just as paying for the _use_ of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called in Scripture usage _buying_ them. See Lev. xxv. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. The objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers that they were articles of property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are _sheer assumptions_. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which a _master sold his servant_.

That servants who were "bought," _sold themselves_, is a fair inference from various passages of Scripture.[A] In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger." Yet the 51st verse informs us that this servant was "BOUGHT" and that the price of his purchase was paid to _himself_. The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in verse 47, is rendered _sell himself_, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is rendered "be sold." "And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies for bond-men and bond-women and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU." How could they "_be sold_" without _being bought_? Our translation makes it nonsense. The word _Makar_ rendered "_be sold_" is used here in Hithpael conjugation, which is generally reflexive in its force, and like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an individual does for himself, and should manifestly have been rendered "ye shall _offer yourselves_ for sale, and there shall be no purchaser." For a clue to Scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20. 25.--"Thou hast _sold thyself_ to work evil." "There was none like unto Ahab which did sell _himself_ to work wickedness."--2 Kings xvii. 17. "They used divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold yourselves."_ Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without money." See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14; Rom. vii. 14, vi. 16; John, viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is generally stated that they were bought of _third_ persons. If _servants_ were bought of third persons, it is strange that no _instance_ of it is on record.

[Footnote A: Those who insist that the servants which the Israelites were commanded to buy of "the heathen which were round about" them, were to be bought of _third persons_, virtually charge God with the inconsistency of recognizing and affirming the right of those very persons to freedom, upon whom, say they, he pronounced the doom of slavery. For they tell us, that the sentence of death uttered against those heathen was commuted into slavery, which punishment God denounced against them. Now if "the heathen round about" were doomed to slavery, the _sellers_ were doomed as well as the _sold_. Where, we ask, did the sellers get their right to sell? God by commanding the Israelites to BUY, affirmed the right of _somebody_ to _sell_, and that the _ownership_ of what was sold existed _somewhere_; which _right_ and ownership he commanded them to _recognize_ and _respect_. We repeat the question, where did the heathen _sellers_ get their right to sell, since _they_ were dispossessed of their right to _themselves_ and doomed to slavery equally with those whom they sold. Did God's decree vest in them a right to _others_ while it annulled their right to _themselves_? If, as the objector's argument assumes, one part of "the heathen round about" were _already_ held as slaves by the other part, _such_ of course were not _doomed_ to slavery, for they were already slaves. So also, if those heathen who held them as slaves had a _right_ to hold them, which right God commanded the Israelites to _buy out_, thus requiring them to recognize _it_ as a _right_, and on no account to procure its transfer to themselves without paying to the holders an equivalent, surely, these _slaveholders_ were not doomed by God to be slaves, for according to the objector, God had himself affirmed their right _to hold others as slaves_, and commanded his people to respect it.]

We now proceed to inquire into the _condition_ of servants under the patriarchal and Mosaic systems.

I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS.

The leading design of the laws defining the relations of master and servant, was the good of both parties--more especially the good of the _servants_. While the master's interests were guarded from injury, those of the servants were _promoted_. These laws made a merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, not laying on burdens, but lightening them--they were a grant of _privileges_ and _favors_.

I. BUYING SERVANTS WAS REGARDED AS A KINDNESS TO THE PERSONS BOUGHT, and as establishing between them and their purchasers a bond of affection and confidence. This is plain from the frequent use of it to illustrate the love and care of God for his chosen people. Deut. xxxii. 6; Ex. xv. 16; Ps. lxxiv. 2; Prov. viii. 22.

II. NO STRANGER COULD JOIN THE FAMILY OF AN ISRAELITE WITHOUT BECOMING A PROSELYTE. Compliance with this condition was the _price of the privilege_. Gen. xvii. 9-14, 23, 27. In other words, to become a servant was virtually to become an Israelite.[A] In the light of this fact, look at the relation sustained by a proselyted servant to his master. Was it a sentence consigning to _punishment_, or a ticket of admission to _privileges_?

[Footnote A: The rites by which a stranger became a proselyte transformed him into a Jew. Compare 1 Chron. ii. 17, with 2 Sam. xvii. 25. In Esther viii. 17, it is said "Many of the people of the land _became Jews_." In the Septuagint, the passage is thus rendered, "Many of the heathen were circumcised and became Jews." The intimate union and incorporation of the proselytes with the Hebrews is shown by such passages as Isa. lvi. 6, 7, 8; Eph. ii. 11, 22; Num. x. 29-32. Calmet, Art. Proselyte, says "They were admitted to all the prerogatives of the people of the Lord." Mahommed doubtless borrowed from the laws and usages of the Jews, his well known regulation for admitting to all civil and religious privileges, all proselytes of whatever nation or religion.]

III. EXPULSION FROM THE FAMILY WAS THE DEPRIVATION OF A PRIVILEGE IF NOT A PUNISHMENT. When Sarah took umbrage at the conduct of Hagar and Ishmael, her servants, "She said unto Abraham _cast out_ this bond-woman and her son." * * And Abraham rose up early in the morning and took bread and a bottle of water and gave it unto Hagar and the child, and _sent her away_. Gen. xxi. 10, 14; in Luke xvi. 1-8, our Lord tells us of the steward or head-servant of a rich man who defrauded his master, and was, in consequence, excluded from his household. The servant anticipating such a punishment, says, "I am resolved what to do, that when I am _put out_ of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses." The case of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, appears to be a similar one. He was guilty of fraud in procuring a large sum of money from Naaman, and of deliberate lying to his master, on account of which Elisha seems to have discarded him. 2 Kings v. 20-27. In this connection we may add that if a servant neglected the observance of any ceremonial rite, and was on that account excommunicated from the congregation of Israel, such excommunication excluded him also from the _family_ of an Israelite. In other words he could be a _servant_ no longer than he was an _Israelite_. To forfeit the latter _distinction_ involved the forfeiture of the former _privilege_--which proves that it _was_ a privilege.

IV. THE HEBREW SERVANT COULD COMPEL HIS MASTER TO KEEP HIM.

When the six years' contract had expired, if the servant _demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ the master to retain him permanently, however little he might need his services. Deut. xv. 12-17; Ex. xxi. 2-6. This shows that the system was framed to advance the interest and gratify the wishes of the servant quite as much as those of the master.

V. SERVANTS WERE ADMITTED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Deut. xxix. 10-13.

VI. THEY WERE GUESTS AT ALL NATIONAL AND FAMILY FESTIVALS Ex. xii. 43-44; Deut xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.

VII. THEY WERE STATEDLY INSTRUCTED IN MORALITY AND RELIGION. Deut. xxxi. 10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9, xxxv. 3, and xxxiv. 30. Neh. viii. 7, 8.

VIII. THEY WERE RELEASED FROM THEIR REGULAR LABOR NEARLY ONE HALF OF THE WHOLE TIME. During which they had their entire support, and the same instruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew community. The Law secured to them,

1. _Every seventh year;_ Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those who were servants during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_, (including the jubilee year,) of unbroken rest.

2. _Every seventh day._ This in forty-two years, the eight being subtracted from the fifty, would amount to just _six years_.

3. _The three annual festivals._ Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23. The _Passover_, which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the 6th day of the 3d month, and lasted seven days. Deut. xvi. 10, 11. The Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the 7th month, and lasted eight days. Deut. xvi. 13, 15; Lev. xxiii. 34-39. As all met in one place, much time would be spent on the journey. Cumbered caravans move slowly. After their arrival, a day or two would be requisite for divers preparations before the celebration, besides some time at the close of it, in preparations for return. If we assign three weeks to each festival--including the time spent on the journeys, and the delays before and after the celebration, together with the _festival week_, it will be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the year, the main body of the servants would be absent from their stated employments at least _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.

4. _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus says that the Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish Calendar, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27. This, in forty-two years, would be two years 280 days.

5. _The feast of trumpets_. On the first day of the seventh month, and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25.

6. _The atonement day_. On the tenth of the seventh month Lev. xxiii. 27.

These two feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days not reckoned above.

Thus it appears that those who continued servants during the period between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor, TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In this calculation, besides making a donation of all the _fractions_ to the objector, we have left out those numerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, Judg. xxi. 19; 1 Sam. ix. 12. 22. etc., and the various _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at marriages; at sheep shearings; at circumcisions; at the making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1 Sam, xx. 6. 28, 29. Neither have we included the festivals instituted at a later period of the Jewish history--the feast of Purim, Esth. ix. 28, 29; and of the Dedication, which lasted eight days. John x. 22; 1 Mac. iv. 59.

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time which, if distributed, would be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they were supported, and furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this time were distributed over _every day_, the servants would have to themselves nearly _one half of each day_.

The service of those Strangers who were _national_ servants or tributaries, was regulated upon the same benevolent principle, and secured to them TWO-THIRDS of the whole year. "A month they were in Lebanon, and two months they were at home." 1 Kings, v. 13-15. Compared with 2 Chron. 11. 17-19, viii. 7-9; 1 Kings, ix 20. 22. The regulations under which the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth and Kirjath-jearim, (afterwards called _Nethinims_) performed service for the Israelites, must have secured to them nearly the whole of their time. If, as is probable, they served in courses corresponding to those of their priests whom they assisted, they were in actual service less than one month annually.

IX. THE SERVANT WAS PROTECTED BY LAW EQUALLY WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY

Proof.--"Judge righteously between every man and his brother and THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM." "Ye shall not RESPECT PERSONS in judgment, but ye shall hear the SMALL as well as the great." Deut. i. 16, 19. Also Lev. xix. 15. xxiv. 22. "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the STRANGER, as for one of your own country." So Num. xv. 29. "Ye shall have ONE LAW for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel and for the STRANGER that sojourneth among them." Deut. xxvii. 19. "Cursed be he that PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER."[A] Deut. xxvii. 19.

[Footnote A: In a work entitled, "Instruction in the Mosaic Religion" by Professor Jholson, of the Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main, translated into English by Rabbi Leeser, we find the following.--Sec. 165. "Question. Does holy writ any where make a difference between the Israelite and the other who is no Israelite, in those laws and prohibitions which forbid us the _committal of any thing against our fellow men?_"

"Answer. No where we do find a trace of such a difference. See Lev. xix. 33-36."

"God says thou shalt not murder, _steal_, cheat, &c. In every place the action _itself_ is prohibited as being an abomination to God _without respect to the PERSONS against whom it is committed_." ]

X. THE MOSAIC SYSTEM ENJOINED THE GREATEST AFFECTION AND KINDNESS TOWARDS SERVANTS, FOREIGN AS WELL AS JEWISH.

"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." Lev. xix. 34. "For the Lord your God * * REGARDETH NOT PERSONS. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE STRANGER, in giving him food and raiment, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." Deut. x. 17, 19. "Thou shalt neither vex a STRANGER nor oppress him." Ex. xxii. 21. "Thou shalt not oppress a STRANGER, for ye know the heart of a stranger." Ex. xxiii. 9. "If thy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a STRANGER or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usury of him or increase, but fear thy God." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. Could this same stranger be taken by one that feared his God, and held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights?

XI. SERVANTS WERE PLACED UPON A LEVEL WITH THEIR MASTERS IN ALL CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14; Deut. i. 16, 17; Lev. xxiv. 22. To these may be added that numerous class of passages which represents God as regarding _alike_ the natural rights of _all_ men, and making for all an _equal_ provision. Such as, 2 Chron. xix. 7; Prov. xxiv. 23, xxviii. 21; Job. xxxiv. 19, 2 Sam. xiv. 14; Acts x. 35; Eph. vi. 9.

Finally--With such watchful jealousy did the Mosaic Institutes guard the _rights_ of servants, as to make the mere fact of a servant's escape from his master presumptive evidence that his master had _oppressed_ him; and on that presumption, annulled his master's authority over him, gave him license to go wherever he pleased, and commanded all to protect him. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. As this regulation will be examined under a subsequent head, where its full discussion more appropriately belongs, we notice it here merely to point out its bearings on the topic under consideration.

THESE ARE REGULATIONS OF THAT MOSAIC SYSTEM WHICH IS CLAIMED BY SLAVEHOLDERS AS THE PROTOTYPE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.

II. WERE PERSONS MADE SERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

We argue that they became servants of _their own accord,_ because,

I. TO BECOME A SERVANT WAS TO BECOME A PROSELYTE. Whoever of the strangers became a servant, he was required to abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[A], be circumcised in token of it, be bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial law. Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they _compelled_ mechanically to chew and swallow the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that enjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations? We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. Did God authorize his people to make proselytes at the point of the bayonet? by the terror of pains and penalties? by converting men into _merchandise?_ Were _proselyte and chattel_ synonymes in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption? the sure and sacred passport to the communion of the saints?

[Footnote A: Maimonides, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant.

"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that is bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him, unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown slave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year. After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a _willing_ heart."--Maimon, Hilcoth Miloth, Chap. 1, Sec. 8.

The ancient Jewish Doctors assert that the servant from the Strangers who at the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish religion and was on that account sent back to his own people, received a _full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the scope of this inquiry. ]

II. THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE SERVANTS TO THEIR MASTERS WAS PROHIBITED. "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.

As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his _choice_, proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force him back and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." It may be said that this command referred only to the servants of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We answer: the terms of the command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely shift the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God require them to protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_ servant escapes to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh him_ best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper, who bought him of his master, and forced him into a condition against his will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the same treatment of the _same person_, provided in addition to this last outrage, the previous one had been committed of forcing him into the nation against his will? To commit violence on the free choice of a foreign servant is forsooth a horrible enormity, provided you _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the first act on the _other side of the line_; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a third person against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah! that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer than to the old residents--those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise towards _him_, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to the multitudes who _were_ circumcised, and _within_ the covenant? But, the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations would adopt retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives. As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in their midst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men whose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same command which protected the servant from the power of his foreign _master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not, merely "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_," but "he shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of thy gates where it liketh _him_ best." Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in any condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased? Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of _foreign_ servants only, there was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped _servants_. These verses contain, 1st, a command, "Thou shalt not deliver," &c., 2d. a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free choice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, "If you restrain him from exercising his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his residence, it is _oppression_, and shall not be tolerated."[A]

[Footnote A: Perhaps it may be objected that this view of Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, makes nonsense of Ex. xxi. 27, which provides that if a man strikes out his servant's tooth he shall let him go free. Small favor indeed if the servant might set himself free whenever he pleased! Answer--The former passage might remove the servant from the master's _authority_, without annulling the master's legal claims upon the servant, if he had paid him in advance and had not received from him an equivalent, and this equally, whether his master were a Jew or a Gentile. The latter passage, "He shall let him go free _for his tooth's sake,"_ not only freed the servant from the master's authority, but also from any pecuniary claim which the master might have on account of having paid his wages in advance; and this _as a compensation_, for the loss of a tooth.]

III. THE SERVANTS HAD PECULIAR OPPORTUNITIES AND FACILITIES FOR ESCAPE. Three times every year, all the males over twelve years, were required to attend the national feasts. They were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks at each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters?--a corporal's guard at each pass of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hilltops, and light-horse scouring the defiles? The Israelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking their "_slaves_" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are handcuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement introduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," the Sanhedrim appointing special religious services for their benefit, and their "drivers" officiating at "ORAL instruction." Meanwhile, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from stalking off in a body? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp look-out at night!

IV. WILFUL NEGLECT OF CEREMONIAL RITES DISSOLVED THE RELATION.

Suppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish families, refused circumcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of emancipation! Their _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose they had refused to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten leavened bread during the Passover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, or had touched a dead body, a bone, or a grave, or in any way had contracted ceremonial uncleanness, and refused to be cleansed with the "water of separation," they would have been "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_. Ex. xii. 19; xxx. 33; Num. xix. 16.

V. SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY.

Abraham's servants are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and eighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and many more _not_ born in his house. His servants of all ages were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How did Abraham and Sarah contrive to hold fast so many thousand servants against their wills? The most natural supposition is that the Patriarch and his wife "took turns" in surrounding them! The neighboring tribes, instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household. Besides, there was neither "constitution" nor "compact," to send back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon them, nor gentlemen-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their honour to hunt down and deliver up, provided they had a description of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by pieces of silver.[A] Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully trained "his household to do justice and judgment," though so deplorably destitute of the needful aids.

[Footnote A: The following is a standing newspaper advertisement of one of these professional man-catchers, a member of the New York bar, who coolly plies his trade in the commercial emporium, sustained by the complacent greetings and courtesies of "HONORABLE MEN!" "IMPORTANT TO THE SOUTH.--F.H. Pettis, native of Orange County, Va., being located in the city of New York, in the practice of law, announces to his friends and the public in general, that he has been engaged as Counsel and Adviser in General for a party whose business it is in the northern cities to arrest and secure runaway slaves. He has been thus engaged for several years, and as the act of Congress alone governs now in this city, in business of this sort, which renders it easy for the recovery of such property, he invites post paid communications to him, inclosing a fee of $20 in each case, and a power of Attorney minutely descriptive of the party absconded, and if in the northern region, he, or she will soon be had.

"Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him.

"N.B. New York City is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves.

"PETTIS." ]

Probably Job had even more servants than Abraham. See Job. i. 3, 14-19, and xlii. 12. That his thousands of servants staid with him entirely of their own accord, is proved by the _fact_ of their staying with him. Suppose they had wished to quit his service, and so the whole army had filed off before him in full retreat, how could the patriarch have brought them to halt? Doubtless with his wife, seven sons, and three daughters for allies, he would have soon out-flanked the fugitive host and dragged each of them back to his wonted chain and staple.

But the impossibility of Job's servants being held against their wills, is not the only proof of their voluntary condition. We have his own explicit testimony that he had not "withheld from the poor their _desire_." Job. xxxi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made them live with him, and forced them to work for him against _their desire_.

When Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he "had _great store_ of servants." And we have his testimony that the Philistines hated him, added to that of inspiration that they "envied" him. Of course they would hardly volunteer to organize patroles and committees of vigilance to keep his servants from running away, and to drive back all who were found beyond the limits of his plantation without a "pass!" If the thousands of Isaac's servants were held against their wills, who held them?

The servants of the Jews, during the building of the wall of Jerusalem, under Nehemiah, may be included under this head. That they remained with their masters of their own accord, we argue from the fact, that the circumstances of the Jews made it impossible for them to _compel_ their residence and service. They were few in number, without resources, defensive fortifications, or munitions of war, and surrounded withal by a host of foes, scoffing at their feebleness and inviting desertion from their ranks. Yet so far from the Jews attempting in any way to restrain their servants, or resorting to precautions to prevent escape, they put arms into their hands, and enrolled them as a night-guard, for the defence of the city. By cheerfully engaging in this service and in labor by day, when with entire ease they might all have left their masters, marched over to the enemy, and been received with shoutings, the servants testified that their condition was one of _their own choice_, and that they regarded their own interests as inseparably identified with those of their masters. Neh. iv. 23.

VI. NO INSTANCES OF ISRAELITISH MASTERS SELLING SERVANTS. Neither Abraham nor Isaac seem ever to have sold one, though they had "great store of servants." Jacob was himself a servant in the family of Laban twenty-one years. He had afterward a large number of servants. Joseph invited him to come into Egypt, and to bring all that he had with him--"thou and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Gen. xlv. 10. Jacob took his flocks and herds but _no servants_. Yet we are told that Jacob "took his journey with _all that he had_." Gen. xlvi. 1. And after his arrival in Egypt, Joseph said to Pharaoh "my father, and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds and _all that they have_, are come." Gen. xlvii. 1. The servants doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country.

The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a _right_ to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right of choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, "to give the master a right to _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_." Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a quite another thing to have a right to buy him of _another_ man.[A]

[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose of even the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers whom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not the argument.]

Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as WIVES. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be redeemed."[B]

[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows:--"A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her _espousal_."]

VII. VOLUNTARY SERVANTS FROM THE STRANGERS.

We infer that _all_ the servants from the Strangers were voluntary in becoming such, since we have direct testimony that some of them were so. "Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, OR OF THY STRANGERS that are in thy land within thy gates." Deut. xxiv. 14. We learn from this that some of the servants, which the Israelites obtained from the strangers were procured by presenting the inducement of _wages_ to their _free choice_, thus recognizing their right to sell their services to others, or not, at their own pleasure. Did the Israelites, when they went among the heathen to procure servants, take money in one hand and ropes in the other? Did they _ask_ one man to engage in their service, and _drag_ along with them the next that they met, in spite of his struggles. Did they knock for admission at one door and break down the next? Did they go through one village with friendly salutations and respectful demeanor, and with the air of those soliciting favors, offer wages to the inhabitants as an inducement to engage in their service--while they sent on their agents to prowl through the next, with a kidnapping posse at their heels, to tear from their homes as many as they could get within their clutches?

VIII. HEBREW SERVANTS VOLUNTARY.

We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his service, because he was preeminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his master, the law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more, his master was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get rid of him.

IX. THE MANNER OF PROCURING SERVANTS, AN APPEAL TO CHOICE.

The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to BUY them[A]--that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they had earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has nothing to do with the condition of servants.]

X. INCIDENTAL CORROBORATIVES. Various incidental expressions corroborate the idea that servants became such by their own contract. Job. xli. 4, is an illustration, "Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt thou take him for a SERVANT forever?" Isa. xiv. 1, 2 is also an illustration. "The strangers shall be joined with them (the Israelites) and _they shall_ CLEAVE to the house of Jacob, and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants and handmaids."

The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they came to Joseph and said, "There is not aught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25th verse, "We will be Pharaoh's servants." To these it may be added, that the sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present, were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2. 3.

The pertinence and point of our Lord's declaration in Luke xvi. 13, is destroyed on the supposition that servants did not become such by _their own choice_. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other." Let it be kept in mind, that our Lord was a _Jew_. The lost sheep of the house of Israel were his flock. Wherever he went, they were around him: whenever he spake, they were his auditors. His public preaching and his private teaching and conversation, were full of references to their own institutions, laws and usages, and of illustrations drawn from them. In the verse quoted, he illustrates the impossibility of their making choice of God as their portion, and becoming his servants, while they chose the world, and were _its_ servants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own institutions, that of _domestic service_, with which, in all its relations, incidents and usages, they were perfectly familiar. He reminds them of the well-known impossibility of any person being the servant of two masters, and declares the sole ground of that impossibility to be, the fact that the servant _chooses_ the service of the one, and _spurns_ that of the other. "He shall _hold to_ the one and _despise_ (reject) the other." As though our Lord had said, "No one can become the servant of another, when his will revolts from his service, and when the conditions of it tend to make him hate the man." Since the fact that the servant _spurns_ one of two masters, makes it impossible for him to serve _that one_, if he spurned _both_ it would make it impossible for him to serve _either_. So, also, if the fact that an individual did not "hold to" or choose the service of another, proves that he could not become his servant, then the question, whether or not he should become the servant of another was suspended on _his own will_. Further, the phraseology of the passage shows that the _choice_ of the servant decided the question. "He will HOLD TO the one,"--hence there is no difficulty in the way of his serving _him_; but "no servant can serve" a master whom he does not "_hold to_," or _cleave_ to, whose service he does not _choose_. This is the sole ground of the impossibility asserted by our Lord.

The last clause of the verse furnishes an application of the principle asserted in the former part, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Now in what does the impossibility of serving both God and the world consist? Solely in the fact that the will which chooses the one refuses the other, and the affections which "hold to" the one, reject the other. Thus the question, Which of the two is to be served, is suspended alone upon the _choice_ of the individual.

XI. RICH STRANGERS DID NOT BECOME SERVANTS. Indeed, so far were they from becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish servants. Lev. xxv. 47. Since _rich_ strangers did not become servants to the Israelites, we infer that those who _did_, became such not because they were _strangers_, but because they were _poor_,--not because, on account of their being heathen, they were _compelled by force_ to become servants, but because, on account of their _poverty_, they _chose_ to become servants to better their condition.

XII. INSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SERVANTS. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants who were manifestly VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. 2 Kings ii. 5. The word translated master, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1; iv. 10. Joshua was the servant of Moses. Ex. xxxiii. 11. Num. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27. See also the case of the Gibeonites who _voluntarily_ became servants to the Israelites and afterwards performed service for the "house of God" throughout the subsequent Jewish history, were incorporate with the Israelites, registered in the genealogies, and manifestly of their own accord remained with them, and "_clave_" to them. Neh. x. 28, 29; xi. 3; Ez. vii. 7.

Finally, in all the regulations respecting servants and their service, no form of expression is employed from which it could be inferred, that servants were made such, and held in that condition by force. Add to this the entire absence of all the machinery, appurtenances and incidents of _compulsion_.

Voluntary service on the part of servants would have been in keeping with regulations which abounded in the Mosaic system and sustained by a multitude of analogies. Compulsory service on the other hand, could have harmonized with nothing, and would have been the solitary disturbing force, marring its design, counteracting its tendencies, and confusing and falsifying its types. The directions given to regulate the performance of service for the _public_, lay great stress on the _willingness_ of those employed to perform it. For the spirit and usages that obtained under the Mosaic system in this respect, see 1 Chron. xxviii. 21; Ex. xxxv. 5, 21, 22, 29; 1 Chron. xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, 17; Ex. xxv. 2; Judges v. 2; Lev. xxii. 29; 2 Chron. xxxv. 8; Ezra i. 6; Ex. xxxv; Neh. xi. 2.[A]

[Footnote A: We should naturally infer that the directions which regulated the rendering of service to individuals, would proceed upon the same principle in this respect with those which regulated the rendering of service to the _public_. Otherwise the Mosaic system, instead of constituting in its different parts a harmonious _whole_, would be divided against itself; its principles counteracting and nullifying each other.]

Again, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from the fact that the Hebrew word _ebedh,_ uniformly rendered _servant_, is applied to a great variety of classes and descriptions of persons under the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, _all of whom_ were voluntary and most of them eminently so. For instance, it is applied to persons rendering acts of _worship_ about seventy times, whereas it is applied to _servants_ not more than half that number of times.

To this we may add, that the illustrations drawn from the condition and service of _servants_ and the ideas which the term servant is employed to convey when applied figuratively to moral subjects would, in most instances, lose all their force, and often become absurdities if the will of the servant _resisted_ his service, and he performed it only by _compulsion_. Many passages will at once occur to those who are familiar with the Bible. We give a single example. "_To whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey._" Rom. vi. 16. It would hardly be possible to assert the voluntariness of servants more strongly in a direct proposition than it is here asserted by implication.

III. WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY

As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue.

1. BECAUSE GOD REBUKED THE USING OF SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR HIS WORK." Jer. xxii. 13. The Hebrew word _rea_, translated _neighbor_, means any one with whom we have to do--all descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"As when a man riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR." Ex. xx. 16. "If a man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." Ex. xxi. 14, &c. The doctrine plainly inculcated in this passage is, that every man's labor, or "service," being his own property, he is entitled to the profit of it, and that for another to "use" it without paying him the value of it, is "unrighteousness." The last clause of the verse "and giveth him not for his work," reaffirms the same principle, that every man is to be _paid_ for "his work." In the context, the prophet contrasts the unrighteousness of those who used the labor of others without pay, with the justice and equity practiced by their patriarchal ancestor toward the poor. "Did not thy father eat and drink and _do judgment and justice_, and then it was well with him. He _judged the cause of the poor and needy_; then it was well with him. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy _covetousness_, and for to shed innocent blood, and for _oppression_, and for violence to do it." Jer. xxii. 15, 16. 17.[A]

[Footnote A: Paul lays down the same principle in the form of a precept "Masters give unto your servants that which is JUST and EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. Thus not only asserting the _right_ of the servant to an equivalent for his labor, and the duty of the master to render it, but condemning all those relations between master and servant which were not founded upon justice and equality of rights. The apostle James enforces the same principle. "Behold, the hire of the laborers, who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back _by fraud_, crieth." James v. 4. As though he had said, "wages are the _right_ of laborers; those who work for you have a just claim on you for _pay_; this you refuse to render, and thus _defraud_ them by keeping from them what _belongs_ to them." See also Mal. iii 5.]

II. GOD TESTIFIES THAT IN OUR DUTY TO OUR FELLOW MEN, ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS HANG UPON THIS COMMAND, "THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of strangers, "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others as ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of love! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it."

III. SERVANTS WERE OFTEN WEALTHY. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David "Two hundred loaves of bread, and a hundred bunches of raisins, and a hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 47-49, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be _redeemed,_ either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable property _after_ he became a servant. If it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if servants could "own nothing, nor acquire anything," to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft.[B] But since it was common for servants to own property, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, though he rebuked him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from its being a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. When Jacob became the servant of Laban, it was evidently from poverty, yet Laban said to him, Tell me "what shall thy _wages_ be?" After Jacob had been his servant for ten years, he proposed to set up for himself, but Laban said "Appoint me thy wages and I will give it," and he paid him his price. During the twenty years that Jacob was a servant, he always worked for wages and at his own price. Gen. xxix. 15, 18; xxx. 28-33. The case of the Gibeonites, who, after becoming servants, still occupied their cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for centuries;[C] and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, who worked out their "tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically relieving each other, are additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and now, yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]

[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing a large amount of money? They _"know how to take care of themselves"_ quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on such a small scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make detection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then, and a gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in the footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if, after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried on around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellencies," and to emulate the illustrious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very Reverends!_ Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their _situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as well as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take a _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who would slay him?"]

[Footnote C: The Nethinims, which name was afterwards given to the Gibeonites on account of their being _set apart_ for the service of the tabernacle, had their own houses and cities and "dwelt every one in his own possession." Neh. xi. 3. 21; Ezra ii. 70; 1 Chron. ix. 2.]

Again. The Israelites often _hired_ servants from the strangers. Deut. xxiv. 17.

Since then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their Canaanitish servants, thus recognizing their _right_ to a reward for their labor, we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings.

If God gave them a license to make the strangers work for them without pay--if this was good and acceptable in His sight, and _right and just in itself_, they must have been great fools to have wasted their money by paying wages when they could have saved it, by making the strangers do all their work for nothing! Besides, by refusing to avail themselves of this "Divine license," they despised the blessing and cast contempt on the giver! But far be it from us to do the Israelites injustice; perhaps they seized all the Canaanites they could lay their hands on, and forced them to work without pay, but not being able to catch enough to do their work, were obliged to offer wages in order to eke out the supply!

The parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23-34, not only derives its significance from the fact, that servants can both _own_ and _owe_ and _earn_ property, over which they had the control, but would be made a medley of contradictions on any other supposition.--1. Their lord at a set time proceeded to "take account" and "reckon" with his servants; the phraseology itself showing that the relations between the parties, were those of debt and credit. 2. As the reckoning went on, one of his servants was found to _owe_ him ten thousand talents. From the fact that the servant _owed_ this to his master, we naturally infer, that he must have been at some time, and in some way, the responsible _owner_ of that amount, or of its substantial equivalent. Not that he had had that amount put into his hands to invest, or disburse, in his master's name, merely as his _agent_, for in that case no claim of _debt_ for value received would lie, but, that having sustained the responsibilities of legal _proprietorship_, he was under the liabilities resulting therefrom. 3. Not having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to his master "have patience with me _and I will pay thee all_." If the servant had been his master's _property_, his time and earnings belonged to the master as a matter of course, hence the promise to earn and pay over that amount, was virtually saying to his master, "I will take money out of your pocket with which to pay my debt to you," thus adding insult to injury. The promise of the servant to pay the debt on condition that the time for payment should be postponed, not only proceeds upon the fact that his time was his own, that he was constantly earning property or in circumstances that enabled him to earn it, and that he was the _proprietor_ of his earnings, but that his master had _full knowledge_ of that fact.--In a word, the supposition that the master was the _owner_ of the servant, would annihilate all legal claim upon him for value received, and that the servant was the _property_ of the master, would absolve him from all obligations of debt, or rather would always _forestall_ such obligations--for the relations of owner and creditor in such case, would annihilate each other, as would those of _property_ and _debtor_. The fact that the same servant was the creditor of one of his fellow servants, who owed him a considerable sum, and that at last he was imprisoned until he should pay all that was due to his master, are additional corroborations of the same point.

IV. HEIRSHIP.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property; especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, Gen. xv. 23; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth; Jarha, the servant of Sheshan, who married his daughter, and thus became his heir, he having no sons, and the _husbandmen_ who said of their master's son, "this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are illustrations; also Prov. xxx. 23, an _handmaid_ (or _maid-servant_,) that is _heir_ to her mistress; also Prov. xvii. 2--"A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This passage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and plunder of earnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their daughters?

V. ALL WERE REQUIRED TO PRESENT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES. Deut. xvi. 16, 17; 2 Chron. xv. 9-11; Numb. ix. 13, 14. Beside this, "every man" from twenty years old and above, was required to pay a tax of half a shekel at the taking of the census; this is called "an offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for their souls." Ex. xxx. 12-16. See also Ex. xxxiv. 20. Servants must have had permanently the means of _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.

VI. SERVANTS WHO WENT OUT AT THE SEVENTH YEAR, WERE "FURNISHED LIBERALLY." Deut. xv. 10-14. "Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him."[A] If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a like bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the seventh year,_ but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say, _'Loading, ye shall load him,'_ likewise every one of his family with as much as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be avariciously asked, 'How much must I give him?' I say unto _you, not less than thirty shekels,_ which is the valuation of a servant, as declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3.]

VII. SERVANTS WERE BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in advance.[A] Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course received the compensation for themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their children till they became of age,[B] a mere reference to the fact is all that is required for the purposes of this argument. As all the strangers in the land were required to pay an annual tribute to the government, the Israelites might often "buy" them as family servants, by stipulating with them to pay their annual tribute. This assumption of their obligations to the government might cover the whole of the servant's time of service, or a part of it, at the pleasure of the parties.

[Footnote A: But, says the objector, if servants received their pay in advance, and if the Israelites were forbidden to surrender the fugitive to his master, it would operate practically as a bounty offered to all servants who would leave their master's service encouraging them to make contracts, get their pay in advance and then run away, thus cheating their masters out of their money as well as their own services.--We answer, the prohibition, Deut xxiii. 15. 16, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master," &c., sets the servant free from his _authority_ and of course, from all those liabilities of injury, to which _as his servant_, he was subjected, but not from the obligation of legal contracts. If the servant had received pay in advance, and had not rendered an equivalent for this "value received," he was not absolved from his obligation to do so, but he was absolved from all obligations to pay his master in _that particular way_, that is, _by working for him as his servant_.]

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen years.]

VIII. THE RIGHT OF SERVANTS TO COMPENSATION IS RECOGNISED IN Ex. xxi. 27. "And if he smite out his man-servant's, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." This regulation is manifestly based upon the _right_ of the servant to the _use_ of himself and all this powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and consequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should however _unintentionally_, deprive him of the use even of the least of them. If the servant had a right to his _tooth_ and the use _of_ it, upon the same principle, he had a right to the rest of his body and the use of it. If he had a right to the _fraction_, and if it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for; he had a right to the _sum total_, and it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for.

IX. WE FIND MASTERS AT ONE TIME HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF SERVANTS, AND AFTERWARDS NONE, WITH NO INTIMATION IN ANY CASE THAT THEY WERE SOLD. The wages of servants would enable them to set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and had many servants. Gen. xxx. 43; xxxii. 16. But all these servants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32. The case of Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, who had twenty servants, has been already mentioned.

X. GOD'S TESTIMONY TO THE CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM. Gen. xviii. 19. "For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT." God here testifies that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "Wo unto him that useth this neighbor's service WITHOUT WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their DUES." Rom. xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY of HIS HIRE." Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to "_do justice_" to others? By doing injustice to _them_? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying _them_ "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then illustrious examples, patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against human perverseness!

XI. SPECIFIC PRECEPTS OF THE MOSAIC LAW ENFORCING GENERAL PRINCIPLES. Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment of _a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man?_--MAN with his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor.