Chapter XI: Front Matter (11)

2. _We have the testimony of God, that in our duty to our fellow men,_ ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS _hang upon this command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself._" Our Saviour, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses commands obedience to this law in all the treatment of strangers, "_The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and_ THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others _as_ ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing, as well as wages, would be a stranger illustration still of the law of love! Super-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing to others as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human nature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, "_No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it_."

3. _As persons became servants_ FROM POVERTY, _we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large amount_. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he still employed twenty servants, of whom he was the master.

A case is stated in Leviticus xxv. 47-55, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sells himself; and it is declared that afterward he may be _redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. As he was forced to sell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have acquired property _after_ he became a servant, but a considerable sum.

If it had not been common for servants to possess, and acquire property, over which they had the exclusive control, Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, (2 Kings v. 22, 23.) As it was procured by deceit, he was anxious to conceal the means used in getting it; but if the Israelitish servants, like our slaves, could "own nothing, nor acquire any thing," to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft[B]. But since the possession and use of property by servants, was common under the Mosaic system, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention. And that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, while he rebukes him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. In 1 Sam. ix. 8, we find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was spacious and somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from the fact that it was a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the Gibeonites, who, after they became servants, still occupied their cities, and remained, in many respects, a distinct people for centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, who worked out their tribute of bond-service in levies, periodically relieving each other, while preparing the materials for the temple, are additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.

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

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

4. _Heirship_--Servants frequently inherited their master's property; especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. This seems to have been a general usage.

The cases of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, Jarha an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, and the husband of his daughter; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35, and of the _husbandmen_ who said of their master's son, "_this is the_ HEIR, let us kill him, _and_ the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS." Mark xii. 7, are illustrations. Also the declaration in Prov. xvii. 2--"_A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and_ SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This passage seems to give _servants_ precedence as heirs, even over the _wives_ and _daughters_ of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and _plunder of earnings_, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their daughters?

5. ALL _were required to present offerings and sacrifices_. Deut. xvi. 15, 17. 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13.

Servants must have had permanently, the means of _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.

6. _Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle_. Deut. xv. 11-14. "_Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him_[A]." If it be objected, that no mention is made of the servants from the strangers, receiving a like bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of the _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that no mention is made of the Gentile servants receiving such a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_; it proves that the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also, a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.

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

7. _The servants were_ BOUGHT. _In other words, they received compensation for their services in advance_. Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course received the compensation for themselves, (except in cases where parents hired out the time of their children until they became of age[B],) a mere reference to the fact in this place is all that is required for the purposes of this argument.

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

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

9. _God's testimony to the character of Abraham._ Genesis xviii. 19. _"For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep_ THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT." We have here God's testimony, that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "_Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service without wages_!" Jer. xxii. 13. "_Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal_." Col. iv. 1. _"Render unto all their_ DUES." ROM. xiii. 7. _"The laborer is worthy of his hire."_ Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to _"do justice"_ to others? By doing _injustice to them?_ Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for the eighth commandment by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying _them_ "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then an illustrious example, patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against human perverseness!

10. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles._ Out of many, we select the following:

(1.) _"Thou shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,"_ or literally, _while he thresheth._ Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic animals. Isaiah xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service--_all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--_a general principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service._ The object of the law was, not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of _rewarding those who serve us_, showing that they who labor for others, are entitled to what is just and equal in return; and if such care is enjoined, by God, not merely for the ample sustenance, but for the _present enjoyment of a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man_? MAN, with his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul tells us expressly, that the principle which we have named, lies at the bottom of the statute. See 1 Corinthians ix. 9, 10--_"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR sakes? that he that ploweth should plow in_ HOPE, _and that he that thresheth in hope should be_ PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE."

(2.) "_If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him._ YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER OR a SOJOURNER, _that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase._" Lev. xxv. 35-37. Or, in other words, "relief at your hands is his right, and your duty--you shall not take advantage of his necessities, but cheerfully supply them." Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this benevolent regulation can be made to be in _keeping_ with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same breath, _authorize_ them to _"use his services without wages_;" force him to work, and ROB HIM OF ALL HIS EARNINGS? Judge ye.

