Glass. 
 Book. 
 
 A^^ 
 
 ■ A' 
 
I¥o. 4« 
 
 THE 
 
 ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER. 
 
 
 BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY 
 
 AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 PATRIARCHAI. A]*I> MOSAIC SYSTEMS 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN RIGHTB. 
 
 X) 
 
 v^/ \ Q 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 PTJBLISHBD BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVEKY SOCIETY, 
 NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. 
 
 1837. 
 
 PosTAGB.— This perisdical contains five and a half sheets. Postage under 100 miles, 8} cts, 
 oeer 100 miles, 14 cents. 
 
 Ctt" Please read and circulate, .j^ 
 
Chi 
 
 (=4," 
 
 7 2./ 
 
 'Oi 
 
 PIEECy & REED, PftINTEE_^S, 
 7 Theatre Alicy. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Dafinition of Slavery . - . - « 3 
 
 Man. stealing — Examination of Ex. xxi. 16 • 
 
 Import of •' Bought with money," etc. ... 15 
 
 Rights an I privileges of ssrvanls - . - - 21 
 
 N ) itivoln'itary sei"vit'i ]j u:i i !r t'lj M xiioayst ^m . - 24 
 
 S Tv/aiia Wi^rj pai I v i^ys . - . - - 31 
 
 Masters, not owners . . • . . 36 
 
 Servants d'stinguisheJ fro n nr')pfrty - - .33 
 
 Social equality of servants with their masters - . . 40 
 
 Condition of the Gibeonites, as snhjects of the Hebrew Commonwealth - 41 
 
 Egyptian bondage amilyzed . - - . 43 
 
 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 
 
 " Cursed he Canaan, a servant of servants siiall he be," etc. Gen. ix. 25 47 
 
 " For he is his money," Examination of, Ex. xxi. 20, 21 - .52 
 
 " Bondmen and bondmaids" bought of the heathen. Lev. xxv. 44 — 46 54 
 
 " They shall be your bondmen forever." Lev. xxv. 46 . . 66 
 
 " Ye shall take them as an inheritance," etc. Lev. xxv. 46 . .68 
 
 The Israelite to serve as a hired servant. Lev. xxv. 39, 40 . 60 
 
 Difference between bought and hired servants - - ••61 
 
 Bought servants the most privileged class - - - 61 
 
 Summary of the different classes of servants - - - 70 
 
 Disabilities of the servants from the iieathen . - - 72 
 
 Examination of Exodus xxi. 2 — 6 . - - .73 
 
 The Canaanites not sentenced to unconditional extermination - 75 
 
INQUIRY, &c 
 
 The spirit of slavery never takes refuge in the Bible of its own ac- 
 cord. The horns of tke altar are its last resort. It seizes them, if at 
 all, only in desperation — rushing from the terror of the avenger's arm. 
 Like other unclean spirits, it " hateth the light, neither cometh to the 
 hght, 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 breaks at last into the sacred enclosure, 
 and courses up and down the Bible, "seeking rest, and finding none." 
 The law of love, streaming from every page, flashes around it an 
 omnipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and 
 howls under the consuming touch, as demons recoiled from the Son of 
 God, and shrieked, " Torment us not." At last, it slinks away among 
 the shadows of the Mosaic system, and thinks to burrow out of sight 
 among its types and shadows. Vain hope ! Its asylum is its sepulchre ; 
 its city of refuge, the city of destruction. It rushes 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 is the charter of slavery, we; 
 must first determine just tohat slavery is. The thing itself must be sepa- 
 rated from Its appendages. A constituent element is one thing ; a rela- 
 tion another ; an appendage another. Relations and appendages pre- 
 suppose other things, of which there are relations and appendages. To 
 regard them as the things to which they pertain, or as constituent parts 
 of them, lends to endless fallacies. A great variety of conditions, rela- 
 tions, and tenures, indispensable to the social state, are confounded 
 with slavery ; and thus slaveholding is deemed quite harmless, if not 
 virtuous. We will specify some of the things which are often confound- 
 ed with slavery. 
 
1 . Pn'vaiion of the right, of suffrage. Then minors are slaves, 
 
 2. Ineligibility to office. Then females are slaves. 
 
 3. Taxuiion without representation. Then three-fourths of the peo- 
 ple of Rhode Island are slaves, and allxn the District of Columbia. 
 
 4. Privation of one's oath in laio. Then ihe free colored people of 
 Ohio are slaves, so are disbelievers in a future retribution, generally. 
 
 5. Privation of trial by jury. Then all in France and Germany are 
 
 slaves. 
 
 6. Being requirrd to support a particular religion. Then the people 
 of England are slaves. [To ilic preceding may be added all other dis- 
 abilities, merely political.'] 
 
 7. Cruetty and oppression. Wives are often cruelly treated ; hired 
 domestics are often oppressed ; but these forms of oppression are not 
 
 slavery. 
 
 8. A-ppreni ice ship. The rights and duties of master and apprentice 
 ore correlative and reciprocal. The claim of each upon the other re. 
 suits from the obligation of each to the other. Apprenticeship is based 
 on the principle of equivalent for value received. The rights of the 
 apprenlice are secured, and his interests are promoted equally with 
 those of the masler. Indeed, while the law of apprenticeship is just to 
 the master, it is benevolent to the apprentice. Its main design is rather 
 to benefit the apprentice than the master. \i promotes the interests 
 of the former, while it guards from injury those of the latter in < < ng 
 it. It secures to the master a mere legal compensation, while it 
 secures to the apprentice both a legal compensation, and a virtual gra- 
 tuity in addition, the apprentice being of the two decidedly 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 tlie services of the apprentice. The 
 apprentice's claim, covtu-s equ dly the services of the master. The mas- 
 ter cannot hold the apprentice as property, nor the apprentice the mas- 
 ter ; 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 die 
 tates, and indispensable to the existence of the social state ; their design 
 the promotion ol' mutual welfare ; and the means, those natural affec- 
 tions created by the relation of parent and child, and blending them in 
 one by irrepressible affinities ; and thus, while exciting each to discharge 
 those offices incidental to the relation, they constitute a shield for mutual 
 protection. The parent's legal claim to the services of his children, 
 lyhile minors, is a slight boon for the care and toil of their rearing, to 
 
say nothing of outlays for support and education. This provision fof 
 the good of tlie whole, is, with tlie greater part of manlund, indispensa- 
 ble to the preservation of the family state. The child, in helping liis pa- 
 rents; 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, or govermental claims on criminals. Must 
 innocence be punished because guilt suffers penalties? True, the crimi- 
 nal works for the government ^rvithout 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 ? 
 Besides, the law makes no criminal, property. It restrains his liberty ; 
 it makes him pay something, a mere penny in the pound, of his debt to 
 the government ; but it does not make him a chaltel. Test it. To 
 own property is to own its 'product. Are children born of convicts 
 government property? Besides, can property he guilly ? Ave chattels 
 punished ? 
 
 11. Restrictions upon freedom. Children are restrained by parents, 
 wards by guardians, pupils by teachers, patients by physicians and 
 nurses, corporations by charters, and legislators by constitutions. Em- 
 bargoes, 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 civilized society is a mammoth slave — a govern, 
 ment of law, the climax of slavery, and its executive a king among 
 slaveholders. 
 
 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 con- 
 dition. The slave's feelings toward it, are one thing ; the condition 
 itself, the object of these feelings, is another ihing ; his ftelings cannot 
 alter the nature of that condition. Whether he desire or detest it, the 
 condition remains the same. The slave's willingness to be a slave is no 
 palliation of his master's guilt in holding him. Suppose the slave verily 
 thinks himself a chattel, and consents tliat others may so regard him, 
 does that make him a chattel, or make those guiltless who hold him as 
 such ? Imay be sick of Jifo, and I tell the assassin so that stabs me ; is 
 
he any the less a murderer because I consent to be made a corpse 1 
 Does my partnership in his guilt blot out his part of it? If the slave 
 were willing to be a slave, his voluntariness, so far from lessening the 
 guilt of the "owner," aggravates it. If slavery has so palsied his mind 
 and he looks upon himself as a chattel, and consents to be one, actually 
 te hold him as such, falls in with his delusion, and confirms the impious 
 falsehood. These veryjeelings and convictions of the slave, (if such 
 were possible) increase a huni^rfc-d fold the guilt of the master in holding 
 him as property, and cwll upo;; l.im in thunder, immediately to recog- 
 nize him as a man, and thus bieair tlie sorcery that binds his soul, 
 cheating it of its birth-right, and tlie consciousness of its worth and des- 
 
 tiny- 
 Many of the foregoing conditions and relations are appendages of 
 slavery, and some of them inseparable from it. But no one, nor all of 
 them together, constitute iis intrinsic U7ii hanging element. 
 We proceed to state affirmatively that. 
 
 Enslaving men is reducing them to articles of proferty, making 
 free agents chattels, converting jier^on* into things, sinking ii]telligence, 
 accountability, immortality, into merchandize. A slave is one held in 
 this condition. He is a mere tool for another's use and benefit. In law 
 " he owns nothing, and ran acquire nothing." His right to himself is 
 abrogated. He is another's property. If he say my hands, my feet, my 
 body, my mind, jAYself they are figures of speech. To use himself 
 for his own good is a crime. To keep what he earns is stealing. To 
 talce his body into his own keeping \s insurrection. In a word, the pro. 
 Jit of his master is 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.* Man sunk to a thing! the intrinsic ele- 
 ment, the principle ofslaverv ; men sold, bartered, leased, mortgaged, 
 bequeathed, invoiced, shipped in cargoes, stored as goods, taken on ex- 
 ecutions, and knocked off at public outcry ! Their rights another's con- 
 
 * Whatever system sinks m^n from an end to a OTcon^, or in olher words, wliatever trans- 
 farms him from an object o/instrumentality into a mere insiioimentality to an object, just so 
 far malies him a slave. Hence West India apprenticeship retains in one particular the cardi- 
 nal principle of slavery. The apprentice, during three-fourihs of his time, is stiU forced to 
 labor, and robbed of his earnings ; just so far forth he is a mere means, a slave. True, m all 
 other respects, slavery is abolished in the British West Indies. Its bloodiest features are 
 blotted out — but the meanest and most despicable ol all — forcing the poor to work for 
 the rich without pay thTee-fourths ol their time, w^ith 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, aboli'iunists thank God, while they mourri that it rose behind 
 clouds, and shines th'rougli ai; fclipse. 
 
veniences, their interests, wares on sale, their happiness, a household 
 utensil ; their personal inalienable ownership, a serviceable article, or 
 plaything, as best suits the humor of the hour; their deathless nature, 
 conscience, social afTections, sympathies, hopes, marketable commodi- 
 ties! We re[)eixt. h, the reduclion of persons io things; not robbing a 
 man of privileges, but onmnself ; not loading with burdens, but making 
 him a beast of burden ; not restraining liberty, but subverting it ; not 
 curtailing rights, but abolishhig them ; not inflicting personal cruelty, 
 but annihilating personality ; not exacting involuntary labor, but sinking 
 him into an implement of labor ; not abridging his human comforts, but 
 abrogating his human nature ; not depriving an animal of immunities, 
 but despoiling a rational being of attributes, uncreating a man to make 
 room for a thing ! 
 
 That this is American slavery, is shown by the laws of slave states. 
 Judge Stroud, in his " Sketch ©f 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 — is an article of properly, a 
 chattel personal, obtains as undoubted law in all of these states," (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, construc- 
 tions, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER." Brevard's Digest, 229. In Louisi- 
 ana, " a slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he be- 
 longs ; the master may sell him, dispose of his person, liis industry, and 
 Jiis labor ; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing 
 but what must belong to his master." Civil Coile 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 — 
 their centre and circumference — the source, the test, and the measure of 
 their value — the rational, immortal principle, embalmed by God in ever- 
 lasting remembrance, consecrated tp 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 protecting shield, upholding staff, 
 and sheltering wing ; His opening heavens, and angels ministering, and 
 chariots of fire, and songs of morning stars, and a great voice in hea- 
 ven, proclaiming eternal sanctions, and confirmins the word with sio-ns 
 following. 
 
 Having stated the principle of American slavery, we ask. 
 
Does the Bible sanction such a principle ?* To the law and th6 
 testimony. First, the moral law, or the ten commandments. 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 
 th'j mount quaked and blazed, God spake the ten commandments from 
 the midst of clouds and thimderings. Two of those cornmandments 
 deal death to slavery. Look at the eighth, " Thou shall not steal,'' or> 
 thou shalt not take fiom another what belongs to him. All man's pow- 
 ers of body and uiind are God's gift to him. That they are his own, 
 and that he has a right to them, is proved from the fact that God has 
 given them to hi7n alone, that each of them is a part onii7nseIf, and all 
 of them together con5i//M/e 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 produ- 
 cer. Ownership of any thing is ownership of its use. The right to 
 use according to will, is zVse//" 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 his right to himself — 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. Slave- 
 holders, the world over, when talking about their right to their slaves, 
 always assume their own right to themselves. What slaveholder ever 
 undt^rtook to prove his own right to himself? He knows it to be a self- 
 evident pro; os;tion, that a man belongs to himself — that the right is in- 
 trinsic and absolute. The slaveholder, in making out his own title to 
 himself, makes out the title of every human being to himself. As the fact 
 of oeing a maw is itself the thle, the whole human family have one com. 
 mon title deed. If one man's title is valid, a// are valid. If one is 
 worthless, all are. To deny the validity of the slave's title is to deny 
 the validity o^his own ; and yet in the act of making him 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, 
 
 * The Bible record of actions is no comment on their moral character. It vouches for 
 them -A^ fads, not i.s virtues. It records without rebuke, Noah's drunkenness, Loi's incest, 
 and the lies of Jacob and his mother — nrt only single acts, but usages, isuch as polygamy 
 and concubinage, Jire entered on the record without censure. Is that silent entry God's en- 
 dorsement ? Because the Bible, in its catalogue of human artinns, does not stamp on every 
 crime its name and number, and write againit it, tins is a crime — does that wash out its 
 ^uilt, and bleach it into a virtue ? 
 
he does not merely unhumanize 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. — 
 Foj- rights are rights ; God's are no more — man's are no less. 
 
 The eighth commandment forbids the taking o[ any patt of that which 
 belongs to another. Slavery lakes the w/io/e. Does the same Bible 
 which forbids the taking of any thing belonging to him, sanction the 
 taking of ei5eri/ thing? Is it such a medley of absurdities as to ihun- 
 der wrath against him who robs his neighbor of a ce7it, while it bids 
 God speed to him who robs his neighbor of /icmse//'? Slavery is the 
 highest possible violation ofthe eighth commandment. To take from a 
 man his earnings, is theft. But to take the earner, \s compound, super- 
 lative, perpetual theft. It is to be a thief by profession. It is a trade, 
 a life of robbery, that vaults through all the gradations ofthe climax at 
 a leap — the dread, terrific, giant robbery, that towers among other rob- 
 beries, a solitary horror, monarch ofthe realm. The eighth command- 
 ment forbids the taking away, and the tenth adds, •' Tliou shah not 
 COVET amj 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 wiiich would teript io it. Who 
 ever made human beings slaves, or held them as slaves without coveting 
 them ? Why do they take from them their time, their labor, their liberty, 
 their right of self-preservation and improvement, tlieir 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 ? Why do 
 they take them, if they do not desire them 1 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 ofthe law at Sinai, immediately preceded the promulga- 
 tion of that body of laws and institutions, 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." ScB 
 
 Exodus, 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 
 
10 
 
 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 tes- 
 timony against oppression in the plagues of Egypt — the burning blains 
 on man and beast — the dust quickened into loathsome life, and cleaving 
 in swarms to every living thing — the streets, the palaces, the temples, 
 and every house heaped up with the carcasses of things abhorred — even 
 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 in 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 thai stealeth a man and selleth him, or if 
 he be found in his hand, he shall be surely put to death." Ex. xxii. 16. 
 God's cherubim and flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Mo- 
 saic system ! See also Deut. xxiv. 7.* 
 
 The Hebrew word, Gaunab, here rendered stealeth, means the taking 
 from another what belongs to him, whether it be 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 de- 
 priving 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 rela- 
 tion of property and proprietor ! 
 
 * Jyrchi, tlie most eminent, of tiie Jewish writers, (if we except perhaps the T.gyp- 
 tian Maimonidi's,) who wrote seven hundred years ago, m hi.? comineni on this stealing and 
 making merchandize of men, gives the meaning thus: — "Using a man again-t his will, as a 
 servant 1 iwfully purchased ; yea, though lie should use his services ever so little, only to the 
 value of a f^rih ng, or use bui. his a m 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 shrill die oS a thief, wheiher he has sold 
 Jiiin 01 not." 
 
11 
 
 The crime, as stated in the passage, is three-fold — man stealing^ 
 gelling and hokling. All are put on a level, and whelmed under one 
 penalty — DEx\TH. This somebody deprived of the ownership of 
 man, is the man himself, robbed of personal ownership. Joseph said 
 to the servants of Pharoah, " Indeed I was stolen away out of the land 
 of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. How stolen? His brethren took him 
 and sold him as an article of merchandize. Contrast this penalty for 
 ?Man-stealing with that for proper/j^-stealing. Exod. xxii. If a man 
 stole an ox and killed or sold it, he was to restore five oxen ; if he 
 had neither sold nor killed it, ihe penalty was two oxen. The selling or 
 the killing being virtually a deliberate repetition of the crime, the penalty 
 was more than doubled. 
 
 But in the case of stealing a man, the first act drew down the utmost 
 power of punishment ; however often repeated, or however aggravated 
 the crime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty 
 for man-stealing was death, and the penalty for property.s\.ea\\ng, 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 o^ property value was taken. The penalty for stealing properly 
 was a mere property-penalty. However large the amount stolen, the 
 payment of double wiped out the score. It might have a greater 
 money value than a thousand men, yet death was never the penalty, nor 
 maiming, nor branding, nor even stripes. Wliatever the kind, or the 
 amount stolen, the unvarying penalty was double of the same kind. 
 Why was not the rule uniform? Wiien a man was stolen why not re- 
 uire the thief to restore double of the same kind — two men, or if he 
 had sold \\\m,jive 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,Jive. 
 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 whole of the legal penalty 
 .was a compeiisjition to the person injured. But when a man waa 
 stolen, no property compensation vvjis offered. To tender money as an 
 .equivalent, would have been to repent th^- outrage wi h the intolerable 
 aj;ifr;iV!uions of supreme insult and iinpiery. Cornpute the va'uo of a 
 MAN in money ! Tiirow dust into l!ie s ale agninU immortality ! The 
 ^awrecoili-ij from such mitraje and !)lispheniy. To h;i.ye f)erinitt(d 
 the man-tluer to oxpiutc liis crim .■ :)y restoring double, would have 
 
12 
 
 been making the repetition of crime its atonement. But the infliction: 
 of death for man-stealing exacted from the guilty wretch the ulmost 
 possibility of reparation. It wrung from him, 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, 
 that 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 1 Why did he punish with death for steahng a 
 very little, perhaps not a sixpence worth, of that sort of property, and 
 make a mere_^Me, the penalty for stealing a thousand times as much, of 
 any other sort of property — especially if God did by his own act anni- 
 hilate the difference between man and property, by putting him on a 
 level with it 1 
 
 The atrociousness of a crime, depends greatly upon the nature, cha- 
 racter, and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the 
 thief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a/w// man, is 
 theft ; to steal it from a starving man, is both theft and murder. If I 
 steal my neighbor's proper^?/, the crime consists not in the nature of the 
 article, but in shifting its external relation from him to me. But when 
 I take my neighbor himself, and first make \\\m property, and then my 
 property, the latter act, which was the sole crime in the former case, 
 dwindles to a mere appendage. The sin in stealing a man does not 
 consist in transferring, from its owner to another, that which is already 
 property, but in \m-x\\i\g personality mio property. True, the attrihutes 
 of man still remain, but the rights and immunities which grow out of 
 them are annihilated. It is the first law 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 nature and 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 sun- 
 dered which Goa has indissolubly joined, or confounded in one, which 
 he has separated by infinite extremes ; when sacred and eternal distinc- 
 tions, which he has garnished with glory, are derided and set at nought, 
 then, if ever, sin reddens in its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the pas- 
 sage, is that of doing violence to the nature of a man — his intrinsic 
 value and relations as a rational being, and blotiing out the exalted dis- 
 tiuction stamped upon him by his Maker. In the verse preceding, 
 and in that which follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, 
 
13 
 
 '" He that S7niteth h>s father or his mother shall surely he put to deathJ^ 
 Verse 17, " He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely le put 
 to death." If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely smote him in 
 return. Bat if that same blow were given to a parent, the law struck 
 tile smiter dead. Why this difference in the punishment of the same 
 act, inflicted on different persons ? Answer — God guards the parental 
 relation with peculiar care. It is the centre of human relations. 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 im- 
 pious inroads. 
 
 But why the difTerence in the penalty since the act was the same ! 
 The sin had divers aggravations. 
 
 1. The relation violated was obvious — the distinction between pa- 
 rents and others, manifest, dictated by natural afTection — a law of the 
 constitution. 
 
 2. The act was violence to nature — a suicide on constitutional sus- 
 <;eptibilities. 
 
 3. The parental relation then, as now, was the centre 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 relation 
 is God's favorite illustration, of his own relations to the whole family of 
 man. In this case, death is inflicted not at all for the act of smitirig, 
 nor for smiting a Juan, but a parent — for violating a vital and sacred re- 
 lation — a distinction cherished by God, and around which, both in the 
 moral and ceremonial law. 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 here punished with 
 death, is not the mere act of taking property from its owner, but the 
 disregarding o^ fundamental relations, doing violence to an immortal 
 nature, making war on a sacred distinction of priceless worth. That 
 distinction which is cast headlong by the principle of American slavery, 
 which makes men " chattels." 
 
 The incessant pains-taking throughout the Old Testament, in the se- 
 paration of human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard 
 for the sacredness of his own distinction. 
 
i4 
 
 " In the beginning" the Lord uttered it in heaven, and proclaimed it 
 to the universe as it rose into being. He arrayed creation at the in- 
 slant of its birth, to do it reve^rent homage. It paused in adoration while 
 He usliered forth iis crowning work. Why that dread pause, and that 
 cre.'ating arm held back in mid career, and that high conference in the 
 godhead ? " Let us rmke win in our image, after our likeness, and 
 LET HIM HAVE DOMINION over the jish of the sea, and over the fowl of 
 the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every living 
 thing that moveth Upon the earth." 
 
 Then while every Hving thing, with land, and sea, and firmament, and 
 marshillod worlds, waited to catch and swell the shout of morning stars 
 — THEN '' God created man in his own image. In the image of Goii 
 CREATED HE HIM." This salves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF 
 GOD CREATED HE HIM. Well might the sons of God cry all 
 together, " Amen, alleluia" — 'Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive 
 blessing and honor^'' — '• For thou hist mide him a little lower thin the 
 angels, and hist crowned him with glory and honor. Thou inadest him 
 to hu'-'e dominion over the works of thy hands ; thou hast put all things 
 under his feet. O Lord, oar Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the 
 earth.''^ Psahns viii. 5, 6, 9. The frequent and solemn repetition of 
 this distinction by God proclaims his inrtnite regard. The 26th, 27th, 
 and 23ih verses of the 1st chapter of Genesis are little else than the re- 
 petition of it in various forms. In the 5th chapter, 1st verse, we find 
 it again — " In the day that God created man, in teie likeness of God 
 MADE HE MAN." In the 9th chapter, 6th verse, we find it 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 he had Said, "All 
 these other 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, invi- 
 ted to all that I can give and he can be." So in Levit. xxiv. 17, 18, 
 " He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death ; and he that kill- 
 eth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast ; and he that killeth a man 
 shall be put to death." So in the passage quoted above, Ps. viii. 5, 6. 
 What an enumeration of particulars, each separating infiaitt-ly, men from 
 brutes and things ! 
 
 I. '* Thou hast made him a Utile lower than the angels." Slavery 
 drags him down among brutes. 
 
15 
 
 2. ^^ And hast crowned him with glory and honor" Slavery tears 
 off his crown, and puts on a yoke. 
 
 3. "Thoumadesl. him to have dominion over the works of thy hands." 
 Slavery breaks his sceptre, and casts him down among those works — 
 yea, beneath them. 
 
 4. " Thou hast put all things under hisjeet." Slavery puts him 
 under the. feet of an owner, with beasts and creeping things. Who, but 
 an impious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and mutilate his 
 IMAGE, and blaspheme the Floly One, who saith to those that grind his 
 poor, " Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, ye did 
 it unto me." 
 
 But time would fail us to detail the instances in which this distinction 
 is most impressively marked in the Bible. 
 
 In further prosecuting this inquiry, the Patriarchal and Mosaic sys- 
 tems will be considered together, as each reflecls light upon the other ^ 
 and as many regulations of the latter are mere legal forms of Divine 
 institutions previously existing. As a system, however, the latter alone 
 is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the patriarchs, 
 God has not made them our examplars.* 
 
 Before entering upon an analysis of the condi ion of servants under 
 these two states o'' society, let us settle the import of certain terms 
 which describe the mode of procuring them. 
 
 IMPORT OF THE WORD " BUY," AND THE PHRASE " BOUGHT WITH 
 
 MONEY." 
 
 From the direction to the Israelites to " buy" their servants, 
 and from the phrase "bought with money," applied to Abraham's ser- 
 vants, it is argued that they were articles of property. The sole ground 
 for this belief is the terms " buy" and " bought with money," and such 
 an import to these terms when applied to servants is assumed, not only 
 in the absence of all proof, but in the face of evidence to the contrary. 
 How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be proved was 
 always assumed. To beg the question in debate, what economy of mid- 
 
 * Those who insisfthat the patnarclis held slaves, and sit with such delight under their 
 shadow, hymming the praises of" those good old patriarchs and slaveholders," might at small 
 Cjst ireatly augment their numbers. A single stanza celebrating patriarchal concuiznogc, 
 winding off with a chorus in honor of patriarclidl drunkenness, would be a trumpet rail, sum- 
 moning Iroin bush and brake, highway und hedge, and shellerins fence, a brotherhood of kin- 
 dred affinities, each claiming Abraham or Noah as his patron saint, and shouting, "My name 
 is legion." What a inyiiad choir, and thunderous song ! 
 
16 
 
 night oil ! what a forestaller of premature wrinkles, and grey hairs ! In^ 
 stead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage, and painful colla- 
 ting of passages, and cautiously tracing minute relations, to find the 
 meaning of Scripture terms, let every man boldly resolve to interpret 
 the language of the oldest book in the world, by the usages of his own 
 time and place, and the work is done. And then what a march of 
 mind ! Instead of one revelation, they miglit be multiplied as the drops 
 of the morning! Every man might take orders as an inspired inter- 
 prater, with an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, if he only under- 
 stood the dialect of his own neighborhood ! We repeat it, the only 
 ground of proof that these terms are to De interpreted to mean, when 
 applied to servants in the Bible, the same that they mean when applied 
 to our slaves, is the terms themselves. 
 
 What a Babel-jargon it would make of the Bible to take it for grant- 
 ed 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 a miracle-worker, to stop the earth in its revolution ! Rather too 
 fast. Two hundred years ago, prevent was used in the strict Latin sense 
 to come bejore, or anticipate. It is always used in this sense in the Old 
 and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of tiie nine- 
 teenth century, is, " Before the dawning of the morning I cried," or, I 
 began to cry before day-break. " So my prayer shall prevent thee." 
 "Let us prevent his face with thanksgiving." " Mine eyes prevent the 
 night watches." " We shall not prevent them that are asleep," &c. 
 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 : " Oftentimes I pur- 
 posed 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 
 high ways and compel (urge) them to come in," — " Only let your con- 
 versation (habitual conduct or course of life) be as becometh the Gos- 
 pel," — " They that seek me early (earnestly) shall find me, — " Give me 
 hy and-by (now) in a charger, the head of John the Baptist," — " So 
 when tribulation or persecution ariseth by-and-hy (immediately) they 
 are offended. Nothing is more mutable than language. Words, like 
 bodies, are continually throwing off 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 
 
17 
 
 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 noio. Pity that hyper-fashion- 
 able mantuamakers and milliners were not a little quicker at taking 
 hints from some of our Doctors of Divinily. How easily they could 
 save^ their pious customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly 
 shiflings of fashion, by demonstrating that the last importation of Parisian 
 indecency, Just now flaunting here on promenade, was the identical 
 style of dress in which the pious Sarah kneaded cakes for the angels, 
 the modest Rebecca drew water for the camels of Abraham's servants. 
 Since such fashions are rife in Cliestnut-street and Broadway now, they 
 must have been in Canaan and Pandanaram four thousand years ago ! 
 
 II. 1. The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procu- 
 ring of servants, means procuring them as c/ia^ie/*, seems based upon 
 the fallacy — thai whatever costs money is money; that whatever or who- 
 ever you pay money for, is an article of property, and the fact of your 
 paying for it proves that it is property. The children of Israel were re- 
 quired to purchase their first-born out from under the obligations of the 
 priesthood, Num.b. xviii. 15, 16 ; Exod. xxxiv. 20. This custom is 
 kept up to this day 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. 
 So 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 ? 
 
 2. Bible saints ^oi/o^/ti iheir wives. Boaz ZfOM^^^ 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 fif- 
 teen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of 
 barley." Hosea iii. 2 Jacob bought his wives Rachel 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 negociating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, 
 " What ye shall say unto me, I will give. 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 iVlichal, Saul's daughter, and 
 Othniel, Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, by performing perilous services 
 for the benefit of their fathers-in-law. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-"27 ; Judges i. 
 J2, 18. That the purchase of wives, either with money or by service 
 
18 
 
 Wf.s the general practice, is'plain from such passages as Exod- xxii. IT, 
 and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the Jews of the present day this usage 
 exists, though it is now a mere I'orm, there being no real purchase. Yet 
 among their marriage ceremonies, is one called " marrying by the pen- 
 ny." The u. cidences, not only in the methods of procuring wives 
 and servants, and in the terms employed in describing the transactions, 
 but in the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The highest price 
 of wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Compare Deut. xxii. 
 28, 29, and Exod. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2 — 8. The medium price 
 of wives and servants was the same. Compare Hosea iii. 2, with Exod. 
 xxi. 2. Hosea appears to have paid one half in money and the other 
 in grain. Further, the Israetitish female bought. servants were wives, 
 their husbands and their masters being the same persons. Exod. xxi. 8, 
 and Judges xix. 3, 27. IC buying servants among the Jews shows that 
 they were property, then buying wives shows that tliey were property. 
 The words in the original used to describe the one, describe the other. 
 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. How far gone is the Church 
 from primitive purity ! How slow to emulate illustrious examples ! 
 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 im- 
 munities! Surely professors of religion now, are bound to buy and hold 
 their wives as property ! Refusing so to do, is to question the morality 
 of those " good oUr' wife-trading "patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob," with the prophets, and a host of vt'hom the world was not 
 worthy. ' 
 
 The use of the word buy, to describe the procuring of wives, is not 
 peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac language, the common expres- 
 sion for "the married," or "the espoused," is "the bought." Even 
 so late as the 16th century, the common record o( marriages in the old 
 German Chronicles was " A. bought B." 
 
 The Hebrew word translated buy, is, like other words, modified by 
 the nature of the subject to whi;h it is applied. Eve says, '• 1 have 
 ^o<<en (bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is, 
 boiLght. " He that heareth reproof, gefteth (buyelh) understanding, 
 Prov. XV. 82. So in Isa. xi. 11. " Tiie Lord shall set his hand again 
 to recover (to buy) the reninaiit of his peo[)le." So Ps. Ixxviii. 54. 
 He brought them to this mountain which his right hand ho.d purchased. 
 
19 
 
 j. e. gotten. Jer. xiii. 4. " Take the girdle that thou liast got" (bought.) 
 Neh. V. 8. " We of our ability have redeemed (bought) our brethren 
 that were sold to the heathen." Here '^ loiighi'^ is not applied to per- 
 sons who were made slaves, but to those taken out of slavery. Prov. 
 g. 22. " The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of 
 his way before his works of old." Prov. xix. 8. " He that getteih 
 (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Prov. xvi. 16. '* How much 
 better is it to ^ei (buy) wisdom than gold ?" Finally, to buy is a se- 
 condary meaning of the Hebrew word Kana. 
 
 4. 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 ig 
 now the current word in West India newspapers. So a few years since 
 in New. York, Connecticut, Pennsyjvania, and even now in New-Jersey 
 servants are " bought"' as really as in Virginia. And the different 
 senses in which the same word is used in the two states, puts no man 
 in a quandary, whose common sense amounts to a modicum. 
 
 So under the system of l(;gal indenture in Illinois, servants now are 
 ." bought.^'* A short time since, hundreds of foreigners who came tQ 
 thia country were " bought" annually. By voluntary contract they 
 engaged to work for their purchasers a given time to pay for their pas- 
 sage. This class of persons called '' redemptioners," consisted at one 
 time of thousands. Multitudes are bought out of slavery by themselves or 
 others, and remove into free states. Under the same roof with the wri- 
 ier is a " servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a 
 slave. As soon as "■ 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 were " bought" by the administration 
 with the surplus revenue; and the other party, that Clay and Webster 
 were "bought" by the Bank. The histories of the revolution tell us 
 ihat Benedict Arnold was " bought" by British gold. Did that make 
 iiim an article of property ? When a northern clergyman marries a 
 rich southern widow, counlry gossip hits off the indecency with this 
 current phrase, '' The cotton bags bought him." When Robert Walpole 
 said, " Every man has his price, and whoever will pay it can buy him" 
 and when John Randolph said, while the Missouri question was pending, 
 
 * The following statute is now in force in the state of Illinois—" No negro, mulatto, or In- 
 dian, shall at any time purchase any servant other thin of their own complexi .n : and if any 
 of tlie persons aforesa d sha 1 presume to purckase a while i^ervant, such servant shall imme- 
 diately become free, and shall be so held, deemed, and taken." 
 
 3 
 
20 
 
 " The northern delegation is in the market ; give me money enough, 
 and I can buy them,'' they both meant just what they said. When the 
 temperance publications tell us that candidates for office buy men with 
 whiskey ; and the oracles of street tattle, that the court, district attor- 
 ney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were bought, we have no 
 floating visions of " chattels personal," man auctions, or coffles. 
 
 The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to 
 the meaning attached to " buy" and " bought with money." See Gen. 
 xlvii. 18 — 26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants, 
 aud that he should buy tliem. When the bargain was closed, Joseph 
 said, •' Behold I have bought you this day," and yet it is plain that nei- 
 ther of the parties dreamed that the persons bought were in any sense 
 articles of property, but merely that they became thereby obh'gated to 
 labor for the government on certain conditions, as a co7npensation for 
 the entire support of themselves and families during the famine. And 
 that the idea attached to " buy us," and " behold 1 have bought you," 
 was merely the procuring of services voluntarily offered, and secured 
 by contract, as a return for value received, and not at all that the Egyp- 
 tians were bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of pro- 
 perty. And this buying of services (they were to give one -fifth part 
 of their crops to Pharaoh) is called in Scripture usage, hiying the per. 
 sons. This^case deserves special notice, as it is the only one where the 
 whole transaction of buying servants is detailed — the preliminaries, he 
 process, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting 
 therefrom. In all other instances, the mere fact is stated without enter, 
 ing into particulars. In this ease, 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 out, 
 set, assumes that servants were bought of /A/r(Z persons ; and thence in- 
 fers that they were articles of property. This is sheer assumption. 
 Not a single instance is recorded, of a servant being sold by any one 
 but himself; not a case, either under the patriarchal, or the Mosaic sys- 
 tems, in which a master sold his servant. That the 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 ser- 
 vant of the stranger, the words are, "If he sell himself unto the 
 stranger." Tlie same word, and the same form of the word, which, in 
 the 47th verse, is rendered sell himself, is in the 39th verse of the same 
 
21 
 
 'chapter, rendered he sold; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is rcn* 
 dered "be sold." Here it is the Hithpael conjugation, which is reflex"- 
 ive in its force, and, like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an 
 individual does for himself, or in his own concerns ; and should mani- 
 festly have been rendered, ye shall offer yourselves for sale. 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 divina- 
 tion and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil." — Isa. 1. 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, Jeremiah xxxiv. 14 — Romans vii. 14, and vi. 16 — John viii. 
 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already quoted. 
 
 Again, if servants were bought of third persons, where are the in- 
 stances 1 la the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is generallj'' 
 stated that they were bought oC third persons. Is it not a fair inference, 
 if servants were bought of third persons, that there would sometimes 
 have been such an intimation ? 
 
 II. — The leading design of the mosaic laws delating to masters 
 
 AND servants, W^ITH AN ENUMEIlATION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVI- 
 LEGES SECURED TO SERVANTS. 
 
 The general object of those statutes, which prescribed the relations of 
 master and servant, was the good of both parties — but more especially 
 the good of the servants. While the interests of the master were spe- 
 cially guarded from injury, those of the servants were promoted. 
 
 These laws were a merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of 
 the Israelites and Strangers. Not. laying on burdens, but lightening 
 them — they were a grant o{ privileges — a bestowment offavors,. 
 
 1. No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the fa- 
 mily of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with 
 this condition was the price of the privilege. — Genesis xvii. 9 — 14, 
 23,27. 
 
 2. Excommunication from the family was a punishment. — Genesis 
 xxi. 14 — Luke xvi. 2 — 4. 
 
 3. The fact that every Hebrew servant could compel his master to 
 keep him after the six years contract had expired, 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 
 
22 
 
 ia.w obliged the master to retain him in his household, however little he' 
 might need his services, or great his dislike to the individual. Deut. xv. 
 i2 — 17, and Exodus xxi. 2 — 6. 
 
 4. The rights and privileges guaranteed hy law to all servants. 
 
 (1.) They <rere admitted into covenant with God. Deut. xxix. 
 iO— 13. 
 
 (2.) Tliey were invited guests at all the natioiial and family festivals 
 of the honsehold in which they resided. Exodus xii. 43 — 44 ; Deut. xii. 
 12, 18, and xvi. 10— IB. 
 
 (3.) They loere statedly instructed in morality and religion. Deut. 
 xxxi. 10 — 13 ; Joshua viii. 33 — 35; 2 Chronicles xvii. 8 — 9. 
 
 (4.) They were released from their regular lahor nearly one half of 
 THE whole time. Diiiing which, the law secured to them their entire 
 support; and the same public and family instiuciion that was provided 
 for the Other members of the Hebrew community. 
 
 (a.) The Law secured to them the ivhole of every seventh year ; Levi 
 XXV. 3 — 6 ; thus giving to ihose servants that remained such during the 
 entire period between the jubilees, eight whole years (including the Ju- 
 bilee 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 great annual festivals. The Passover, \\\\\c]\ com- 
 menced on the 15th of the 1st month,fand lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 
 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the sixth 
 'day of the third month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xvi. 10, 11. And 
 the Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the 15th of the seventh 
 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. 
 Their cumbered caravans moved- slowly. After their arrival at the 
 place of sacrifice, a day or two at least, would be requisite for divers 
 preparations, before entering upon the celebration of the festival, besides 
 some time at the close of it, in preparations for their return. If we as- 
 sign three weeks to each festival — including the time spent on the 
 journey going and returning, and the delays before and after the cele- 
 bration, 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 7iine weeks annually, which would amount 
 in forty-two years, subtracting the sabbaths, to sLx years and eighty-fbur 
 rlavS'= 
 
S3 
 
 (e.) The neio moons. The Jewish year had twelve ; Josephtls telk 
 iis that the Jews always kept two days for the new moon. See Calmet 
 bn the Jewish Calender, and Home's Introduction ; also 1 Sam. xxi 
 18, 19, 27. This would amount in forty-two years, to two years, two 
 hundred and eighty days, after ihe necessary subtractions. 
 
 (f.) The feast of trumpets. On the first day of the seventh month) 
 and of the civil year. Lev. xxiii. 24, 25. 
 
 (g.) The day of atonement. On the tenth of the seventh month. 
 Lev. xxiii. 27 — 32. 
 
 These two last feasts would consume not less than sixty-five days of 
 lime not otherwise reckoned. 
 
 Thus it appears that those persons who conlinued servants during the 
 whole period between the jubilees, were by law released from their la- 
 bor, TWENTY-THREK YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, 
 
 and those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In 
 the foregoing calculation, besides making a generous donation of all the 
 fractions to the objecto?", we have left out of the account, those nume- 
 rous local festivals to which frequent allusion is made, as in Judges xxi. 
 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various /a»u7v festivals, such as at 
 the weaning of children ; at marriages; at sheep shearngs ; at the 
 making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in ist 
 Sam. XX. 28,29. Neither have we included those memorable festivals 
 instituted at a later period of the Jewish history. The feast of Purim, 
 Esther, ix. 28, 29 ; and the feast of the Dedication, which lasted eight 
 days. John x. 22 ; 1 Mac. iv. 59. 
 
 Finalh/, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time, 
 which, if distributed, would on an average be almost one half of the 
 iDAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they and their families were sup- 
 ported, and furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this amount 
 of time were distributed over everyday, the servants would have to them- 
 selves, all but di fraction of ot^e half of each day, and would labor for 
 their masters the remaining fraction and the other half of the day. 
 
 This regulation is a part of that Mosaic system which is 
 claimed by slaveholders as the great prototype of American 
 Slavery. 
 
 5. The servant was protected by law equally with the other membefs 
 ■of the community. 
 
 Proof — •' Hear the causes between your brethre?!, arid judge righteous- 
 ly between every man and his neighbor, and thk stranger that is wit& 
 HIM." " y? shall not bespect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear 
 
24 
 
 ihe SMALL as well as the great." Deut, i. 16, 17. Also in Lev. xxiv. 
 22. " Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger, asfot 
 one of your own country, for I am the Lord your God." So Numbers 
 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 sojoumeth among them." Deut. xxvii. 19. " Cursed 
 he he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, thefatherless 
 and the widow." 
 
 6. The Mosaic system enjoined ujJon the Israelites the greatest affec- 
 tion and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as Jewish. 
 
 Lev. xix. 34. " The stranger that dwelleth with you shall he unto 
 you as one horn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." Also 
 Deut. X. 17, 19. " For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of 
 lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, which regardeth not per- 
 sons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of thefatherless 
 and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment, 
 love ye therefore the stranger." So Exodus xxii. 21. " Thou 
 shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him." Exodus 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." [What an ab- 
 surdity to suppose that this same stranger could be taken by one that 
 feared his God, held as a slave, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his 
 rights!] 
 
 7. Servants were placed upon a level with their masters in all civil 
 and religious rights. See Numbers xv. 15, 16, 29. Numb. ix. 14. 
 Deut. i. 16, 17. Lev. xxiv. 22. 
 
 IIL — Did persons become servants VOLUNTARILY, or were 
 they made servants against THEIR WILLS ? 
 
 "We argue that they became servants of their own accord, • 
 1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to 
 abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God,* to be circumcised in 
 
 * Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years ago, a cotemporary with 
 Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony 
 on tliis 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. 
 
25 
 
 token of it, to be bound to the observance of the Sabbath, of the Pass- 
 over, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive in- 
 struction in all the particulars of the moral and ceremonial law. 
 
 Were the servantsy'orce^Z through all these processes? Was the re- 
 nunciation 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, despised its cere- 
 monies, spurned the law which enjoined it, detested its author and exe- 
 cutors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemmo- 
 rated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consumma- 
 tion 1 Were they driven from all parts of the land three times in the 
 year up to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction 
 which they nauseated ? Were they goaded through a round of cere- 
 monies, 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. And 
 how 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 1 Were p, oselyte and chattel synonymes, in the Di- 
 vine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a thing before taken info 
 covenant with God ? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and 
 the sole passport to the communion of the saints? 
 
 2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, 
 " Thou shall not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped 
 from his master unto thee. He shall dwell loilh thee, even among 
 you, in that place tvhich he shall choose, in one of thy gales wh^re it 
 liketh him best ; thou shall not oppress him." 
 
 " But he that is in the house is entered on tlie eighth day, and he that is bought with money, 
 on tlie day on Which the 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 luve and kindness, for one year. After which, shouldhe refuse so 
 long, it is forbidden to keep Wm, longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the 
 strangers from whence be came. Forthc God of Jacob willnot accept any otherthan the wor- 
 ship ofa wJHingheart.'-— Maimon,Hilcoth, Miloth, Cliap. 1st, Sec. 8lh. 
 
 Tlie ancient Jewish Doctors agree in tlie testimony, tliat the servant from the strangers who 
 at the close of his probationary year still refused to adopt the religion of the Mosaic system, 
 and was on that account cut off from ilie family, and sent back to iiis own people, received afuU 
 compensation ier his seivices, besides the payment of his expenses. But that postponement of the 
 circumcision of the forei-n servant for ayear (or cwen at aZZafterhe had entered the family of an 
 Israelite) of which the Mi5hnicdoctorsspeak,seems tohave beenamere usage. We find nothing 
 of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly ini- 
 tiatory. WTietheritwasarite meie]y national oi spiritual, or io^A, comes not within the scope of 
 this inquiry . Nor does it at all aifect the argument. 
 
26 
 
 As though God had said, "To dehver him up would be to recognize th^ 
 tighl of the master to hold him. His Jleeing " shows his choice — pro-r 
 claims his wrongs, his master's oppressive acts, and his own claim to 
 legal 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 othei's for protection." It may be objected, that this command 
 had no reference to servants among the Israelites, but only to those of 
 heathen masters in the surrounding nations. We answer, The regulation 
 has no restriction. Its terms are unlimited. But the objection, even if 
 valid, merely shifts the pressure of the difBcultj to another point. Does 
 God array his infinite authority to protect the free choice of a single 
 servant from the heathen, and yet authorize the same persons, to crush 
 the free choice o( thousands of servants from the heathen 1 Suppose a 
 case. A foreign servant flees fiom his master to the Israelites ; God 
 speaks, " He shall dwell with thee, in that place which he shall choose, 
 in one of thy gates where it liketh him best." They were strictly 
 charged not to put him in a condition which he did not choose. Now, 
 suppose this same servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own ac- 
 cord, 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 a hor- 
 rible enormity, forsooth, provided you begin the violence after he has 
 come among you. But if you commit the frst 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, and 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 from the heathen 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 kind- 
 ness denied to the multitudes who loere circumcised, and within the 
 covenant ? 
 
 Again : the objector finds smull gain to his argument on the supposi- 
 tion that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surround, 
 ing nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition 
 
27 
 
 lao-ainst their wills — the objector finds small gain to his argument. In 
 that case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatory 
 measures, and resolve tlvmselves into so many asylums for fugitive 
 Israelitish servants. As these nations were on every side of them 
 such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men held in a 
 condilion which was a constant counteraction of will. Further, the ob- 
 jector's assumption destroys itself, for the same command which pro- 
 tected the foreign servant from the power of his master, protected him 
 equally from the power of an Israelite. It was not merely, " Thou 
 shalt not deliver him to his master," but " he (the servant) shall dwell 
 with thee, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates where 
 it liketh him best." Every Israelite was commanded to respect his free 
 choice, and to put him ia no 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 iheir services at such 
 a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased ? 
 
 Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back ofyb- 
 reign servants merely, was there any hw requiring the return of ser- 
 vants who had escaped from the Israelites ? There was a statute re- 
 quiring the return o^jproperty lost, and cattle escaped, but none requiring 
 the return of escaped servants. 
 
 Finally, these verses contain, first, a command, " Thou shalt not 
 deliver," &c. Secondly, a declaration of the fugitive's right oi free 
 choice, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own discre- 
 tion ; and thirdly, a command guarding this right, namely, " Thou shalt 
 not oppress him," as though God had said. If you forbid him to exercise 
 his own choice, as to the [tlace and condition of his residence, it is oppres- 
 sion, and I will not tolerate it. 
 
 3. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar oppor- 
 tunities and facilities for escape. Three times every year, all the males 
 over twelve years of age, were required to attend the public festivals. 
 The main body were thus absent from their homes not less than three 
 weeks 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 stationed at each pass of the 
 mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the 
 .defiles ? What safe contrivance had the Israelites for taking their "slaves' 
 three times in a year to Jerusalem and back ? When a body of slaves 
 is moved any distance in our free and equal republic, they are hand, 
 cuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drirerg' brains 
 
 4 
 
28 
 
 out. Was this the Mosaic plan, or an improvement left for the wisdom 
 of Solomon ? Th& usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venera- 
 ble and biblical ! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and trans- 
 ported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and 
 while at the Holy City, " lodged in jail for safe keeping," religious ser- 
 vices extra being appointed, and special " oral instruction" for their 
 benefit. But meanwhile, what became of tlie sturdy handmaids left at 
 home ? What hindered them from marching off in a body 1 Perhaps 
 the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while 
 the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, to pick up 
 stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets as city guard?, keeping a 
 sharp look-out at night. 
 
 4. Their conl'inuance in Jeioish families depended upon the perform- 
 ance of various rites and ceremonies necessarily voluntary. 
 
 Suppose a servant from the heathen should, upon entering a Jewish 
 family, refuse circumcision ; the question whether he shail remain a ser- 
 vant, is in his own hands. If a slave, how simple the process of eman- 
 cipation ! His rf/ii^a/ did the job. Or, suppose that, at any time, he 
 should refuse to attend the tri-yearly feasts, or should eat leavened 
 bread during the Passover, or compound the ingredients of the anoint- 
 ingoil, he is "cut off from the people ;" excommunicated. 
 
 5. We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patiiarchs jrom 
 the impossihilily of their being held against their wills. The servants of 
 Abraham are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred and 
 eighteen young men " born in his house," and probably many more not 
 born in his house. The whole number of his servants of all ages, was 
 probably many thousands. DoubUess, Abraham was a man of a mil- 
 lion, and Sarah too, a right notable housekeeper; still, it is not easy 
 to conceive hovv they contrived to hold so many thousand servants 
 against their wills, unless the ptitriarch and his wife took turns in per- 
 forming the Hibernian exploit of 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, Abraham had neither 
 " Constitution," nor " compact," nor statutes, nor judicial officers to send 
 back his fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon panic-stricken 
 women, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for patronage, volunteering to 
 howl on the track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their 
 " honor" to hunt down and " deliver up," provided they had a descrip- 
 tion of the " flesh-marks," and were stimulated in their chivalry by 
 
29 
 
 pieces of silver. Abraham seoms also to have been sadly deficient in 
 all the auxiliaries of family government, such as siocks, hand- cuffs, foot- 
 chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these pa- 
 triarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, when we consider his faith- 
 ful discharge of responsibilities to his household, though so deplorably 
 destitute of the needful aids. 
 
 6. We infer that servants were voluntary, from the fact that there is 
 no instance of an Israelitish master ever selling a servant. Abraham 
 had thousands of servants, but appears never to have sold one. Isaac 
 " grew until he became very great," and had " great store of ser- 
 vants." 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. 
 
 When Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, the words are, 
 " 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 
 hut no servants. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 6; xlvii. 1. His servants 
 doubtless, served under their own contracts, and when Jacob went into 
 Egypt, they chose to siay 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 
 — the reason is obvious. 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 huy a servant, equally 
 annihilates the servant's ri'^/t^ o/'crtoitr. Answer. It is one thing to 
 have a right to buy a man, and a very different thing to have a right to 
 buy him o[ another man. 
 
 Though there is no instance of a servant being bought of his, or her 
 master, yet there are instances of young females being bought of their 
 fathers. But their purchase as servants was their betrothal as wWes. 
 Exodus xxi. 7, 8. " If a man sell his davghter to be a maid-servant, 
 she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her maS' 
 ier WHO hath betrothed her to himself, he shall let her be r-e- 
 deemed.^'* 
 
 * 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 hetrothed."— Maimonides — 
 Hilctith-Obedim,Ch.. IV. Sec. XI. 
 
 Jarchi, on tlie same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and take her to be his wife 
 foi the money of her purchase is the money of her espousals-" 
 
30 
 
 I 7. Wc infer thai the Hebretv servant icas voluntary in coMMENCiNd- 
 his service, because he was pre-eminent/y so in continuing it. If, at the 
 year of release, it was the servant's choice to remain witii his master, sci 
 did the law guard his free will, that it required his ear to be bored by 
 the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for the servant to be 
 held in an involuntary condition. Yea, so ftir was his /ree choice pro- 
 tected, that his master was compelled to keep him, however much he 
 might wish to get rid of him. 
 
 8. Ths jnethod prescribed for procuring servants, recognized their 
 choice, and was an appeal to it. The Israelites were commanded to 
 offer them a suitable inducement, and then leave them to decide. They 
 might neither seize thein 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 ;* that is, they were to recognize 
 the right oi the individuals to their own services — their right to dispose 
 of them, and their right to refuse all offers. They might, if they 
 pleased, refuse all applications, and thus oblige those who made them^ 
 to do their own work. Suppose all, with one accord, refused to be- 
 come servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such ah 
 emergency ? None. 
 
 9. Various incidental exyressions throughout the Bible, corroborate 
 the idea that servants became such by virtue of their own contract. Job 
 xli. 4, is an illustration, " Will he (Lev:a1han) rnake a covenant 
 xoith thee ? wilt thou take him J or a servant ybre'ier ?" 
 
 10. The transaction tchich made the Egyptians the servants of 
 Pharaoh, shoios entire voluntariness througliout. It is detailed in Gen* 
 xlvii. 18 — 26. Of their own accord, they came to Joseph and sald'j 
 " We have not aught left but our bodies and our lands ; buy us ;" then 
 in the 25th verse, " T/iou hast saved our lives : let us find grace in the 
 sight of my Lord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh." 
 
 11. We argue that the condition of servants was an optional one, 
 Jrom 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. 
 
 12. The sacrifices and offerings whkh all were required to present, 
 were to be made voluntarily. Lev. i. 2, 3. 
 
 13. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they 
 were manifestly and pre-eminently voluntary. The case of the Pro- 
 
 * The c;ise of thieves, whose services were sold ohtil they had earned enough to make 
 restituLion to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, stands by iUelf, and has 
 Vso relation to the condition of servants. 
 
■phet Elisha is one. 1 Kings xix. 21 ; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was hh 
 •master. The original word, translated master, is the same that is so 
 rendered in almost every instance where masters are spoken ofthrough- 
 out the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. It is translated master eigiity- 
 live times in our English version. Moses was the servant of Jethro. 
 Exodus iii. 1. Joshua was the servant of Moses. Numbers xi. 28. 
 Jacob was the servant of Laban. Genesis xxix, 18 — 27. 
 
 IV. Were the servants forced to work without pay ? 
 
 Having already shown that 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 icere paid for their labor, we argue, 
 
 1. Because, while Israel ivas under the Mosaic system, God rebuked 
 in thunder, the si7i of using the labor of others without wages. " Wo 
 unto him that buildelh his house bif unrighteousness, and his chambers 
 by wrong ; that useth his neighbo?-\s service u-ithout wages, and giveth 
 liim not/or his u-ork." Jer. xxii. 13. Here God testifies that to use 
 the service of others without wages is " unrighteousness," and He 
 commissions his " wo" to burn upon the doer of the " wrong." This 
 " wo" was a permanent safeguard of the Mosaic system. The Hebrew 
 word Eea, here translated neighbor, does not mean one man, or class 
 of men, in distinction from others, but atly one with ichom we have to do 
 — all descriptions of persons, not merely servants and heathen, but even 
 those who prosecute us in la\^suils, and enemies while in the act of 
 'fighting us — '■'■As when a man riseth against his neighbor arid slayeth 
 7mn." Deut. xxii. 26. " Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou knoio 
 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 
 <A?/ neighbor." Exod. XX. 16. ^^ If any man come presumptuously 
 upon his neighbor to slay him with guile." Exod. xxi. 14. In these, 
 and in scores of similar cases, Rea is the origitial word. 
 
 2. We have the testimony of God, that in our duly to our fellow men, 
 ALL the law AN]) THE PROPHETS hang upou this Command, " Thou 
 shall love thy neighbor as thyself ." Our Saviour, in giving this com- 
 mand, quoted verbatim one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. 
 xix. 18. In the 34th verso of the same chapter, Moses commands obe- 
 dience td "this law in all the treatment of strangers, " The stranser that 
 
32 
 
 dwelleih zcith yeu shall he unto you as one born among you, aud 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, 
 as well as wages, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of 
 love! Super-disinterested benevolence ! And if it be doing to others 
 as we would have them do to us, to make them work for our own good 
 alone, Paul sliould bfjcalled to order for his hard sayings against human 
 nature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, "No man 
 ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheih and cherisheth it." 
 
 3. As persons became servants from poverty, we argue that they 
 were coinpensated, 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 still employed twenty 
 servanis, of whom he was the master. 
 
 A case is stated in Leviticus xxv. 57 — 59, where a servant, reduced 
 to poverty, sells himself, and it is declared that afterward he may be 
 redeemed, either by his kindred, or by himself. As he was forced to 
 sell himself from sheer poverty, he must not only have acquired pro- 
 perty after he became a servant, but a considerable sum. 
 
 If it had not been common for servants to possess, and acquire pro- 
 perty, over which they had the exclusive control, Gehazi, the servant 
 of Elisha, would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, 
 (nearly $3000*) from Naaman, (2 Kings v. 22, 23.) As it was pro- 
 cured by deceit, he was anxious to concqal the means used in getting 
 it; but if the Israel itish servants, like our slaves, 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. f But since the possession 
 and use of property by servants, was common under the Mosaic sys- 
 
 * Though we have not sufficient data to decide with accuracy upon the relative value 
 of that sum, then and now, yet we have enougli to warrant us in saying that two talents of 
 silver had far more value then than tlvree thousand dollars have now. 
 
 t 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 ihe taking oi 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 thty not foUuw in the footsteps ol iheir masters and mistresses? 
 Dull scholars indeed ! if, after so many lessons from proficients m the art, who drive ihe bu- 
 siness by whoksa'.e, they should not occasionally copy their betters, fall into ihe fashion, and 
 
33 
 
 tern, he might have it, and invest or use it, vi^ithout attracting special at- 
 tention. And that consideration alone would have been a strong mo- 
 tive to the act. His master, while he rebukes 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 catlle, and would 
 procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. In 1 Sam. ix. 8, we find 
 the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emer- 
 gency. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the owner oj a house. That 
 it was spacious and somewhat magnificent, would be a natural infer- 
 ence from the fact that it was a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. 
 The case of the Gibeonites, who, after they became servants, still occu- 
 pied 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 re- 
 lieving each other, while preparing the materials for the temple, are 
 additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and ownership 
 of property. 
 
 4. Heirship. — Servants frequently inherited their master's property; 
 especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. 
 This seems to have been a general usage. 
 
 '1 he cases of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham ; Ziba, the servant of 
 Mephibosheth, Jarha an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, and the hus- 
 band of his daughter; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35, and of the hushandmen who 
 said of their master's son, " this is the heir, let us kill him, and the in- 
 heritance WILL BE OURS." Mark xii. 7, are illustrations. Also the 
 declaration in Prov. xvii. 2 — " A wise servant shall have rule over a 
 son that causelh shame, and shall have part of the inheritance 
 AMONG the brethren." This passage seems to give servants prece- 
 dence 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 ? 
 
 try their hand in a small way, at a practice which is tlie only permanent, and universal busi- 
 ness carried on around them ! 
 
 Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting them 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 Rever- 
 ends! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his note-' of Virginia, speaking of slaves, he 
 says, •' That disposition to theft uith whiih tliey (tlie slaves) 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, whutlier the religious precepts against the violation of pro- 
 perty were not framed for him as well as for bis slave— and whether the slave rnay not 
 as justifiably take a Utile from one who ha.i taken ALL from him, as he may slay one who 
 would slay him ■" Sea Jefferscns Notes on ^■lrglnla. pp. 20T— 8. 
 
34 
 
 5. All loere required to ivesent offerings and sacrifices. Deut. xvi, 
 15, 17. 2 Chron. xv. 9—11. Numb. ix. 13. 
 
 Servants must have had permanently, the means of acquiring pro- 
 perty to meet these expenditures. 
 
 6. Those Hebrew sei-vants who lotnt out at the seventh year, loere 
 provided by laio with a large stock of provisions and cattle. Deut. xv. 
 11 — 14. " Thou shall furnish him liberally out of ihyfiock, and out of 
 thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God 
 hath blessed thee, thou shall give him."* If it be objected, that no men- 
 tion is made of the servants from the strangers, receiving a hke bounti- 
 ful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of the Isra- 
 elitish 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 no mention is made of the Gentile servants receiving such a gratuity 
 proves that they were robbed of their earnings ; it proves that the most 
 valued class oi' Hebrew servants were robbed of theirs also, a conclusion 
 too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous. 
 
 7. The servants were bought. In other toords, they received com- 
 pensation for their services in advance. Having shown, under a pre- 
 vious 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 until they became of age,)f a mere reference 
 to the fact in this place is all that is required for the purposes of this ar- 
 gument. 
 
 8. We infer that servants tcere paid, because 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 the ser- 
 vant of Laban for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herds- 
 man, and was the master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, and 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, and xlvi. 1 — 7, 32. 
 
 9. God^s testimony to the character of Abraham. Genesis ^xviii. 19. 
 
 .^ The comment of Miimonides on tliis passaje is as loUovvs— " ' Thou shalt furnish him 
 liberally,' &c That is to sa}, ' 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?' 1 say unto yau, not hssthan thirty shekels, wliich is the valuation 
 of a servant, as declared in Exodus xxi. 32." — Maimonides, Hilcoth, Obedim, Chapter ii. Sec- 
 tion 3. 
 
 *■ Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen years. 
 
85 
 
 ^^ For 1 know him thit he will command his children and his household 
 after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and 
 JUDGMENT." We havt! here Go 's testimony, lh:il Abruliatn taught his 
 servants " the way of ti^e Lord." What was the " way of the Lord" 
 respecting the payment of wages where service vvas rendered ? " Wo 
 unto lum that useth his neighbor's service wi'hout wages /" Jer. xxii. 13. 
 "Master.^, give unto i/our 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 Abra lam teach his servants 
 to " do justice'' to others 1 By doing injustice to them ? Did he exhort 
 them to '' render to all their dues" by keeping back ^/le/r ozt'/j ? Did 
 he teach them that " the laborer was wortliy of his hire" by rolibing 
 them of theirs ? Did he beget in them a reverence for the eighth com- 
 mandment by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them 
 '• not to defiaud" others " in any mntt(^r" by denying ihein " what was 
 just and equal ?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism 
 did not become a very Aristides in justice, then an illustrious example, 
 patriarchal dignity, and practical lessons, can make but slow headway 
 against human perverseness ! 
 
 10. Specific precepts of the Mosaic laio enforcing general principles. 
 Put of many, we select the following : 
 
 (1.) " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth oat the corn,''^ or lite- 
 rally, while he thresheth. Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general principle 
 applied to a familiar case, Tlie ox representing all domestic animals. 
 Isaiah XXX. 24. A particular kind of service — all kinds; and a law 
 requiring an ..bundunt provision for the wants of an animal ministerino- 
 to man in a certain way, — a general principle of treatment coverintr all 
 times, 7nodes, 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 nerve us, showing that tiiey who labor for 
 others, are entitled to what is just and equal in return ; and if such care 
 is enjoined, by God, not merely for the ample sustenance, but for the 
 present enjoyment of a brute, what would be a meet return for the ser- 
 vices of man ? man, with his varied wants, exuked nature and immortal 
 destiny! Paul tells us expressly, that the principle which we have 
 named, lies at the bottom of the statute. See 1 Corinthians ix. 9, 10 — 
 " For it is writien in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth 
 of the ox thil treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? Or 
 4aith he it altogether for our sakes 1 thA he that ploweth slwuld plow in 
 
 5 
 
36 
 
 HOPE, a7ul that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of hi* 
 
 HOPE." 
 
 (2.) " If thy brother be icaxen poor, and j alien in decay with thee, 
 then thou shall 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 shall not give him thy money upon 
 usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35 — 37. Or^ 
 in other words, " relief at your hands is his right, and your duty — you 
 shall not take advantage of his necessities, but cheerfully supply them." 
 Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this oenevo- 
 lent regulation can be made to he in keeping 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 all his earnings? 
 Judge ye. 
 
 V. — Were masters the PROPRIETORS of servants as their 
 
 [LEGAL property ? 
 
 The discussion of this topic has been already somewhat anticipated 
 under the preceding heads ; but a variety of considerations, not within 
 the range of our previous inquiries, remain to be noticed. 
 
 1. Servants were not subjected to the uses, nor liable to the contin- 
 gencies of property. 
 
 (1.) They were never taken in payment for tluir masters'' debts, though 
 children were sotiietimes taken (wilhout legal authority) for the deb's 
 of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1 ; Job xxiv. 9 ; Isaiah 1. 1 ; Matt, xviii. 25. 
 
 Cases are recorded in which creditors look from debtois property of 
 all kinds, to satisfy their demands. In Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken ; 
 in Prov. xxii. 27, household furniture ; in Lev. xxv. 25 — 28, the pro- 
 ductions of the soil ; in Lev. xxv. 27 — 30, houses; in Exodus xxii. 
 26 — 29, and Deut. xxiv. 10 — 13, and Matt. v. 40, clothing ; but ser- 
 vants were taken in no instance. 
 
 (2. ) Sei'vants were never given as pledges. Property of all sorts was 
 given and held in pledge. We find in the Bible, household furniture, 
 clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers 
 other articles of properf)', used as pledges for value received. Bat no 
 serva7its. 
 
 (3:) All lest fROTZUTV ■was to be restored. Oxen, asses, sheep, rai- 
 ment, and " whatsoever lost things," are specified — servants net. Deut» 
 
BY 
 
 xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take back 
 the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15. 
 
 (4.) The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents. They 
 made princely presents of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of 
 animals, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, and grain, ar- 
 mor, &c. are among their recorded gifts. Giving presents to superiors 
 and persons of rank when visiting them, and at other times, was a stand- 
 ing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27 ; 1 Sam. xvi. 20 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abra- 
 ham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27 ; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt, Gen. 
 xliii. 11 ; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benha- 
 dad 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 Ahi- 
 jah, 1 Kings xiv, 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no 
 servants were given as presents — though that was a prevailing fashion 
 in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16 ; Gen. xx. 14. 
 
 Objection 1. Lahan gave handmaids to his daughters, JacoVs 
 wives. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then preva- 
 lent, it is enough to say that the handmaids of wives, at that time, were 
 themselves regarded as wives., though of inferior dignity and authority. 
 That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reu- 
 ben, (Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1.) also by the equality of their chil- 
 dren 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," Saiiit Laban, would have 
 been a fore-closer 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 fe- 
 male seclusion, for lo ! the zeal of his "•images" had eaten him up ! 
 
 No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled be- 
 fore 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 !" 
 
 Objection 2. Servants were enumerated in inventories of property. 
 Tf 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." Exodus xx. 17. An examination ©f 
 
C3 
 
 d'll the places in which sprvants are induded among beasfs, chattels, 
 tSsc, will bliow, that in inventories o? mere 'property, oervunls are not in- 
 cluiied, or if inciudeJ, it is i:i such a \Miy, as lo show tiiat they are not 
 re^fJircle i SiS property. EccL ii. 7,8. But when the design is to show, 
 not merely the wealth, but tlie grealne'ss oi' any personage, that he is a 
 m n of distinctio!"", a riil(,'r, u prmcj, .-cMvaiits aie spoken of, as well as 
 proj)erly. In a word, li' Tichis alone are spoken of, no mention is made 
 Of servants ; ii greatness, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. *' And 
 Ahraham was very rich in cattle, in si've'r, and in go/d." No mention 
 of servants. So in tiie fiiih verse Loi's riches are enumerated, " And 
 Lot a/so had JlocL'S. and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse ser- 
 vants are meniioned, " And there vins a strife between the herdMen of 
 Ahrahani's cattle and the hekemex of Lot's cull/c." St e also Josh, xxii; 
 8 ; Gen. xxxiv. 23 ; Job. x!ii. 12 ; 2 Ciiron. xx'. 3; xxxii. 27—29 ; 
 Job i. 3 — 5 ; Dcut. viii. 12 — 17 ; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and 
 XXX. 43. 
 
 Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are men- 
 tioned m connection with property, it is in such a way as to distinguish 
 them from it. Wnen Jaeoi) was about to leave Laban, his wi\es say, 
 " All {he riches which tliou hast taken Ironi our lather, that is ours and 
 cur children's." Tlien follows an inventory of property. "All his 
 cattle," 'Sail his goods," "the cattle of his getting," &c. He had 
 a lar^e number of servants at the time, but they are not included ^rith 
 his property. Compare Gen. xxx. 43, wi h Gen. xxxi. 16 — 18. 
 
 When h; sent messengers to Esau, in order to secure his re- 
 spect, and impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade 
 them tell him r.ot only of his riches, but of his greatness; that Ja- 
 cob had "oxen, and asses, and foJ:s. and men servants, and maid-scr- 
 vanis." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Vet in the present which he sent, tiieie 
 were no servants ; though he seems to have aimed to give it as 
 much variety as possible. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 
 6, 7 ; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks ai.d herds were tlie staples of wealih, 
 a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of cattle, 
 "which would require many herdsmen. Further. 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 Mickna is an illustration. It is a derivative 
 of Kana, to procure, to buy, and its iwanlugk, a possession, trealtfi, 
 riches. It occLirs more than forty times in the O.d Tes amenl— 
 and is a ){>liod always to rnrre properfiy — generally to domestic ani- 
 
sg 
 
 mals, but ifver fo servants. In some instances, servants are men- 
 tioned in distinction from tlie Mickna. See Gen. xii. 5. " And ALra- 
 ham took i^arali his wife, and Lot his brother s so7i. And all their ^va- 
 STANCK thai theij had gathered, and the souls that they hudgotlen in Ha- 
 ran. and thc<j went forth to go into the land of Canian." Substance ga- 
 thered iuk\ souls go ten! Many «ill have it, tJiat these souls were a part 
 of Abvulriiin's substance (notwithstanding the pains here taken to sepa- 
 rate them from it) — that tlic y were slaves — probably captives in war, and 
 now, by rigiit of conquest, taken with him in his migiation as part of his 
 foniily effects. Who but slaveholders, citlier actually, or in heart, would 
 tor'uie into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless 
 phrase as " the sonls that they hudgotlen ?" Unnl the slave t rade breathed 
 its li;ize upon the vii^ion ol the church, anrl smote lier with palsy and decay, 
 commentators saw no slavery in, " The souls that they had ^jot- 
 ten." In the Targum of Onkelos* it is thus rendered, "'The 
 souls wliom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Tar- 
 guru of Jona;han, tlius : '-Tiie souls whom they had made proselytes in 
 Haran." In the Targum of Jerusal'm, "Th'JSduLs proselyted ir. Ha- 
 ran." Jarclii, placed by Jewish Rabbis at the head of their commen- 
 tutors, thus renders it: "The souls whom they had brought under the 
 Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Cnristian fathers : 
 " The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian version thus 
 gives the whole verse, ''And Abraham took Sarah his wile, and Lot 
 Ills brolher's son, and all their wealth which they had accumulated, and 
 the souls which tiiey had made.^'' The Vulga*e version thus translates 
 it, " Jniversam subsiantiam quam possederant et animas quas fecerant 
 in Haran." " Thu entire weahli which they possessed, ond the souls 
 which ihey had made." The Syriac thus, " All their possessions which 
 they possessed, and the souls which they had made in Haran." The 
 Arabic, " All their properly which they had acquired, and the souls 
 whom they iiad made in Haran." The Samaritan, '• 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 llie English Bible, renders it as follows : — " Quas de idol- 
 
 * The Targurasare Ctialdee paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament. The Targiim of 
 Onk 'los is fur the most part, a very aci urate and lUithful translaticn <.f the origina', atid was 
 probably m ide at about the commencement of the Christian era. The 'J argum of Jonathan 
 BeiiUi'.ziel be^irs abjul the=ame date. The Targum of Jeiusalem wa> probauiy about fivelmii 
 died yi-aiS later. 
 
 Tue Israelites, during the r long captivity in Babylon, lost as a body, their knowledge of thefr 
 'own laiigu.ge The^e translations of iho Iltbrcw Scriptures into tne Clialdte, the langua^ 
 which they acquired in Bab/1 n, were thus called for by tho necessity of the case. 
 
40 
 
 otraria converterunt."* "Those whom they have converted from idol- 
 atry." — Pauius Fagius.-j- . " Quas institueram in religione." — "Those 
 whom they had instructed in religion." — " Luke Francke, a German 
 commentator who lived two centuries ago, " Quas legi subjicerant." — - 
 " Those whom they had brought to obey the law." 
 
 2. The condition of servants in their masters'' families, the privileges 
 which they shared in common with the children, and their recognition as 
 equals by the highest officers of the government — make the doctrine that 
 they loere mere co.aisiodities, an ahsurdity. The testimony of Paul, in 
 Gal. iv. 1, gives an insight into the condition of servants. " Now I say 
 unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, differeth nothing 
 TROM A SERVANT, though he he lord of all." 
 
 That Abraham's servants were voluntar}-, — that their interests were 
 identified with those of tiieir master's family — that they were regarded 
 with great affection by the household, and that the utmost confidence 
 was reposed in them, is shown in the arming of 318 of them for the; re- 
 covery of Lot and his family from captivity. See Gen. xiv. 14, 15. 
 
 When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess 
 Rebekah did not disdain lo say to him, "Drink, biy Lord," as "she 
 hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink," 
 and " ske hasted and emptied her pitcher, and ran again unto the well, 
 and drew for all his camels." L.^ban, the brother of Rebekah, ])repar. 
 ed the house for his reception, ungirded his camels, and brought him 
 "water to tvash his feet, and the men's feet ihattvere with him.'" 
 
 In the 9th chapter of 1 Samuel, we have an account of a high festi- 
 val in the city of Zuph, at which Samu.el, the chief judge and ruler in 
 Israel, presided. None sat down at the feast but those that were bid- 
 den. And only "about thirty persons" were invited. Quite a' select par- 
 ty,! — the elite of the city of Zuph ! Saul and his servant arrived at 
 Zuph just as the party was assembling ; and both of them, at Sam- 
 uel's solicitation, accomjmny 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 
 
 * See his " Brevis explicatio sensus literalis totius Scripture." 
 
 t Tin-! eminent Hebrew scholar was invi'ced to England by Cranmer, then Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, to superintend 1 he translation of the Bibie into English, under the pstronage of Henry 
 the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a century 
 before the dale of our present translation. 
 
41 
 
 at the same time anointed Kiii^ of Israel ; and this servant introduced 
 by Samuel into the p^^rlor, and assigned, with his master, to the chief' 
 est seat at the tatjje ! Tliis was " one of the servants" oi' Kish, S-uul's 
 father ; not the steward ov the chief o( ihem — .lot at ali a picked man, 
 but " o/te of the servants ;" on?/ one that could be most easily spared, 
 as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in look- 
 ing after asses. 
 
 A'^ain : we iearn from 1 Kings xvi. S, 9, that Elah, the King of Is- 
 rael, was slain by Zimri, one of his chief officers, at a festive enter- 
 tainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom 
 he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. Without detailing other 
 cases, we refer the reader to the intercourse between Gideon and his 
 servant. — Judges vii. 10, 11. — Jonathan and his servant.' — 1 Samuel 
 xiv. 1 — 14. — Elisha and his servant. 
 
 3. The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebreio common- 
 wealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor even invo- 
 luntary servants. The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Che- 
 phirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Israelites, is quoted in 
 triumph by the advocates of slavery ; and truly they are rigiit 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 gnawing;-, and casts about in blind 
 phrenzy for something to ease, or even to 7?wck tliem. But for this, it 
 would never have clutched at ihe Gibeonites, for evfen the incantations 
 of the demon cauldron, could not extract from. their case enough to tan- 
 talize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the condition 
 of the Gibeonites under the Israelites ? 
 
 (1.) It was voluntary. It was their own proposition to Joshua to be- 
 come servants. Joshua ix. 8, 11. Their proposition 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 fimil ies of the Israelites, 
 They still continued to reside in thsir own cities, cultivating their own 
 fields, tending their flocks and herds, and exercising 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, their family relations broken up, and their internal organiza- 
 tion as a distinct people abolished, they seem to have remained a sepa- 
 rate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many 
 
43 
 
 centuries. When lliey were attacked by the Ainorites, they applied to 
 the hraeUtes as coiifudHrates for aid — it "as promptly rendered, their 
 eneinies routed, and tliemselvis left unmolested in the occupaiinn of 
 their cities, while all Israel returned to Gilgal. Joshua x. 6 — 18. Long 
 afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon Israel a three 
 years' famine for it. David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall 1 do 
 for you, and whereui h shall I make the alonement, that ye may bless 
 the inheritance of the Lord ?" At their demand, he delivered up to 
 them, seven of the royal family, five of them the sons of Michal, his own 
 fornrjer wife. 2 Samuel xxi. 1 — 9. 'I'he whole transaction was a formal 
 recognition of the Gibeonites as a separate people. There is no inti- 
 mation that tliey served families, or individuals of ihe Israelites, but only 
 the " house of God," or the Tabernacle. This vas established first at 
 Gilgal, a day's journey from the cities of the Gibeonites; and then at 
 Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them ; where it continued about 
 350 years. During all this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient 
 cities and territory. Only a few, comparativelys cou'd have been absent 
 from dieir cities at any one time in attendance on the tabernacle. 
 
 (1.) VVhenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main bo- 
 dy are spoken of as at home. 
 
 (2.) It is preposterous to suppose that their tabernacle services could 
 liave furnished employment for all the inhabitants of these four cities. 
 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 i.i the 
 land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the 
 men were divided into classes, and thus ministered at the tabernacle in 
 rotation — each class a ^av/ days or weeks at a time. This service was 
 their nutiinal tribute to the Israelites, rendered ibr the privilege of resi- 
 dence and protection under their government. No service seems to 
 have been required of {\\e females. As these Gibeonites were Canaan- 
 ites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by im[>ndent im- 
 position, hypocrisy, nnd lying, we nigiit assuredly expect that they would 
 reduce //ipm to the condition of chattels and properly, if there was any 
 case in which God permitted them to do so. 
 
 7. BeC'iuse, throughout the Mosaic system, God warns them agahist 
 holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the 
 Egtjjitians. How often are the Israelites pointed back to the grindings 
 of their prison-house ! Wi)at motives to the exercise of justice and 
 kindness towaids their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened 
 judgments ; to their hopes in proaiised good ; and to all within them 
 
43 
 
 that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror ? 
 " For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt" — waking anew the me- 
 mory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them. 
 
 That the argument derived from the condition of the Israelites in 
 Egypt, and God's condemnation of it, may be appreciated, it is import- 
 ant that the Egyptian bondage should be analyzed. We shall then be 
 able 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 EgyjH, the property of individual owners.* They 
 formed a separate community. See Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24, 
 and ix. 26, and x. 23, and xi. 7, and ii. 9, and xvi. 22, and xvii. 5. 
 
 (2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen,'\ one 
 of the richest and most productive parts of Egypt. Gen. xlv. 18, and 
 xlvii.6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19,22, 23, 27. 
 
 (3.) They Jived in pcrmanait dwellings. These were houses, not 
 tents. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side posts, and the upper door j^osts of 
 the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the 
 lintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house by itself — Acts 
 vii. 20, Ex. xii. 4 — and from the regulation about the eating of the Pas- 
 sover, they could hardly have been small ones — Ex. xii. 4 — and proba- 
 bly contained separale apartments, and places for seclusion. Ex. ii. 2, 
 S ; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. 
 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv. 11. 
 
 (4.) They owned " a mixed multitude offiocks and herds," and ^^very 
 much cattle.'' Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. 
 
 (5.) Tliey 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, and xii. 
 19, 21, and vi. 14, ^5, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18. 
 
 (6.) They seem to ham had in a considerahle measure, the disposal 
 of their own time, — Ex, xxiii. 4, and iii. 16, 18, and xii. 0, and ii. 9, 
 
 * The Egyptians eviden'ly had domenic servants living in their families ; these may liave 
 i)een slaves; allusion is made to them in Exodus ix. 14, 20, 21. But none of the Israelites 
 were included in this class. 
 
 \ The land of Goshen was alarge 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 pro- 
 bable centre of that portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly have been less than CU 
 miles from the city. From the best authorities, it would seem that the extreme western 
 boundary of Goshen must have been many miles distant from Egypt. See " E.xodus of the 
 Israelites out < f Egypt," an able article by Professor Robinson, m the Biblic-jl Kepositoryfor 
 October, 1832. 
 
 6 
 
44 
 
 and iv. 27, 29—31. Also (o have practised the fine ait>. Ex. xxxii. 
 4, and xxxv. 32 — 35. 
 
 (7,) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii. 27. 
 
 (8.) All the females seem to have known something of domestic re- 
 fincments ; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in 
 the working of fine fairies. Ex. xv. 20, and 35, 36. 
 
 (9.) They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians 
 seem to have regarded them as inviolable. This we infer from the fact 
 that there is no intimation 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. 
 
 (10.) Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. 
 Nothing is said from vvhich the bond service of females could be infer- 
 red ; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment 
 ol 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 had great variety. " They sat by the flesh-pots," and 
 " did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3, and xxiv. 1, and xvii. 5, and 
 iv. 29, and vi. 14. Also, " they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, 
 and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5, and x, 
 18, and xx. 5. 
 
 (12.) That the great body of the people ivere not in the service of the 
 Egyptians, we infer (1) from the fiict, that 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 bave fur- 
 nished constant employment for the main body of the nation. 
 
 (2.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that " all the 
 cliildrea of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they 
 were there to enjoy it. 
 
 (3.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service 
 named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have fur- 
 nished 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. 
 
45 
 
 Probably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites for one- 
 fifth part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon the Egyptians. 
 See Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it out of their c;-o;;*, (Goshen 
 being better for pasturage than crops) they exacted it of them in brick 
 making ; and it is quite probable that only the poorer Israelites were re- 
 quired to work for the Egyptians at all, the wealthier being iible to pay 
 their tribute, in money. See Exod. iv. 27 — 31. 
 
 This was the bondage in Egypt. Contrast it 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 ? Do 
 they " sit by thejlesh-pots," " eat fish freely," and " cat Iread to the 
 full?" Do they live in a separate community, at a distance from their 
 masters, in their distinct tribes, under their own rulers and officers? 
 Have they the exclusive occupation of an extensive and fertile tract of 
 country for the culture of their own crops, and for rearing immense 
 herds of their own cattle — and all these held independently of their 
 masters, and regarded by them as inviolable? Are our female slaves 
 free from all exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage ? — and when- 
 ever employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman, 
 when employed by the king's daughter? Exod. ii. 9. Have the fe- 
 males entirely, and the males to a considerable extent, the disposal of 
 their own time ? Have they the means for cultivating social refine. 
 ments, for practising the fine arts, and for intellectual and moral im- 
 provement ? 
 
 The Israelites, under the bondage of Egypt, enjoyed all 
 THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. True, '• their lives were made bitter, 
 and all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor." 
 But what was that, 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" — ;he " quart of corn a-day," 
 the legal allowance of food !* — their onZi/ clothing iov one half the year, 
 "one shirt a.id one pair of pantaloons !"f — the two hours and a half only 
 for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four !:j: — their dwellings, hovels, 
 unfit for human residence, commonly with but one apartment, where 
 both sexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of 
 
 * The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524—5, 
 
 t The law of Louisiana. See Martia'a Digest, 610. 
 
 t The wliole amount of time secured lo slaves by the law of Louisiana. ee Act of July 7, 
 1806. Martin's Digest, 610—12. 
 
46 
 
 the field. Add to this, the mental ignorance, and moral degradation ; 
 the daily separations of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations 
 and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by the laws of the South, and patron- 
 ized by its public sentiment. What, we ask, 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 pridcj 
 knew her no more. Ah ! "I haiie seen the affiictions of my people, and 
 I have heard their groanings, and mil come doion 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 wor-' 
 thy, who cloak with religion, a system, in comparison with which the 
 bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? 
 
 Let those believe who can, that God gave his people permission to 
 hold human beings, robbed of all their rights, while he threatened them 
 with wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the far lighter oppression 
 of Egypt — which robbed its victims of only the least and cheapest of 
 their rights, and left the /c/na/^^ unplundered even of these. What! 
 7* God divided against himeslf? 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 Laugiver, did he create 
 a system tenfold more grinding than that, for which he had just hurled 
 Pharaoh headlong, and cloven down his princes, and overwhelnled his 
 hosts, and blasted them with His thunder, till " hell was moved to meet 
 them at their coming V 
 
 Having touched upon the general topics which we design to include 
 in this Inquiry, we proceed to examine various Scripture facts and pas. 
 sages, which will doubtless be set in array against the foregoing con-- 
 elusions. 
 
47 
 
 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 
 
 Theadvocaf.es of slavery are always at their wits end when they 
 try to press the Bible into their service. Every movement shows that 
 they are hard-pushed. Their odd conceits and ever varying shifts, their 
 forced constructions, lacking even plausibility, their bold assumptions, 
 and blind guesswork, not only proclaim their cmise desperate, but 
 themselves. Some of the Bible defences thrown around slavery by 
 ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense. Scripture, and 
 historical fact, that it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, igno- 
 rance, 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 set up in type, that the color of the' negro is 
 the Cain-mark, propagated downward. Doubtless Cain's posterity started 
 an opposition to the ark, and rode out the flood with flying streamers ! 
 Why should not a miracle be wrought lo point such an argument, and 
 fill out for slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God 
 to men ? 
 
 Objection 1. " Cursed le Canaan, a servant of servants shall he he 
 unto his brethren." Gen. i. 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 occa- 
 sion — a keepsake to dote over — a charm to spell-bind opposition, and a 
 magnet to attract " whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie." 
 But closely as they cling to it, "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to 
 stupify a throbbing conscience — a mocking lullaby, vainly wooing slum- 
 ber to unquiet tossings, and crying " Peace, be still," where God wakes 
 war, and breaks his thunders. 
 
 Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, as. 
 sume all the points in debate. 
 
 1. That the condition prophesied was slavery, rather than the mere 
 rendering of service to others, and that it was the bondage oHndividuals 
 rather than the condition of a nation trilmtary to another, and in that 
 sense its servant. 
 
 2. That the prediction oC crime justifies it ; that it grants absolution 
 to those whose crimes fulfil it. if it does not transform the crimes into 
 virtues. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted God's prophe- 
 cy to Abraham, " Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall afflict 
 thein for four hundred years." And then, what saints were those thai; 
 crucified the Lord of glory ! 
 
48 
 
 3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa 
 was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and Mizraim settled Egypt, and 
 Cush, Ethiopia. See Gen. x. 15 — 19, for the location and boundaries 
 of Canaan's posterity. So on the assumption that African slavery ful- 
 fils the prophecy, a curse pronounced upon one people, is quoted to 
 justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may oe argued that Ca- 
 naan includes all Ham's fosterity. If so, the prophecy has not been 
 fulfilled. The other sons of flam settled the Egyptian and Assyrian 
 empires, and conjointly with Shem the Persian, and afterward, fo some 
 extent, the Grecian and Roman. The history of these nations gives 
 no verification of the prophecy. Whereas the history of Canaan's de- 
 scendants, for more than three thousand years, is a record of its fulfil- 
 ment. First, they were made tributaries by the Israelites. Then Ca- 
 naan was the servant of Shem. Afterward, by the Medes and Persians. 
 Then Canaan was the servant of Shem, and in part of the other sons of 
 Ham. Afterward, by the Macedonians, Grecians, and Romans, suc- 
 cessively. Then Canaan was the servant of Japhet, mainly, aud se- 
 condarily of the other sons of Ham. Finally, they were subjected by 
 the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan is now 
 the servant of Shem and Japhet and the other sons of Ham. 
 
 But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one named 
 in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was pronounced 
 upon the posterity of Ham in general. ^' And Ham, the father of Ca- 
 naan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren with- 
 out." — Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their father 
 with a garment. Verse iJ4, " And Noah aiooke from his loine, and 
 knew what his vounger son had done unto him, and said," &c. 
 
 It is argued that this younger son cannot be Canaan, as he was not 
 the S071, but the grandson of Noah, and therefore it must be Ham. We 
 answer, whoever that " younger son" was, or whatever he did, Canaan 
 alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word Ben, signifies 
 son, grandson, great-grandson, or any one of the posterity of an indi- 
 vidual- Gen. xxix. 5, " And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the 
 SON of Nahor ?" Yet Laban was the grandson of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 
 15, 29. In 2 Sam. xLx. 24, it is said, " Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, 
 came down to meet the kirig." But Mephibosheth was the son of Jona- 
 than, and the grandson of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. '■'•There 
 is a SON born to Naomi." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in- 
 law of Naomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "Let seven men 
 of his {SauVs) SONS be delivered unto us," &c. Seven of Saul's 
 
49 
 
 grandsons were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, 
 " And hast not suff'ered me to kiss my sons and my daughters ;" and in 
 the 55tli verse, " And earl j m the morning Laban rose up and kissed his 
 SONS," &c. These were his grandsons. So 2 Kings ix. 20, " The 
 driving of JJiu, the son of Nimshi.^^ So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu 
 was ihe grandson of Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the 
 inspired writer to use the same word when speaking of Noah's grandson ? 
 
 Further, if Ham were meant, what propriety in calling him the younger 
 son ? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes 
 Ham the second, and not the younger son. If it be s^id that Bible usage 
 is variable, and that the order of birth is not always preserved in enume- 
 rations ; the reply is, that, enumeration in the order of birth, is the rule, in 
 any other order the Pa;cpp/?on. Besides, if the younger member of a 
 family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark 
 of pre-eminence, either in original endowments, or providential instru- 
 mentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest bro- 
 ther, and probably the j'oungest of Terah's sons, stands first in the family 
 genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history warrants the idea of his pre-emi- 
 nence ; besides, the Hebrew word Hakkaton, rendered younger, means 
 the liUle, small. The same word is used in Isaiah xl. 22. "A little one 
 shall become a thousand." Also in Isaiah xxii. 24. "All vessels of suali, 
 quantity." So Psalms ex v. 13. '■'■He will blrss them that fear the Lord, 
 both SMALL and great" Also Exodus xviii. 22. " jBui every small mat' 
 ter they shall judge." It would bo a perfectly literal rendering of Gen. 
 ix. 24, if it were translated thus, " when Noah knew what his little son,* 
 or grandson [Beno hakkaton) had done unto him, he said, cursed be Ca- 
 naan," <*cc. 
 
 Even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption 
 that their enslavement is a fulfilment of this prophecy, lacks even plausi- 
 biliiy, for, only a mere fraction of the inhabitants of Africa have at any one 
 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 an- 
 svver, 1st. It is false in jjoinl of fact, though zealously bruited often to 
 serve a turn. 2d. 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 Mmself ! 
 
 * The French language in this respect follows tiie same analogy. Our word grandion being^ 
 in French, pe^ii//^, (little son.) 
 
50 
 
 Objection 1 1. — '^If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, 
 and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding^ 
 ^ he continue a day or tioo, he shall not he punished, for he is his 
 money." Exodus xxi. 20, 21. 
 
 Arguments drawn from l!ie Mosaic system in support of slavery, origi- 
 nate in a misconception both of its genius, as a whole, and of the design 
 and scope of its most sim;)le provisions. The verses quoted above, afford 
 an illustration in point. 
 
 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 offence should not be cajntal ? This is substan- 
 tially what some modern Doctors tell us. What Deity do such men 
 worship ? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, 
 and snuffin Of carnao;e for incense? Did He who thundered out from Si- 
 nai's flames, " Thou shalt not kill," offer a bounty on murder ? Who- 
 ever analyzes the Mosaic system — the condition of the people for whom 
 it was made — their inexperience in government — ignorance of judicial 
 proceedings — laws of evidence, die, will find a moot court in session, 
 trying law points — settling definitions, or laying down rules of evidence, 
 in almost every chapter. Numbers xxxv. 10 — 22 ; Deuteronomy xi. 11, 
 and xix. 4 — 6 ; Leviticus xxiv. 19 — 22 ; Exodus, xxi. 18, 19, are a few, 
 out of many cases stated, with tests furnished by which to detect the intent, 
 in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in the verses quo- 
 ted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the motive oi the action, 
 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 Numbers xxxv. 16, 19. It was 
 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 dies under his hand, then the unfitness of the instru- 
 ment, instead of benng evidence in his favor, is point blank against 
 him ; for, to strike him with a rod until he dies, argues a greai many blows 
 laid on with great violence, and this kept up to the death-gasp, esta. 
 blishes the point of intent to kill. Hence the sentence, " He shall surely 
 be punished." The case is plain and strong. But if he continued a 
 day or two, the length of time that he lived, together with the kind of in- 
 strument used, and the fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in 
 his ///'e, ("he is his money") all, made out a strong case of circumstan- 
 tial evidence, showing that the master did not design to kill ; and re- 
 
51 
 
 quired a corresponding decision and sentence. A single remark on the 
 word "punished :" in Exodus xxi. 20, 21, the Hebrew word here ren- 
 dered pun/shed, (Nakam,) is not .so rendered in another instance. Yet 
 it occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament — in almost every in- 
 stance, it is translated avenge — in a few, " to take vengeance," or " to re- 
 venge," and in this instance alone, *^ punish." As it stands in our 
 translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the master — the master in 
 the 21st verse, is to be punished, and in the 22d not to be punished; 
 whereas the preceding pronoun refers neither to the master nor to the 
 servant, but to the crime, and the word rendered punished, should have 
 been rendered avenged. The meaning is this : If a man smite his ser- 
 vant or his maid vvith a rod, and he die under his hand, it (the death) 
 shall surely be avenged, or literally, by avenging it shall he 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 shall not be avenged by the death of the master, for in that case 
 the crime was to be adjudged manslaughter, and noi murder, as in the 
 first instance. In the following verse, another case of personal injury 
 is stated, not intentional, nor extending to life or limb, a mere acci- 
 dental hurt, for which the injurer is to pay a sum of money ; and yet our 
 translators employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an in- 
 stance of deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal. The other and acci- 
 dental, and comparatively slight injury — of the mflicter, in both cases, 
 they say the same thing ! "ife shall surely bp punished." Now, just 
 the difference which common sense would expect to find in such cases, 
 where God legislates, is strongly marked in the original. In the case 
 of the servant wilfully murdered, God says, " It (the death) shall surely 
 be avenged," [Nakam,) that is, the life oj 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, whether 
 individuals or communites, to destruction. In the case of the uninten- 
 tional injury, in the following verse, God says, '' He shall surely be" 
 fined, (Aunash.) " He shall pay as the judges determine." The sim- 
 pie meaning of the word Aunash, 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." This is the general use of the word, and its primary 
 signification. That avenging the death of the servant, was neither im- 
 prisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the masjer in damages, but that 
 it was taking the master^s life we infer. 
 
 7 
 
52r 
 
 1. From the Bible usage o^ the word Nakam. See Genesis iv. 24; 
 Joshua X. 13 ; Judges xv. 7 — xvi. 2S ; 1 Samuel xiv. 24 — xviii. 25 — 
 XXV. 31; 2 Samuel iv. 8; Judges v. 2 ; 1 Samuel xxv. 26 — 33, 
 &c. &c. 
 
 2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. 
 17. " He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." Also 
 Numbers 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, hit he shall surely be fut to 
 death." 
 
 3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, " Death by the 
 sword shall assuredly be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem thus, 
 " Vengeance shall be taken for him to the uttermost." Jarchi gives 
 the same rendering. The Samaritan version thus, " He shall die the 
 death." 
 
 Again, the last clause in the 21st verse ("for he is his money") is 
 often quoted to prove i hat the servant is his master's proper/y, and there' 
 fore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. Because, 1st. A 
 man may dispose of his property as he pleases. 2d. U the servant 
 died of the injury, the master's loss was a sufficient punishment. A 
 word about the premises, before we notice the inferences. The as- 
 sumption 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 pro. 
 perty. If the advocates of slavery will take this principle of interpreta- 
 tion into the Bible, and turn it loose, let them either give bonds for its 
 behavior, or else stand and draw in self-defence, " lest it turn again and 
 rend" them. If they endorse for it at one point, they must st^nd spon- 
 sors all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter when 
 they find its stroke clearing the whole table, and tilting 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, and iron, and lead;" '• this 
 is life eternal, that they might know thee ;" "this (the water of the well 
 of Bethlehem) is the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their 
 lives ;" " I am the lily of the valleys ;" "a garden enclosed is my sis- 
 ter;" " my tears have been my meat ;" "the Lord God is a sun and a 
 shield;" "God is love;" "the Lord w my rock;" "the seven good 
 ears are seven years, and the seven good kine are seven years ;" " the 
 seven thin and ill-favored kine are seven years, and the seven empty- 
 ears blasted by the east wind shaV he seven years of famine;" "hs 
 
B3 
 
 shall he head, and thou shall be tail ;" " the Lord will be a wall of fire ;'"* 
 ♦' they shall be one flesh ;" " the tree of the field is man's hfe ;" " God 
 is a consuming fire ;" " he is his money," &c. A passion for the exact 
 "lUeraUties of Bible language 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. 
 
 Who in his senses believes that in the expression, " He is his money,'" 
 the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a chattel? 
 The obvious meaning is, he is loortk money to his master, and since, if 
 the master killed him, it would take money out of his pocket, the pecu- 
 niary loss, the kind of instrument used, and the fact of his living some 
 time after the injury, (as, if the master meant to kill, he would be likely 
 to do it while about it,) all together make out a strong case of presump- 
 tive 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. 
 Answer. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or continued 
 a day or two, he was equally his master's property, and the objector 
 admits that in i\\e first cs&e 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 sufficent punishment for inflicting the injury 
 which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false to 
 its own principles. A pecuniary loss, constituted no part of the claims 
 of the law, where a person took the life of another. In such case, the law 
 utterly spurned money,however large the sum. God would not so cheapen 
 human life, as to balance it with such a weight. " Ye shalltakc no satisfac- 
 tion for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death." See 
 Numb. XXXV. 31. Even in excusable homicide, a case of death purely no- 
 cidental, as where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum 
 ofmoney availed to i-elease from confinement in the city of refuge, until 
 the death of the High Priest. Numbers xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the 
 loss of the servant would be a penalty adequate to the desert of the mas» 
 ter, admits the master's guilt — his desert of some punishment, and it pre- 
 scribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where 
 man look the life of man, whether with or without intent to kill. • In 
 
54 
 
 5hort, the objector annuls an integral part of the system — resolves hinr- 
 self into a legislature, with power in the premises, makes a netv law, 
 and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit, both in kind and 
 quantity. JVIosaic statutes amended, and Divine legislation revised and 
 improved ! 
 
 The master who struck out the tooth of a servant, whether inten- 
 tionally or not, was required to set him free for his tooth's sake. The 
 pecuniary loss to the master was the same as though the servant had 
 died. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so severely, 
 that after a day or two he dies of his wounds ; another master acci- 
 dentally strikes out his servant's tooth, and bis servant is free — the pe- 
 cuniary loss of both masters is the same. The objector contends that 
 the loss of the slave's services in the first case, is punishment sufficient 
 for the crime of killing iiim ; yet God commands the same punishment 
 for even the accidental knocking out of a tooth ! Indeed, unless the in- 
 jury was done inadvertently, the loss of the servant's services is only a 
 part of the punishment — mere reparation to the individual for injury 
 done ; Xhemain punisliment, that &{nc\\y judicial, was, reparation to the 
 communily for injury to one of its members. 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." '■''Ifa man 
 cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto 
 him. Breach far breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth ; as he hath caused 
 a blemish in a man, so shall it he done to him again. Ye shall have one 
 manner of law as well for the stkanger as for one of your oicn coun- 
 try." Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out the tooth 
 of a servant, ihe law smote out his tooth — thus redressing the jaw^Zj'c 
 wrong ; and it cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus 
 giving some compensation for the injury done, and exempting him from 
 perilous liabilities in future. 
 
 Objectiok IIL Both thy bondmen and bondmaids vfliich thou shall 
 have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye 
 huy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the stran- 
 gers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their fami. 
 ■lies that are icith you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be 
 your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your 
 children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your 
 i^ndinen forever. Lev. xxv. 44 — 46. 
 
55 
 
 The points in these verses, urged as proof, that tlie Mosaic system 
 sanctioned slavery, are 1. The v^'ord " Bondmeh." 2. "Buy." 3. 
 '' Inheritance AND POSSESSION." 4. "Forever." 
 
 The second point, the buying of servants, lias been already discussed, 
 see page 15. And a part of the third (holding servants as a " posseS- 
 sion." See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is 
 derivable from the terms "'bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever." 
 
 I. Bondmen. The fact that servants from the heathen arc 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 divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. 
 The word rendered bondmen, in this passage, is the sajne word uniform. 
 ly rendered servants elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentile 
 servants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word 
 " Ebed," the plural of which is here translated " bo7idmen." In Isaiah 
 xlu. 1, the same word is applied to Christ. " Behold my servant (bond- 
 man, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul de- 
 lighteth." So Isaiah lii. 13. "Behold my servant (Christ) shall deal 
 prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to King Rehoboam. "And 
 they (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a servant 
 (Ebed) unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer thern, 
 and wilt speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for- 
 ever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, it is applied to the king and all the 
 nation. In iine, the word is applied to all persons doing service to 
 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 ffty times in the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had 
 their language no word that meant slave ? If Abraham had thousands, 
 and if they aboundedm\^ex the Mosaic system, why had they no such 
 word as slave or slavery ? 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, proper/^^, and the 02i)ner of that property, is a solecism. Ziba 
 was an " Ebed," yet he " oivned''^ (!) twenty Ebeds. In English, we 
 have both the words 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 dic» 
 
56 
 
 lionaries give us aone. Why ? Because there is no such //i«?o'. Bui 
 the objector asks, " Would not the Israelites use their word Ebed if they 
 spoke of the slave of a heathen ?" Answer. The servants of Individ- 
 uals among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. National ser- 
 vants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently , but so rarely are their 
 domestic servants alluded to, no necessity existed^ even if they were 
 slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domes. 
 tics, under heathen laws and usages, proclaimed their liabilities ; their 
 locality told their condition ; so that in applying to them the word Ebed, 
 there would be no danger of being misunderstood. But if the Israelites 
 had not only servants, but besides these, a multitude oi slaves, a word 
 meaning slave, would have been indispensable for purposes of every 
 day convenience. Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many 
 sentinels on every side, to warn off foreign practices. The border 
 ground of Canaan, was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non- 
 intercourse between the without and the loithin, not o^ j^ersons, but of 
 usages. The fact that the Hebrew language had no words correspond- 
 ing to slave and slavery, though not a conclusive argument, is no slight 
 corroborative. 
 
 II. " Forever." — " They shall be your bondmen 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 woxA 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 Is- 
 raelites; and 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 of the Hebrew 
 words, which, in our version, are translated, " They shall be your bond- 
 men forever." 
 
 This construction is in keepmg with the whole of the passage. " Both 
 thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the 
 heathen (the nations) that are round about you. Of them shall ye buy 
 bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers 
 that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy," &c. The design 
 of this 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, 
 
57 
 
 and the way in which they were to get them. 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, " They 
 shall be your possession. Ye shall take tliem as an inheritance for your 
 children to inherit them for a possession." To say nothing of the un- 
 certainty of these individuah surviving tliose after whom they are to 
 live, the language used, applies more naturally to a body of people, than 
 to individual servants. 
 
 But suppose it otherwise ; still perpetual service could not be argued 
 from the term ybrever. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chap, 
 ter, limit it absolutely by the jubilee. " Then shalt thou cause the trum- 
 pet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month : in the 
 day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your 
 land." " And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty 
 throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof' 
 
 It may be objected that " inhabitants" here means Israelitish inhabit, 
 ants 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 the Sabbath of the 
 land shall be meet for you — [For whom ? For you Israelites only ?] 
 —for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired 
 servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth with thee." 
 
 Further, in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, 
 the strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promised 
 blessings. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day of 
 atonement. What was the design of »hese institutions ? 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 Jetos only ? Were they the types of sins remitted, and of salvation, 
 [)roclaimed to the nation of i.5me/ aloPiC ? 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 ihe shock, that made earth 
 quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple 
 vail ? And did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition 
 from its frowning battlements on all w ithout ? 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 
 
58 
 
 servants from the Gentiles, makes Christianity Judaism. It not only 
 echpses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal to 
 release servants at the sound of the jubilee trumpet, falsified and disan- 
 nulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and thus libelled the doc- 
 trine of Christ's redemption. 
 
 Finally, even li forever did refer to the length oi individual service, 
 we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The 
 same word is used to define the length of time for which those Jewish 
 servants were held, who refused to go out in the seventh year. And all 
 admit that their term of service did not go beyond 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,/or the land is inine^' — as it would hardly be used in dif- 
 ferent senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeat that 
 ybreuer respects the duration of the ^enemZ arrangement, and not that 
 of individual service. Consequently, it is not affected by the jubilee ; so 
 the objection does not touch the argument. But it may not be amiss 
 to show that it is equally harmless against any other argument drawn 
 from the use of forever in the 46th verse, — for the word there used, is 
 Olam, meaning throughout the period, whatever that may be. Whereas 
 in the 23d verse, it is Tsemithuth, meaning cutting off, or to be cut 
 
 off- 
 
 III. "Inheritance and possession." — " Ye shall take them as an 
 INHERIT ANCE 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. ^^osse^s\ou, and inheritance ; that they became 
 servants of their own accord, and were paid wages ; that they were re- 
 leased 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. Now, truly, all remaining, after these ample reservations, would 
 be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre. What a 
 profitable " possession" and "inheritance!" What if our American 
 slaves were all placed in just such a condition ! Alas, for that soft, me- 
 lodious circumlocution, " Our peculiar species of property !" Truly, 
 emphasis is cadence, and euphonyand irony have met together ! 
 
 What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective 
 lOf connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations .of 
 
59 
 
 ineaning hy other passages — and all to eke out sych a sense as accord? 
 with existing usages and sanctifies them, thus making God pander for 
 their lusts. Little matter whether the meaning of the word be primary 
 or secondary, literal or figurative, provided it sustains their practices. 
 
 But let us inquire whether the words rendered "inherit" and "inher- 
 itance," when used m the Old Testament, necessarily point out the 
 things inherited and possessed as articles of property. Nahal and Na. 
 hala — inherit and inheritance. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. " The people 
 answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and we 
 have none inheritance in the son of Jesse." Did they mean gravely to 
 disclaim the holding of tlieir king as an article of property 1 Psalms 
 cxxvii. 3 — " Lo, children are an heritage (inheritance^ of the Lord." 
 Exodus xxxiv. 9 — " Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for 
 thine inheritance.^' When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them 
 as his children, does he make them articles of property 1 Are forgive- 
 ness, and chattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. Ill — "Thy tes- 
 timonies have I taken as a heritage (inheritance) forever." Ezekiel 
 xliv. 27, 28 — " And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto 
 the inner court to minister in the sanctuary, he shall otfer his sin-offering, 
 saith the Lord God. And it shall be unto them for an inheritance; I 
 am their mAen'tance." Psalms ii. 8 — "Ask of me, and I will give thee the 
 heathen for thine m/jer//rtV7ce." Psalms xciv. 14 — "For the Lord will 
 not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance." See 
 also Deuteronomy iv. 20 ; Joshua xiii, 83 ; Chronicles x. IQ ; Psalms 
 Iwcxii. 8, and Ixxviii. 62, 71 ; Proverbs xiv .8. 
 
 The question whether the servants were a profet^jy-" possession,^* 
 has been already discussed — (See p. 36) — we need add in this place 
 but a word. Ahusa rendered ^'•possession." Genesis xlii. 11 — "And 
 Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession 
 in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as 
 Pharaoh had commanded." 
 
 In what sense was the land of Goshen the possession of the Israelites 1 
 Answer, In the sense of, having it to live in. In what sense were the 
 Israelites to j^ossess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for 
 their children ? We 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 — a 
 national usage respecting them, having the certainty and regularity of a 
 descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be 
 given thus : " Thy permanent domestics, both male and female, which 
 
 8 
 
60 
 
 thou shall have, shall beofthe nations that are round about you, of </je??« 
 shall ye get male and female domestics." " Moreover of the children of 
 the foreigners that do sojourn among you, o^ 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," (for household servants.) "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." 
 
 Objection IV. " If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, 
 and he sold unto thee, thou shall not compel him to serve as a bond-ser- 
 vant, hut as an hired-servant, and as a sojourner shall he be- with 
 thee, and shall serve thee mito the year of jubilee.'''' Lev. xxv. 39, 40. 
 
 From the fact that only one class of the servants is called hired, it is 
 sagely inferred that servants of the other class were not paid for their 
 labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas against those who 
 " used their neighbor's service without wages''' he granted a special 
 indulgence to his chosen people to seize persons, force them 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 tlie common people. The inference that 
 "/jiretZ" is synonimous 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, as every one knows, 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 Hebr&w 
 v/ord " Saukar." Temporary service, and generally for a sjiecific ob- 
 ject, is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when the pro- 
 curement o'l permanent service, for a long period, is spoken of. Now, 
 we ask, would permanent servants, those who constituted an integral 
 and stationary part of the family, have been designated by the same 
 term that marks temporary servants 1 The every-day distinctions made 
 on this subject, are as familiar as table-talk. In many families, the do- 
 meslics perform only such labor, as every day brings along with it — the 
 regular work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the washing of a 
 family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose. In such 
 families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is "servants," 
 or " domestics," and " hired help," (not 2>cf?VZ help.) Both classes are 
 paid. One is perrnanent, the other occasional and temporary, and 
 therefore in ^bis case called " hired." To suppose a servant robbed 
 of his earnings, because when spoken of, he is not called a hired ser. 
 
61 
 
 Vant, is profound induction ! If I employ a man at twelve dollars a 
 month to work my farm, he is iny ^' hired" man, but if, instead of giving 
 him so much a month, I give him such a portion of the crop, or in other 
 words, if he works my farm " on shares," he is no longer my hired 
 man. Every farmer knows that that designation is not applied to him. 
 Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same times, and 
 with the same teams and tools ; and does the same amount of work in 
 the year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month, instead of the 
 twelve, paid him while he was my hired laborer. Now, as the technic 
 " hired" is no longer used to designate him, and as he still labors on my 
 farm, suppose my neighbors gather in conclave, and from such ample 
 premises sagely infer, that since he is no longer my " hired" laborer, I 
 roh him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of owls, they record 
 their decision, and adjourn to hoot it abroad. My neighbors are deep 
 divers ! — like some theological professors, they not only go to the hot- 
 torn, but come up covered with the tokens. 
 
 A variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, distinguishing /u>e(Z 
 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" sei'vants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being 
 called, bought,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a 
 gratuity at the close of their period of service. Deut. xv. 12 — 13. (2.) 
 The hired servant was paid in money, the bought servant received his 
 gratuity, at least, in grain, cattle, and the product of the vmtage. Deut. 
 xiv. 17. (3.) The hired servani lived by hiiiiself, in his own family.. 
 The JoM^^^ servant was a part of his master's family. (4.) The hired 
 servant supported his family out of his wages ; the bought servant and 
 his family, were supported by the master besides his wages, 
 
 A careful investigation of the condition of " hired" and of "bought'' 
 servants, shows that the latter were, as a class, superior to the former-^ 
 were more trust -worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied in every 
 respect (oi/ier things being equal) a higher station in society. (1.) 
 They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master. They 
 were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which hired 
 servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2.) Their 
 interests were far more identified with the general interests of their mas. 
 iers^ family. Bought servants were often actually, or prospectively^ 
 heirs of their master's estate. Witness the case ofEliezer, of Ziba, of 
 the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah, and others. When there were no sons 
 to inherit the estate, or when, by unwortkiness, they had forfeited their 
 
title, bought servants were made heirs. Proverbs xvii. 2. We find 
 traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But when the husband- 
 men saw him, they reasdned among themselves, saying, this is the heir, 
 come let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.'' Luke xx. 14 J 
 also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a hired servant 
 inherit his master's estate. (3.) Marriages took place between servants 
 and their master's daughters, " Now Sheshan had no sons, but daugh. 
 ters : and 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 seem to have been regard- 
 ed with the same affection and respect as the other members of the fami- 
 ly * The treatment of Eliezer, and the other servants in the family of 
 Abraham, Gen. chap. 25 — the intercourse between Gideon and his ser- 
 vant Phurah, Judges vii. 10, 11. and Saiil and his servant, in their in- 
 terview with Samuel, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22 ; and Jonathan and his servant, 
 1 Sam. xiv. 1 — 14, and Elislia and his servant Gehazi, are illustrations: 
 No such tie seems to have existed between hired servants and their mas- 
 ters. Their untrustvvorthiness seems to have been proverbial. See 
 John ix. 12, 13. 
 
 None but the lowest class seem to have engaged as hired servants. 
 No instance occurs in which they are assigned to business demanding 
 much knowledge or skill. Various passages show the low repute and 
 trifling character of the class from which they were hired. Judges ix. 
 4 ; 1 Sam. ii. 5. 
 
 The superior condition and privileges of bought servants, are mani- 
 fested in the high trusts confided to them, and in the dignity and author- 
 ity with which they were clothed in their master's household. But in no 
 instance is a hired servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the 
 bought servant is manifestly the master's representative in the family — 
 with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even negotiating mar- 
 riage for them. Abraham besought Eliezer his servant, to take a 
 solenm oath, that he would not take a wife for Isaac of the daugh- 
 ters of the Canaanites, but from Abraham's kindred. The ser: 
 
 * The following is Maimonides' testimony to the condition of the purchased servant. " For 
 the purchased servant who is an Israelite, or proselyte, shall fare as his master. The mas- 
 ter shall not eat fine bread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give 
 kis servant new ; nor s;eep 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 virill prove 
 to his employer as if he got himself a nriaster."— Maimonides, in Mishha Kiddu.shim. Chap' 
 'tet 1st, Sec. 2. 
 
63 
 
 Vant went accordingly, and /tmse/f selected the individual. Servants 
 also exercised discretionary power in the management of their master's 
 estate, " 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 Abraliam's direc- 
 tion, 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 Zibain the house of Mephiboseth, is a case 
 in point. So is Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to 
 be found in the New Testament, Math. 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 considerable capital. One of them could 
 not have had less than eight thousand dollars. The parable of the un- 
 just steward is another illustration. Luke xvi. 4, 8. He evidently was 
 entrusted with large discretionary [lovver, was " accused of wasting his 
 master's goods." and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the 
 terms of settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in hired servants. 
 The inferior condition a? 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 imploringly, " Make me as 
 one of thy hired servants." It need not be remarked, that if /wVecZ ser- 
 vants were the superior class ; to apply for the situation, and press the 
 suit, 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 an unchiding welcome ; and on the other, the contri- 
 tion of the penitent, turning homeward with tears, from his wan- 
 derings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert, he sobs aloud, 
 " The lowest place, the lowestplace, I can abide no other." Or in those 
 inimitable words, ^^ Father, 1 have sinned against Heaven, and in thy 
 sight, and am no more icortky to he called thy son ; make me as one of 
 thy HIRED servants.'''' The supposition that lured 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 o''--^- 
 
64 
 
 inembers of the family. (Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal-, 
 iv. 1, ^'■Noiv Isay unloyou, that the heir, so long as he is a child, dif- 
 ?ERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he bc lord of all.") If this 
 were the hired class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of humility. 
 Would our Lord have put such language, into the lips of one held up 
 by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its lowliness, its 
 conscious destitution of all merit, and deep sense of all ill desert? If 
 this is humility, put it on stilts, and set it a strutting, while pride takes 
 lessons, and blunders in npeing it. 
 
 Here lot it be observed, that both 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, were in 
 higher estimation, and rose to honors and authority in the family circle, 
 which were not conferred on hired servsinis, has been already shown. It 
 should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely 
 political and national, the hired servants from the Israelites, were more 
 favored than either the hired, or 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 disa- 
 bility 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 with- 
 in walled towns, most of them would choose to attach themselves per- 
 manently to Israelitish families. Those Strangers who were wealthy, 
 or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, 
 would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the 
 Strangers to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than per- 
 sons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers 
 would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. See Levit. 
 XXV. 47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, 
 the Jewish polity furnished a strong motive to them, to become servants, 
 thus incorporating themselves with the nation, and procuring those 
 social and religious privileges already enumerated, and for their chil- 
 dren in the second generation, a permanent inheritance. (This last 
 was a regulation of later date. Ezekiel xlvii. 21 — 23.) Indeed, the 
 
 * Both classes may with propriety be called permanent servants ; even the bought Israelite, 
 when his six-years' service is contrasted with the brief term of the hired servant. 
 
65 
 
 structure of the whole Mosaic poUty, was a virtual bounty offered ta 
 those who would become permanent servants, and merge in the Jew- 
 ish system their distinct nationality. None but the monied aristocracy 
 among them, would be likely to decline such offers. 
 
 For various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from the Stran- 
 gers,) would prefer a long service. They would thus more effectually 
 become absorbed into the) national circulation, and identify their in- 
 terests with those in whose gift were all tilings desirable for them- 
 selves, and brighter prospects for their children. On the other hand, 
 the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a sort 
 of 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. II.»ace, to forego the possession of one's inheritance, 
 o/'ite?' ihe division of the paternal domain, or tube restraiiaed from its 
 control, after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to be borne< 
 To mitigate, as much as possible, such a calamity, the law, instead of 
 requiring the Israelite to continue a servant until the jubilee, released 
 him at the ead of six years,* 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 
 these contingencies had not occurred, then, at the end of another six 
 years, the opportunity was again offered, and in the same manner until 
 the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the Israelite, to discontinue 
 his service as soon as the exigency had passed, which induced him to 
 become a servant, every consideration impelled the St?-anger ioprolong 
 his term of service ; and the same kindness which dictated the law o^ 
 six years' service for the Israelite, assigned, as the general rule, a much 
 longer period to the Gentile servant, who, instead of beirg tempted to a 
 brief service, had every inducement to protract the term. 
 
 It is important to a clear understanding of the whole subject, to keep 
 in mind, that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a tempora- 
 ry expedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to 
 
 * Another rcas n for protraclins the service until tlie seventh year, seems to have been, 
 its coincidence with otlier arrangements, and provisions, inseparable from the Jewish econo- 
 my. Th:tt period, was a favorite one in the Mosaic system. Its pecuniary responsibilities, 
 social relations, and general internal structure, if not ^ra(i«a<c(Z upon a septennial scale, were 
 variously modifiBd by the lapse of that period. Another reason doubtless was, that as those 
 Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, except as a last 
 resort, wlien other expedients to recruit their finances had failed — (See Lev. xxv. 35) — their 
 becoming s-'ri-anfs proclaimed such a state of Iheir affairs, as demanded the labor of a course of 
 years fully to reinstato them. 
 
66 
 
 be such when that object w&s 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. It was 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 employ, 
 ment, pursued not merely as a means of bettering their own condition, 
 and prospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an e?id for its 
 own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not 
 otherwise attainable. 
 
 We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the hea- 
 then, are called by way of distinction, the servants, (not bondmen, as 
 our translators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a permanent busi- 
 ness. (2.) Their term of service was 7nuch longer than that of the other 
 class. (3.) As a class, they doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israel- 
 itish servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land, were tribu- 
 taries to the Israelites — required to pay an annual tribute to the govern- 
 ment, either in money, or in public service, which was called a "tribute 
 of bondservice ;'^ in other words, all the Strangers were national ser. 
 vants, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word which is used to de- 
 signate individual servants, equally designates national servants or tri- 
 butaries. 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. See 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judges iii. 8, 14. Gen. xlix. 15. 
 Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought servants, 
 claims notice. It was in the kitids of service assigned to each class. 
 The servants from the Strangers, were properly the domestics, or house- 
 hold servants, employed in all family work, in offices of personal attend- 
 ance, and in such mechanical labor, as was constantly required in every 
 family, by increasing wants, and needed repairs. On the other hand, 
 the Jewish bought servants seem to have been almost exclusively agri. 
 cultural. Besides being better fitted for this by previous habits — agri- 
 culture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as 
 the most honorable of all occupations ; kings engaged in them. 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" when Elijah threw 
 his mantle upon him. 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah " loved hus- 
 bandrv." 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon, the deliverer of Israel, was 
 
07 
 
 " threshing wheat by the wfnc press" when called to lead the host 
 against the Midianitcs. Judges vi. 11. The superior honorableness of 
 agriculture, is shown by the ftict, that it was protected and supported ly 
 I he fundamental law of the theocracy — God thus indicating it as the 
 chief prop of the government, and putting upon it peculiar honor. An 
 inheritance of land seemsi to have filled out an Israelite's idea of worldly 
 furnishment. They were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they 
 cling to it. To he agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was, in 
 their notions, the basis of family consequence, and the grand claim to 
 honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a Jewish em- 
 ployment, to assign a native Israelite to other employments as aiusiness, 
 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 degradmg. 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 anniliilated a visible distinction between the descendants of 
 AI)rahaiM and the Strangers — a distinction vital to the system, and glo- 
 ried in by overy Jew. 
 
 To guard tlus and another fundamental distinction, God instituted the 
 regulation contained in Levilicus xxv. 39, which stands at the head of 
 this branch of our inquiry, "i/" thy brother that dwelleth hy thee he 
 waxen poor, and he sold unto thee, thou shall not compel him to serve as a 
 hond-scrvant.''' In other words, thou shalt not put him to servants' 
 work — to the husiness, and into the condition oi domestics. 
 
 In the Persian version it is translated thus, " Thou shalt not assio^n 
 to him the work of servitude,'^ (or menial labor.) In the Septuagint 
 thus, " He shall not serve thee with the service of a domestic or house- 
 hold servant." In the Syriac thus, " Thou shalt not employ him after 
 the manner of servants." In the Samaritan thus, " Thou shalt not re- 
 quire him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of On- 
 kelos thus, " He shall not serve thee with the service of a household 
 servant." In the Targum of Jonathan thus, "Thou shalt not cause 
 him to serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants.*" In 
 fine, " thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," means, 
 
 * Jarchi's comment on " Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant" is " the He- 
 brew servant is not to be required to do any thing wliich is accounted degrading such as all 
 
 offices of personal attendance, as loosing his master's shoe latchet, bringing him water to 
 ■waah his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying thmgs 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." 
 
 9 
 
68 
 
 tliou shall not assign Jiim to the same grade, nor put him to the same ser- 
 vices, with permanent domestics. 
 
 We pass to the remainder of tlic regulation in the 40th verse : — 
 ^'But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he he 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. Exodus xii. 44, 45 ; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Not being merged 
 in the lamily of his master, the hired servant was not subject to his au- 
 thority, (except in directions about his labor) in any such sense as the 
 master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence the onh^ 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 these privileges in the case stated in the passage 
 under consideration, would have been preeminent rigor; for the case 
 described, is not that of a servant born in the house of a master, nor 
 that of a minor^whose unexpired minority had been sold by the father, 
 neither was it the case of an Israelite, who though of age, had not yet 
 acceded to his inheritance ; nor, finally, was it that of one who had re- 
 ceived the assignment of his inheritance, but was, as a servant, working 
 off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession and con- 
 trol.* But it was that o^the head of a family, who had Hved independ- 
 ently on his own inheritance, and long 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 em- 
 ployment, both for himself and his family. Surely so sad a reverse, 
 might well claim sympathy ; but there remaineth to him one consola- 
 tion, and it cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage. He is an Isra- 
 elite — Ahraham is his father, and now in his calamity he clings closer 
 than ever, to the distinction conferred by the immunities of his birth- 
 richt. 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 u'ith fcculiar 
 rigor. 
 
 * Tlicsc two latter classes are evidently referred to in Excd. x.\i. 1— C, and Deut. xv. 12. 
 
69 
 
 . Finally, the former part of the regulation, " Tiiou shall not compel 
 him to serve as a bond-servant," or more hterally, Ikou shall, not nerve, 
 thyself xoiih him, tcith the service of a servant, guaranties his political 
 privileges, and secures to him a kind and grade of service, comporting 
 with his character and relations as a son of Israel. And the remainder 
 of the verse, "But as a hired servant, and as a sojourner shall he be 
 witii thee," continues and secures to him his separate family organiza- 
 tion, the respect and autliority due to his head, and the general conside- 
 ration in society resulting from such a station. Though this individual 
 was a Jewish bought servant, the case is peculiar, and forms an ex- 
 ception tc the general class of Jewish bought servants. Being al- 
 ready in possession of his inlierilance, and the head of a household, the 
 law so arranged his relations, as a servant, as to rt/Zcv/aie as much as 
 possible the calamity wiiich had reduced him from independence and au- 
 thority, to penury and subjection. 
 
 Having gone so much into detail on this point, comment on the com- 
 mand which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, would be su- 
 perfluous. " Thou shalt not rule over him ivith rigor, hut shall fear thy 
 God," As if it had been said. " In your administration you shall not 
 disregard those differences in previous habits, station, authority, and na- 
 tional and political privileges, upon which this regulation is based ; for 
 to exercise authority over 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 dis. 
 tinction between the servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, 
 and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, so vital to 
 an Israelite as to make the violation ot^ them, rigoi'ous in the extreme ; 
 while to the servants from the Strangers, whose previous habits and as* 
 sociations differed so widely from those of the Israelite, these same 
 things would be deemed slight disabilities. 
 
 It may be remarked here, that the political and other disabilities of 
 the Strangers, which were the distinctions growing out of a different 
 national descent, and important to the preservation of national charac- 
 teristics, and to the purity of national worship, do not seem to have ef- 
 fected at all the social estimation, in which this class of servants was 
 held. They were regarded according to their character and worth as 
 persons, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments, and political 
 condition. 
 
 The common construction put upon the expression, " rule icith rigors" 
 and an inference drawn from it, have an air so oracular, as quite to 
 
70 
 
 overcharge risibles of ordinary c-alibre, if such an cfTect were not fore- 
 stalled by its impiety. It is interpreted to mean, " you shall not make 
 him an article of property, you shall not force him to work, and rob him 
 of his earnings, you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of le- 
 gal protection." So much for the interpretation. The inference is 
 like unto it, viz. Since the command forbade such outrages upon the 
 Israelites, it permitted and commissioned the infliction of tht;m upon the 
 Strangers. Such impious and shallow smattering, captivales two 
 classes of minds, the one by its flippancy, the other by its blasphemy, 
 and both, by the strong scent of its unbridled license. What bools it to 
 reason against such rampant affinities ! 
 
 In Exodus, chnp. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians "made 
 the children of Israel lo serve with rigor," "and all their 5^nv'ce wherein 
 they made them serve, was with rigor." The rigor here spoken of, is 
 affirmed of the amount ofluhor extorted from them, and the mode of the 
 exaction. This form of expression, " serve with rigor,''^ is never ap- 
 plied to the service of servants either under the Patriarclial, or the Mo- 
 saic systems. Nor is any other form of expression ever used, either 
 equivalent to it, or at all similar. The phrase, " thou shalt not rule 
 over him with rigor," used in Leviticus xxv. 43, 46, does not prohibit 
 unreasonable exactions of labor, nor inflictions of personal 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 national and political disabilities as the latter. 
 
 We are now prepared to survey at a glance, the general condition of 
 the different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each 
 class. I. In the possession of all fundamental rights, all classes of 
 servants were on an ahsolute equality, all were equally j^fotected by law 
 in their persons, character, property and social relations. All were 
 voluntary, all were compensated ^or their labor. All were released from 
 their regular labor naarly one half of the days in each year, all were 
 furnished with stated instruction ; none in either class were in any sense 
 articles o( properly, all were regarded as men, with the rights, interests, 
 hopes, and destinies of ?/ie?i. In these respects the circumstances o^ all 
 classes of servants among the Israelites, were not only similar but iden- 
 tical, and so far forth, they formed but one class. 
 II. Different classes of servants. 
 
 1„ Hired Servants. — This class consisted both of Isj-aelites and 
 gtrctngers, Tlieir employments were dilFereut. The Israelite, was an 
 
agricultural servant. The Stranger was a domeslic and personal ser- 
 vant, and in some instances mechanical ; both were occasional, pro- 
 cnrod temporally \.o serve an emergency. Both lived in their own fami- 
 lies, their wages were money, and they were paid when their work was 
 done. As a class of servants, the hired were less loved, trusted, hon- 
 ored and promoted than any other. 
 
 2. Bought Servants, {including tliose ''horn in the house.'") — This 
 class also, was composed botii of Israelites and Strangers, the same ge- 
 neral ditference obtaining in their kinds of employment as was noticed 
 before. Both were paid in advance,* and neither was temporary. 
 
 The Israelitish servant, in most instances, was released after six years. 
 (The freeholder continued until the jubilee.) The Stranger, was a per. 
 inanent servant, continuing until the jubilee. Besides these distinctions 
 between Jewish and Gentile bought servants, a marked distinction ob- 
 tained between different classes oi'Jeivish bought servants. Ordinarily, 
 during their term of service, they were merged in their master's family, 
 and, like the wife and children of ihe master, subject to his authority ; 
 (and of course, like them, protected by law from its abuse.) But one 
 class of the Jewish bought servants was a marked exception. The 
 freeholder, obliged by poverty to leave his possession, and sell himself 
 as a servant, did not thereby affect his family relations, or authority, 
 nor subject himselfas an inferior to the control of his master, though de- 
 pendent upon him for employment, la this respect, his condition dif- 
 fered from that of the main body of Jewish bought servants, which 
 seems to have consisted of those, who had not yet come into possession 
 of their inheritance, or of those who were dislodging from it an incum- 
 brance. 
 
 Having dwelt so much at length on this part of the subject, the reader's 
 patience may well be spared further details. We close it with a sugges- 
 tion or two, which may serve as a solvent of .soine minor difficulties, if 
 such remain. 
 
 * The payment in advance, doubtless lessened considerably the price of the purchase ; th e 
 servant ihiis having the use of the money from the liegmning, and tlie master assuming all the 
 risks of Ufe, and hea'th for labor ; at the expiration of the six years' contract, tlie master bav- 
 ins experienced no loss Irom the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by law to re- 
 lease the servant with a liberal gratuity. Ihe reason assigned for tUs is, "he hath been 
 worth a double hired servant unto thee m serving thee six years," as if it had been said . be has 
 now served out iiis time, and as you have experienced no loss from the riska of life, and ability 
 to labor which you incurred in the purchase, and which lessened the price, and as, by being 
 your permanent servant for six years, he has saved you all the time and trouble of looking up 
 and hiring laborers on emergencies, therefore, "thou shalt furnish him libeially," &c. 
 
72 
 
 I. ll shouM bc3 kept in mind, that hoih cir.sses of servants, the Israel- 
 ite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed equal natural and religious righls, 
 but all the civil aiulj) olitical]irii-iJcges enjoyed by those of their own peo- 
 ple, who were not servants. If Israelites, all rights belonging to Israelites 
 were theirs. If from the Strangers, the same political privileges enjoyed 
 by those wealthy Strangers, who bought and held Israelitish servants, 
 were theirs. They vAao slmrnd in common with them, the political disa- 
 bilities which appertained to all Strangers, whether the servants of Jew- 
 ish masters, or the masters of Jewish servants. 
 
 II. The disabilities of the servants from the Strangers, were exclu- 
 sively poZ/</ca? 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 funda- 
 mental to the prosperity and even to the existence of the state, other em- 
 ployments were in far less repute, and deemed unjewisli. 
 
 Finally, the condition of the Strangers, whether servants or masters, 
 was, as it respected po'iiical privileges, much like that of unnaturalized 
 foreigners in the United States ; no matter how great their wealth or in- 
 telligence, 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, v/ho has always enjoyed these privileges, be suddenly 
 bereft of them, and loaded with the disabilities of an alien, and what to 
 the foreigner would bo alight matter, to him, would be the severity of 
 rigor. 
 
 The recent condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, is a still 
 better illustration of the political condition of the Strangers in Israel. 
 Rothschild, the late Snglish banker, though the richest private citizen in 
 the world, and neihaps master of scores of English servants, who sued 
 for the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the govern, 
 ment, inferior to t!ie veriest scavenger among them. Suppose an En- 
 glishman, of the Established Church, were bv law deprived of power to 
 own the soil, made ineligible to office, and deprived unconditionally of 
 the electoral franchise, would Englishmen tliink it a misapplication of 
 language, if it were said, " The government rules over that man with 
 rigor ?" And yet his life, limbs, property, reputation, conscience, all his 
 social relations, the disposal of his time, the right of locomotion at plea- 
 sure, and of natural liberty in all respects, are just as much protected by 
 law as the Lord Chancellor's. The same was true of all " the stran- 
 
73 
 
 gere within the gates" among the Israehtes : Whether these Strangers 
 were the servants of Israehtish masters, or the masters of Israehtish ser- 
 vants, whether sojourners, or bought servants, or born in the house, or 
 hired, or nei;her — all were proteclcd equally 7cith lite descendants of 
 Abraham. 
 
 Finally — As the iMosaic system was a great compound type, made 
 up of innumerable fractional ones, each 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 sig- 
 nilicancy. Hence, the care everywhere shown to preserve inviolate the 
 distinction between a descendant of Abraham and a Stranger, even when 
 the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone tiirough the initiatory ordinances, 
 entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the Israelites 
 by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Exodus xxi. 2 — 6, is 
 an illustration, " If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years shall he 
 serve : and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he 
 came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, 
 then his loife shall go out ivilh him. If his master have given him 
 a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters ; the wife and her 
 children shall be her master'' s, and he shall go out by himself. And 
 if the servant should flainhj say, 1 love my master, my wife, and my 
 children, I will not go out free : then his master shall bring him unto 
 the judges ; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; 
 and his master shall bore his ear through loitli an awl, and he shall 
 serve him forever.^' In this case, the Israehtish servant, whose term 
 expired in six years^ married one of his master's permanent female do- 
 ?HCs^/c5 ; but the fact of her marriage, did not release her master from 
 his part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor absolve him 
 from his legal obligation to support and educate her children. Nor could 
 it do away that distinction, which marked her national descent by a spe- 
 cific grade and term of service. Her marriage did not impair her obli- 
 gation to fulfil ^er part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent 
 domestic grew out of a distinction guarded with great care throughout 
 the Mosaic system. To permit this to be rendered void, would have 
 been to divide the system against itscHi This God would not tolerate. 
 Nor, on the other hand, would he permit the master, to throw off the re- 
 sponsibility of instructing her children, nor t'le care and expense of their 
 helpless infancy and rearing. He was bound lo support and educate 
 ihem, and all her children born afterwards during her term of service. 
 The whole arrangement beautifully illustrales that v/ise and tender re- 
 
74 
 
 garcl for the interests of all the parties concerned, which nrrn^'o ....^ ...^. 
 saic 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, and with such remuneration as was provided by the 
 statute. 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 an}'' means to be inferred, that the release of the ser- 
 vant from his service 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 bet- 
 ter suited to his taste and skill, or because his master might not have 
 sufficient work to occupy him. Whether he lived near his family, or 
 at a considerable distance, the great number of days on which the law 
 released servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much 
 more time with them than can be spent by most of the agents of our be- 
 nevolent 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 ly the Israelites, was appointed hy 
 God as a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against 
 Ihemfor their sins.^^ — If the absurdity of a sentence consigning persons 
 to death, and at the same time to perpetual slavery, did not sufficiently 
 lauo-h in its own face, it would be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, 
 to make up the deficiency by a general contribution. For, heit remcm- 
 bered, the Mosaic law was given, while Israel was in the wildemess, and 
 only one statute was ever given respecting the disposition to he made of 
 the inhabitants of the land. If the sentence of death was first pronoun- 
 ced atrainst them, and afterwards commxtted, 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 la 
 unconditional extermination ; as there was no reversal of the sentence, 
 how can a right to enslave them, be drawn from such premises? The 
 bunishment of death is one of the highest recognitions of man's moral 
 nature possible. It proclaims him man — intelligent accountable, guilty 
 
75 
 
 ma7i, deserving death for having done his utmost to cheapen human hfe^ 
 and make it worthless, when tiie proof of its priceless value, lives in his 
 pwn 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 done to rational being in the robbery of one of 
 its rights, not merely by robbing it of all, but by annihilating the very 
 foundation of them — that everlasting distinction between men and 
 things ? To make a man a chattel, is not the ]mnish?7ient, but the anni. 
 hilation 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 commen- 
 tators had not manned the forlorn hope, and rushed to the rescue of the 
 Divine character at the very crisis of its fate, and, by a timely movement, 
 covered its retreat 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 bv God to indi. 
 viDiTAL AND UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION ? That tlio views gene- 
 rally prevalent on this subject, are wrong, we have no doubt ; but as 
 the limits of this Inquiry forbid our going into the merits of the question, 
 so as to give all the grounds of dissent from the commonly received 
 opinions, the suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as queries, 
 and not as a formal laying down of doctrines. 
 
 The leading directions as to the disposal of the Canaanites, are mainly 
 in the following passages, Exod. xxiii. 23 — 33, and 33 — 51, and 34, 
 11 — Deut. vii. 16 — 25, and ix. 3, and xxxi. 3, 1, 2. In these verses, 
 the Israelites are commanded to " destroy the Canaanites" — to " drive 
 out," — "consume," — " utterly overthrow," — "put out," — "dispossess 
 them," &c. Quest. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and 
 universal destruction of the individuals, or merely of the lody politic 7 
 Ans. The Hebrew word Haram, to destroy, signifies national, as well 
 as individual destruction ; political existence, equally with personal ; the 
 destruction of governmental organization, equally with the lives of the 
 subjects. Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, over- 
 throw, &c., to mean personal destruction, what meaning shall we give 
 to the expressions, " drive out before thee;" " cast out before thee ;" 
 .."expel," "put out," " dispossess," <Sjc., which are used in the same 
 passages ? 
 
 For a clue to the sense in which the word " destroy'^ is used, see 
 • ,jExodus x,viii. 27. " I will destroy all the people to whom thou shaU 
 
 10 
 
76 
 
 come, and I wiii make all thine enemies turn their hacks unto thee. Here 
 " all their enemies^' were to turn their- backs, and " all the people" to be 
 "destroyed." Does this mean that God would let all their enemies es- 
 cape, but kill all their friends, or that he would first kill " all the people" 
 and THEN muke them turn their backs in flight, an army of runaway 
 corpses ? 
 
 The word rendered hacks, is in the original, necks, and the passage 
 may mean, I will make all your enemies turn their necks unto you ; 
 that is, be siihject to you as tributaries, become denationalized, their 
 civil polity, slate'organization, political existence, destroyed — their idol- 
 atrous temples, altars, images, groves, and all heathen rites destroyed; in a 
 word, their whole system, national, political, civil, and religious, subvert- 
 ed, and the whole people put under tribute. Again ; if these commands 
 required the urico'nditional destruction of all the individuals of the Ca- 
 naanites, the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for the directions relative 
 to the treatment of native residents and sojourners, form a large part 
 of it. " The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one 
 born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." " 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." "Thou shalt not oppress a 
 stranger." " Thou shalt not vex a stranger." Judge righteously be- 
 tween every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him." 
 " Ye shall not respect persons in judgment." "Ye shall have one 
 manner of law as well for the stranger, as for him of your own coun- 
 try." Wo find, also, that provision v/as made for tiiem in the cities of 
 refuge, Num. xxxv. 15. — the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were 
 assigned to them, Lev. xix. 9, 10, and xxiii. 22, and 25, 6 ; — the bles- 
 sings of the Sabbath, theirs, Ex. xx. 10 ; — the privilege of olTering sa- 
 crifices secured. Lev. 22. 18 ; and stated religious instruction provided 
 for them. Deut. xxxi. 9, 12. Now, does this sane law authorize and 
 appoint the individual extermination of those very persons, whose lives 
 and general interests it so solicitously protects? These laws were 
 given to the Israelites, long before they entered Canaan ; and they 
 must of necessity have inferred from them, that a multitude of the in- 
 habitants of the land woukl continue in it, under their government. 
 
 3. We argue that these commands did no^ require the individual de- 
 struction of the Canaanites unconditionally, from the fact that the most 
 pious Israelites never seem to have so regarded them. Joshua was se- 
 lected as the leader of Israel to execute God's threatenings upon Ca- 
 naan. He had no discretionary power. God's command's were his 
 
77 
 
 official instructions. Going heyond them would have been usurpation \ 
 refusing to carry them out, rebellion and treason. For not^obeying, in 
 eve?'y particular, and in a single instance, God's command respecting 
 the Amalekites, Shul was rejected from being king. 
 
 Now, if God commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaan- 
 itish nations, Joshua disobeyed him in every instance. ■ For at his death, 
 the Israelites still " dwelt among them" and each nation is mentioned 
 by name. See Judges i. 5, and yet we are told that " Joshua was full 
 of the spirit of the Lord and of WISDOM," Dsut. xxxiv. 9. (of course, 
 h© could not have been ignorant of the meaning of thqse commands,) 
 — that " the Lord was with him," Josh. vi. 27 ; and that he ''loft nothins: 
 undone of all that the Lord commanded Meses ;" and further, that ho 
 " took all that land." Joshua xi. 15 — 23. Also, that " the Lord gave 
 unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers, and 
 they possessed it and dwelt therein, and there stood not a man of all 
 their enemies before them." "The Lord delivered all their enemies 
 into their hand," &p. 
 
 How can this testimony be reconciled with itself, if we suppose that 
 the command to destroy enjoined individual extermination, and the 
 command to drive om<, enjoined the unconditional ^expulsion of individu- 
 als from the country, rather than their expulsion from iho possession or 
 ownership of it, as the lords of the soil ? It is true, multitudes of the 
 Canaanites were slain, but in every case it was in consequence of their 
 .efusing to surrender their land to the possession of the Israelites. 
 Not a solitary case can be found in which a Canaanite was either killed 
 or driven out of the country, who acquiesced in the transfer of the terri- 
 tory of Canaan, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to 
 the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahaband all her kindred, and the 
 inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim."' The 
 
 * 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 Gommand, would God 
 have permitted such an act to pass without severe rebuke? Would he have established such 
 a precedent when Israel liad hardly passed the tlireshhold of Canaan, and was then striking 
 the first blow of a half century war ? Wliat 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 Ats 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 construc- 
 tion on the command to destroy the inhabit ants 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 tiiree years' famine for it. In assigning the reason, Ilesays, 
 
 Lot 
 
Vanaanites knew of the miracles in Egypt, at the Red Sea, in the wih 
 derness, and at the passage of Jordan. They knew that their land had 
 been transferred to the Israelites, as a judgment upon them lor their 
 sins. — See Joshua ii. 9—11, and ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were 
 awed by these wonders, and made no resistance to* the confiscation of 
 their territory. Others fiercely resisted, defied the God of the armies 
 of Israel, and came out to battle. These occupied the fortified cities, 
 were the most inveterate heatiien — the aristocracy of idolatry, \hekings, 
 the nohility and gentry, the priests, with their crowds oj satellites, and 
 retainers that aided in the performance of idolatrous rites, the military 
 •forces, with the chief profligates and lust-panders of both sexes. Every 
 Bible student will recall many facts corroborating this supposition. Such 
 as the multitudes o{ trilndaries in the midst of Israel, and that too, when 
 the Israelites had " waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at 
 the terror of their name. The large numbers of the Canaanites, as 
 well as the Philistines and others, who became proselytes, and joined 
 themselves to the Hebrews — as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite, one 
 of David's memorable •' thirty. seven" — Rahab, who married one of the 
 princes of Judah — Ittai — The six hundred Gitites — David's body guard', 
 " faithful among the faithless."— 2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the 
 Gittite, who was adopted into the tribe of Levi. — Compare 2 Sam. vi. 
 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. IS, and 1 Chron xxvi. 45. The cases of Jaziz, 
 and Obil,— 1 Chron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh, the father of Caleb 
 ■ — the Kenitfe, 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.* Add to these, the fact that the most 
 memorable miracle on record, was wrought for the salvation of a portion 
 of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who would ex- 
 terminate them. — Joshua x. 12 — 14. Further — the terms used in the 
 directions of God to the Israelites, regulating their disposal of the Ca- 
 iiaanites, such as, "drive out," " put out," "cast out," "expel," "dis- 
 possess," &c. seem used interchangably with " consume," " destroy,'" 
 *•■ overthrow," &c., and thub indicate tire sense in which the latter words 
 
 " It IS for Saiil and liis bloody ho'i.se, because he s)ewtlie Gibeonites." When David inquired 
 of tliem what atonement he should make, they say, "The man that consumed us, and that 
 'devised against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, 
 jet seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Samuel xxii. 1—6. 
 
 * If the Canaanites were devoted by God to individual and unconditional extermination, 
 fohave employed them in the erection of the temple,— what was it hut the climax of im* 
 ■piety? As >vell miijlit they pollute its a'.tars with swine's flesh, or make their sons pas% 
 ^nrough'tiie fire to Moloch. 
 
79 
 
 are used. As an illustration of the meaning generally atlachcc] to thes^ 
 and similar terms, when applied to the Canaanitos in Scripture, we refer 
 the reader to the history of the Amalekites. In Ex. xxvii. 14, God 
 says, " I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under 
 heaven," — In Deut. xxv. 19, " Thou shall blot out the remembrance of 
 Amalek from under 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." 
 
 In 1 Sam. yOth chapter, we find the Amalekites at war again, 
 marching an army into Israel, and sweeping every ihing before them — 
 and all this in hardly more than twenty years afier 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 ichich the Lord, thy God 
 doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that 
 IreathHh : hut thou shalt utterly destroy them ; namely, the Hittites, and 
 the Amorites, the Canaanitcs, and the Ferrizites, 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 tl]e following reasons. 
 
 I. Only the inhabitants o^ cities are specified, — "of theczZ^'esofthese 
 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 pe- 
 rilous 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,— "i/ia« they teach 
 ivou net to do after all the ahominaiions which they have done unto therf- 
 
gods." This would be a reason for exterminating all tiie nations and 
 individuals around them, as all were idolaters ; but God permitted, and 
 even commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Con- 
 tact with any of them would be perilous — with the inhabitants of the 
 cities peculiarly, and of tlie Canaanilish cities preeminently so. 
 
 It v/ill 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 he, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee, then, it shall 
 he, 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 bat- 
 tie, 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 tlie 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 chil- 
 dren, 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, *' Thusshalt thou do unto all the cities," &c. refers to ihewhole sys- 
 tern of directions preceding, commencing with the 10 th verse, whei-eas 
 it manifestly refers only to the inflictions specified in the verses imme- 
 diately preceding, viz. the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus make a dis- 
 tinction 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 pre- 
 servation, were as really guarantied to Canaanitish cities as to others. 
 Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated unless they came out 
 igainst Israel in battle. But let us settle this question by the " Idtv 
 and the testimony.'" Joshua xix. 19, 20. — " There was not a city that 
 made peace loith 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, 
 *Mt 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 
 
81 
 
 they had not come out against Israel in battle, they would have had 
 "favor" shown them, and would not have been '• deslroi/ed utterly.^' 
 The great design of God seems to have been to transfer l/ic tcrritnnj 
 ot" the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, absolute sovereign- 
 ly in every respect ; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, 
 jurisprudence, and their system of religion, with all its rights and appen- 
 danges ; 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 ;* or acriuies- 
 cence in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries, under the 
 protection of the government ; or resistance to the execution of the de- 
 cree, with death. '^ And it shall came to pass, if they will diligently 
 learn the ways of my people, to sivear'iy my name, the Lord liveth, as 
 they taught mxj 2>sople to swear by Baal ; then shall they be built 
 
 IN THE MIDST OF MY FEOPLE." 
 
 * Suppose all the Canaanili.-h nations had abandoned their territory at the tidings of Israel's 
 approach, did God's command require the Israelites to ciiase 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 foUows 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 fore- 
 going 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 inves- 
 tigation.] 
 
.'Mm