Chapter 2

heaven; thou shalt not forget it."--In 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Smite Amalek and _utterly destroy_ all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." In the seventh and eighth verses of the same chapter, we are told, "Saul smote the Amalekites, and took Agag the king of the Amalekites, alive, and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." In verse 20, Saul says, "I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have brought Agag, the king of Amalek, and have _utterly destroyed_ the Amalekites."

[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 straitly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites,_ their pledge to save them alive, 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 severe rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel had hardly passed the threshhold 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 upon them 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. This same Saul appears to have put the same construction on the command to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, that is generally put upon it now. We are told that he sought to slay the Gibeonites "in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah." God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. In assigning the reason, he says, "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." When David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, "The man that consumed us, and that devised against us, that we should the destroyed from _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_ let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1-6.]

[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by God to individual and 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.]

In 1 Sam. 30th chapter, we find the Amalekites at war again, marching an army into Israel, and sweeping every thing before them--and all this in hardly more than twenty years after they had _all been_ UTTERLY DESTROYED!

Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view. "_But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee_." We argue that this command to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) for the following reasons.

I. Only the inhabitants of _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ of these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." The reasons for this wise discrimination were, no doubt, (1.) 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. (2.) These cities were the centres of idolatry--the residences of the priests, with their retinues of the baser sort. There were their temples and altars, and idols, 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 permitted, and even 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 preeminently so.

It will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses, that those cities which accepted the offer of peace were to be spared. "_When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be_ TRIBUTARIES _unto thee, and they shall_ SERVE thee."--Deuteronomy xx. 10, 11. These verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to be summoned to surrender.

1. The offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became _tributaries_--if it was rejected, and they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. See Deuteronomy xx. 12, 13, 14. The 15th verse restricts their lenient treatment in saving the wives and little ones of those who fought them, to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th verse gives directions for the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities, after they had taken them. Instead of sparing the women and children, they were to save alive nothing that breathed. The common mistake has been, in taking it for granted, that the command in the 15th verse, "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities," &c. refers to the _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th verse, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the verses immediately preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus make 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_." Joshua xix. 19, 20.--"_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_." 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 of God seems to have been 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, 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. 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[A]; 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: 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 down, 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 preceding Inquiry is merely an _outline_. Whoever _reads_ it, needs no such information. Its original design embraced a much wider range of general topics, and subordinate heads, besides an Inquiry into the teachings of the New Testament on the same subject. To have filled up the outline, in conformity with the plan upon which it was sketched, would have swelled it to a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been thrown into the form of a mere skeleton of heads, or rather a 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 minute and protracted investigation.]

No. 4.

THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

THE

BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE

PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS

ON THE SUBJECT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS.

Third Edition--Revised.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1838.

This periodical contains 5 sheets.--Postage under 100 miles, 7 1-2 cts; over 100 miles, 12 1-2 cts.

_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 analyzed,

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,"

"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 shelter in the Bible, of its own accord. It grasps the horns of the altar only in desperation--rushing 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_. A constituent 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. A great variety of conditions, relations, and tenures, indispensable to the social state, are confounded with slavery; and thus slaveholding becomes quite harmless, if not virtuous. 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 disbelievers in a future retribution are slaves.

5. _Privation of trial by jury._ Then all in France and Germany are slaves.

6. _Being required to support a particular religion._ Then the people of England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other disabilities, merely _political_.]

7. _Cruelty and oppression._ Wives, children, and hired domestics are often oppressed; but these forms of cruelty are not slavery.

8. _Apprenticeship._ The rights and duties of master and apprentice are correlative and reciprocal. 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 master, it is _benevolent_ to the apprentice. Its main design is rather to benefit the apprentice than the master. It promotes the interests of the former, while in doing it, it guards from injury those of the latter. To the master it secures a mere legal compensation--to the apprentice, both a legal 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?

9. _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 constitute a shield for mutual protection. The parent's legal claim to the child's services, while a minor, is a slight return for the care and toil of his rearing, to say nothing 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.

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 is a public defaulter, and will die so. 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? Are chattels punished?

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 society, warp and woof. Are they slavery? then civilized society is a giant slave--a government of LAW, _the climax of slavery,_ and its executive, a king among slaveholders.

12. _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, are one thing; the condition itself, is another thing; his feelings cannot alter the nature of that condition. 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 the slave should think himself a chattel, and consent to be so regarded by others, does 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 the "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.

We proceed to state affirmatively that, 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_ feet, _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 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 humor 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 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 him 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: Whatever system sinks men from an END to a mere _means_, just so far makes him a _slave_. Hence West India apprenticeship retains the cardinal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three fourths of his time, is still forced to labor, and robbed of his earnings; just so far forth he is a _mere means_, a _slave_. True, in other respects slavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest features are 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 demur at the outrage, is one of the provisions of the "Emancipation Act!" For the glories of that luminary, abolitionists thank God, while they mourn that it rose behind clouds, and shines through an eclipse.]

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 thus lays down the principle, "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."--Brevard's Digest, 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 of Louisiana, 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_?" First, the moral law. 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_. That they are _his own_, is proved from the fact that God has given them to _him alone_,--that 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 whatever else that belongs to him is merely _relative_ to this, is derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the _foundation right_--the _post is 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 slaveholder 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 the humanity of _one_ individual, but of 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.

[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 into a virtue?]

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 him who robs his neighbor of a _cent_, yet bid God speed to him who robs his neighbor of _himself_? Slaveholding is the highest possible violation of the eighth 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, monarch of the realm. The eighth 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 his 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.

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." Ex. xxi. 16.

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--when the body politic became a theocracy, and reverently waited for the will of God. 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 light up on its threshold 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 commentary 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 what _belongs_ to another, whether by violence or fraud; the same word is used in the eighth 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 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. 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. 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 past labor, and his support a burden, yet death was 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 branding, 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, a testimony in 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."

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 did he 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 God did by his own act annihilate the difference between man and _property,_ by putting him on a level with it?

The atrociousness 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 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 shifting its relation from him to me. 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 attributed. 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 towards them according to their value. Knowingly to treat them otherwise is sin; and the degree of violence done to their nature, religions, 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, and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped upon him by his Maker. In the verse preceding, 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." V. 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 trampled on that, showed that _no_ relation had any sacredness in his eyes--that he was unfit to move among human relations who had violated 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 manifest, dictated by natural affection--a law of the constitution. (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 safeguards. "_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 whole human family. In this case death was to be inflicted not for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--a _distinction_ cherished by God, and around which, He threw up 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 the doing violence to an _immortal nature,_ blotting out 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 his own distinction.

"In the beginning" it was uttered in heaven, and proclaimed to the universe as it rose into being. Creation was arrayed 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. Well might the sons of God shout, "Amen, alleluia"--For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Ps. viii. 5, 6. The repetition of this distinction is frequent and solemn. In Gen. i. 26-28, it is repeated in various forms. In Gen. v. 1, we find it again, "IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD MADE HE MAN." 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, they perish with the using, 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 shall be put to death." So in Ps. viii. 5, 6, what 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_ OVER _the works of thy hands._" Slavery breaks the sceptre, and casts 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, dares 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."

In further presenting 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[A].

[Footnote A: Those who insist that the patriarchs held slaves, and sit with such delight under their shadow, hymning the praises of "those good old patriarchs and slaveholders," 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 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." What 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, would be vast economy of midnight oil! and a great forestaller of wrinkles and grey hairs! Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage, with painful collating of passages, to find 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, if he only understood the dialect of his own neighborhood! What a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible 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 worshipped 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,"--"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 flaunting on promenade, was the very style of dress in which the pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels, and the modest Rebecca drew water for the camels of Abraham's servants. Since such fashions are rife in Broadway _now_, they _must_ have been in Canaan and Padanaram 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. The children of Israel were required to purchase their first-born from under the obligations of the priesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; 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 first-born 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.) Bible saints _bought_ their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "So Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. 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. 15-29. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her by his labor, as the servant of her father. 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 Michal, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services for their fathers. 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 coincidences 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 patriarchs and slaveholders, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

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 of 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 this mountain which his right hand had _purchased_," (gotten.) Jer. xiii. 4. "Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons reduced to servitude, but to those taken _out_ of it. Prov. 8. 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 "bought." This is the current word in West India newspapers. Ten years since servants were "_bought_" in New-York, as really as in Virginia, yet the different senses in which the word was used in the two states, put 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 Benton and Rives are "bought" by the administration; and the other party, that Clay and Webster are "bought" by the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us that Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British gold. 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;" both meant just what they said. 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.]

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.) Obtaining permanently the _services_ of persons, or even a portion of them, is called "buying" those persons. 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.

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." 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 the 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 to Ahab that _sold 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--Romans 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.

II.--THE LEADING DESIGN OF THE LAWS RELATING TO SERVANTS, WITH THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM.

The general object 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. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in 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.

II. Excommunication from the family was a PUNISHMENT.--Gen. xxi. 14. Luke xvi. 2-4.

III. Every Hebrew servant could COMPEL his master to keep him after the six years contract had expired. This shows that the system was framed to advance the interests and gratify the wishes of the servant quite as much as those of the master. If the servant _demanded_ it, the law _obliged_ the master to retain him, however little he might need his services. Deut. xv. 12-17. Ex. xxi. 2-6.

IV. The rights and privileges guarantied by law to all servants.

1. _They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.

2. _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals._ Ex. xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, xvi. 10-16.

3. _They were statedly instructed in morality and religion._ Deut. xxxi. 10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35; 2 Chron. xvii. 8-9.

4. _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.

(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year;_ Lev.