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

The discussion of this topic has been already somewhat anticipated under the preceding heads; but a variety of considerations, not within the range of our previous inquiries, remain to be noticed.

1. _Servants were not subjected to the uses, nor liable to the contingencies of property._

(1.) _They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts_, though children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isaiah l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25.

Cases are recorded to which creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy their demands. In Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; in Prov. xxii 27, household furniture; in Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the soil; in Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; in Exodus xxii. 26-29, and Deut. xxiv. 10-13, and Matt. v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_.

(2.) _Servants were never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was given and held in pledge. We find in the Bible, household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers other articles of property, used as pledges for value received. But no _servants_.

(3.) _All lost_ PROPERTY _was to be restored._ "Oxen, asses, sheep, raiment, and whatsoever lost things," are specified--servant _not_. Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take back the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15.

(4.) _The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents_. They made princely presents of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of animals, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, and grain, armor, &c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to superiors and persons of rank when visiting them, and at other times, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt. Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pileser, 2 Kings xvi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings, x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were given as presents--though that was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14.

OBJECTION 1. _Laban_ GAVE _handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives_. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, it is enough to say that the handmaids of wives, at that time, were themselves regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, (Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1) also by the equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban given them _as articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a fore-closer to all argument.

Ah! We remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his "GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches; how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up!

No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit; invoking his protection, and the benediction of his "GODS!"

OBJECTION 2. _Servants were enumerated in inventories of property_. If that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "_Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's_ WIFE, _nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's_" EXODUS xx. 17. An examination of all the places in which servants are included among beasts, chattels, &c., will show, that in inventories of _mere property_, servants are not included, or if included, it is in such a way, as to show that they are not regarded as _property_. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the design is to show, not merely the wealth but the _greatness_ of any personage, that he is a man of distinction, a ruler, a prince, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if _greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. _"And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold."_ No mention of _servants_. So in the fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, "_And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents_." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned, "_And there was a strife between the_ HERDMEN _of Abraham's cattle and the_ HERDMEN _of Lot's cattle_". See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job. xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job 1. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and xxx. 43.

Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentioned in connection with property, it is in such a way as to _distinguish_ them from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, "All the _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father, that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle," "all his goods," "the cattle of his getting," &c. He had a large number of servants at the time, _but they are not included with his property_. Compare Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18.

When he sent messengers to Esau, in order to secure his respect, and impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of _his_ RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had "_oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men servants, and maid servants_." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants; though he seems to have aimed to give it as much variety as possible. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the _staples_ of wealth, a large number of servants _presupposed_ large possessions of cattle, which would require many herdsmen. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the former.

The Hebrew word _Mickna_ is an illustration. It is a derivative of _Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament--and is applied always to _mere property_--generally to domestic animals, but _never_ to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in _distinction_ from the _Mickna._ See Gen. xii. 5. _"And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son. And all their_ SUBSTANCE _that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan_." _Substance gathered_ and _souls gotten_! Many will have it, that these _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)--that they were _slaves_--probably captives in war, and now, by right of conquest, taken with him in his migration as part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually, or in heart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten_?" Until the slave trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is thus rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, thus: "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, placed by Jewish Rabbis at the head of their commentators, thus renders it: "The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers: "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian version thus gives the whole verse, "And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their wealth which they had accumulated, and the souls which they had _made_." The Vulgate version thus translates it, "Universam substantiam quam possederant et animas quas fecerant in Haran." "The entire wealth which they possessed, and the souls which they had made." The Syriac thus, "All their possessions which they possessed, and the souls which they had made in Haran." The Arabic, "All their property which they had acquired, and the souls whom they had made in Haran." The Samarian, "All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present translation of the English Bible, renders it as follows:--"Quas de idolotraria converterunt[B]." "Those whom they have converted from idolatry."--Paulus Fagius[C]. "Quas instituerant in religione."--"Those whom they had instructed in religion."--Luke Franke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago. "Quas legi subjicerant."--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law."

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

[Footnote B: See his "Brevis explicatio sensus literalis totius Scripture."]

