Chapter VI: Part 6

“The word rendered _buy_ or _purchase_ in the Scriptures, is applied to so many kinds of purchases, that no safe argument can be founded on its use in regard to the kind of servitude which existed in the time of Abraham. A reference to a few cases where this word is used, will show that nothing is determined by it respecting the tenure by which the thing purchased was held. (1.) It is used in the common sense of the word _purchase_ as applied to inanimate things, where the property would be absolute. _Gen._ xlii. 2, 7; xliii. 20; xlvii. 19; xxx. 19. (2.) It is applied to the purchase of _cattle_, where the property may be supposed to be _as_ absolute. See _Gen._ xlvi. 22, 24; iv. 20; _Job_ xxxvi. 33; _Deut._ iii. 19; _and often_, (3.) God is represented as having _bought_ his people; that is, as having ransomed them with a price, or purchased them to himself. _Deut._ xxxii. 6: ‘Is he not thy Father that hath _bought_ thee?’ קָּנֶךָ—_kânĕkhâ_, thy purchaser. _Exod._ xv. 16: ‘By the greatness of thine arm they shall be still as a stone, till thy people pass over; till the people pass over which thou hast _purchased_,’ קָנִיהָ,_kânithâ_. See _Ps._ lxxiv. 2. Compare _Isa._ xliii. 3: ‘I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.’ But though the word _purchase_ is used in relation to the redemption of the people of God, the very word which is used respecting the servants of Abraham, no one will maintain that they were held as _slaves_, or regarded as _property_. Who can tell but what Abraham purchased his servants in some such way, by redeeming them from galling captivity? May they not have been prisoners in war, to whom he did an inestimable service in rescuing them from a condition of grievous and hopeless bondage? May they not have been _slaves_ in the strict and proper sense, and may not his act of purchasing them have been, in fact, a species of emancipation in a way similar to that in which God emancipates his people from the galling servitude of sin? The mere act of paying _a price_ for them no more implies that he continued to hold them as slaves, than it does now when a man purchases his wife or child who have been held as slaves, or than the fact that God has redeemed his people by a price, implies that he regards them as slaves. (4.) Among the Hebrews a man might sell himself, and this transaction on the part of him to whom he sold himself would be represented by the word _bought_. Thus, in _Lev._ xxv. 47, 48: ‘And if a sojourner or a stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and _sell himself_ unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family, after that he is sold, he may be redeemed again.’ This transaction is represented as a _purchase_. Ver. 50: ‘And he shall reckon with him that _bought_ him, (Heb. _his purchaser_, קֹנֵהוּ _konaihū_), from the year that he was sold unto the year of jubilee,’ &c. This was a mere purchase of _time_ or _service_. It gave no right to sell the man again, or to retain him in any event beyond a certain period, or to retain him _at all_, if his friends chose to interpose and redeem him. It gave no right of property in the _man_, any more than the purchase of the unexpired time of an apprentice, or the ‘purchase’ of the poor in the State of Connecticut does. In no proper sense of the word could this be called _slavery_. (5.) The word _buy_ or _purchase_ was sometimes applied to the manner in which a _wife_ was procured. Thus Boaz is represented as saying that he had _bought_ Ruth. ‘Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (קָנִיהִי _kânithi_) to be my wife.’ Here the word applied to the manner in which Abraham became possessed of his servants, is applied to the manner in which a wife was procured. So Hosea says, (ch. iii. 2,) ‘So I _bought_ her to me (another word, however, being used in the Hebrew, כָּרָה _kârâ_) for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley.’ Jacob purchased his wives, Leah and Rachel, not indeed by the payment of money, but by labour. _Gen._ xxix. 15–23. That the practice of _purchasing_ a wife, or paying a _dowry_ for her, was common, is apparent from _Exod._ xxii. 17; 1 _Sam._ xviii. 25. Compare _Judg._ i. 12, 13. Yet it will not be maintained that the wife among the Hebrews, was in any proper sense a _slave_, or that she was regarded as subject to the laws which regulate property, or that the husband had a right to sell her again. In a large sense, indeed, she was regarded, as the conductors of the Princeton Repertory (1836, p. 293) allege, as the wife is now, as the _property_ of her husband; that is, she was _his_ to the exclusion of the claim of any other man; but she was his as his _wife_, not as his _slave_. (6.) The word ‘_bought_’ occurs in a transaction between Joseph and the people of Egypt in such a way as farther to explain its meaning. When, during the famine, the money of the Egyptians had failed, and Joseph had purchased all the land, the people proposed to become his servants. When the contract was closed, Joseph said to them, ‘Behold, I have _bought_ you —קָנִ֨יהִי— and your land for Pharaoh.’ _Gen._ xlvii. 23. The nature of this contract is immediately specified. They were to be regarded as labouring for Pharaoh. The land belonged to him, and Joseph furnished the people seed, or ‘stocked the land,’ and they were to cultivate it on shares for Pharaoh. The fifth part was to be his, and the other four parts were to be theirs. There was a claim on them for _labour_, but it does not appear that the claim extended farther. No farmers who now work land on shares would be willing to have their condition described as one of _slavery_.

“The conclusion which we reach from this examination of the words _buy_ and _bought_ as applied to the case of Abraham is, that the use of the word determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which his servants were held. They may have been purchased from those who had taken them as captives in war, and the purchase may have been regarded by themselves as a species of redemption, or a most desirable rescue from the fate which usually attends such captives—perchance from death. The property which it was understood that he had in them may have been merely property in their _time_, and not in their persons; or the purchase may have amounted in fact to every thing that is desirable in emancipation; and, from any thing implied in the _word_, their subsequent service in the family of Abraham may have been entirely voluntary. It is a very material circumstance, also, that _there is not the slightest evidence that either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob ever sold a slave, or offered one for sale, or regarded them as liable to be sold_. There is no evidence that their servants even descended as a part of an inheritance from father to son. So far, indeed, as the accounts in the Scriptures go, it would be impossible to _prove_ that they would not have been at liberty at any time to leave their masters, if they had chosen to do so. The passage, therefore, which says that Abraham had ‘servants _bought_ with money,’ cannot be adduced to justify slavery as it exists now—even if this were all that we know about it. But (4.) servitude in the days of Abraham must have existed in a very mild form, and have had features which slavery by no means has now. Almost the only transaction which is mentioned in regard to the servants of Abraham, is one which could never occur in the slave-holding parts of our country. A marauding expedition of petty kings came from the north and east, and laid waste the country around the vale of Siddim, near to which Abraham lived, and, among other spoils of battle, they carried away Lot and his possessions. Abraham, it is said, then ‘armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan,’ and rescued the family of Lot and his goods. _Gen._ xiv. This narrative is one that must for ever show that servitude, as it existed in the family of Abraham, was a very different thing from what it is in the United States. The number was large, and it does not appear that any persons but his servants accompanied Abraham. They all were armed. They were led off on a distant expedition, where there could have been no power in Abraham to preserve his life, if they had chosen to rise up against him, and no power to recover them, if they had chosen to set themselves free. Yet he felt himself entirely safe when accompanied with this band of armed men, and when far away from his family and his home. What must have been the nature of servitude, where the master was willing to arm such a company, to put himself entirely at their disposal, and lead them off to a distant land?

“Compare this with the condition of things in the United States. Here, it is regarded as essential to the security of the life of the master that slaves shall never be intrusted with arms. ‘A slave is not allowed to keep or carry a weapon.’[A] ‘He cannot go from the tenement of his master, or other person with whom he lives, without a pass, or something to show that he is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer.’[B] ‘For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or _shot_, or _club_, or _other weapon whatsoever_, offensive or defensive, a slave incurs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice of the peace;’[C] and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, _without_ a conviction by the justice.[D] Here, there is every precaution from laws, and from the dread of the most fearful kind of punishment, against the escape of slaves. Here, there is a constant apprehension that they may rise against their masters, and every security is taken against their organization and combination. Here, there is probably not a single master who would, if he owned three hundred slaves, _dare_ to put arms in their hands, and lead them off on an expedition against a foe. If the uniform precautions and care at the South against arming the slaves, or allowing them to become acquainted with their own strength, be any expression of the nature of the system, slavery in the United States is a very different thing from servitude in the time of Abraham; and it does not prove that in the species of servitude existing here it is right to refer to the case of Abraham, and to say that it is ‘_a good patriarchal system_.’ Let the cases be made parallel before the names of the patriarchs are called in to justify the system. But—

“(5.) What _real_ support would it furnish to the system, even if it were true that the cases were wholly parallel? How far would it go to demonstrate that _God_ regards it as a good system, and one that is to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach its highest possible elevation? Who would undertake to vindicate all the conduct of the patriarchs, or to maintain that all which they practised was in accordance with the will of God? They practised concubinage and polygamy. Is it therefore certain that this was the highest and purest state of society, and that it was a state which God designed should be perpetuated? Abraham and Isaac were guilty of falsehood and deception, (_Gen._ xx. 2, _seq._; xxvi. 7;) Jacob secured the birthright by a collusive fraud between him and his mother, (_Gen._ xxvii.) and obtained no small part of his property by cunning, (_Gen._ xxx. 36–43,) and Noah was drunk with wine, (_Gen._ ix. 21;) and these things are recorded merely _as facts_, without any decided expression of disapprobation; but is it therefore to be inferred that they had the approbation of God, and that they are to be practised still, in order to secure the highest condition of society?

“Take the single case of polygamy. Admitting that the patriarchs held slaves, the argument in favour of polygamy, from their conduct, would be, in all its main features, the same as that which I suggested, in the commencement of this chapter, as employed in favour of slavery. The argument would be this:—That they were good men, the ‘friends of God,’ and that what such men practised freely cannot be wrong; that God permitted this; that he nowhere forbade it; that he did not record his disapprobation of the practice; and that whatever God permitted in such circumstances, without expressing his disapprobation, must be regarded as in itself a good thing, and as desirable to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach the highest point of elevation. It is perfectly clear that, so far as the conduct of the patriarchs goes, it would be just as easy to construct an argument in favour of polygamy as in favour of slavery—even on the supposition that slavery existed then essentially as it does now. But it is not probable that polygamy would be defended now as a good institution, and as one that has the approbation of God, even by those who defend the domestic institutions of the South.' The truth is, that the patriarchs were good men in their generation, and, considering their circumstances, were men eminent for piety. But they were imperfect men; they lived in the infancy of the world; they had comparatively little light on the subjects of morals and religion; and it is a very feeble argument which maintains that a thing is _right, because any one or all of the patriarchs practised it_.

“But after all, what _real_ sanction did God ever give either to polygamy or to servitude, as it was practised in the time of the patriarchs? Did he command either? Did he ever express approbation of either? Is there an instance in which either is mentioned with a sentiment of approval? The mere _record_ of actual occurrences, even if there is no declared disapprobation of them, proves nothing as to the Divine estimate of what is recorded. There is a _record_ of the ‘_sale_’ of Joseph into servitude, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to Potiphar. There is no expression of disapprobation. There is no exclamation of surprise or astonishment, as if a deed of enormous wickedness were done, when brothers sold their own brother into hopeless captivity. _This_ was done also by those who were subsequently reckoned among the ‘patriarchs,’ and some of whom at the time were probably pious men. Will it be inferred that God approved this transaction; that he meant to smile on the act, when brothers sell their own brothers into hopeless bondage? Will this record be adduced to justify kidnapping, or the acts of parents in barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws of their nature, sell their own children? Will the record that the Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, or _buy_ them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold into hopeless bondage! Why then should the fact that there is a _record_ that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any expressed disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of society? The truth is, that the mere record of a _fact_, even without any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a record? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of future ages? Are we to maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good of mankind? Shall the biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and Alexander VI., and Cæsar Borgia be held responsible for approving of all that these men did, or of commending their example to the imitation of mankind? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus judged. Why then shall we infer that _God_ approved of all that the patriarchs did, even when there is no formal approbation expressed; or infer, because such transactions have been _recorded_, that _therefore_ they are right in his sight?”

-----

Footnote A:

Rev. Cod. Virg. vol. i. p. 453, sections 83, 84.

Footnote B:

Ibid. vol. i. p. 422, section 6. See Paulding on Slavery, p. 146.

Footnote C:

2 Litt. and Smi. 1150; 2 Missouri Laws, 741, section 4.

Footnote D:

Haywood’s Manual, 521; Stroud on the Laws relating to Slavery, p. 102.

-----

Does the mind hesitate as to the design of this laboured and lengthy argument? That its object is to do away, to destroy the scriptural force of the facts stated in these records? Does not this argument substantially deny that Abraham had slaves bought with money? And even if he did have them, then that it was just as wicked at that time as he thinks it to be now? Or, if he shall thus far fail, then to bring down the characters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a level with Nero, Caligula, Richard III., and Cæsar Borgia? And the holy books themselves to the standard of Herodotus, Tacitus, and Livy; and inure our mind to compare them with the writings of Hume and Gibbon?

The writer who lessens our veneration for the characters of the ancient worshippers of Jehovah; who, as by a system of special pleading, attempts to overspread the simple announcements of the holy books with doubt and uncertainty, however conscientious he may be in these labours of his hand, while he assumes a most awful responsibility to God, must ever call down upon himself the universal and determined opposition of the intelligent and good among men.

The more secret, the more adroit the application of the poison, the more intensely wicked is the hand that presents it.

------------------

LESSON VI.

Mr. Barnes has devoted twenty-four pages of his book to the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt, wherein we find no instance that his _test_ is applied with either fairness of deduction or logical accuracy. Indeed, so far as our limited capacity can trace his application to the _test_, he has made but two points:

I. After repeated judgments upon the Egyptians, for hesitating to set the Hebrews free, God, in his providence, effected their deliverance from slavery. Therefore, we are to infer the indignation of God against the institution of slavery. What were the facts of the case? On account of their sins rendering them unfit for the blessings promised their fathers, God imposed on them slavery four hundred years,—at the expiration of which time he delivered them from it. When a free negro becomes a public nuisance, the court will give judgment that he shall be sold to be a slave five years. The term having expired, if the purchaser holds on, and refuses to let him go, the same court will interfere, set him free, and impose heavy penalties on the master. Does the case show that the court feels indignation against the institution of slavery? We think it proves exactly the opposite!

If the four hundred years of slavery operated to fit the Hebrews for the reception of the blessing; if the five years of slavery re-fitted the negro for the rational enjoyment of liberty, we think the providence of God places the institution of slavery in a valuable point of light.

II. In this review of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt, Mr. Barnes has noticed the fact of their rapid increase, to the extent of their becoming dangerous to the Egyptian government; and he has compared it with the more rapid increase of the slaves over the whites in the Slave States; and suggests a similar danger to the government of the United States,—adding, that such increase “can be arrested by nothing but emancipation.” Now all this may be true; but in what light does it show forth the institution of slavery? Does Mr. Barnes really mean to say, what is the fact, that the condition of slavery is so well adapted to the negro race, that, by it, their comforts, peace of mind, and general happiness are made so certain and well-secured to them, that they increase rapidly? And that, as they are a race of people whom we do not desire to bear rule over us, or become more numerous than they now are, it would be good policy, and he desires, to set them free, in order that they may be deprived of their present comforts, peace of mind, and happiness, with the view to lessen their increase, and waste them away? If such really be his view, we may regard it as an extraordinary instance of his Christian counsel, and form some idea of what he would be as a slave-holder. But the same increase of the slaves happened in Egypt in a different age, and in reference to a different class of men; nor could any exertion correct it. We may apply the _test_, and safely infer, THAT GOD SMILES ON THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY.

There is, in this chapter on the slavery of the Hebrews, an allusion made to the States of Ohio and Kentucky, (see page 102;) the one represented as “adorned with smiling villages, and cottages, and churches, and the aspect of neatness, thrift, and order;” and that the other wears “the aspect of ignorance, irreligion, neglect, and desolation;” and that the reason of the difference is, because “God smiles upon the free State, and frowns upon the one where slavery exists.”

We do not deem it necessary to question or even examine the correctness of the view of Kentucky, as presented to us by Mr. Barnes: so far as the argument is concerned, we will take it as established. If the institution of slavery is of Divine origin, or if we are to form a notion of the will of God respecting it from his providences affecting the institution, we must keep our eye upon the subject of slavery, not upon those otherwise conditioned. We must look to the slave in Kentucky, and compare his conditions there with his conditions in a state of freedom; and Mr. Barnes has furnished us with data, proving that in Kentucky the slaves are in a rapid state of propagation and increase.

Page 95, he says—“The whites were to the slaves—

In 1790. In 1840.

North Carolina, 2.80 to 1 1.97 to 1
South Carolina, 1.31 ” 1 79 ” 1
Georgia, 1.76 ” 1 1.44 ” 1
Tennessee, 13.35 ” 1 3.49 ” 1
Kentucky, 5.16 ” 1 3.23 ” 1

“From this it is apparent that, in spite of all the oppressions and cruelties of slavery, of all the sales that are effected, of all the removals to Liberia, and of all the removals by the escape of the slaves, there is a regular gain of the slave population over the free in the slave-holding States. No oppression prevents it here more than it did in Egypt, and there can be no doubt whatever that, unless slavery shall be arrested in some way, the increase is so certain that the period is not far distant when, in all the Slave States, the free whites will be far in the minority. At the first census, taken in 1790, in every Slave State there was a very large majority of whites. At the last census, in 1840, the slaves out-numbered the whites in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The tendency of this, from causes which it would be easy to state, can be arrested by nothing but emancipation.”

But Mr. Barnes does not state what those causes are; and will he acknowledge that they really are what we have before stated? So far as these facts teach any thing, it is that God smiles on the institution of slavery. Let it be true, as Mr. Barnes says it is, that Ohio exhibits a state of prosperity, and Kentucky a state of “_desolation_,”—the legitimate deduction is, that those, having the direction and government of affairs in Ohio are wiser and more intelligent than those of the same class in Kentucky. We shall leave all further view of the matter to Mr. Barnes and the people of Kentucky.

The four hundred years of slavery in Egypt were not a sentence on the Hebrews for the especial benefit of the Egyptians, but for that of the Hebrews themselves. The court did not sentence the free negro, who had become a nuisance, to five years of slavery, for the especial benefit of the purchaser, but for the prospect of amelioration in the negro himself. The races of Ham were not made subject to slavery for the especial benefit of Shem and Japheth; but because, in such slavery, their condition would be more elevated, and better, than in a state of freedom. The slave-owner may be very wicked, and God may destroy him for his wickedness, and yet his merciful designs, by the institution of slavery, not be affected thereby. An eastern monarch, determined to destroy his minister, sent him a present of a thousand slaves and a hundred elephants. The minister dared not refuse the present; but not being able profitably to employ them, was ruined. But the condition of the slave and the elephant was not injured. The poor-house was not made for the especial benefit of its keeper, but for its subjects.

------------------

LESSON VII.

The benefit of the slave-owner depends on a different principle, upon the wisdom, propriety, and prudence with which he governs and manages his slaves. If he neglect their morals, suffering them to become idle, runaways, dissolute, thieves, robbers, and committers of crime, he is made, to some extent, responsible; or if he neglect to supply suitable clothing, food, and medicine, attention in sickness, and all other necessary protection, he is liable to great loss; his profit may be greatly diminished; or, if he abuse his slave with untoward cruelty, he may render him less fit for labour,—may destroy him altogether; or the law may set in, and compel the slave to be sold to a less cruel master. _The interest of the master has become protection to the slave_; and this principle holds good in all countries, in all ages, and among all men. But it is yet said, that there are men who most outrageously abuse, and sometimes kill their slaves. Very true and because some men do the same to their wives, is it any argument against marriage? It proves that there are men who are not fit to be slave-owners. And what is the providence of God, as generally manifested, in these cases? That such husband does not enjoy the full blessing designed by the institution of marriage; or such marriage is, in some way, shortly set aside. That such slave-owner does not enjoy the full benefit a different course would insure to him; or, in some way, he is made to cease being a slave-owner. Such instances are most direct and powerful manifestations against the abuses,—not of the institution itself.

But God has not left his displeasure of the abuses of slavery to be found out by our poor, dim, mortal eyes; by our weak view of his manifestations. He made direct laws on the subject.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; _in it_ thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy _man-servant_ (עַבְדְּךָ _abeddeka_, _male slave_,) nor thy _maid-servant_ (וַֽאֲמָֽתֶךָ _va amatheka_, _nor thy female slave_), nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” _Exod._ xx. 10.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant (וְעַבְדְּךָׄ _ve abeddeka_, _male slave_), nor thy maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָחֶךָ _va amatheka_, _female slave_), nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant (עַבְדְּךָ _abeddeka_, _male slave_) and thy maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָֽתֶךָ _va amatheka_, _female slave_) may rest as well as thou.” _Deut._ v. 14.

But we find laws correcting abuses of quite a different nature; abuses that grow out of the perverse nature of man towards his fellow-man of equal grade, touching their mutual rights in property:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his _man-servant_ (וְעַבְדּ֤וֹ _ve abeddo_, _male slave_), nor his _maid-servant_ (וַֽאֲמָתוֹ _va amatho_, _female slave_), nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” _Exod._ xx. 17.

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his _man-servant_ (וְעַבְדּ֤וֹ _ve abeddo_, _male slave_), or his _maid-servant_: (וַאֲמָתוֹ _va amatho_, _female slave_), his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” _Deut._ v. 21—the 18th of the Hebrew text.

It does appear to us that these statutes speak volumes—portraying the providences of God, and his design in regard to the institutions of slavery. The word covet, as here used, as well as its original, implies that action of the mind which reaches to the possession of the thing ourselves, and to the depriving of our neighbour, without a glimpse at the idea of payment, reciprocity, or compromise; consequently, it is the exact action of mind, which, when cultivated into physical display, makes a man a thief. The command forbids that the mind shall be thus exercised, for the command only reaches to the exercise of the mind; an exercise, which, from the very nature of it, must for ever draw us deeper into crime. It is a command that well comes to us from Jehovah direct, because it is a command that man could never enforce: the individual, and Jehovah alone, can only and surely tell when it is broken. But it may be broken in various ways; it may be broken by writing books persuading others that it is no crime, that it is even praiseworthy, by any other course of conduct, to weaken the tenure of the proprietor in the property named.

“But fools do sometimes fearless tread,
Where angels dare not even look!”

We hold the doctrine good that, whenever we find that the providence of God frowns upon the abuse of a thing, such abuse is contrary to his law. So, also, the doctrine is indisputably true that all laws, all providences against the abuse of a thing, necessarily become laws and providences for the protection of the thing itself; consequently, it always follows that they contemplate protection.

Mr. Barnes compares the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt to the condition of slavery in the United States, and complains of the harsh treatment of the slaves in the latter country. See p. 92:

“Preventing the slaves from being taught to read and write; prohibiting, as far as possible, all knowledge among themselves of their own numbers and strength; forbidding all assemblages, even for worship, where there might be danger of their becoming acquainted with their own strength, and of forming plans for freedom; enacting laws of excessive severity against those who run away from their masters; appointing severe and disgraceful punishments, either with or without the process of law, for those who are suspected of a design to inform the slaves that they are men and that they have the rights of human beings; and solemnly prohibiting the use of arms among the slaves, designed to prevent their rising upon their masters, or ‘joining themselves to an enemy to fight against their masters,’ and ‘getting up out of the land.’”

We did suppose from this passage that Mr. Barnes might desire us to lie down, and _let the slaves kill or make slaves of us_. But he has presented us with his cure for all these wrongs on pages 383, 384. He says—

“Now here, I am persuaded, is a wise model for all other denominations of Christian men, and the true idea of all successful efforts for the removal of this great evil from the land. Let all the evangelical denominations but follow the simple example of the Quakers in this country, and slavery would soon come to an end. There is not power of numbers and influence out of the church to sustain it. Let every denomination in the land _detach itself_ from all connection with slavery, without saying a word against others; let the time come when, in all the mighty denominations of Christians, it can be assured that the evil has ceased _with them_ FOR EVER; and let the voice, from each denomination, be lifted up in kind, but firm and solemn, testimony against the system; with no ‘mealy’ words; with no attempt at apology; with no wish to blink it; with no effort to throw the sacred shield of religion over so great an evil; and the work is done. There is no public sentiment in this land, there could be none created, that would resist the power of such testimony. There is no power _out_ of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it. Not a blow need be struck. Not an unkind word need be uttered. No man’s motive need be impugned. No man’s proper rights invaded. All that is needful is for each Christian man, and every Christian church, to stand up in the sacred majesty of such a solemn testimony; to free themselves from all connection with the evil, and utter a calm and deliberate voice to the world; and THE WORK WILL BE DONE!”

This looks very much like converting the church into an instrument of political power. We might indulge in severe remarks. We might quote some very cogent and rebuking passages of Scripture; but, since we believe that where the spirit of Christ is, he will be there also, we do not deem it necessary.

From the very considerable labour evidently bestowed in the preparation of the _test_, apparently to be applied in his reasoning on this subject, a feeling of disappointment rests upon the mind when we discover how little use Mr. Barnes has made of it.

We have given a view of Mr. Barnes’s peroration; his complaints; the wrongs that excite his sympathy; and his final conclusion of the whole matter. We have attempted to reason by the same rule he has adopted, and, so far as he has chosen to apply it, leave it to others to judge whether it is not most fatal to the cause he advocates.

------------------

LESSON VIII.

We are told that book-making, among some, has become a trade. That some men write books to order, to suit the market; that there is no knowing what may be an author’s principles, or whether he has any at all, by what may be in his book.

The principal object of such a writer must be his money—his pay: if in great haste to get it in possession, he may be expected sometimes to be careless; and unless very talented and experienced in the subject on which he writes, to record contradictions.

Page 83, Mr. Barnes says—“The Hebrews were not essentially distinguished from the Egyptians, as the Africans are from their masters in this land, by colour.” But he continues, pages 86 and 87—“They (the Hebrews) were a _foreign_ race, as the African race is with us. They were not Egyptians, any more than the nations of Congo are Americans. They were not of the children of Ham. They were of another family; they differed from the Egyptians, by whom they were held in bondage, as certainly as the African does from the Caucasian or the Malay divisions of the great family of man.”

In page 228, on another subject, he says—“If, therefore, it be true that slavery did not prevail in Judea; that there is no evidence that the Hebrews engaged in the traffic, and that the prophets felt themselves at liberty to denounce the system as contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, these FACTS will furnish an important explanation of some things in regard to the subject in the New Testament, and will prepare us to enter on the inquiry how it was regarded by the Saviour; for if slavery did not exist in Palestine in his time: if he never came in contact with it, it will not be fair to infer that he was not opposed to it, because he did not often refer to it, and expressly denounce it.”

This is in strict conformity with the following:

Page 242. “There is no conclusive evidence that he ever came in contact with slavery at all. * * * There is no proof which I have seen referred to from any contemporary writer, that it existed in Judea in his time at all; and there is no evidence from the New Testament that he ever came in contact with it.”

Also, page 244. “There is not the slightest proof that the Saviour ever came in contact with slavery at all, either in public or in private life.”

Also, page 249. “We have seen above, that there is no evidence that when the Saviour appeared, slavery in any form existed in Judea, and consequently there is no proof that he ever encountered it.”

Permit us to compare these statements with _Matt._ viii. 5–14:

“And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, (verse 6,) and saying, Lord, my _servant_, &c. (Verse 9,) For I am a man of authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my SERVANT (δουλῳ, _slave_), Do this, and he doeth it,” &c.

Also, _Luke_ vii. 2–10. “And a certain centurion’s _servant_ (δοῦλος, _slave_) was sick,” &c. * * * “beseeching him that he would come and heal his _servant_ (δοῦλον, _slave_.)” (Verse 10,) “And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the _servant_ (δοῦλον, _slave_) whole that had been sick.”

So also, _Luke_ xix. 12–16. (Verse 13,) “And he called his ten _servants_ (δοῦλους, _slaves_),” &c. Also _John_ viii. 33–36: “And they answered him, we be Abraham’s seed, and were never _in bondage_ (δεδουλεύκαμεν, _in slavery_) to any man; how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (Verse 34,) “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος, _slave_) of sin.” (Verse 35,) “And the servant (δοῦλος, _slave_) abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore make you free, you shall be free indeed.”

Permit us also to compare them with the following, Mr. Barnes’s _own statements_. See page 250: “All that the argument does require, whatever conclusion we may reach as to the manner in which the apostles treated the subject, is, the admission of the _fact_, that slavery _everywhere_ abounded; that it existed in forms of great severity and cruelty; that it involved all the essential claims that are now made by masters to the services or persons of slaves; that it was protected by civil laws; that the master had the right of transferring his slaves by sale, donation, or testament; that in general he had every right which was supposed to be necessary to perpetuate the system; and that it was impossible that the early preachers of Christianity should not encounter this system, and be constrained to adopt principles in regard to the proper treatment of it.”

And, again, page 251: “It is fair that the advocates of the system should have all the advantage which can be derived from the fact, that the apostles found it in its most odious forms, and in such circumstances as to make it proper that they should regard, and treat it as an evil, if Christianity regards it as such at all.”

And, again, pages 259, 260: “I am persuaded that nothing can be gained to the cause of anti-slavery by attempting to deny that the apostles found slavery in existence in the regions where they founded churches, and that those sustaining the relation of master and slave were admitted to the churches, if they gave real evidence of regeneration, and were regarded by the apostles as entitled to the common participation of the privileges of Christianity.”

But there are other errors in this “Scriptural View of Slavery,” page 245:

“He (the Saviour) never uttered a word _in favour_ of slavery, * * * not even a _hint_ can be found, in all he said, on which a man * * * who meant to keep one already in his possession, could rely to sustain his course.”

We ask that this assertion of Mr. Barnes shall be compared with _Luke_ xvii. 7–11:

“But which of you having a servant (δοῦλον, _slave_) ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him, by and by, when he has come from the field, Go, sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken, and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant (δούλῳ, _slave_) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.” “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.”

And, again, Mr. Barnes says: “The nations of Palestine were devoted to destruction, not to servitude.” See page 118.

Compare this with the following, from page 156: “There were particular reasons operating for subjecting the nations around Palestine to servitude, which do not exist now. They were _doomed_ to servitude for _sins_.”

------------------

LESSON IX.

_Deut._ xxiii. 9. “When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing”—directions what to do, or what not to do, in time of war, being continued, the 15th and 16th verses read thus:

“Thou shalt not deliver up to his master the servant (_slave_) which is escaped unto thee.” * * * “He shall dwell with thee, _even_ among you in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him.”

This passage is quoted by Mr. Barnes, upon which he says, page 140—

“I am willing to admit that the command _probably_ relates only to the slaves which escaped to the country of the Hebrews from surrounding nations; and that in form it did not contemplate the runaway slaves of the Hebrews in their own land.”

Pray, then, for what purpose does he speak as follows?

“A seventh essential and fundamental feature of the Hebrew slavery was, that the runaway slave was not to be restored to his master; on this point the law was absolute.”

And to sustain this assertion, he quotes this same passage from Deuteronomy, and, commenting thereon, says, pages 140, 141—“This solemn and fundamental enactment would involve the following results or effects. (1.) No laws could ever be enacted in the Hebrew commonwealth by which a runaway slave could be restored to his master. No revolution of the government, and no change of policy, could ever modify this principle of the constitution. (2.) No magistrate could on any pretence deliver up a runaway slave.”

Then, again, page 190:

“Slaves of the United States are to be restored to their masters, if they endeavour to escape. We find among the fundamental principles of the Mosaic laws a provision that the slave was _never_ to be restored, if he attempted to do thus. He was to find in the land of Judea an asylum. The power and authority of the commonwealth were pledged for his protection.”

And yet, again, page 226:

“As one of the results of this inquiry, it is apparent that the Hebrews were not a nation of slaveholders.”

We present these passages to shows Mr. Barnes’s mode of argument. But let us examine, for a moment, the indications of the holy books on the subject of runaway slaves. When David had protected the flocks of Nabal, upon the mountains of Carmel, on a holiday, he sent his young men, to ask a present, as some compensation for the same.

“And Nabal answered David’s servants, and said, Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants ( _abadim_, _slaves_) nowadays that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give _it_ unto men, whom I know not whence they be?” 1 _Sam._ xxv. 10, 11.

We think the indications are that for slaves to run away was a common occurrence, and that it was immoral to give them countenance or protection and Nabal, pretending that David might be one of that class, excused himself from bestowing the present on that account.

“And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants (עֲבָדִים _abadim_, _slaves_) of Shemei ran away unto Achish, son of Maachah king of Gath; and they told Shemei, saying, Behold thy servants (עֲבָדֶיךָ, _abadeka_, _slaves_) _be_ in Gath. And Shemei arose and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants (עֲבָדָ֑יו _abadav_, _slaves_); and Shemei went and brought his servants (עבָדָיו _abadav_, _slaves_) from Gath.” 1 _Kings_, ii. 39, 40.

If it can be said that Jehovah has views and wishes, then it may he said, that the views and wishes of Jehovah on the subject of runaway slaves must, at all times, be the same. “In him there is no variableness, nor shadow of turning.”

“And she had a _hand-maid_ (שִׁפְחַה _shiphehah_, _female slave_), an Egyptian (מִצְרִית _mitserith_, _Egyptian_, _a descendant of Misraim, the second son of Ham_), whose name was Hagar.” _Gen._ xvi. 1.

Upon a feud between her and her mistress, her mistress dealt hardly by her, and she ran away: “And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.” (8th verse,) “And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence comest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.” (The angel did not say to her, “Here is a shilling; get into Canada as soon as possible!”) “And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress and submit thyself under her hands.” _Gen._ xvi. 7–9.

On page 117, Mr. Barnes says—

“In the laws of Moses, there is but one way mentioned by which a foreigner could be made a slave; that is, by purchase. _Lev._ xxv. 44. And it is remarkable that the Hebrews were not permitted to make slaves of the captives taken in war.”

Let us compare this assertion, made by Mr. Barnes, with the 31st of Numbers:

“And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites. * * * (Verse 9,) And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones. * * * (Verse 11,) And they took all the spoils and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. (Verse 12,) And they brought the captives and the prey unto Moses and Eleazar the priest. * * * (Verse 25,) And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and beast. * * * (Verse 27,) And divide the prey into two parts, between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation. * * * (Verse 28,) And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle, one soul of five hundred, both of the persons and of the beeves. * * * (Verse 30,) And of the children of Israel’s half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty of the persons, &c. * * * (Verse 32,) And the booty, being the rest of the prey, which the men of war had, was * * * sheep. (Verse 35,) And thirty-two thousand persons in all. * * * (Verse 36,) And the half which was the portion of them that went out to war, was, &c. * * * sheep, &c. (Verse 40,) “And the persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty and two persons. (Verse 42) And the children of Israel’s half which Moses divided from the men that warred * * * was, &c. * * * sheep, &c. * * * (Verse 46,) and sixteen thousand persons. (Verse 47,) Even of the children of Israel’s half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.”

------------------

LESSON X.

In ancient times, all persons conquered in battle were liable to be put to death by the national laws then existing. If the conqueror suffered the captive to escape death, imposing on him only the cutting off his thumbs, hands, or ears; or, without these personal deformations, subjecting him to slavery, as was often the case, especially when the captive was of low grade,—it was ever regarded as an act of mercy in the conqueror.

In the 17th verse of the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, Moses commanded that “every male among the little ones, and every woman who had known a man,” should be killed, even after they had been taken to the Israelitish camp; and that none should be reserved for slaves, except female children, of whom, it appears, there were thirty-two thousand. The booty taken in this war, was distributed by Moses, in conformity to the especial direction of God himself, as follows:—(Verse 25,) “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, (verse 26,) Take the sum of the prey that was taken, _both_ of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation, (verse 28,) and levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, _both_ of the PERSONS, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: (verse 29,) Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, _for_ a heave-offering of the Lord. (Verse 30,) And of the children of Israel’s half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty of the PERSONS, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them to the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord. (Verse 31,) And Moses and Eleazar did as the Lord commanded Moses.”

Houbigant, in his commentary upon this chapter, has given us the following

_Table of the distribution of the booty of this war_:

Sheep 675,000 { To the Soldiers 337,500 To the Lord 675
{ ” People 337,500 ” Levites 6,750
Beeves 72,000 { ” Soldiers 36,000 ” Lord 72
{ ” People 36,000 ” Levites 720
Asses 61,000 { ” Soldiers 30,500 ” Lord 61
{ ” People 30,500 ” Levites 610
Persons 32,000 { ” Soldiers 16,000 ” Lord 32
{ ” People 16,000 ” Levites 320

This table has been adopted by Dr. Adam Clark in his Commentary, to which he adds—

“In this table the booty is equally divided between the people and the soldiers; a five-hundredth part being given to the Lord, and a fiftieth part to the Levites.” And this learned divine, in his commentary on the 28th verse, says—“And levy a tribute unto the Lord, one soul of five hundred, &c. * * * The _persons_ to be employed in the Lord’s service, under the Levites: the _cattle_ either for sacrifice or for the use of the Levites. (Verse 30.) Some monsters have supposed that _one_ out of every _five hundred_ of the captives was offered in sacrifice to the Lord! But this is abominable. When God chose to have the life of a man, he took it in the way of _justice_, as in the case of the Midianites above; but never in the way of _sacrifice_.”