Chapter X: Front Matter (10)

The atrociousness of a crime, depends greatly upon the nature, character, and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a _full_ man, is theft; to steal it from a _starving_ man, is both theft and murder. If I steal my neighbor's _property_, the crime consists not in 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 him _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 turning _personality_ into _property_. True, the _attributes_ 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 sundered which God has indissolubly joined, or confounded in one, which he has separated by infinite extremes; when sacred and eternal distinctions, which he has garnished with glory, are derided and set at nought, then, if ever, _sin_ reddens in its "scarlet dye." The sin specified in the passage, is that of doing violence to the _nature_ of a _man_--his _intrinsic value_ and relations as a rational being, and blotting out the exalted distinction stamped upon him by his Maker. In the verse preceding, and in that which follows, the same principle is laid down. Verse 15, "_He then smiteth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death._" Verse 17, "_He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death._" If a Jew smote his neighbor, the law merely smote him in return. But if that same blow were given to a _parent_, the law struck the 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 impious inroads.

But why the difference in the penalty since the _act_ was the same? The sin had divers aggravations.

1. The relation violated was obvious--the distinction between parents and others, manifest, dictated by natural affection--a law of the constitution.

2. The act was violence to nature--a suicide on constitutional susceptibilities.

3. The parental relation then, as now, was the centre of the social system, and required powerful safe-guards. "_Honor thy father and thy mother_," stands at the head of those commands which prescribe the duties of man to man; and, throughout the Bible, the parental 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 _smiting_, nor for smiting a _man_, but a _parent_--for violating a vital and sacred relation--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 of _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 separation of human beings from brutes and things, shows God's regard for the sacredness of his own distinction.

"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 instant of its birth, to do it reverent homage. It paused in adoration while He ushered forth its crowning work. Why that dread pause, and that creating arm held back in mid career, and that high conference in the godhead? "_Let us make man in_ OUR IMAGE, _after_ OUR LIKENESS, AND LET HIM HAVE DOMINION _over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth_."

_Then_ while every living thing, with land, and sea, and firmament, and marshalled worlds, waited to catch and swell the shout of morning stars--THEN "GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD CREATED HE HIM." This solves the problem, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD CREATED HE HIM. Well might the sons of God cry all together, "Amen, alleluia"--"_Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive blessing and honor"--"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth_." Psalms viii. 5, 6, 9. The frequent and solemn repetition of this distinction by God proclaims his infinite regard. The 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the 1st chapter of Genesis are little else than the repetition of it in various forms. In the 5th chapter, 1st verse, we find it again--"In the day that God created man, IN THE 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, invited 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 killeth 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 infinitely, MEN from brutes and things!

1. "_Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels_." Slavery drags him down among _brutes_.

2. "_And hast crowned him with glory and honor_." Slavery tears off his crown, and puts on a _yoke_.

3. "_Thou madest him to have dominion_ OVER _the works of thy hands_." Slavery breaks his sceptre, and casts him down _among_ those works--yea, _beneath them_.

4. "_Thou hast put all things under his feet_." Slavery puts HIM _under the feet of an owner_, with beasts and creeping things. Who, but an impious scorner, dare thus strive with his Maker, and mutilate HIS IMAGE, and blaspheme the Holy 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 systems will be considered together, as each reflects light upon the other, and as many regulations of the latter are mere _legal_ forms of Divine institutions previously existing. As a _system_, however, the latter alone is of Divine authority. Whatever were the usages of the _patriarchs_, God has not made them our examplars[A].

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

Before entering upon an analysis of the condition of servants under these two states of society, 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 servants, 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 midnight oil! what a forestaller of premature wrinkles, and grey hairs! Instead of protracted investigation into Scripture usage, and painful collating 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 might be multiplied as the drops of the morning! Every man might take orders as an inspired interpreter, with an infallible clue to the mind of the Spirit, if he only understood the dialect of his own neighborhood! We repeat it, the only ground of proof that these terms are to be 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 granted that the sense in which words are _now_ used is the _inspired_ sense.

David says, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What 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 before_, or _anticipate_. It is always used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the nineteenth century, 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 purposed to come to you, but was _let_ (hindered) hitherto." "And the four _beasts_ (living ones) fell down and worshipped God,"--Whosoever shall _offend_ (cause to sin) one of these little ones,"--Go out into the high ways and _compel_ (urge) them to come in,"--Only let your _conversation_ (habitual conduct or course of life) be as becometh the Gospel,"--They that seek me _early_ (earnestly) shall find me,--Give me _by and by_ (now) in a charger, the head of John the Baptist,"--So when tribulation or persecution ariseth _by-and-by_ (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 bounds,) for a modern Bible dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by showing what it means _now_. Pity that hyper-fashionable mantuamakers and milliners were not a little quicker at taking hints from some of our Doctors of Divinity. How easily they could save their pious customers all qualms of conscience about the weekly shiftings 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 Chestnut-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 procuring of servants, means procuring them as _chattels_, seems based upon the fallacy--that whatever _costs_ money _is_ money; that whatever or whoever you pay money _for_, is an article of property, and the fact of your paying for it _proves_ that it is property. The children of Israel were required to _purchase_ their first-born out from under the obligations of the priesthood, Numb. 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 _bought_ their wives. Boaz _bought_ Ruth. "So Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife. "So I _bought_ her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley." Hosea iii. 2. Jacob _bought_ his wives 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 negotiating 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 Michal, Saul's daughter, and Othniel, Achsab, the daughter of Caleb, by performing perilous services for the benefit of their fathers-in-law. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judges i. 12, 13. That the purchase of wives, either with money or by service was the general practice, is plain from such passages as Exod. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the Jews of the present day this usage exists, though it is now a mere form, there being no _real_ purchase. Yet among their marriage ceremonies, is one called "marrying by the penny." The coincidences, 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 Israelitish female bought-servants were _wives_, their husbands and their masters being the same persons. Exod. xxi. 8, and Judges xix. 3, 27. If _buying_ servants among the Jews shows that they were property, then buying _wives_ shows that _they_ 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 immunities! 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 old" wife-trading "patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," with the prophets, and a host of whom 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 expression for "the married," or "the espoused," is "the bought." Even so late as the 16th century, the common record of _marriages_ in the old German Chronicles was "A. BOUGHT B."

The Hebrew word translated _buy_, is, like other words, modified by the nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve says, "I have _gotten_ (bought) a man of the Lord." She named him Cain, that is, _bought_. "He that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) understanding", Prov. xv. 32. So in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord shall set his hand again to recover (to _buy_) the remnant of his people." So Ps. lxxviii. 54. He brought them to this mountain which his right hand had _purchased_, i.e. gotten. Jer. xiii. 4. "Take the girdle that thou hast got" (bought.) Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have _redeemed_ (bought) our brethren that were sold to the heathen." Here "_bought_" is not applied to persons who were made slaves, but to those taken _out_ of slavery. Prov. 8. 22. "The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way before his works of old." Prov. xix. 8. "He that _getteth_ (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Prov. xvi. 16. "How much better is it to _get_ (buy) wisdom than gold?" Finally, to _buy_ is a _secondary_ 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 is now the current word in West India newspapers. So a few years since in New-York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 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 legal _indenture_ in Illinois, servants now are "_bought_."[A] A short time since, hundreds of foreigners who came to this country were "bought" annually. By voluntary contract they engaged to work for their purchasers a given time to pay for their passage. This class of persons called "redemptioners," consisted at one time of thousands. Multitudes are _bought out_ of slavery by themselves or others, and remove into free states. Under the same roof with the writer 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 that Benedict Arnold was "bought" by British gold. Did that make him an article of property? When a northern clergyman marries a rich southern widow, country 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 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 attorney, and jury, in the late trial of Robinson were _bought_, we have no floating visions of "chattels personal," man auctions, or coffles.

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

The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the meaning attached to "buy" and "bought with money." See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants, and that he should _buy_ them. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I have _bought you_ this day," and yet it is plain that neither of the parties dreamed that the persons _bought_ were in any sense articles of property, but merely that they became thereby obligated to labor for the government on certain conditions, as a _compensation_ for the entire support of themselves and families during the famine. And that the idea attached to "buy us," and "behold I 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 Egyptians were bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of _services_ (they were to give one-fifth part of their crops to Pharaoh) is called in Scripture usage, _buying the persons_. This case deserves special notice, as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is detailed--the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the _mere fact_ is stated without entering into particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open.

1. The persons "bought," _sold themselves_, and of their own accord.

2. Obtaining permanently the _services_ of persons, or even a portion of them, is called "buying" those persons. The objector, at the outset, assumes that servants were bought of _third_ persons; and thence infers 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 systems, 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 servant of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger." The _same word_, and the same _form_ of the word, which, in the 47th verse, is rendered _sell himself_, is in the 39th verse of the same chapter, rendered _be sold_; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is rendered "_be sold_." Here it is the Hithpael conjugation, which is reflexive in its force, and, like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an individual does for himself; or in his own concerns; and should manifestly 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 divination and enchantments, and _sold themselves_ to do evil."--Isa. l. 1. "For your iniquities have ye _sold yourselves_." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have _sold yourselves_ FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without money." See also, 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 instances? In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is generally stated that they were bought of _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 RELATING TO MASTERS AND SERVANTS, WITH AN ENUMERATION OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES 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 specially 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 of _privileges_--a bestowment of _favors_.

1. _No servant from the Strangers, could remain a servant in the family 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 law _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. 12-17, and Exodus xxi. 2-6.

4. _The rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all servants._ (1.) _They were admitted into covenant with God._ Deut. xxix. 10-13.

(2.) _They were invited guests at all the national and family festivals of the household in which they resided._ Exodus xii. 43-44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, and xvi. 10-16.

(3.) _They were 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 labor nearly_ ONE HALF OF THE WHOLE TIME. During which, the law secured to them their entire support; and the same public and family instruction that was provided for the other members of the Hebrew community.

(a.) The Law secured to them the _whole of every seventh year_; Lev. xxv. 3-6; thus giving to those servants that remained such during the entire period between the jubilees, _eight whole years_ (including the Jubilee year) of unbroken rest.

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

(c.) _The three great annual festivals_. The _Passover_, which commenced on the 15th of the 1st month, and lasted seven days, Deut. xvi. 3, 8. The Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which began on the sixth day of the third month, and lasted seven days. Lev. xxiii. 15-21. 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 assign three weeks to each festival--including the time spent on the journey going and returning, and the delays before and after the celebration, together with the _festival week_; it will be a small allowance for the cessation of their regular labor. As there were three festivals in the year, the main body of the servants would be absent from their stated employments at least _nine weeks annually_, which would amount in forty-two years, subtracting the sabbaths, to six years and eighty-four days.

(e.) _The new moons_. The Jewish year had twelve; Josephus tells us that the Jews always kept _two_ days for the new moon. See Calmet on the Jewish Calender, and Horne's Introduction; also 1 Sam. xx, 18, 19, 27. This would amount in forty-two years, to two years, two hundred and eighty days, after the 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 time not otherwise reckoned.

Thus it appears that those persons who continued servants during the whole period between the jubilees, were by law released from their labor, TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OUT OF FIFTY YEARS, and those who remained a less time, in nearly the same proportion. In the foregoing calculation, besides making a generous donation of all the _fractions_ to the objector, we have left out of the account, those numerous _local_ festivals to which frequent allusion is made, as in Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. 9th chapter. And the various _family_ festivals, such as at the weaning of children; at marriages; at sheep shearings; at the making of covenants, &c., to which reference is often made, as in 1st 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.

Finally, the Mosaic system secured to servants, an amount of time, which, if distributed, would on an average be almost ONE HALF OF THE DAYS IN EACH YEAR. Meanwhile, they and their families were supported, and furnished with opportunities of instruction. If this amount of time were distributed over _every day_, the servants would have _to themselves_, all but a _fraction of_ ONE 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 members of the community_.

Proof--"_Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his neighbor, and_ THE STRANGER THAT IS WITH HIM." "_Ye shall not_ RESPECT PERSONS _in judgment, but ye shall hear the_ SMALL _as well as the great_." Deut. i. 16, 17. Also in Lev. xxiv. 22. "_Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger, as for 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 sojourneth among them_." Deut. xxvii. 19. "_Cursed be he that_ PERVERTETH THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER, _the fatherless and the widow_."

6. _The Mosaic system enjoined upon the Israelites the greatest affection and kindness toward their servants, foreign as well as Jewish_.

Lev. xix. 34. "_The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou 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 PERSONS, _nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and_ LOVETH THE STRANGER, _in giving him food and raiment_, LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." So 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 absurdity 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.

III.--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[A], to be circumcised in token of it, to be bound to the observance of the Sabbath, of the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in all the particulars of the moral and ceremonial law.

[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant." "But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that is bought with money, on the day on which 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 love and kindness, for one year. After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him, longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a _willing_ heart."--Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st, Sec. 8th.

The ancient Jewish Doctors agree in the testimony, that 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 the family, and sent back to his own people, received a _full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite) of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system. Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the scope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the argument. ]

Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they _compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow, the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the institution, despised its ceremonies, spurned the law which enjoined it, detested its author and executors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemmorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year up to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations?

We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. 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_? Were _proselyte_ and _chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole passport to the communion of the saints?

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 with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him_."

As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him. His _fleeing_ "shows his _choice_--proclaims his wrongs, 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 others 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 difficulty 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 of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen! Suppose a case. A _foreign_ servant flees from 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 accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper who _bought_ him of his master, and _forced_ him into a condition against his will. Would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, provided in _addition_ to this last outrage, the _previous_ one had been committed of _forcing him into the nation against his will_?

To commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant is a horrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_, on the _other side of the line_; if you _begin_ the outrage by buying him from a third person _against his will_, and then tear him from home, 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 kindness denied to the multitude, who _were_ circumcised, and _within_ the covenant?

Again: the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills--the objector finds small gain to his argument. In that case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatory measures, and resolve themselves 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 condition which was a constant _counteraction of will_. Further, the objector's assumption destroys itself; for the same command which protected 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 in 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 their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased?

Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of _foreign_ servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_? There was a statute requiring the return of _property_ 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 of _free choice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own discretion; 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 place and condition of his residence, it is _oppression_, and I will not tolerate it.

3. _We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar opportunities 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 handcuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," religions services _extra_ being appointed, and special "ORAL instruction" for their benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, to pick up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets as city guards, keeping a sharp look-out at night.

4. _Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance 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 shall remain a servant, is in his own hands. If a _slave_, how simple the process of emancipation! His _refusal_ 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 anointing oil, he is "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_.

5. _We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from the impossibility 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. Doubtless, Abraham was a man of a million, and Sarah too, a right notable housekeeper; still, it is not easy to conceive how they contrived to hold so many thousand servants against their wills, unless the patriarch and his wife _took turns_ in performing 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 description of the "flesh marks," and were stimulated in their chivalry by _pieces of silver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitution of these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, when we consider his faithful 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 servants." Jacob's youth was spent in the family of Laban, where he lived a servant twenty-one years. Afterward he had a large number of servants.

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 but _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 stay in their own country.

The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex. xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_--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 _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_. Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a very different thing to have a right to buy him of _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 WIVES. Exodus xxi. 7, 8. "_If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master_ WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, _he shall let her be redeemed_[A]."

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows: "A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI.

Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and take her to be his wife for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her _espousals_." ]

7. _We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in_ COMMENCING _his service, because he was pre-eminently so_ IN CONTINUING _it_. If, at the year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his master, so 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 far was his _free choice_ protected, that his master was compelled to keep him, however much he might wish to get rid of him.

8. _The method 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 by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretenses, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to BUY them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals to 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 become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they had earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has no relation to the condition of servants.]

9. _Various incidental expressions throughout the Bible, corroborate the idea that servants became such by virtue of their own contract_. Job xli. 4. is an illustration, "_Will he_ (Leviathan) _make a_ COVENANT _with thee? wilt thou take him for a_ SERVANT _forever?_"

10. _The transaction which made the Egyptians the_ SERVANTS OF PHAROAH, _shows entire voluntariness throughout_. It is detailed in Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord, they came to Joseph and said, "We have not aught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25th verse, _"Thou 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 from the fact that_ RICH _strangers did not become servants._ Indeed, so far were they from becoming servants themselves, that _they bought and held Jewish servants._ Lev. xxv. 47.

12. _The sacrifices and offerings which_ 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 Prophet Elisha is one. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. The original word, translated master, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where masters are spoken of throughout the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. It is translated _master_ eighty-five 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 _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,

1. _Because, while Israel was under the Mosaic system, God rebuked in thunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work._" Jer. xxii. 13. 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 _Rea_, here translated _neighbor_, does not mean one man, or class of men, in distinction from others, but _any one with whom we have to do_--all descriptions of persons, not merely servants and heathen, but even those who prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"_As when a man riseth against his_ NEIGHBOR _and slayeth him._" Deut. xxii. 26. "_Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy_ NEIGHBOR _hath put thee to shame._" Prov. xxv. 8. "_Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy_ NEIGHBOR." 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 original word.