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

2. _The condition of servants in their masters' families, the privileges which they shared in common with the children, and their recognition as equals by the highest officers of the government--make the doctrine that they were mere_ COMMODITIES, _an absurdity._ The testimony of Paul, in Gal. iv. 1, gives an insight into the condition of servants. _"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,_ DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, _though he be lord of all."_

That Abraham's servants were voluntary,--that their interests were identified with those of their master's family--that they were regarded with great affection by the household, and that the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in the arming of 318 of them for the recovery of Lot and his family from captivity. See Gen. xiv. 14, 15.

When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebekah did not disdain to say to him, "Drink, MY Lord," as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink," and "she hasted and emptied her pitcher, and ran again unto the well, and drew for all his camels." Laban, the brother of Rebekah, prepared the house for his reception, "_ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his feet, and the men's feet that were with him!"_

In the 9th chapter of 1 Samuel, we have an account of a high festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel, the chief judge and ruler in Israel, presided. None sat down at the feast but those that were bidden. And only "about _thirty_ persons" were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of the city of Zuph! Saul and his servant arrived at Zuph just as the party was assembling; and _both_ of them, at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. _"And Samuel took Saul and his_ SERVANT, _and brought_ THEM _into the_ PARLOR(!) _and made_ THEM _sit in the_ CHIEFEST SEATS _among those that were bidden."_ A _servant_ invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, who was _at the same time anointed King of Israel_; and this servant introduced by Samuel into the PARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of _Kish_, Saul's father; not the _steward_ or the _chief_ of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but "_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after asses.

Again: we learn from 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9, that Elah, the King of Israel, was slain by Zimri, one of his chief officers, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. Without detailing other cases, we refer the reader to the intercourse between Gideon and his servant.--Judges vii. 10, 11.--Jonathan and his servant.--1 Samuel xiv. 1-14.--Elisha and his servant.

3. _The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew commonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor even_ INVOLUNTARY _servants_. The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Israelites, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to _mock_ them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites?

(1.) _It was voluntary_. It was their own proposition to Joshua to become servants. Joshua ix. 8, 11. Their proposition was accepted, but the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in the tabernacle.

(2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of the Israelites_. They still continued to reside in their own cities, cultivating their own fields, tending their flocks and herds, and exercising the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were _subject_ to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being distributed among the Israelites, their family relations broken up, and their internal organization as a distinct people abolished, they seem to have remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many centuries. When they were attacked by the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it was promptly rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in the occupation of their cities, while all Israel returned to Gilgal. Joshua x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" At their demand, he delivered up to them, seven of the royal family, five of them the sons of Michal, his own former wife. 2 Samuel xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a separate people. There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at Gilgal, a day's journey from the cities of the Gibeonites; and then at Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them; where it continued about 350 years. During all this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent from their cities at any one time in attendance on the tabernacle.

(1.) Whenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_.

(2.) It is preposterous to suppose that their tabernacle services could have furnished employment for all the inhabitants of these four cities. One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into classes, and thus ministered at the tabernacle in rotation--each class a few days or weeks at a time. This service was their _national tribute_ to the Israelites, rendered for the privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to have been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition, hypocrisy, and lying, we might assuredly expect that they would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels and property, if there was _any_ case in which God permitted them to do so.

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

That the argument derived from the condition of the Israelites in Egypt, and God's condemnation of it, may be appreciated, it is important that the Egyptian bondage should be analyzed. We shall then be able to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what they retained.

EGYPTIAN BONDAGE ANALYZED. (1.) _The Israelites were not dispersed among the families of Egypt, the property of individual owners_[A]. They formed a _separate_ community. See Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24, and ix. 26, and x. 23, and xi. 7, and ii. 9, and xvi. 22, and xvii. 5.

[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in their families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in Exodus ix. 14, 20, 21. But none of the Israelites were included in this class.]

(2.) _They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen_[B], _one of the richest and most productive parts of Egypt_. Gen. xlv. 18, and xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27.

[Footnote B: The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east of the Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of the Red Sea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of that portion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly, have been less than 60 miles from the city. From the best authorities it would seem that the extreme western boundary of Goshen must have been many miles distant from Egypt. See "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able article by Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832.]

(3.) _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_ of the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the lintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_--Acts vii. 20, Ex. xii. 4--and from the regulation about the eating of the Passover, they could hardly have been small ones--Ex. xii. 4--and probably contained separate apartments, and places for seclusion. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv. 11.

(4.) _They owned "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds_," and "_very much cattle_." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38.

(5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1, and xii. 19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18.

(6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time_,--Ex. xxiii. 4, and iii. 16, 18, and xii. 6, and ii. 9, and iv. 27, 29-31. Also to have practised the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4, and xxxv. 32-35.

(7.) _They were all armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27.

(8.) _All the females seem to have known something of domestic refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics_. Ex. xv. 20, and 35, 36.

(9.) _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable_. This we infer from the fact that there is no intimation that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of property.

(10.) _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29.

(11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was abundant, and had great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3, and xxiv. 1, and xvii. 5, and iv. 29, and vi. 14. Also, "they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5, and x. 18, and xx. 5.

(12.) _That the great body of the people were not in the service of the Egyptians, we infer_ (1) from the fact, that the extent and variety of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have furnished constant employment for the main body of the nation.

(2.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "ALL the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were _there_ to enjoy it.

(3.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex. iv. 29-31.

Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was, as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_.

Probably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites for one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon the Egyptians. See Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it out of their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_ than crops) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the _poorer_ Israelites were required to work for the Egyptians at all, the wealthier being able to pay their tribute, in money. See Exod. iv. 27-31.

This was the bondage in Egypt. Contrast it with American slavery. Have our slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own? Do they "_sit by the flesh-pots_," "_eat fish freely_," and "_eat bread to the full_?" Do they live in a separate community, at a distance from their masters, in their distinct tribes, under their own rulers and officers? Have they the exclusive occupation of an extensive and fertile tract of country for the culture of their own crops, and for rearing immense herds of _their own_ cattle--and all these held independently of their masters, and regarded by them as inviolable? Are our female slaves free from all exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage?--and whenever employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman, when employed by the king's daughter? Exod. ii. 9. Have the females entirely, and the males to a considerable extent, the disposal of their own time? Have they the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and for intellectual and moral improvement?

THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. True, "_their lives were made bitter, and all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor_." But what was that, when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the "power to own any thing, or acquire any thing"--the "quart of corn a day," the legal allowance of food[A]!--their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[B]!"--the _two hours and a half_ only for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[C]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human residence, commonly with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field. Add to this, the mental ignorance, and moral degradation; the daily separations of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by the laws of the South, and patronized by its pubic sentiment. What, we ask, was the bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for _her_ oppression of the poor, God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more. Ah! "_I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them_." HE DID COME, and Egypt sank, a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.

[Footnote A: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524-5]

[Footnote B: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, 610.]

[Footnote C: The whole amount of time secured by the law of Louisiana. See Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12]

If such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with religion, a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing?

Let those believe who can, that God gave his people permission to hold human beings, robbed of _all_ their rights, while he threatened them with wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_ oppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the _least_ and _cheapest_ of their rights, and left the _females_ unplundered even of these. What! _Is God divided against himself_? When he had just turned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He license the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_, did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that, for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and cloven down his princes, and overwhelmed his hosts, and blasted them with His thunder, till "hell was moved to meet them at their coming?"

Having touched upon the general topics which we design to include in this inquiry, we proceed to examine various Scripture facts and passages, which will doubtless be set in array against the foregoing conclusions.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery are always at their wits end when they try to press the Bible into their service. Every movement shows that they are hard-pushed. Their odd conceits and ever varying shifts, their forced constructions, lacking even plausibility, their bold assumptions, and blind guesswork, not only proclaim their _cause_ desperate, but themselves. Some of the Bible defences thrown around slavery by ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical fact, that it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy, predominates, in compound. Each strives so lustily for the mastery, it may be set down a drawn battle.

How often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Doubtless Cain's posterity started an opposition to the ark, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and fill out for slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God to men?

OBJECTION 1. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren_." Gen. i. 25.

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it. It is a pocket-piece for sudden occasion--a keepsake to dote over--a charm to spell-bind opposition, and a magnet to attract "whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie." But closely as they cling to it, "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to stupify a throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, vainly wooing slumber to unquiet tossings, and crying "Peace, be still," where God wakes war, and breaks his thunders.

Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, _assume_ all the points in debate.

1. That the condition prophesied was _slavery_, rather than the mere _rendering of service_ to others, and that it was the bondage of _individuals_ rather than the condition of a _nation tributary_ to another, and in _that_ sense its _servant_.

2. That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; that it grants absolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted God's prophecy to Abraham, "_Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall afflict them for four hundred years_." And then, what _saints_ were those that crucified the Lord of glory!

3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and Mizraim settled Egypt, and Cush, Ethiopia. See Gen. x. 15-19, for the location and boundaries of Canaan's posterity. So on the assumption that African slavery fulfils the prophecy, a curse pronounced upon one people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy has not been fulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled the Egyptian and Assyrian empires, and conjointly with Shem the Persian, and afterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman. The history of these nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas the history of Canaan's descendants, for more than three thousand years, is a record of its fulfilment. First, they were made tributaries by the Israelites. Then Canaan was the servant of Shem. Afterward, by the Medes and Persians. Then Canaan was the servant of Shem, and in part of the other sons of Ham. Afterward, by the Macedonians, Grecians, and Romans, successively. Then Canaan was the servant of Japhet, mainly, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham. Finally, they were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan is _now_ the servant of Shem and Japhet and the other sons of Ham.

But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one _named_ in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was pronounced upon the posterity of Ham in general. "_And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without_."--Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their father with a garment. Verse 24, "_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said_," &c.

It is argued that this younger son cannot be _Canaan_, as he was not the _son_, but the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham_. We answer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, or whatever he did, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, great-grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an individual. Gen. xxix. 5, "_And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the_ SON _of Nahor_?" Yet Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 15, 29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, "_Mephibosheth, the_ SON _of Saul, came down to meet the king_." But Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan, and the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. "_There is a_ SON _born to Naomi_." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "_Let seven men of his (Saul's)_ SONS _be delivered unto us_," &c. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_ were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, "_And hast not suffered me to kiss my_ SONS _and my daughters_;" and in the 55th verse, "_And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his_ SONS," &c. These were his _grandsons_. So 2 Kings ix. 20, "_The driving of Jehu, the_ SON _of Nimshi_." So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson?

Further, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the _younger_ son? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes Ham the _second_, and not the _younger_ son. If it be said that Bible usage is variable, and that the order of birth is not always preserved in enumerations; the reply is, that, enumeration in the order of birth, is the _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if the younger member of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of pre-eminence, either in original endowments, or providential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, and probably the youngest of Terah's sons, stands first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history warrants the idea of his pre-eminence; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkaton_, rendered _younger_, means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isaiah xl. 22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Also in Isaiah xxii. 24. "_All vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." So Psalms cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that fear the Lord, both_ SMALL _and great_." Also Exodus xviii. 22. "_But every_ SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a perfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, "when Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno hakkaton_) had done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan," &c.

[Footnote A: The French language in this respect follows the same analogy. Our word _grandson_ being in French, _petit fils_, (little son.)]

Even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption that their enslavement is a fulfilment of this prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, only a mere _fraction_ of the inhabitants of Africa have at any one time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been slaves at _home_, we answer, 1st. _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. _If it were true_, how does it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" not unto _himself_!

OBJECTION II.--"_If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money_." Exodus xxi. 20, 21.

Arguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originate in a misconception both of its genius, _as a whole_, and of the design and scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, afford an illustration in point.

What was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity? and an assurance, that if they beat them to death, the offence would not be _capital_? This is substantially what some modern Doctors tell us. What Deity do such men worship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered out from Sinai's flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_? Whoever analyzes the Mosaic system--the condition of the people for whom it was made--their inexperience in government--ignorance of judicial proceedings--laws of evidence, &c., will find a moot court in session, trying law points--setting definitions, or laying down rules of evidence, in almost every chapter. Numbers xxxv. 10-22; Deuteronomy xi. 11, and xix. 4-6; Leviticus xxiv. 19-22; Exodus, xxi. 18, 19, are a few, out of many cases stated, with tests furnished by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the _motive_ of the action, and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill.