AN
EX AMI         ATION
OF THE
MOSAIC LAIVS OF SERVITUDE.
BY WILLIAM JAY.
"The statutes of the Lord are right."-PsALr   xix. 8.
Good@ei1 Anti-Slavery  Collection  No..................
PRESENTED TO
OBERLIN COLLEGE
BY THE HEIRS OF
WILLIAM GOODELLI




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
WILLIAM JAY,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of
New York.




CONTENTS.
PAGB
SLAVERY DEFINED... 
INDEFINITE MEANING OF THE HEBREW TERMS OF SERVITUDE.     7
ARBITRARY AND PREJUDICED VERSION OF HEBREW TERMS OF SERVITUDE IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE......  9
HIRED SERYVANTS......                   12
DOMESTIC SERVANT S....                 13
HIEBREW DOMESTIC SERVANTS...              14
MASTERS NOT PERMITTED TO HIRE OUT OR SELL THEIR SERVANTS    17
OF TIE FAMILIES OF TIEBREW DOMESTICS..19
TREATMENT OF HEBREW DOMESTICS..                   23
FAMILIAR INTERCOURSE BETWEEN MASTERS AND SERVANTS           25
LEGAL PROTECTION AFFORDED TO SERVANTS.           26
MASTERS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BEAT THEIR SERVANTS..27
SERVANTS MIGHT ACQUIRE AND HOLD PROPERTY.    28
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF SERVANTS..                         28
SERVANTS NOT PERMITTED TO DISSOLVE THEIR CONTRACTS EXCEPT
BY REDEMPTION.....   29
FOREIGN DOMESTIC SERVANTS........          3
OF STRANGERS IN ISRAEL..                                 36
THE JUBILEE.....44
MAN STEALING......             48
THE GIBEONITES........49
SOLOMON'S TRIBUTARIES IN JUDEA..                   50
FOREIGN TRIBUTARIES....51
JEWISH SLAVERY, HAD IT EXISTED, WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED
ANY OTHER....                         53
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS               o.                 55








AN EXAMINATION
OF THE
MO SAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE,
SLAVERY DEFINED.
IT is obviously important that in all discussions involving emphatic
words, having a direct bearing on the issue in question, the ideas intended to be represented by those words should be distinctly stated
and clearly comprehended.  In the following examination, the word
slave will be frequently used, not incidentally nor figuratively, but as
expressing a definite idea, and one necessarily connected with the very
purpose of the investigation.  Hence, unless the idea represented by a
S/ave, and by Slavery, as his legal condition, be understood by the
reader, the examination must prove to him vague, confused, and unsatisfactory. These words are often used in a figurative rhetorical sense,
as a man is said to be the slave of sin, of passion, of his party, or of
his business; and we often hear of political, military, and ecclesiastical Slavery.  In such cases, a comparison more or less close is intended to be made with a species of servitude to which these words
are legally and technically applied.  As we shall use these words only
in their strict legal sense, it is necessary that this sense should be unequivocally understood by the reader. For this purpose, it will be
sufficient to cite two legal definitions of the word slave, taken from
American statutes, viz.'S Slaves shall be deemed CHATTELS PERSONAL in the hands of their
owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns,
to all intents, constructions, and purposes, whatever.' —2 Brevard's
Digest, 229, S. Carolina.
" A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs.
The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his
labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but
what must belong to his master."- Civil Code, art. 35, Louisiana.




6             THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
The leading and controlling idea in these clefinitions is the chattelhood of the slave: he is a thing, a vendible commodity —and at the
death of the owner falling, like other chattels, into the hands of executors, &c., for the payment of debts and legacies.
The legal and practical application of this idea incidentally appears
in the following extract from a law of Maryland:
" In case the personal property of a ward shalla consist of specific
ARTICLES, Such as slaves, working beasts, animals of any kind, stock,
furniture, plate, books, &c., the court, if it shall deem it advantageous
to the ward, may at any time pass an order for the sale thereof."Act of 1798.
Being a thizng, the law classes him, as above, with beasts, furniture,
and books; and when belonging to a minor, he may, like a horse, be
sold by order of court for the pecuniary interest of the child, without
the slightest regard to his own temporal or spiritual welfare. As slaves
can acquire nothing but what belongs to their masters, the mothcer is
the only parent recognized by law, and she is recognized for the sole
purpose of vesting in her owner the property of her child, in the
sarme manner and for the salme reason that a calf or colt belongs to the
possessor of the dam. Hence, as a necessary consequence, slaves have
legally no conjugal and parental relations.  Husbands and wives,
fathers and mothers, have as such, in law, no rights and no duties, any
more than the beasts of the field. Being'" in the power of a master
to whom he belongs', the slave has legally no religious rights.  His
master 1may at pleasure drive him to or from any place of worship,
keep him in total ignorance of Christianity, or impart to him religious
knowledge in any quantity and of any quality he may think proper.
As the slave can possess nothing but what belongs to his master, that
master may keep him in absolute penury all his days. Being in the
power of the master, the slave may be beaten and tormented to almost
any extent with perfect impunity. There are, indeed, laws against excessive cruelty to slaves and to animals. HIe who should flay either
his horse or his slave alive would probably be punished; but neither
the horse nor the slave can receive compensation for any barbarity he
may suffer. Nor can the owner of either obtain redress for any injury
done to his property that does not impair its value in the market.
The most horrible outrage may be perpetrated on a slave, whether man
or woman, with legal impunity, provided the slave is not thereby rendered less valuable as a chattel.
As the children belong to the owner of the mother, and are themselves chattels, Slavery is thus perpetuated from generation to generation; hence, Slavery is not merely chattelhood, but it is HEREDu



MEANING OF HEBREW       TERMS OF SERVITUDE.           7
TARY CIATTELHOOD-a- definition applicable to no other form of servitude.
Such is slavery, as legally established in this country. In vindication of the righteousness of this establishment, we are assured, not
merely by slaveholders, and political aspirants, but by the great body
of the southern clergy, and by very many of our city divines at the
north, first, that God did himself establish slavery among his chosen
people; and secondly, that the slavery thus instituted in Palestine, is
the divine warrant for that now existing among ourselves  The object
of the present examination is to test the truth of these two assertions.
INDEFINITE IMEANING OF THE HEBREW        TERMS OF SERVITUDE
The first difficulty encountered in the present examination arises
from the indefinite meaning of the Hebrew terms of servitude.  The
Hebrew was not a copious language, and to us it is rendered still more
barren, from our possessing no other Hebrew writings than those contained in the Old Testament. We find, indeed, one ternm which seems
free from ambiguity.  Sakir expresses one who is hired to labor, and
is properly rendered into English, hireling, and hired servant. But
there is another, and in connection with our examination a very important term, which is used in the original in a very indefinite sense,
and with which great liberties have been taken by English translators.
The Hebrew verb, signifying " he labored," may or may not, according
to the context, indicate that the labor done was performed for another.
If done for another, then the Hebrew means, and is rightly translated,
"he served."  In the fourth commandment we are told, c Six days
shalt thou labor."  It is obvious that the version of this injunction,' Six days shalt thou serve other's," would have been no less false than
grotesque. The Hebrew verb of itself gives not the most distant hint
whether the labor performed is voluntary or compulsory, with or without remuneration. From the form of the verb, " he labored or served,"
is derived the participle. "laboring or serving," and the substantive,
"laborer or servant."  The first is pronounced abcd, the second obed,
and the third ebed. The participle is often used substantively; as, in
English, we say, a serving man or a laboring man.  This participle
is also used as a proper name; and, when so used, instead of being
translated, is, in our English Bibles, transferred to the text, and in
some.editions the meaning is given in the margin; as, in Ruth, iv. 17,
we have Obed in the text, and in the margin, " that is servant."  Josephus also tells us that obed is the Hebrew word for servant.  Hence,
in our subsequent remarks, we shall for convenience use obed for ser



8             THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
vant without stopping to inquire whether, in the particular text we are
examining, the word is the substantive or the substantive participle.
In Ecclesiastes, v. 12, we have an example of the use of the participle:
" The sleep of the laboring man is sweet."  Man is here supplied by the
translators. It would have sounded strange to be told that the sleep
of a serving man, or of a bondman, is sweet. We see in this text, and
in that quoted from the fourth commandment, that the ]primary signication of the verb and its cognates is labor.  There is no word which,
applied to man or woman, expresses the chattel principle; that is, there
is no Hebrew for slave.*
Obed is used to express the various relations of service, from the
king on the throne to a domestic menial. It is even applied to the
Messiah.  Isa. xlii. 1. Rehoboam, the king, is called the obedcof the
people.  1 Kings, xii. 7. Jeroboam is said to have been Solomon's
servant, and Joshua is called Moses' servant.
As already remarked, Obed is used as a proper name.  On the birth
of Ruth's son, " the women said unto Naomi, he shall be unto thee a
nourisher of thine old age; and the women her neighbors called his
name Obed.'"  Ruth, iv. 15, 17. Josephus tells us,' Naomi called
him Obed, as being to be brought up in order to be subservient to her in
her old age; for obecl, in the Hebrew dialect, signifies a servant."
Book V, chap. ix. We hear, moreover, of Obec the son Ephlal;
1 Chro. ii. 37. And of Obed the son of Shemai; 1 Chro. xxvi. 7.
One of David's mighty men was Obed; 1 Chro. xi. 47. Another
of the same name is mentioned, 2 Chro. xxiii. 1. From the frequent
use of this word as a proper name, and from its being given to the son
and heir of the wealthy Boaz, it is evident that no idea of degradation
was associated with it.
The Hebrew for servant has no feminine; but there are two words
which are applied exclusively to female servants. If not synonymous,
the difference in their signification is now unknown.  They are applied
to the same women, and also to women who are known to have been
free.  One of these words is rendered by our translators, at pleasure,
maid-servant, bondmaid, bondwoman, maid, and handmaid.  It is applied to Hagar, to Bilhah, and by Ruth, Hannah, and Abigail the
* For a large portion of the remarks contained in these pages on Hebrew
philology, the writer is indebted to " An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views
of Slavery," by Rev. Albert Barnes, author of a new translation of Job and
Isaiah. For the residue of these remarks, he has the authority of Rev. J. G.
Palfrey, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature in the University of Cambridge,
and author of "Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities."




SERVITUDE IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE.                   9
wife of Nabal, to themselves.  The other word is also translated handmaid, bondmaid, maiden, woman servant, and maid servant.    It is
applied to Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah, and by Abigail to herself.*
From what has now been said, it is very certain that no evidence
of the existence of Slavery among the Hebrews can be deduced from
their terms of servitude.
It must be admitted, that if Slavery was legally established among
the Hebrews, it is extraordinary that they should have had no word
in their language designating a human chattel.  It is not easy to understand how laws can be enacted respecting slaves, without naming
them. Strange and startling would be the consequences arising from
the substitution of the word servant for that of slave in the American
slave code.  Very many of the slaveholders themselves, and multitudes
of others, are in a legal sense servants, being employed in agencies of
various kinds for a pecuniary compensation.
It is true that in that concentration of American hypocrisy and
wickedness,' the Fugitive Act," no mention is made of slaves. Instead
of slaves, (the persons intended,) we have " fugitives from labor," and
persons, "held to service or labor.."  Already we have had contradictory judicial decisions: as to the application of the execrable provisions of this act to absconding apprentices.  There is nothino in the
act itself to prevent a manv who contracts to labor for another a cert ain
time, and before the time expired travels into another State, flrom becoming a victim to its barbarity.  Neither the deceitful lang-age of this
act, nor its cruelty and injustice, find any precedent in the lavws of (-od.
ARBITRARY AND PREJUDICED VERSION OF:HEBREW TERA1S OF
SERVITUDE IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
We have stated that the first difficulty encountered in the present
examination arises from -the indefinite meaning of the Hebrew words
applied to servitude.  A second and perhaps mlore for:midailible difficulty, consists in the arbitrary and prejudiced version of thiose terms
in our English Bibles.  The popular idea of Hebrew servitude is of
course derived from the version in common use.'When in our Bibles
terms are used descriptive of slaves, and which are never applied to
freemen, superficial readers take it for granted that the f-ebrew words
thus rendered have the same signification.
To understand the bias of mind under which the translators labored,
we must recollect that, as learned men, they were well acquainted
with the Slavery of antiquity, and that, from the age in which they
* For these words, and their application, see Barnes' "Inquiry," p. 69.




10           THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
lived, they were accustomed to villenage, as it had lately prevailed in their
own country, and indeed to a greater or less degree throughout Europe,
and as it still prevails to a great extent on the Continent. At the
time of the Conquest, the most numerous. class in the eommunity were
villeins, or slaves, the property of their Lords, and incapable themselves of holding property.i  This species of bondage, resembling in
many respects American Slavery, had only totally expired in England
during the reign preceding that in which the preseft version was made.
It was gradually abolished, not by operation of law, but by the progress of civilization, which slowly converted the villein into a tenant.,The consistency of Slavery with Christianity was not one of the questions which in that age engaged the attention of the Church, and excited theological controversy. The Fathers of the English Church
seem never to have searched the Scriptures, to know if they might lawfully hold property in man. The translators apparently took for granted that the Jews held slaves, and hence they mzade their translation
accord with this supposition. It must also be recollected, that many,of their Pro-slavery versions weie copied from the earlier English
translations made in the reign of Henry VIII., when villenage was still
common. To the liberty taken by the translators, of giving a Proslavery sense to the Hebrew terms of servitude, must be attributed
the popular impression, that the Jews were themselves slaves in Egypt.
They were subjected to a tyrannical tax in labor for the State, but they
were not slaves. Instead of being sold throughout the kingdom, and
scattered among the Egyptian families, they lived together in the land
of Goshen, in their own houses, were governed by their own officers,
and so far from being incapable of holding any property, each head of
a family was required to kill for the Passover a lamb without'blemish;
and on leaving Egypt, they took with them their " flocks and herds,
even very much cattle."  Theoy were, it is true, an oppressed people,
but we cannot recognize in their condition a feature of chattel slavery.
There is not the slightest reason for believing that, before the Exodus,
any Hebrew but Joseph had ever been sold in Egypt. Yet our English Bibles lead us to look upon the Jews as slaves. Egypt is the
"land of bondage," (of labor) and the "house of bondage," (of labor.)
Their lives were made bitter with " hard bondage," (hard labor.)
" Thou shalt remember thou wast a bondman (servant or laborer) in the
land of Egypt."
The instances of arbitrary translations of obed are numberless. Let
a few examples suffice: "Let thy servant abide instead of the lad, a
bondman to my Lord "   The reader of course supposes there is the
* Hume, Vol. I., p. 221.




SERVITUDE IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE.                  11
same distinction in the original as in the English, between servanthere a mere term of courtesy-and the bondman or slave which Judah
offers to become.  Yet obed alone is used: " Let thy obed abide instead of the lad, an obed to my Lord."  So Joseph's Ibrethren imputed
to him the design to take them " for bondmen," blut the word used is the
same as that applied by the Queen of Sheba to the offcers of Solomon's Court: " Happy are these thy servants, which stand continually
before thee, and that hear thy wisdom."  So also the terms in the
original, signifying women servants, are at pleasure rendered handmaids, or bond maids, while the mere IEonglish reader of course supposes that the same difference in meaning is found in the Hebrew.
The influencee of the opinion held by the translators in regard to
Hebrew Slavery on their version is'obvious in various parts of the English Bible. In Lev. xxv. 39, we have-," If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee."  In the 47th verse
of the sanze chapter, we have-" If a sojourner or a stranger- wax rich
by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell hi2niself unto the stranger or sojourner."
The inference from these two verses is, that a poor Jew might be
sold by his creditor to one of his own people, but zot to a foreigner 
but that if he chose, he might contract with a foreigner for his labor.
Now, strange as it m ay seem, the Hebrew word rendered be sold in the
first verse, is the identical word reidered sell himzself, in the second.
The Vulgate is more faithful. In the 39th verse it is —" Si paupertate compulsus, vendiderit se t;ibi frater tuus;" and in the-47th verse"' attenuatus frater tuus vendiderit se ei."
In both cases the man made a voluntary contract to serve six years.
In Jer. xxxiv. 14, we have another instance of the desire of the translators to represent Jewish servitude as Slavery.  The prophet is denouncing the wicked, coerced servitude of the poor Jews, and repeats
the law of M oses-" Let ye go every man his brother an.Hebrew
which hath been sold unto thee, when he hath served thee six years."
In the tmargin we have —" or /ath sold himxsef.'  Again, in Jer. ii.
14, we have —-" Is Israel a servant?  Is he a home-born slave?" H1ere
the translators have honestly put theword slave in italics-thus admitting it to be their interpretation; but the interpretation betrays the
theory which prompted it. The true translation is-  Is Israel a servant?  Was he born in the house?"  That is, is Israel not only a servant, but the son of a domestic?   Our translators make Ezra say,
" We were bondmen yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,
but has extended mercy unto us in the sight of the Kings of Persia"
-Ezra, ix. 9.




12            THE MOSAIC LAWS OFP SERVITUDE.
The appellation bondmen, conveys an idea very inapplicable to the
condition of the Jews in Babylon. They were subjects, tributaries, in
a certain sense servants, but they were not chattels, not the property
of individuals.  Some were high in office, some had great wealth, and
Ezra tells us that the emigrants were accompanied, on their return to
Judea, by their servants-of course, voluntary attendants. Jeremiah,
writing to the captives in Babylon, to discourage all expectations of a
speedy return, exhorts them-" Build ye houses, and dwell in them,
and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them." —Jer. xix. 5. Strange
advice to be given to bondmen, or slaves.  Once more: In Rev. xviii,
13, we read of merchandise in " slaves and souls of men "-in the original, "bodies and souls of men."  The merchandise of Babylon in
human bodies and souls may typify either ecclesiastical tyrrany and
corruption, or personal slavery. The interpolationo of'" slaves " into
the text, is a comment, not a translation. The Vulgate, the Rheims,
and it is believed all the Roman Catholic versions, have " slaves and
souls of men," while in Tyndal's and Cranmer's versions it is' bodies
and souls of men."    Strange is it, that King James' translators
should have restored the Popish reading, evidently false as it is.
Divesting our minds of all preeonceived opinions founded on certain
words used in our Eitnglish Bibles expressive of servitude, let us proceed to the examination of- the laws of Moses, prescribing the relations
of master and servant.
HIRED SERVANTS.
Both Jews and resident foreigners might be employed as hired servants: "Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant, whether he be of
thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land."-D-eut. xxiv.
14. The law required the daily payment of wages: " The wages of
him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night, until the morning."
-Lev. xix. 13. The reason of this prompt payment was, that the
servant living at home, and not in the house of his employer, needed
his wages for the immediate maintenance of himself and family.  The
exactness observed in paying the hireling, rendered " the days of an
hireling," a proverbial simile of a precise definite time; and so also
"the years of an hireling."  Is there not an appointed time to man
upon earth? Are not his days like the days of an hireling?"-Job,
vii. 1. " Within three years, as the years of an hireling, the glory of
Moab shall be contemned."  Isaiah, xvi. 14. That is, not a day beyond three years.
One great and important distinction between the hireling and other




HEBREW    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.                  13
servants was, that he was not domesticated in the family of the employer, formed no portion of the household, took no part in -the religious rite's of the family, and was hence regarded as feeling no affection for his employer, and taking no interest in his affairs.  It was expressly forbidden that a hired servant should share in the paschal feast
provided by his employer. That was a famsily feast; and the hired
servant, not belonging to the family, could not partake of it, but was
bound to eat it in his own dwelling and with his own family.  It was
this absence of all domestic social ties between the hired servant and
his employer that probably led to the remark:' The hireling fieeth,
because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep."-John, x. 18.
The parable of the laborers in the vineyard illustrates both the law
and the relation of the hireling to the master.  The laborers were
found standing in the market place.  They agreed to work for certain
wages, and at night received their wages and were dismissed.
DOMESTIC SE:RVANTS.
These were domesticated in the family of their employer for a term
of years.  They formed part of the family, and, in contradistinction
from his hired servants, were admitted to the paschal supper, jointly
with the master, mistress, and children; while not a friend or neighbor
could be invited as a guest.  The very intimate incorporation of the
domestic servant into the family of the master, is incidentally shown
in the rule respecting holy flesh. This flesh was such parts of the sacrificial victims as were the perquisites of the priests, and none might eat
of it but a priest and the members of his family.  The married daughter of a priest; unless her husband was a priest, could not eat of it,
because she was no longer a member of a priest's family.  So also the
hirecd servant was forbidden to eat of it; but to the domestic servant,
the servant bought with money, was accorded a privilege denied to his
master's married daughter.-Lev. xxii. 10-13.
These domestic servants were both Hebrews and foreigners.  For
reasons which will appear hereafter, we shall at present confine our'emarks to the first class; but we beg the reader to bear in mind that
there are not two distinct codes respecting the two classes,  Many of
the laws in relation to domestic servitude are general in their terms;
while others, apparently limited to Hebrew servants, are by a general
statute extended to foreign servants.
HEBREW    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
The first question that presents itself in regard to these servants is,
Was their service voluntary or compulsory?    The laws of -Toses




14            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
authorized no compulsory labor in pay1ment of debt. tWe indeed find
a woman complaining to Elisha that her husband was dead, and "the
creditor has come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."2 Kings, iv. 1. It is the conceit of the translators that these sons were
to be seized and held as " bondmen"-slaves-and were perhaps to be
sent to market to pay the debt of their deceased father. It would
seem, fiomu the complaint of the woman, that in the idolatrous kingdom
of Israel, about six hundred years after the giving of the law, and
during the reign of the profligate son of the impious Ahab, a creditor
was entitled to the labor of the s6ns to satisfy a debt left by their
father. To what extent this claim on the children of a debtor was
carried, we know not; but whatever was the claim, it had no foundation in the laws of Moses.
Servitude as a pzntishment for c7rime was unknown to the lMosaic
law. In certain cases of theft, when the article stolen could not be
restored, the person robbed, was to be largely compensated by the
thief. When the thief was too poor to make this compensation, he
was to forfeit his time and labor for the benefit of the party he had
wronged. ".If he have nothing, he shall be sold for his theft."-E-x.
xxii. 3. This required compensation was not a debt, it did not arise
from contract. Nor was the sale a punishment inflicted by the State
for felony; it was merely a process given by law to a private individual, to recover damages for an injury sustained, and only, moreover,
where the offender was too indigent to pay a pecuniary compensation.
But the service of this thief was not unlimited, nor was he conlverted
into a chattel.  His case was governed by the general law: " If thou
buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh
year he shall go out free.'-Ex. xxi. 2.  Of course the thief could.not be sold for a longer term; and it is to be presumed that he was
to be sold for as short a term less than six years as would satisfy the
legal claims of the person robbed. It is very obvious that- sales under
this statute would necessarily be few in number, and would furnish a
very inadequate and a very unsatisfactory supply of servants.
The other and general source of domestic servants was what in
Scripture phraseology is called BUYING AND SELLING. These purchases
were in several respects regulated by law. The statute just quoted
fixes the term of service.'" If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years
shall he serve."  Servants were not to be received in and incorporated
with the family (except in a particular case, to be hereafter noticed)
for a longer period, nor were purchases to be made for a shorter one.
The law proceeds:': In the seventh year he shall go out free."  Thus
it appears that a sale for six years insured the freedom of the servant




HEBREW    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.                  15
after that termg. Who, in this case was the seller?  It is evident he
could not have been a former purchaser of the man sold, since a man
once sold became free at the end of six years.  Of course, he could
not be held as property after the expiration of that term. Was the
seller a father virtually binding out his child for six years? This cannot be, for the law supposes the servant may be a married man, and
may be sold together with his wife.-Ex. xxi. 3.  Was the servant,
then, the slave of the seller, having been born his chattel? This
seems utterly impossiblej not only because there is no law authorizing
such a state of servitude, no mode pointed out whereby one descendant
of Abraham might lawfully become the hereditary chattel of another,
but also because every fiftieth year, servitude of every form terminated, and all the inhabitants of the land were declared to be free;
and also because, at the Jubilee, all recovered the family inheritance
if it had been.alienated, and every Jew was a freeholder in possession
or expectancy.
The cause assigned for the sale throws light on the condition of the
person sold: " If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor,
and be sold unto thee."-Lev. xxv. 39.  Hence, the man sold was not
an hereditary chattel incapable of waxing poor, but a freeman who had
lost his property. Now, who sold this poor freeman?  The question
is caused solely by the perversity of the translators.  Their theory of
Jewish Slavery induced them  to render be sold, the identical word
which, in the 47th verse, they translated " sell himself."  These two
verses, fairly translated as they are in the Vulgate, remove all doubt
as to the seller in question. " If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be
waxen poor, and sell himself utto thee," &c.  " And if a sojourner or
a stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him be
waxen poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner."  Thus
we find that the sale of a Jew, whether to one of his own people or to
a foreigner, was a voluntary act.  The word sell, as thus used, is not
according to our idiom, and would be better expressed by hire; but
when thus fairly rendered, no serious misconception can result from
its use.
The domestic differed from  the hired servant in becoming one of
his employer's family, and partaking in the religious rites of the household; but there was still another important and marked diffeience.
The hired servant received his wages after his stipulated service had
been performed, but the domestic received his wages in advance. The
contract, as we have already seen, was necessarily for six years. But
a provision, as merciful as it is extraordinary, was made, by which the
servant could, under certain circumstances, dissolve the contract; and




16             THE MOSAIC LAW     OF SERVITUDE.
the mode of doing this incidentally reveals the fact that he received
his wages at the time the contract was made.' If a sojourner or a
stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax
poor, and sell himself unto the stranger and sojourner by thee; or to
the stock of the stranger's family, after that he is sold he may be
redeemed cagai.  One of his brethren may redeem him; or, if he be
able, he may redeemg himzself. And he shall reckon with him. that
bought him, from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of
Jubilee; and the price of his sale (that is, his sale back to himself)
shall be according unto the number of years according to the time
of a hired servant shall it be with him.  If there be many years behind, according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption, ozzt of the money thatt he was boug'ht for."-Lev. xxv. 47-51.
Thus we find the servant might at any time be redeemed, discharged
from service, on returning to the master the unearnzed wages he had
received. But if the servant was not able to refund, any of his brethren
mi?ht pay the money for him.
It is true, the particular case of redemption here specified is that
of a Hebrew who had hired himself to a stranger; but the case seems
to be here introduced to show that such a contract was lawful; and
the mode of redemption is then pointed out; and the general statute,
making all laws equally applicable to Hebrews and resident strangers,
gives the right of redemption to all servants, whether in the service
of Jews or foreigners.  This general law of redemption is referred to
in Ex. xxi. 8; Lev. xixs 20; Neh. v. 8.
But what is meant by calculating the unearned wages from the day
of redemption up to. the Jubilee? It would be most preposterous to
suppose, that while a Hebrew could not sell himself to a brother He-.
brew for more than six years, he might sell himself to a stranger till
the Jubilee — that is, for any term not exceeding fifty years; nor is
it less preposterous to suppose that any stranger would buy a Jew for
fifty years, and pay him wages in advance.
We have in this chapter the institution of the Jubilee, giving freedom to all servants every fiftieth year, without regard to previous contracts. Hence, in reference to the Jubilee now first announced, we
have the mode of computing the unearned wages, when the ordinary
term of six years would overrun the Jubilee.  In that case, the computation is to be only to the Jubilee.
The required restoration by the servant of an equitable portion of
the money he was bought for, when he leaves his master before the
expiration of his term, settles the point that his wages for the whole
term had been paid in advance. The same fact might naturally be?




MASTERS NOT TO SELL THEIR DOMESTICS.               17
inferred, although not with such absolute certainty, from the contract
between the master and servant being represented as a sale and purchase.  The servant sells himself-that is, his time and labor-and
the master buys; hence it is to be inferred that the consideration
money is paid and received at the time of the sale.
MASTERS NOT PERMITTED TO HIRE OUT OR SELL THEIR
DOMESTICS.
There is not a text that hints at the power of a master to dispose
of his servant's term of service to another.  The very nature of the
service was inconsistent with the existence of such a power. The servant chose his master, and his choice was of course influenced by the
residence and character of the master, and the number and reputation
of his family. A poor man might rejoice to become the inmate of
one family, and abhor the idea of living in another.  H-e might be
very willing to enter the service of a neighbor, while he might refuse
to live with a stranger at a distance from his own friends and kindred.
But if, the day after he had made a contract for six years' service
with the master he had chosen, he might be sold to another, his freedom of choice would of course be only nominal.
That no master did sell his domestic, may also be inferred from the
fact, that there is no mention of such a sale to be found in the Pentateuch.  The law moreover takes it for granted, and, in so doing, virtually commands, that the servant shall serve the same master six
years: " When thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let
him go away empty; 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 unto him. It
shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from
thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving thee siz years."-Deut. xv. 13-18.  This language and these injunctions are wholly inconsistent with the idea that the servant was a
subject of speculation, and could for six years be treated as an article
of merchandise.
There is one and only one passage in the Pentateuch, which apparently implies that the master might sell or hire out his domestic servant, viz.: Ex. xxi. 7-11.  In this case a father sells his daughter as
a maid servant, but most unquestionably, from  the context, with the
agreement that she is to become the wife either of the master or of
his son. But if the purchaser does not fulfil this part of the contract,
"if she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then
2




18            THE MIVOSAIC LAWS O' SERVIT'UDE.
shall he l t Ihe be redeemed.d  Tihat is, lie shall ot retain 1r as a
servant, but he shaTll be compelled to let her go back to her fitther's
on receiving back an equitable poltion of the monely he ha'd tadvaced
for her. It is added,' to sell her unto a strange nation he,hall have
no power, seeing e h ath dealt deceitfully with her."  Thbhe obscurity
of this passage is probably owing to a defective translation. eThe reason assigned for prohibiting the sale-" seeing that he hath dealt deceitfully with her "-seems to imply that, had he not thus dealt with
her, he might have sold her.  Such an inference must be incorrect,
since, if he had not dealt deceitfully with her, he would have made
her his wife, or his daughter-in-law, in wlhich case he could not have
sold her. Among the Jews and other Eastern nations, it was custom
arv for fathers to receive a valuable consideration for their daughters
given in marriage. This custom arose from polygamy, which, by creating a sort of monopoly in wives, increased the demand for theni,
while it lessened the supply. Thus we read of paying " money according to the dowry of virgins "-Ex. xxii. 17. So when David was
about to marry Saul's daughter, he was informed " the King desireth
not any dowry."  Caleb demanded, as the price of his daughter, the
capture of Kirjath-sepher.  Othniel performed the exploit, and married the daughter.
In the case before us, the girl had been bound by her father for six
years, and for her services, as well as for her dowry, he had been paid
in advance. Hence, during this time she might not marry without
the consent of her master, as the marriage would virtually defeat the
contract, and the master would lose the money he had paid.  In ordinary cases, the master might for a pecuniary consideration, to be paid
by the intended husband, give his consent; and this, in Jewish phraseology, would be called selling the girl. But in this instance, one of
the conditions of the indenture was, that the master himself, or his son,
would marry the girl during the six years.  The master, however,
deals deceitfully, and determines not to execute the condition. Under
these circumstances, he is forbidden to sell the girl to another for a
wife: " To sell her to a strange nation, he shall have no power."  A
strange nation means, in the Old Testament, a foreign, and, of course,
a heathen nation. As no nation buys a woman, the expression is
equivalent to " to sell her in a strange nation he shall have no power."
Now, it is utterly inconceivable that the law should permit a Jew,
whether man or woman, to be forcibly sold, not only to a heathen, but
a heathen residing in a heathen nation.  The Vulgate renders it " another people," and the Septuagint, still more accurately," another fatmily." This last version relieves the passage from all difficulty. The mas



FAMILIES OF I-IEBREW    DOMESTICS.              19
ter shall not sell the girl into another family as a wcTfc for one of its members. He shall receive back a fair portion of the money he advanced,
and the girl shall return to hIer father.
But suppose the master so far fulfils his contract as to marry the
servant to his son; in that case the law exacts from  the husband a
rigid fulfilment of his duty to his wife.  If he does not treat her as
his wife, she may leave him, and no part of the money advanced for
her shall be returned. —Ex. xxi. 11.
OF THE FAMILIES OF HEBREW DOMESTICS.
If the'Hebrew servant " came in by himself, he shall go out by
himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him."Ex. xxi. 3. That is, if a man and his wife hire themselves, they shall
both be discharged at the end of six years.  But what if the servant
takes a wife during his term, is she also a servant, and does her term
expire with her husband's?  The servant, as we have seen, was domesticated in his master's house, formed one of the family, and of course
could have no famlily distinct from  his master's.  Hence it is to be
presumed, that a servant hiring himself for six years, did not marry
without his master's consent, since the master would be obliged to
maintain, not merely the husband, but the wife and children also.  The
law seems to suppose that the servant will not marry, except through
the interference and good will of the master. " If his master have
given him a wife, and she hath borne him sons or daughters, the wife
and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
-Ex. xxi. 4. It will be observed that the wife is to be retained on
the expiration of her husband's term of service, only on two conditions;
first, that she had been given by the master, and, secondly, that she
had borne children.  Had she not been given by the master, he could
not retain her; nor, even if given, could she be retained unless she had
borne children.  The master had given a. wife to his servant; that is,
he had procured one for him, by advancing a sum of money to the woman's father.  But the wife necessarily became, like her husband, incorporated in the family, and she and her children were maintained
by the master. The very circumstance of her having children, while
it lessened the value of her services, increased the expense of the employer. Hence, to make compensation to him for the money originally
paid for the wife, and for the expense and trouble which she and her
children had since cost him, they were retained in his service on the
departure of the husband.  But how long were they to be retained?
The text indeed says " they shall be her master's;" but, as we have al



20            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
ready seen no Hebrew could possibly be a chattel, the expression can
mean no more than that the wife and children shall continue servants.
But the law is explicit that no Hebrew servant, man or wooman, (Deut.
xv. 12,) shall be compelled to serve more than six years.  Hence the
necessary inference is, that the wife with her children shall serve out
the usual legal term of six years.  As the wife married during her
husband's term, she of course entered her master's service after its
commencement. Hence it was, for the reasons stated, only equitable
that she should complete her term, and serve six years from her marriage.  It is not to be supposed that a similar term of service was exacted of each child, for, in that case, a mother might be separated
from her infants-a cruelty utterly at variance with the humanity of
the Mosaic laws of servitude.
There was one remarkable exception to the general law limiting service to six years-an exception throwing much light on the relation of
master and servant in the Jewish commonwealth, and evincing the extreme jealousy with which the law watched over the personal freedom
of the poor and friendless.
In immediate connection with the law authorizing the master to
retain the wife and children, we have the following enactment: "If
the servant shall plainly say, I love any master, my wife and my children, I will not go out free, then his master shall bring him unto the
judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post, and
his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve
him forever."-Ex. xxi. 5, 6. From this law are derived several very
important inferences:
1. It follows, that the master had no power of separating families,
no selling of wives and children.  Under the peculiar circumstances
already mentioned, the master had the right of retaining the wife and
children in his service for a limited time.  But then the father and
husband had the privilege, on certain conditions, of remaining with
them. Now, these conditions, and the ceremony which sanctioned
them, would have been utterly idle and useless, if the master could
the next day sell the wife and children.  It irresistibly follows, that
neither the wife nor children could be sold by the master.
2. The next inference is, that the relation of master and servant
was such, that the law takes for granted that servants would often love
their masters, and desire to remain permanently in their service.
Hence, the law is founded on the presumed affection of a servant for
his master. In the law quoted, the servant is supposed to say, " I
love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out free."7
Here love for wife and children are united with love for the master, in




FAMILIES OF HEBREW      DOMEESTICS.             21
determniing the servant to remain in service; and hence the law seems
to be limited to the case of a  an wi wihwife and children. But the
limitatioD is merely apparent, and we have in this place only the applii.cation of a general law to a particular case.  The general law we
have in Deut. xv. 12 —17:  If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an
Hebrew womcan, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years, then in the
seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And it shall be,
if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee, 6eccuse hze lovth thee.and tzhine house, because he is well with thee, then thou shalt take an
awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy
servant forever.  And also unto thy mzaid-servact thou shalt do
likewise."
Thus every single servant, man or woman, as well as the married
man having children, had the privilege of remaining in the service of
the master, and being maintained by him, and this without his consent
-a privilege which the law presunes the servant may exercise fropm
the attachment he bears to his master and family, and from a sense,of the kindness and comforts he had enjoyed. There is no reason to
suppose that any other code of laws ever granted to servants such a
privilege from such expectations.
It is not probable that where a servant thus forced himself on a master:and exacted a maintenance, without regard to the wants and convenience of the latter, he was entitled to wages. Yet we can readily un-'derstand, that in a state of society so inartificial as that of the Jews,
one in which the population was crowded, but in which the field for
enterprise and industry was exceedingly limited, it might be a great:and precious privilege for a poor man to be incorporated in a kind,
worthy, and affluent family, as a domnestic, even without wages, but,secure of humane treatment and sufficient food and raiment, and especially as he was intimately acequainted with the family, having lived six
years in it, and new of his free choice made it his home and asylum.
3. We may infer from this law the extreme care with which personal liberty was guarded.  The servant, at the end of his term, was to
have the choice of leaving or remaining with his master, while the
master was to have no chice in dismissing or retaining him,; but the
very privilege accorded to *the servant might be used as a pretext for
retaining him against his. will. In that age, and among the Jewish
people, the art of writing was probably confined to very few. Hence,
certain ceremonies were substituted for written contracts.  Thus we
find, in Ruth, iv. 7, 8, the kinsman of Boaz assigning to the latter all
his pre-emption right and title to the land left by Elimelech. Instead
of giving to Boaz a quit-claim deed, signed, sealed, and acknowledged.,




22            THE MOSAIC LtAWrS OF SERVITJUDE.
the kinsman says, before witnesses, "Buy it for thee. So he d!rew~ of;'
his shoe."  The transaction is thus explained by the historian  " Now.
this was the manner in former times, in Israel, concerning redeeming
and changing; for to confirm all things a man plueked off his shoe
and gave to his neighbor; and this was a testimony in Israel."  So
Boaz, when he had received his kinsman's shoe,' said unto the elders
and all the people, Ye are witnesses this day that I have bought all
that was Elimelech's."
The servant who decided to remain in his master's service entered
into no written contract or obligation to that effect.  Of course, the
master had no written evidence that the servant was freely retained.
Yet had a verbal consent on the part of the servant been sufficient,
the master, if so disposed, might have pretended that such a consent
had been given, and a poor, friendless man might have been forcibly
and wickedly kept in servitude.  The' humane and provident provisions of this law made the free consent of the servant a matter of
public notoriety, and respecting which no question could arise.  On,
the servant announcing his intention to remain, " the master shall bring
him unto the judges"-that is, both are to appear in open court, and
there the servant is to acknowledge his desire and intention to remain in
his master's service. But more thban this: he shall submit to receive
a permanent mark in his person, indelibly testifying that he acted
freely, and not by compulsion. After having made his declaration in
court, his master shall bring him " to the door or unto the door-post,
(probably the court-house door,) aLnd bore his ear through with an
awl."  These precautions and this peculiar ceremony guarded at once
the rights of both servant and master. It was impossible for the
master to claim the services af the other after six years, against his
consent; and it was impossible for the servant to claimn exemption from
service, and the liberty of leaving his m1aster at pleasure, while the
hole in the ear bore witness of his formal public engagement to remain,.
4. Another important inference from this law is, that the servant
could not be sold.  The servant voluntarily chooses to remain with his
master, because he loves him and his house, and is well with him.  The;
law accords him, under certain conditions, the privilege of staying
with his master.  Now,- the object of the servant and the whole purport of the law would be frustrated, could the servant be immediately
sent to market and sold to another.
There is still an important inquiry as to the meaning of the last
clause of this law: " And he shall be thy servant FOrEVER." — eut.
xv. 1.7.  The word forever, as applied to the service of one man for
another, is of course used, in a limited, sense.  The most natural infer



TREArTMENT OF HEBR3EW      DOI.ESTICS.            23
ence would be, that it is here equivalent to thee pra " se  during life."
But as the inducement of the service was love for the lmaster-which
of course, would cease with his dea.th-and as the breaking up of the
family would probably follow the decease of its head, and as the servant could not be sold, we might without violence construe ~" forever"
io mean that the servant shall serve the master as long as they both
shall live.  Yet there are serious difficulties in giving even this ex-tended meaning to the term.  In the first place, such a construction
would often conflict with the positive law giving liberty to all the inhabitants of the land at the Jubilee; and, secondly, it would frequently
operate injuriously to both servant and master.  It will be remembered that the servant, after serving six years, became entitled to
claim from his master a continued maintenance for continued service,
whether his master wanted himr or not.  This was intended as a benevolent provision for the poor servanit.] But this same poor servant, if
a Hebrew, became at the Jubilee, if he survived his father, a freeholder, vested with his share of the landed inheritance belonging to
his family.  Why, then, should hle be compelled to serve, wihe  he
might have land and a home of his own?   And why should a master
be compelled to maintain a servant, now perhaps old and incapable of
labor, when that servant was no longer an object of charity?  It is
more congenial with the whole spirit of Jewish legislation, as well as
with the positive ordinance of the Jubilee, to understand the "' forever"
as henceforth, for the future, regardless of the six years' statute of
limnitation.  The servant is to serve the master without anly further
contrac t; he is to serve him continually, without interlmission, till released, with all other servants in the land, at thle jubilee.  There clan
scarcely be a doubt that this i the true lmeaning of the law, aand especially s hias this  a  e meaning Awhich'ihe Jews themselves attached
to it.  Josephus tells us that the servant who chose to remain with
his master was " set free only at the coming of the Jubilee, which is
the fiftieth year."-Book iv. ch. 8.
TREATM ENT OF HEBREW DOMESTICS.
In Lev. xxv. 39-43, we find the following injunctions:'If thy
brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor and be sold nteol o thee, (sell
himself) thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondman., (servant,)
but as a hired servant; and as a sojourner he shall be unto thee, and
shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee, and theyn shall le depart firom
thee, both he aind his children with hinm, and shall returnl nto his oiwn
family, and. unto the posses;io,: s of1 is fatiers shlR lie return a  for tlhey




24            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
are my servants which I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall
not be sold as bondmen (servants).  Thou shalt not rule over him with
rigor, but shall fear thy God."
This reference to the Jubilee has already been explained. The law
now under consideration is given in connection with the establishment
of the institution of the year of release.  The general law limiting
service to six years is here accommnodated to the Jubilee; when the
six years would extend beyond the year of Jubilee, then the service is
to terminate at that year.
We find in this law some general principles laid down, which were
to influence the conscience of the master, not specific enactments controlling his conduct:' Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a servant "-" they shall not be sold as servants."  What are we to under.
stand by these expressions? and how are such declarations to be reconciled with the various legal provisions made respecting the sale of -ebrews as servants, and with the fact that Hebrew servants are spoken
of so frequently in the books of Moses?  The translators, not understanding the spirit of the prohibition to compel a Hebrew to serve as
a servant, and of Hebrews being sold as servants, so apparently at variance with the whole code of servitude, thought proper to substitute
bondman and bondmen for servant and servants; thus conveying the
idea that although Hebrews might be servants, they might not be slaves.
The command, " Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a servant," is
explained by the next clause of the sentence:  But as a hired servant
and as a sojomrner shall he be unto thee."  In other words, although
he is your servant, and is bound to obey your orders and to perform
any labor you may require- of him, still you are morally bound to treat
him with kindness and consideration.  A hired servant is one who contracts to do a specific work for pay, and he is not bound ordinarily to
do any and every kind of work. Now, be considerate to your servant,
and, instead of exercising an arbitrary authority over h1im, behave towards him with the same forbearance and moderation you would show
to a hired servant, whose wages you must pay at night, and who will
not return to you in the morning if you treat him ill. Instead of treating your servant as a servant-as one who has no will of his own, and
to whose feelings you pay no regard-treat him as a sojourner in your
family, as he really is; and do you try to make him comfortable and
happy. Such is the true meaning of the injunction not to treat an
obed as an obed; and it explains the declaration, " They were my servants which I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold
as servants.'.  This is not a prediction, for many Jews have been sold
among their conquerors; nor is it a prohibition of Jews selling them —




INTERCOURSE BETWEENT MASTERS AND SERVANTS.              25
selves as servants, for this the law most explicitly allowed.  It is a
mere repetition of the rule just quoted, enforced by the consideration
of the favor shown to the Jews by God himself.  The whole spirit of
the rule is comprised in the precept, " Thou shalt not rule over him
with rigor, but shall fear thy God."  To rule with rigor is an indefinite
expression, and the language, instead of being defined by law, is left
to be interpreted and applied in the fear of G-od, by each master for
himself.
Such are the great moral rules given by the Mosaic law with regard
to the treatment of domestic servants.  The benevolence which dictated these rules is farther displayed in the manner in which masters
are required to dismiss their servants on the expiration of their six
years' service:  When thou sendest him out free fiom thee, thou shalt
not let him go away empty; thou shalt furnish him liberally out of
thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press."  Here,
again, is an injunction addressed to the conscience of the master. He
is to make a liberal present to his departing servant, of meat, of grain,
and wine; but how much of each is left to his own sense of duty.
The injunction is intended to excite a kind interest in the future welfare of the servant, while the amount of the gifts to be made to him
are very properly to be governed by circumstances, and not by positive
law.
FAMILIAR INTERCOURSE BETWEEN MASTERS AND SERVANTS.
We have already said that the six-year domestics were incorporated
into their master's family. Hence the servant of a priest might eat
holy flesh, a privilege denied to the married daughter of the priest
himself. So the servant eat the Passover with his nmaster, which a
friend or lodger in the house could not do.  All this proves that the
servant was considered a mlember of the family. As such, lie united
with the family in its religious social rites.  Of course, all the. men
servants went up to Jerusalem three times a year, with their masters, to
observe the ritual solemnities.-Ex. xxiii. 17. The feast of Weeks was
a national festival, held at Jerusaleim, and the command respecting it is,' Thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou and thy son and
thy daughter, and thy man servant and thy maid servant."-Deut. xvi.
11.  So also at the feast of the Tabernacles: " Thou shalt rejoice in
thy feast, thou and thy son and thy daughter, and thy man servant and
thy maid servant."-PDeut. xvi. 14.
Not only were the servants partakers of the great annual feasts, but
they were also partakers of the ordinary feasts which followed the sacrifices.  Thus: " There shall be a place which the Lord your God




26            THE iMOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
shall choose, to causehisl name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring
all that I command yon: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your
tithes, and the heave offering of your han-d, and all your choice vows
which ye vow unto the Lord;- and shall rejoice before the Lord your
God, ye and your sons and your daughters, and your men ervant- s and
your maid servants. -Deut. xii. 11, 12.
We have already seen that the law contemplated that the master
and his sons might intermarry with the maid servants, and that it
guards these women from becomning the victims of fraud. Not only
did sons of the family marry maid servants, but masters gave their
daughters to men servants.  Thus we learn, incidentally: that Sheshan gave his daughter to his servant for a wife, and that his servant was a stranger, an Egyptian.-l Chro. ii, 34. We fild Samuel,
then at the head of the Jewislh Commonwoealth, giving a select dinner party, as it would seem, in honor of Saul, and bringing  Saul
tandc his ser'vant into the parlor, and making them sit in the chiefest place among them that were bidden, which were about thirty persons.'-1l Sam. ix. X22. Now, this servant was not an offcer, but a menial, in the family of Kish, and was engaged with Saul in loolking for
his master's asses.  In these various cases of social familiarity with
servants, we find an illustration and explanation of the apparently
paradoxical rule we have before considered, of not treating a servant
as a servant.
LEGAL PROTECTION AFFORDED TO SERVANTS.
Where the intercourse between mlaster and servants was of the
character we have described, the treatment of the latter must ordinarily have been kind and tolerant.  The murder of a servant, like
that of any other person, was punished with death. —Lev. xxiv. 17.
There was, however, a hypothetical case of the homicide of a servant,
in which by law the master was to be acquitted of a murderous intent:
"' If a man smite his servant or his maid with a r'od, and he die under
his hand, he shall surely be punished, (that is, with death;) notwithstanding if he continue a day or two he shall not be punished, (put to
death,) for he is his money."-Ex. xxi. 20, 21.
It is scarcely necessary'to remind the reader thlat the expression
he is his money," refers to the money already paid by the master to
his servant. As thLe former had paid the wages of his servant in advance, the presumption in law is, that he did not intend to kill him,
and thereby inflict a pecuniary loss on himself. But this presumiption
is rebutted if the master continues the beating till the servant expires,




MASTERS NOT TO BEAT THEIR SERVANTS.                27
dies' under his hand."  In this case the master is a murderer, and
must himself die the death. But the presumption revives, and shall
in law be equivalent to proof, if the beating is with a rod, and not a
deadly instrument, and if the servant survives for a day or two, that
the master did not intend to take the life of his servant, for had he
intended to do so he would probably have taken a more eflcient instrument, and would have continued its use until his object was accom.plished.  The phrase, " he shall not be punished," can only mean not
as a murderer; for when the master was to be severely punished for
knocking out his servant's tooth, it would be preposterous to suppose
that he might with impunity beat him so cruelly as to cause his
death.
The Jewish law went farther, probably, than any other has ever
gone in punishing offences against the person.  The principle of the
law on this subject was, " Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
-Ex. xxi. 24, 25. H-ence, " If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor,
as he hath done so shall it be done unto him-breach for breach, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall
it be done unto him agaizn."-Lev. xxiv. 19, 20. We can readily believe that masters subject to such a lawT would be exceedingly careful
how they " caused a blemish' in a servant.  By this law a servant
had the same protection against outrage as his master himself.  But
a still farther protection was afforded him by another law: " If a man
smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he
shall let hifm go free for his eye's sake; and if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for
his tooth's sake " —Ex. xxi. 26, 27.  Thus. while public justice was
avenged in causing the master to lose an eye or a tooth, the servant
was in a greater or less degree compensated by the recovery of his
freedom, without restoring any portion of the wages he had received
for the whole term.
MASTERS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BEAT THEIR SERVANTS.
No power is given in the law to a master to chastise his servant,
nor is there hint given that any such right was claimed or exercised.
The law, indeed, supposes that masters might beat and murder servants as well as other men, and provides for their punishment, but
it nowhere intimates that a master may lawfully beat his servant, however moderately. Indeed, where courts of justice were expressly restrained from awarding more stripes than forty as a punishment for




28            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
crime, (Deut. xxv. 3,) it cannot he supposed that Jewish masters were
permitted to wield the scourge at pleasure.
SERVANTS MIGHT ACQUIRE AND HOLD PROPERTY.
No law prevented the servant from acquiring and holding property.
We have seen him authorized to redeem himself, to vacate his contract
with his master for the remainder of his term if he be able,' out of
the money that he was bought for," out of the wages he had received
in advance, by paying back an equitable portion of the money for the
unexpired term. When Saul was at a loss for a present to Samuel,
his servant offered him money for the purpose.-1 Sam. ix. S. The
servant had money in his pocket, which was more than his young
master had. Gehazi, servant to Elisha, fraudulently obtained considerable money, no attempt wTas made to take the money from him, nor
does the narrative contain the slightest intimation, that being a servant, the money belonged to his master. The fact that Ziba, the servant of Saul, had himself twenty servants, proves conclusively that
obed does not mean slave; but it does not prove that domestic servants
were capable of holding property, as there is no reason for believing
that he was a domestie-he seems rather to have been a land agent.
Still, the right of domestics to property is beyond a doubt, and the
allusion we have quoted to the money he had received from his master,
and his right to use it for his own redemption, settles the point.
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF SERVANTS.
To the privileges granted by the Mosaic law to the six years' servant is still to be added, the regard paid to his religious rights. On
the subject of religious observances he appears to have been-placed on
an entire equality with his master. Not only was every seventh day
abstracted from labor, but twenty-two days were to be spent at Jerusalem during the three national festivals, together with a few other
days of religious solemnities, in which no work was to be done; and
to these days of leisurere e to be added the time spent in travelling
to and from Jerusalem three times a year.  It is remarkable, that
although the women were not required to attend the national festivals,
yet Moses, speaking of the two feasts of Weeks and of Tabernacles,
says of each," Thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou and thy son and thy
daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant."-Deut. xvi. 11, 14.
This language, although never understood as commanding the attendance of the women, certainly permits and recommends it.




SERVANTS CONTRACTS BINDING EXCEPT REDEEMED.             29
SERVANTS NOT PERMITTED TO DISSOLVE THEIR            CONTRACT
EXCEPT BY REDEMPTION.
Before dismissing the subject of Hebrew domestics, it may be well
to notice a mistake into which some Anti-Slavery writers have fallen.
The law as we have seen, pointed out a method in which the servant
might at any time dissolve his contract for six years' service. He
might redeem himself by paying back to his master," out of the money
that he was bought for," an equitable portion of the wages he had
received, in proportion to the unexpired term for which he had bound
himself. If he had not the money, any relation or friend might advance it for him, and then he went out free.-Lev. xxv. 48-50. Hence,
we find, in Nehemiah, 6ertain of the returned Jews complaining of
their poverty, and stating, as a grievance resulting from it, that they
brought into bondage (service) their sons and daughters,' neither is it
in our poouer to redeeem them, for other men have our lands and vineyards."-Neh. v. 5.
The writers alluded to, overlooking this wise, just, and merciful provision, have supposed that the servant might at pleasure abscond from
his master, without paying back the unearned wages he had received.
This opinion is founded on Deut. xxiii. 15: " Thou shalt 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."  If this law applied to the six years' servants, then it
in fact nullified and destroyed the most merciful and blessed system
of domestic servitude the world has ever known. A poor man hires,
in Scripture language, sells himself, for six years as a servant, and receives down his wages for the whole term. The next day, with the
money in his pocket, he leaves his employer, and with perfect impunity
resides where he pleases, enjoying the fruit of his fraud and breach
of faith! It is impossible to suppose that God ever made a law so
inconsistent with justice and fair dealing, and so destructive to the very
system he had established; for who, under such a law, would pay
wages in advance? We find that two of Shemei's servants absconded,
and took shelter in the family of the king of Gath, and that they
were pursued and recovered by their master. But why did they seek
refuge among the Philistines if they would have been safe from recapture in any house in Jerusalem? It is moreover obvious that this
supposed law is in palpable contradiction to the law of redemption.
Why was the servant to redeem himself by paying back a portion of




80            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
the money he had received, if he might legally redeem himself without
cost, by merely running away?
The passage in Deuteronomy is wholly insulated, having no connection with what precedes or follows it. and hence no light is thrown on
it from the context.  In Deut. xxii. 1, we have a law of an opposite
character: " Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sleep go astray,
and hide thyself from them; thou shalt in any case bring them again
unto thy brother."  The escaped brute must be restored, but not the
escaped MAN. These two laws utterly repudiate the idea of the divine
sanction of property in MrAN. But who is the escaped man?  The
term esccped here implies a deliverance from involuntary servitude, not
a breach of a voluntary contract. If this law applied to Hebrew servants, then they had a legal right to leave their masters, and a legal
departure can hardly be called an escape.  The law is obscurely expressed. To whom is it addressed? What is meant " by he shall dwell
with thee?' " Thozb shalt not oppress him."  To whomu is this injunetion given?  There can be little doubt that the Jewish State, or
Commonwealth, is the party addressed.  It is the Government, that
is forbidden to surrender the fugitive, or to oppress him, and is required to permit him to live unmolested where he pleases.  This construction is strengthened by the expression, escaped "unto thee."
Fugitive servants do not ordinarily escape to an individual, but to
another land or people.  On the whole, the most natural interpretation of this law, and the one most consistent with the voluntary character of Jewish servitude, is, that it is a statute relating to servants in
foreign lands, who escape from their masters into Judea.  There is
not a particle of evidence that in the time of Moses there was a
singele chattel slave in all Syria; and admitting that the escaped servant was a servant by contract, still it was a case over which the
Jewish magistrates had no jurisdiction.  They were not bound to enforce contracts made between citizens of foreign countries, any more
than we are to surrender an English apprentice who escapes to us.
The fugitive servant who settled in Judea, of course, renounced idolatry, and embraced the worship of the true God.  Hence, the cheerful
hospitality with which he was to be received, and the prohibition to
oppress him.
FOREIGN DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
The word stranger has in the Old Testament various significations.
In reference to the priesthood, all Jews were strangers, except the
descendants of Aaron. In reference to the Jewish nation, all the rest
of mankind were strangers. In reference to the citi-zcns of the Jew



FOREIGN DOMESTIC SERVANTS.                   31
ish comimonwweall, such as were not of the seed of Abraham were
strangers,  The foreign domestics belonged to this class. The warrant for their employment was the following:
" Both thy bondmeen and thy bondmiaids, which thou shalt have, shall
be of the heathen that are round about you: of themi shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids. IXoreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy and of their families
that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be
your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your
children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your
bondmen forever. "-Lev. xxv. 44-46.
This is the only passage in the whole Pentateuch that refers to the
purchase of foreign servants. It cannot be denied that this portion of
Holy Writ, as thus presented to us by our English translators, looks
very much like the establishment, not by divine permission, but by divine conmmand, of a slave trade in corrupt, profligate idolaters; and
as this trade was a divine institution, it was of course intended for the
comfort and edification of God's people. True it is, these same Jews,
thus commanded to traffic in idolaters, were warned of God-" If thy
brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the
wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee
secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not
known, thou nor thy fathers-namely, of the gods of the people zvhich
are round about thee-thou shalt not consent unto him, neither shalt
thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal
him; but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die."-Deut. xiii. 6-10.
Yet, most strange, Almighty God commancds that his people shall
go among the heathen, and forcibly bring home and scatter throughout
the land multitudes of enticers to idolatry! These same Jews to whom
God said, " Ye shall be holy unto me, for I the Lord am holy, and
have severed you from all other people, that ye should be mine," were
from generation to generation to resort to slave markets in heathen
nations, and there purchase wretched worshippers of stocks and stones,
to be the inmates of their families and the companions of their children! Nay, more: slave markets were to be opened in Israel, in which
heathens were to sell heathens for the convenience of God's favored
people! All this, although apparently indicated by the passage quoted,
seems too monstrous and horrible to be true.  Let us, then, scrutinize
the phraseology of the passage, and see how far itrepresents the meaning of the original,




32            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
The puzrchase of men and women as bondmen and boncdmaids, according to the usual acceptation of these terms in our language, implies a state of chattel slavery; and if such an understaning of the
passage be the correct one, what has been said of the introduction of
heathens and idolaters into Israel, by divine command, is a logical and
irresistible deduction.
The reader needs not by this time to be reminded that in the original
nothing is to be found of bondnmen and bo72zdmaids, and that these
words have been substituted for men servants and women servants by
the translators, and in compliance with their pro-slavery theory.  But
still, if these servants wore boughtt, wherein did they differ from chattels? Were they not articles of merchandise?  The word bzuy, in
the 44th verse, has been seized upon with an air of great triumph by
certain champions of American Slavery, and has given some trouble
to its assailants. Great pains have been taken by the latter, to prove
that the Hebrew has not necessarily the same meaning as the English
word. The attempt is perfectly successful, but at the same time superfluous. It is indisputable that the Hebrew word here rendered buy,
also means, to get, procure, acquire  This very word is thus translated in our common version of the Bible. Eve said, "' I have gotten a
man from the Lord."-Gen. iv. 1. " He that heareth reproof getteth,
understanding."-Prov. xv, 32. " He that getteth wisdom loveth his
own soul."-Prov. xix. 8, &c., I&c. Hence it is contended, that "of
them shall ye buy," ought to have been rendered, " of them shall ye
get or obtain servants."  Such a version would have been correct, but
the word buy is better, as being more definite, and showing how the
servants were gotten.
Logicians tell us that, in argument, we may use what terms we
please, provided we clearly define their meaning, so that there may be
no doubt in what sense they are used. We have already seen that
the words buy and sell, as applied to servants in the Mosaic law, are
clearly used to express a pecuniary contract between the employer and
the servant.  The servant is said to sell himself-that is, his time and
labor; and the master buys them  of the servant, by paying to him
their price in advance. When masters are authorized to buy their
brethren, and their purchased brethren are expressly declared to sell
themselves, and it is shown that the purchase money was paid, not to a
third person, but to the one who was sold, the word buy, used in the
same connection in relation to other servants, loses all ambiguity. The
text itself explains the sense in which the term is used. To buy a
Hebrew servant, is to buy him of himself; to buy a stranger for a
servant, is to buy him of himself.  To suppose that in the same chap



FOREIGN DOMESTIC SERVANTS.                   33
ter, and while treating of the purchase of servants, Moses uses the
word in a totally different sense when applied to Hebrew and foreign
servants, is to suppose that from a fraudulent intent he purposely
rendered his law doubtful and unintelligible.  We shall see hereafter
that the word could not have been used in two different and opposite
senses, and that the law in regard to Hebrew and foreign servants
was one and the same.
"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall
be of the heathen that are round about you."  Our translators by the
peculiar phraseology in which they render this passage, convey the idea
that the Jews were to have heathen slaves, and none others. But these
alleged slaves or bondmen we have seen were servant.s,'and the insinuation that the Jews could have none but heathen servants is most
thoroughly refuted by all the laws respecting I-hebrew servants. Hence,
what here seems like a command to have heathen servants only, is in
fact a permission to have such in addition to Hebrew servants.  But, in
truth, this idea of giving the Jews heathzen servants is a conceit of the
translators, and leads the reader to imagine that heathens were to be
subjected to servitude as a punishment for their idolatry.  And so the
slave was to be punished for worshipping false gods, by being transferred
from a heathen to a Hebrew master; while the heathen slave-breeders
and traders were to be rewarded for their idolatry by sending the children of Israel to their markets as customers, and thus enhancing the
price of human flesh!
The word heathen is gratuitously inserted by the translators, instead
of nations, the meaning of the original. True it is, that the adjoining
nations were heathen; but their heathenism is not assigned, even by
implication, as the reason why individuals belonging to these nations
might be employed as servants in Judea; nor does it follow that the
individuals so employed were heathen. We shall see, in the sequel,
that their employment, so far from being a punishment for their idolatry, was in fact a privilege accorded them  in consequence of their
conversion to the worship of the true God.
Not only were the inhabitants of the contiguous countries to be
gotten or bought as servants, but also, " Of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families
that are with you, which they begat in your land."
" Children of the strangers" is an orientalism, for strangers, as
"' children of the East," " Children of the Province," " Children of
the Ethiopians."  Hence, the Jews, instead of buying little boys and
girls of their parents, were to buy foreigners residing in the country,
and not only foreigners, but their descendants, natives of Palestine.
3




34'THE MOSAIC LA'WS OF SERYITUDE.
In Isaiah -we meet with a similar orientalismi: i" The r.ton  of the
stranger that join themselves to the Lord to serve himn nd to love
the name of the Lord to be his servants, every one that lieepeth the
Sabbath firom polluting it, and taketh hold of my covennlt.'-lvi. 6.
So we see that resident foreigners were not necessarily heathen.
" And they shall be your possession."  This is not a very perspicuous expression; but much light is thrown upon it by a prediction of
Isaiah's respecting the return of the Jews from Babylon: " The Lord
will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in
their own land, and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they
shall cleave to the house of Jacob.  And the people shall -tae them
and bring them to their place; and the house of Israel shall possess
them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids; an-d they
shall take them captives, whose captives they were, and they shall rulo
over their oppressors."'-xiv. 1, 2.
The obvious meaning of this prophecy is, that some of the Babylonians would embrace Judaismn and, cleaving to the house of Jacob,
accompany it'on its return to Palestine.  There, in the course of
Providence, a portion of them, waxing poor, would sell themselves for
servants; and thus, by a sort of poetical retribution, the Jews would
take captive the Babylonians whose captives they had been, and would
rule over their oppressors.  Of course, these former oppressors of the
Jews were not slaves, but free men, and had now become voluntary
captives or servants. Now, the prophet tells us that the house of
Israel shall possess these converted Babylonians.  In what sense could
these converts be a possession?  It will s6areely be pretended that
these people, having abjured idolatry, and from their belief in the true
God having exiled themselves from their native country, to accompany
the Jews to the Holy Land, were on their arrival to be kidnapped by
God's people, and converted like American slaves into beasts of burden;
and that this act of atrocious wickedness was predicted by the prophet,
as a portion of that mercy which the Lord had in store for Jacob..
In no possible sense could the house of Israel be said to possess theso
Babylonish proselytes, but as using and enjoying their services, not
as chattels, but as voluntary servants.  In this same sense, beyond all
doubt, it is said by Moses of the servants obtained from the adjacent
nations, and of the resident foreigners in Judea, and their descendants,
"they shall be your possession."
"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after
you, to inherit for a possession; they shall be your bondrmen forever."
The word "t take" here has such an affinity to seize, as greatly to
strengthen the pro-slavery construction which the translators have given




FOREIGN DOMESTIC SERVANTS.                    35
to this passage. Yet Isaiah uses the same term in regard to the Babylonish converts: " The people shall take them (the converts) and bring
them to their place," viz.: Jerusalem.  Surely, the captive Jews, permitted as a favor by Cyrus to return to their own land, did not seize
upon and forcibly abduct a portion of the king's subjects, carrying
them off as a possession to Palestine; and these subjects, too, their
own best friends, and converts to their religion.
In neither passage does the word "a take" imaly force, but, on the
contrary, an acquiescence in a voluntary act. The converts cleaved to
the house of Jacob, and the Jews, instead of driving them away, were
to accede to their wishes, and take them to Palestine.  So these foreign
servants, wishing to serve, were to be taken, or employed. What the
Jewish parents did, their children were to do after them.  Inheritance
is the transmission of the rights or the property of the father to the
children.  Here it does and can mean nothing more than the transmission of the privilege of using foreign and resident proselytes as
servants; and, as we have seen, this inheritance was continued even
after the captivity. An inheritance convenient, indeed, to the Jew,
but most precious and merciful, as we shall see, to the poor stranger,
who, casting away his idols, made the Lord his God, and, forsaking his
heathen kindred, joined himself to the worshippers of Jehovahlh, uand
cleaved to the house of Jacob.
"They shall be your bondmen forever."  The preconceived opinions
of the translators tempted them to give such a color to this sentence
as best accorded with their pro-slavery theory.  Hence this strong expression in the text, while in the manrgin the literal translation is honestly given. "Ye shall serve yourselves with them: forever."  Not
a word about bondmen, but merely an unlimited permission, as to
time, to use or employ foreigners or strangers.
Such is that famous law, in Leviticus, about heathen bondumen, which
multitudes claim as giving the sanction of a just and holy God to the
horrible principle of human chattelhood, and. to all the abominations
which necessarily spring from that principle.  And yet this same law,
divested of the glosses of the translators, and examined in the light
thrown upon it by the voluntary sales of individuals by themselves,
mentioned in the very same chapter, loses its air of mysterious antagonism to the whole spirit of the Mosaic code. Strike out all the pro-slavery terms which the translators, without authority from the original,
have scattered through the passage, and its plain and obvious meaning is
this: "' You may buy of themselves, for servants, men and women who
are natives of the adjoining countries, just as you have already been
authorized to buy your own countrymen for servants.  You may also




36            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
buy, for servants, strangers residing among you, and their descendants 
and your children after you may do the same. You may always employ them as servants."
The term of service of these foreign servants, together with their
rights and privileges, as will subsequently appear, were in all respects
the same as those of Hebrew servants.
<' The strangers sojourning among you," so often mentioned, and respecting whom so many laws are given, were foreigners residing in Judea. Of course, every foreigner entering Judea for the purpose of
residing-no matter in what capacity, whether as an artisan or a servant-was instantly embraced in this class, and became immediately
subject to the restrictions and entitled to the privileges provided by
law for " strangers in Israel,"
Enough has already been shown, to satisfy any disinterested, unprejudiced person that these foreign servants could not have been slaves.
But as the passage in Leviticus, which we have quoted, is the rock of
defence and the strong tower of the advocates of Slavery, it may be
well to examine in what light a merciful God regarded the strangers
sojourning with his people, many of whom, it is contended, he commanded should be held and treated as articles of merchandise.
OF STRANGERSI IN ISRAEL
The Jewish was, of all religions, the most exclusive, utterly abhorring the intercommunity of gods common to Paganism.'c The LORD he is God, there is none else," was the fundamental
and pervading principle of Judaism.  Of this principle there'could be
no compromise. The acknowledgment of any other God than Jehovah was a crime, to be expiated only by death. As mentioned in a
passage heretofore quoted, the idolater was to be put to death, even by
the hand of a father, a husband, or a brother.  The indignation of the
law against idolatry extended even to insensible objects and irrational
animals. A city fallen into idolatry was to be annihilated: " Thou
shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the
sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle
thereof; and thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the
street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city and all the spoil
thereof, every whit, for the Lord thy God; it shall be a heap forever,
it shall not be built again."-Deut. xiii. 15, 16. Thus relentless and
implacable was the law against idolaters. Of course, the Commonwealth of Israel offered no legal refuge, no abiding place, to the worshippers of false gods. Nor did the law expend its terrors on the He



OF STRANGERS IN ISRAEL.                    37
brew idolater alone.  The foreigner, in crossing the frontier, abandoned his altars and his gods. Did he blaspheme the name of the Lord;
he was stoned to death.-Lev. xxiv. 16. Did he offer any sacrifice ex-,eept according to the Jewish ritual, (Lev. xvii. 8;) did he presume to,eat "any manner of blood," (Lev. xvii. 10;) or to eat leavened bread
when prohibited to the Jews, (Ex. xii. 19;) or did he contract an unlawful marriage, (Lev. xviii. 29;) or did he " do aught presumnptuously,"
deliberately and wantonly violate any law, (Num. xv. 30,) he was to be
~' cut off." It is difficult to understand how an idolater could " sojourn
in the land " under such laws.  The laws relative to strangers were
not merely negative, but as we shall presently see, exacted from them
an entire conformity with Jewish rites, and conferred on him, at the
same time, a full participation in Jewish privileges.
But although the Jewish religion was inexorably intolerant, the
Jewish State cordially welcomed to its embrace the natives of other
lands, and the former professors of other creeds, on the single condition of conformity to the established religion.  From  this general
naturalization, Ammonites and Moabites were alone excepted, and even
this exception, it would seem, did not extend to women, since Ruth,
the wife of Boaz, was a Moabitess.
The resident stranger was entitled to every civil and religious privilege enjoyed by a native Hebrew, with only two exceptions: he could
*not be elevated to the throne, (Deut. xvii. 15;) and as no real estate.could be permanently alienated fror the family and tribe to which it had
originally been assigned, unless -in a walled town, it was only in such
-a town that a stranger could become a freeholder.
It is remarkable how thoroughly the proselyte stranger was incorpor-ated in the Jewish nation.  Rahab, of Jericho, was married to Salmon, the son of the Prince of Judah, and their son married Ruth,
the Moabitess.  Jether, the Ishmaelite, married the sister of King
David; Uriah, the Hittite, is numbered among David's mighty m1en
We find Ittai, the Gittite, " a stranger," a commander in David's army.
David saw no impropriety in depositing the sacred ark in the house
~of Obed-edom, whose very name, Edomitish Servant, betrayed his for-'eign origin.
But while the stranger was thus welcomed and honored in Israel,
the was bound to discharge the obligations of a Hebrew.  He was to,observe the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10) and the day of Atonement, (Lev.
xvi. 29;) he was to abstain from  eating animals that had died of
themselves, (Lev. xvii. 15;) was to commit no abomination, (Lev.
xviii. 26,) nor give his seed to Moloch, (Lev. xx. 2,) &c., &c. On;thei other hand, i.t was his privilege to attend the three great feasts




~8           THE MtOSAIC LAWS OF' SPERVITUDE.
-Ex. xii. 48; Deut. xvi. 11-14.  When guilty of homicide, thie eities
of refuge were open to him, (Num. xxxv. 15;;whlen ceremonially
polluted, he was cleansed by the mysterious water of separation. —
Num. xix. 10. As to his sins of ignorance, it was announced,' Yeshall 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 theum."-Nuim. zv. 29.. So also in regard to
the Passover, it is said: " One law shall be to him that is homeborn
and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."-Ex. xii. 49. And
so, also, there was but one law for the Jew and the stranger in regard
to sacrifices.-Num. xv., 16. The stranger, like the Levite, was without an inheritance in Israel, and therefore, with the Levite, was entitled to " eat and be satisfied'" of the triennial tythe.-Deut. xiv. 29.
Like the Jew, he had a right to glean the harvest-field and the vineyardo.
-Lev. xix. 9, 10. When (" waxen poor and fallen into decay," he was
to: be relieved like a poor Jew, (Lev. xxv. 35;,) and this law, placing
n':aytve and foreign paupers on a legal equality, is give in n the same
chapter with the supposed stattute for the enslavement of the latterm:
Strangers awhen hireed as servants, were to be treated as Jewish hired
servants; neither was to be oppressed,-'Dent. xxiv. 14. The strangers
were'to be gathered together wvith Hebrews, " that they may hear, and
that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all
the words of this lsaz." —Deut. xxxi. 12. In obedience to this law,
the strangers were collected by Joshua to hear  1 all the words of the
law;" and the following anathema.was pronounced in their hearing.
" C^rsed be he that pererverteth the juzdglment of the strager.'-Josho.
viii. 33; Deut. xxvii. 19.
" The strength of Israel will not lie;" and yet we are asked to beieve that HE who uttered this anathema, hiiself perverted. the judgment of the stranger, by opening slave markets in Israel, in which.
these proselyte strangers might be sold like the beasts of the field,.
and permitted cofiles of strangers to be driven as articles of commerce
from the surrounding countlrie, into the Holy land! Nay, more: the
slave traders in Israel, as if in solemn mockery7, vwere required to curse
themselves; for, with the rest of the people they were to respond to.
this anathema, 4 AMEN.9 Finally, we  e  this great comprehensivestatute, not in reference to any particular rite, but of general application, placing the stranger and the Jew on an entire equality before.
the law, viz.: " YE SHALL HAVE ONE MANNER OF LAW, AS WELL FOR THE:
STRANGER AS FOP, ONE OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY, FOR I AMI THE LORD
YOUR GOD."-Lev. xxiv. 22.    The national prejudice of the Jews
against this equality with strangers was, to be met and overcome by a




FAMILIES OF HEBREW      DOMESTICS.             89
reference to the high authority of the lawgiver.  He was not only
Jehovah; but he was the peculiar God of Israel-J-ehovah, yotur God.
Not only were the strangers in Israel, Hebrews in all but descent
fiom Abrahamn, but they were expressly received into the covenant
with God, together with the Isralites.  Said Mose:  Ye stand this
day, all of -you, before the Lord your God; your captains of your
tribes, your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your
little ones, your wives, and the STrANG-ER that is in thy camp, from
the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water, that thou
shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his
oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day."-Deut.
xxix. 10-12.  Did Jehovah enter into one and the same covenant with
the children of Israel and the worshippers of Baal?
The strangers in Israel were proselytes, and not heathen; and no
foreigner could settle in the country, except on condition of submitting to its civil and religious polity. As Jews and proselytes were equal'before the laws, domestic servants, whether Jews or proselytes, were
procured in the same manner by voluntary contract, received their
wa1ges in advance, served six years, and when the six years overran the
Jubilee, were discharged at the Jubilee.
And now we begin to comprehend the benevolence of the statute
respecting foreign domestics. In the whole world their was but one
temple in which the true God was w-orshippped, but that temple wras
open to all who would bow at its altar.  The fanre of the mlarvellous
conquest of Canaan, and the continued wonders of the Theocracy,
would naturally arrest the attention of the heathen round about, and
many might be disposed to acknowledge the great invisible Jehovah
of the Jews, and to throw to the moles and bats their own paltry and
senseless idols. But Jehovah could be worshipped only in Judea, and
would accept of no sacrifice not offered on his own altar. The heathen,
then, who desired to take the Lord for their God, were invited into
Judea, and promised an equality in civil and religio us privileges with
the chosen people of Jehovah.  For the poor destitute foreigners thus
feeing from idolatry, a refuge was provided.  The population was
crowded, and no land was unoccupied, but the mild, beneficent law of
servitude secured then  a retreat and a maintenance.  For six years
they might be domesticated in a Jewish family, a sum of money would
be immediately paid to them, and time would be allowed thenm for becoming acquainted with the laws and customs of their adopted country,:and to be more fully instructed in the new religion they had embraced,
before being thrown upon their own resources. And in what temper
and spirit were the Jews to receive these emigrants?  Y~ere they to




40            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
look on them as men out of whose muscles they could whip corn, and
oil, and wine, and whose little ones they could sell in the market together with kids and lambs?  " If," said Jehovah to his people, "a
stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex (oppress in
the margin) him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be
unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt LOVE nIM AS THYSELF."
-Lev. xix. 33, 34. And again: " The Lord your God is God of gods
and Lord of lords, which regardeth not persons. He doth execute the
judgment of the fatherless and widow, and LOVETH THE STRANGER.
-love ye, therefore, the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of
Egypt."- Deut. x. 17-19.
And were the strangers thus commended to the love of the Jews,
thus secured from oppression, thus beloved by the God of gods and
Lord of lords, worshippers of stocks and stones?  Was it from strangers, thus made equal before the law with the chosen people of God,
that that people were forever to be supplied with bond servants and
bond maids? Were proselytes from idolatry to be rewarded for their
conversion by being reduced to the condition of brute beasts, and rendered at once the type and the warrant for the abominable atrocities of
American Slavery?-and all this by command of Almighty God, who
professed to love them, and affected to forbid their oppression! " The
sons of strangers that join themselves to the Lord to serve him, and
to love the name of the Lord to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant,
even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful i
my house of prayer; their burnt offerings shall be accepted on my altar."-Isa. lvi. 6, 7. And was this gracious promise fulfilled in making the strangers and their children an inheritance and a possession of
slaves to the Jews forever!
Could it possibly be shown that, notwithstanding the promises made
and the privileges offered to proselytes who would settle in Judea, and
the love professed for them by Jehovah, they were nevertheless sold in
the market by his command as slaves, the uncircumcised might well
rejoice, the infidel blaspheme and the believer in Revelation hang his
head in speechless confusion and sore amazement. We have no lack
of divines who profess to find in the passage in Leviticus a full and
unanswerable argument for the lawfulness of negro Slavery, but not
one of them has ever ventured on the desperate task of vindicating
the consistency of the alleged slavery of strangers in Israel, with the
promises made to them, and the laws enacted for their protection,
comfort, and happiness; and all the libraries of Europe and America
might be searched in vain for such n vindication.




OP STRANGERS IN ISRAEL.                   41
If there be such a thing upon earth as oppression, it is developed
in all it most loathsome forms in chattel Slavery, for such Slavery is
a vendible despotism over both soul and body. It deprives an intelligent and immortal being of volition, of judgment, of conscience, and
reduces him to a mere animated machine, retaining, indeed, a consciousness of wrong and a sensibility to suffering, but possessing
no power to promote and pursue his own welfare and happiness
-a parent without children, a husband without a wife, a man without manhood, an immortal without the power of serving and worshipping his Maker, but at the pleasure and dictation of a master. If
there be meaning in words, if there be truth in Scripture, if there be
holiness in God, such a system of oppression must be hateful in the
sight of HnI with whom we have to do. Yet is it contended that the
Almighty, by His divine sovereignty, subjected strangers in Issrael to
such a system of oppression. Let us meet the charge by still further
appeals to the volume of inspiration.
The judges of Israel are commanded to "judge righteous judgment
between every man and his brother, and the STRANGER that is with
him."-Deut. i. 17. To every Jew in Israel was addressed this injunction:' Thou shalt neither vex a STRANGER nor oppress him."-Ex.
xxii. 21. "Thus saith the Lord, execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do
no wrong, do no violence to the STRANGER."-Jer. Xxiii. 3.  The
people of the land have used oppression-yea, they have oppressed the
STRANGERm wrongfully; wherefore I have poured out my indignation
upon them."-Ezek. xxii. 29, 30. "' Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts
-oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, nor the sTRANGE:R."-Zech.
vii. 9, 10.
And are we, indeed, asked to believe that God did himself establish
an institution in Israel, which outraged all these injunctions, and rendered the stranger a victim of the foulest oppression?
Once more: Jeremiah witnessed the capture of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the exile of his people. As the sword
of divine vengeance was about to fall on the guilty nation, and as the
army from Babylon was approaching the doomed city, the last of the
Jewish kings, trembling on his throne, desired the prophet to inquire
what was to be the result of the invasion of his kingdom. At this
last hour, when the knell of the Jewish nation was ready to sound, a
merciful God offered to avert the impending ruin, and to secure the
prosperity and perpetuity of the kingdom, on certain conditions. It
is remarkable that, in this last extremity, Jehovah demands as the
ransom of the temple, the city and the nation, not the due perform



42            THE MOSAIC LAW-S OF SERVITUDEo
ance of the Jewish ritual; not the forms, bu' the substa-Lne of religion;
not sacrifices, and fasts, and oblations, but JUSTICE and MErvCY to the
poor, the oppressed, and the STRANG-En. The answer returneJd to Zede.
kiah was: " Hear the word of the Lord, 0 King of Juidat tha-t sitteth on the throne of David-thou and thy servants and thy people
that enter in by these gates, thus saith the Lord:  Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the
oppressor; and do no wrong, do no violence to the srANTGERi the fatherless, nor the widow; neither shed innocent blood in this place. For
if ye do this thing, indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of
this house kings sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots
and on horses, he and his servants and his people.  But if ye will not
hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the Lord. that this house
shall becomze a desolation.' —xxii. 2-5.
But the hearts and consciences of the king and his nobles and his
great men were petrified bythe long exercise o oppression. So far from
hearing these words spoken by the Almighty, they added to thie vast and
accumulated mass of their wickedness the crowning crime of forcibly
reducing their poor brethren to servitude. Even while " the King of
Baybion's army fought against Jerusalem," and while a long-suffering
God was allowing them a reprieve of a few months, this besotted and infatuated people compelled their six years' servants to continue to serve
them after the expiration of their term, and thus " brouglht hexn into subjection for servants and for handmaids," of course against their will,
and without wages. Again was the voice of Jehovah heard, speaking
through his prophet: " Thus saith the Lord: ye have not hearkened
unto me in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every
man to his neighbor[ behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the
Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will
make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.'"-xxiv. 17.
This last act of oppression, in subjecting their own brethren to a
condition differing but little from slavery, filled up the measure of the
nation's iniquity. Presently the desolated city, the smoking ruins of
the gorgeous temple, the king in fetters, and long trains of captives
wending their way to Babylon, bore testimony to the truth of those
attributes which God. had long centuries before claimed as belonging
to himself:' The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and
abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear
the guilty."
There is in our English and other versions of the Bible a very important pro-slavery perversion connected with the condition of strang



OF STRANGERS IN ISRAEL.                    43
ers in Israel; and which we have purposely forborne to notice till after
that condition had been explained.
In the passage we have quoted from Leviticus, respecting foreign
servants, the 46th verse is as follows: " And ye shall take them as
an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possess.
ion, and they shall be your bondmen forever: bzut over your brethren,
the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."
The natural inference from this verse, interpreted by its own grammatical construction; is, that the Jews were to take and hold foreign
servants as hereditary slaves, and treat them accordingly, but that they
should not treat Hebrew servants in the same nanner-that is, with
rigor.
Now, how can such an implied permission to treat foreign servants
with rigor, coupled with an express prohibition to treat Hebrew servants
in the same manner, be reconciled with the various laws and declarations we have quoted, securing the stranger from oppression, making
him equal with the Jew before the law, and requiring the latter to love
him  as himzsef?  The attempt would be vain, the contradiction is
palpable, and therefore the inference is false. The inference arises
from three circumstances: first, the gratuitous application of the term
bondscen to foreign servants, connected with expressions conveying
the idea of hereditary slavery; secondly, the mnention of these bondmen in the same verse with "your brethren of the children of Israel;"'
and, thirdly, the use of the word but, expressing exception and contrast, giving to the sentence the meaning, " you must not treat your
Hebrew servants) who are your brethren, with rigor, like these foreign
bondmen."
It is well known that the subdivision of chapters into verses is of no
authority, having been made only about one hundred and fifty years
before the present English version. The 46th verse ought to have terminated with the sentence, " they shall be your bondmen forever," because these words conclude the whole law respecting foreign servants;
not a syllable on the subject being found in any subsequent part of the
Pentateuch.  The remaining clause is the commencement of a new law,
and ought to have been the beginninnng of a new verse, being totally disconnected with the regulations respecting foreign servants. Having dismissed those regulations, loses proceeds to lay down the law respecting
the redemption of Hebrew servants in the employment of a foreigner, and
this in connection with the law of the Jubilee. To this new law about redemption, the words " But over your brethren the children of Israel ye
shall not rule one over another with rigor," are merely a preamble. If
this be so, it may be asked, why use the word but, expressing contrast. or.




44            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
opposition to whatwas asserted or implied in the first clause of the verse?
The answer is, but is not here a translation, but a comment, expressing
the opinion of the translators.  Let the reader turn once more to this
same 46th verse. He will observe it commences, " Andc ye shall take,"
&c. Now, the Hebrew here rendered and is in every respect identical
with that which in the beginning of the last clause is rendered but;
thus expressing a new and very different sense.  The initial use of
and, is a peculiarity of the Hebrew, and especially of the style of
Moses.   Of the 187 chapters composing the Pentateuch, no less than
128 commence with and.   Even the boolcs of Leviticus and Numbers
thus begin. Innumerable are the laws and precepts prefaced with and..
Hence, there is no reason whatever, except the pro-slavery theory of the
translators and of their predecessors, whose example they followed,
for changing the ordinary initial use of this particle, in this particular place, into a word having the sense of contrast.  This theory regarded the foreign servants as slaves, and hence, but is here introduced
to intimate a distinction between them and Hebrew servants.  The
folly of this attempted distinction is rendered still more apparent, if
we refer to the rendering in other versions of the Hebrew here translated rigor. The Vulgate has it, " ne opp2rinmatis per potentiam,"
well translated in the Douay Bible, " Do ye not oppress by might."
In Cranmer's Bible, and copied into others, it is, " Ye shall not rule
over one another with cruelty."  And are we to see in these prohibitions a divine warrant for oppressing with might, and ruling with
cruelty; servants of foreign origin, notwithstanding the repeated commands not to vex or oppress the stranger in Israel, and notwithstanding the general statute, that there should be but one and the same law
for the Hebrew and the stranger?  Is the divine injunction, " thou
shalt love the stranger as thyself," to be revoked by the process of
changing and into 6ut?
THE JUBILEE
There is a Jewish institution which still claims our attention, as
connected with the subject of Hebrew servitute. In the Temple, as
previously in the Tabernacle, was an apartment designated as the Most
Holy Place, or Oracle, and called by St. Paul the Holiest. The walls,
ceiling, and floor, were plated with gold. On the golden walls were
sculptured cherubim and palm-trees.   In this room stood two figures of cherubim, about 18 feet in height, overlaid with gold, and
beneath their expanded wings was placed the sacred ark, containing
the stone tablets, on which the finger of Deity had inscribed the moral




THE JUBILEE.                       45
law, binding on the whole family of man. The lid or cover of the
ark was of pure gold, surmounted by two golden cherubim, and denominated the MIERCY SEAT. Above this mercy seat, and between the
wings of the cherubim, brooded the miraculous and mysterious cloud
or SHEKINAtI, whence proceeded communications from the Deity, heard
by the inquiring priest on the other side of the veil, closing the door
into the apartment. Hence, God was said to dwell between the cherubim. Not a ray of light entered the chamber, and hence, again, God
was said to dwell " in thick darkness."  Into this awful place which, as
we learn from St. Paul, was a type of the Heavenly presence, no human
being ever entered except the High Priest, and he only on the 10th
day of the 7th month in each year. After various sacrifices, and the
significant rite of letting loose the scape goat, the High Priest entered
the Most Holy place, bearing sweet incense and blood. When the
smoke of the incense had ascended, mingling with the Shekinah, he
sprinkled the blood not on an altar, but on the MERCY SEAT covering
that moral law which had been and would be broken by every child
of Adam.
It is not dificult to see in this rite, a symbolical presentation to the
Father of the blood of Christ, as an accepted atonement for the sins,
not of the Jewish people, but of the whole world, while the cloud of
sweet incense represents the intercession of the Redeemer.  The day
on which the blood was thus sprinkled on the mercy seat was termed
" the day of atonement."  It was observed as " a Sabbath of rest,"
and the STRANGER as well as the Jew was required to abstain from labor; showing, that although not of the seed of Abraham, he was interested in the mysterious rite.
Every fiftieth year, a new and wonderful importance was attached to
this day of atonement.
" And thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of years unto thee, seven
times seven years; and the space of the seven Sabbaths of years shall
be unto thee forty-nine years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of
the Jubilee to sound, on the tenth day of the seventh month; in the
clay of atonenent, shall ye make the trumpet sound throzghoout all
your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and PROCLAIM LIBERTY throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall
be a jubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his possession,
and ye shall return every man unto his family."-Lev. xxv. 8, 9, 10.
This deliverance from servitude, this redemption of the inheritance,
this return of every man, Jew or proselyte, to the endearments and
enjoyments of his own family, connected as they all were with the entrance of the High Priest before the Shekinah with the incense and




46            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
blood of the atonemelnt are most affecting and significant types of the
deliverance from the bondage of sin, and the purchase of an heavenly
inheritance by the great High Priest of our profession, who by his own
blood entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Hence the evangelical prophet, fully instructed in the
symbolical meaning of this institution, beholds in vision the coming
Messiah, making the proclamation of the long-desired and expected
Jubilee.  "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord
hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek, he hath sent
me to bind up the broken-hearted, to PRO CLAIM LIBERTY tO the captives,
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to PROCLAIM
the acceptable year of the Lord."-Isaiah, lxi. 1, 2.
The acceptable year of the Lord, is evidently the JUxBLEE YEAR, and
the LIBERTY to be proclaimed, as evidently refers to the liberty granted
in that year to all the servants in the land, since every servant was then
free, although by contract, his term of service might have extended
beyond the Jubilee.
In the poetical language of prophecy, this emancipation from service, is characterized as liberty to the captives, and the opening of the
prison to them that are bound. This predicted proclamation by the
Messiah of the Jubilee year, with its consequent discharge of all held
in service, is a symbolical prophecy of the great redemption to be accomplished and proclaimed by Him, together with the spiritual emancipation offered to all in the service of sin. But observe the nature
of the type here selected by the inspired prophet, to represent the blessings of redeeming love-release froin the servitude authorized by th
laws of Moses; mild and gentle as it was. That servitude, although
voluntary, was induced by poverty and misfortune, and hence its termination was considered a blessing fit and proper to typify the release
from the bondage of Satan proclaimed by Christ.  Our blessed Lord
accepted and sanctioned. the type, by publicly quoting the words of
Isaiah, and then adding, "this day is this Scripture fulfilled in your
ears."-Luke, iv. 21.
Strange and revolting as it is, there are not wanting men, claiming
to be the commissioned ambassadors of the merciful Jesus, who have
the hardihood to proclaim in his name, not liberty, but unending hereditary SLAVERY to the captives; not the opening, but the perpetual
barring of the prison to them that are bound: aye to proclaim to the
rich and strong, LIBERTY given by the Son of God, to make merchandise of their poor and helpless but innocent brethren, and to keep
them from generation to generation in penury, ignorance and degrada.
tion, thus nullifying and abrogating his own blessed precepts of mercy,




THE JUBILEE.                        47
love and justice. Let us hope that the great Intercessor again breathes
the prayer, " Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
In provrig that there could be no Slavery in Israel, we have not
heretofore cited the Jubilee emancipation, because the law limiting
the service of Hebrews to six years, and the general statute, declaring
there shall be but one law for the Jew and the stranger, most effectually prevented any legal approach to chattelhood. Had there been no
Jubilee, there could still have been no authorize Slavery.  The Jubilee, however, broke up all fraudulent or pretended contracts for labor, all coerced service, all infractions of personal liberty. The proclamation was couched in the most comprehensive terms that language
could supply.  Liberty was proclaimed, not in certain cities or in certain tribes, but' throughout all your land."  It was liberty, not to
Jews, not to strangers, not to men, not to women, not to children, but
< to all the inhabitants of the land;" to every human being that day
living on the soil and within the jurisdiction of the Jewish Commonwealth. The proclamation was to be made with sound of trumpet
" throughout all the land," that the captive might hear and know that
he was free, and that he that was bound might take notice that his prison was open..If Jewish servitude be, as is impiously contended, the
warrant and model of American Slavery, where is the American
Jubilee?
Some writers have conceived the idea, that although the service of
the Hebrew servant was only for six years, that of the stranger terminated only with the Jubilee; in other words, that while a Jew might
not, except on his own demand, made before the Judges, be retained
for more than six years, a proselyte might be held in service from one
Jubilee to another, a term of fifty years.  The supposition is utterly
at variance with the whole tenor and spirit of the laws respecting strangers, and in direct, palpable contradiction of the statute so often quoted, that there should be but one and the same law for Jew and stranger. The opinion that foreign servants were to serve from the time
of their engagement till the Jubilee, no doubt arose from the fact that
the law authorizing the employment of foreign servants is found in the
same chapter with the institution of the Jubilee; and as nothing is
there said of the six year term, it has been inferred that the term did
not apply to such servants. But it so happens, that in the whole book
of Leviticus, not an allusion is made to the six year term. The same
chapter which contains the institution of the Jubilee, contains also
the law of redemption of Hebrew servants, and by which the wages to
be paid back are to be computed from the day of redemption, up to
the day of the Jubilee. Hence it might with equal justice be inferred




48            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
that the Hebrew as well as the foreign servant was to serve till the Jubilee. We have already remarked, that the law of redemption is merely in this place accomsnodacted to the Jubilee just instituted.  If the
six years' contract overran the Jubilee, the time beyond was to be disregarded in estimating the amount of the redemption money.
MAN-STEALING.
The following law was announced at Sinai, by the voice of the Almighty, at the same time, and in connection with, the law of Hebrew
servitude for six years:
" -He that stealeth a MAN and selleth him, or if he be found in his
hand, he shall surely be put to death."-Ex. xxi. 16.
The intense baseness to which Northern apologists for Slavery will
sometimes descend is strikingly illustrated by the following comment
on this law, in a pro-slavery article of the American Quarterly Review;' Beidg found in the chapter which authorizes this species of property,
(slaves,) it must of course relate to itsfiudl protection from the danger
of its being enticed awayffrom its rightful owner."
So, this was a sort of fugitive slave law, aimed against the abolitionists of Israel; and every one of them who enticed a servant bound
for six years, to leave his master, Was to die the death  The recent
effort made by certain political aspirants to render the rescue of a fugitive slave a capital crime, was it seems, only an attempt " to re-enact the law of God."
It is of little injury to the slave to be stolen.  He has already been
robbed of every possible possession coveted by others, and the thief
who steals him only transfers him from one master to another, and
possibly in so doing lessons his sufferings.  He, on the other hand,
who aids him in breaking his chains, and acquiring the blessings of
freedom, can in no possible sense be denominated a thief  Now, let it
be observed that it is neither the theft, nor the liberation of a servant
or slave, that is to be punished with death.  The larceny here made
capital is the theft of a MAN-the most atrocious larceny in the power
of a human being to commit, not an act of illegal but disinterested benevolence, like that which Mr. Webster proposed should, under the
name of high treason, be expiated on the gibbet.
The severity of this law teaches us the indignation of the Almighty
at the conversion of a being made after his image, into an article of
merchandise.
Much, indeed, is the Hebrew law needed in this country, where so
* For June, 1833.




'rHE GIBEONITES.                      49
iany free men are stolen, both by kidnappers and the operation of
villanous laws; but why, it may be asked, was it needed in Israel,
where there was no legal Slavery?  The answer is obvious-to protect the weak against the strong and wicked. Although there could
be no legal compulsory service, with the single exception of the ndigent thief, there might be, as with us, much compulsory service contrary to law. Many a man, free by law, is now toiling as a slave on
Southern plantations. So in Israel, a poor friendless man might be
seized and carried to a distance, and there forcibly be held as a six
years' servant under a pretended contract. As base money is often a
subject of traffic among confederates, so this poor man might be sold
by the kidnapper to anothem as profligate as himself, who might also
hold him under the plea of a contract.  The man-stealer was the only
slaveholder known to the Mosaic law; and this same law pronounced
his doom —" HE SHIALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH."
THE GIBEONITES.
There is still a species of servitude, recognized by the laws of Moses,
which remains to be examined, and which has been frequently confounded with slavery.
As early as the time of Abraham, the land of Canaan was promised
to his descendants, on account of the grievous abominations of its inhabitants, who were doomed by a divine decree to utter extermination.
The threatened destruction however, was delayed, " for the iniquity
of the Amorites is not yet full."-Gen. xv. 16. At the time of the
Exodus they had filled up the measure of their guilt, and the Israelites were commissioned to put them all to the sword, and to occupy
their territory. The Gibeonites, a tribe of the Hivites, avoided the
impending doom by persuading the Israelites, through fraud and falsehood, to enter into a treaty of amity with them. The plighted faith
of the nation, although extorted by deceit, was kept inviolate, so far
as regarded the lives of these people, but a perpetual service was ex-,
acted of them.  " Now, therefore," said Joshua to them, "ye are
cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen. (servants) and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my
God; and Joshua made them from that day hewers of wood and
drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord.
even unto this day, in the place which the Lord should choose."-Josh.
ix. 23-27.
Thus their lives were spared, and the comparatively light service was
imposed on them of providing the fuel and water required in the Tab4




60            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SE{VITtUDIs
ernacle and Temple worship.  In all this it is impossible to discover a
solitary feature of Slavery.  Their wives and children were wholly
free.  No Gibeonitre was required to labor for any individual, and, as
far as we can discover, not a man was deprived of his estate, whether
real or personal.  Instead of being scattered and sifted through Israel
by sale, gift and devise, they lived together as a distinct community,
discharging their hereditary service of bringing to the altar wood for
sacrifices and wnater for ablutions.  Too numerous to be all engaged
in this work at a time they were probably divided into detachments,
and labored in rotation. We learn from 1 Chro. ix. 2, that these
people'had shared with the Jews the Babylonian captivity; and Ezra
tells us that two hundred and twenty of them, under the name of
Nethimins, (given or offered,) returned wi7-th the olter captives.  They
became proselytes, ifor Nehemiah informs us that, with the priests,
and Levites, they had separated themselves from the people of the
land, ztzto the law qfo God.-Neh. 10. 28.  Their return from Babylon was, of course voluntary, the Jews having no power of coercing
-their attendance; and wve find that a particular part of Jerusaleml
was assigned for their residence.-Neh iii. 26.  It is surely in vain to
cite those people as evidence of the  ivine approbation of.American
Slavery.
SOLOMON'S TRIBUTARIES IN JUDEA.
The Israelites, in their conquest of Canaan, sinfully disobeyed the
divine command to exterminate the guilty and doomed inhabitants.
Many beside the Gibeonites were spared, and permitted to reside
among the Jews, corrupting them by their profligate manners, and enticing them to idolatry.  Solomon, we are told, levied on these people
a tribute of bond service."-1 Kings, ix, 21. The translators, true to
their Slavery theory, choose thus to translate a -tribute of labor, or a tax
in labor, payable not to individuals. but to the State. These people,
we are told, were employed in building store cities, public edifices, and.
the walls of Jerusalem.  The 22d verse, following the announcement
of the levy of bond service, is remarkable: " But of the children of
Israel did Solomon make no bondmen, but they were men of war and
his servants."  It is scarcely necessary to say, that the distinction
here between bondmen and servants, so marked, so palpable, is the conceit of the translators. In the original it is: (Of the children of
Israel did Solomon make no servants, but they were - men of war and
his servants."  That is, of the children of Israel did Solomon exact
lno com p'lsory labor, but they served him'as soldiers, officers, s&c,
These tributaries were in number, (able-bodied men,) 153,600.  From




FOREIGN TRIBUTARIES.                    51
these Solomon drafted 30,000.  These last were divided into three
divisions of 10,000 each,'and in the course of the year each division
labored one month in three, being at work four months for the public,
and remaining their own masters at home the remaining eight months.
So that the tax amounted to four months' labor per year forone man out
of five. If, as is probable, a new draft was made each year, the tribute
would be about four months' labor for each man in five years.  This
certainly was not a very " hard bondage,' when regarded as a commutation of the sentence of death passed on them by their Maker.
This tribute of labor did not conflict with laws respecting strangers.
These Canaanites were not resident foreigners, but natives of the soil,
"( whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy." They
are, indeed, once called " strangers," but in the sense of aliens to the
Commonwealth of Israel, not in the sense of foreign proselytes.
FOREIGN TRIBUTARIES.
The land of Canaan, which was promised to the Hebrews for their
exchlsive occupancy, after exterminating its guilty inhabitants, was of
very limited extent, not exceeding one-third of the area of the State
of New York.   The Israelites were, however, authorized to exercise
dominion over a very wide territory-a permission which their own
sins and follies alone prevented them from embracing, except during a
portion of Solomon's reign.  Their rule was to extend " from the
river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."-Gen. v. 18.
" Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I
given unto you, as I said unto Moses: From the wilderness and this
Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land
of the Hittites,' and unto the great sea toward the going down of the
sun, shall be your coast."-Josh. i. 4. Solomon, we are told, " reigned
over all kingdoms, from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the
Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt; they brought presents and
served Solomon all the days of his life. For he had dominzionr over
all the region on this side the river (Euphrates) from Tiphsah even
to Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river." —  Kings, iv. 21-24.
The inhabitants without the limits of Canaan were iot to be put to
the sword unless'they waged a wanton, unnecessary war.  The miraculous conquest of Canaan, and the signs and wonders attending the
Theocracy, were to be a warning to the adjoining nations to submit
without resistance to the dominion of God's people.
The mode of proceeding in subduing nations beyond the boundaries
of Canaan was to be the following: " When thou comest nigh unto a city




52        TETHE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE,
to fight against it, the.n proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it
make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all
the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they
shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will
make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it; and when the Lord
thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male
thereof with the edge of the sword; but the women and the little
ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoils thereof,
shalt thou take unto thyself-thus shalt thou do unto all the cities
which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these
nations."-Deut. xx. 10-15.
The service and gifts we have already seen rendered to Solomon by
the kings on " this side the river' were no doubt the tributes imposed
in accordance with this law. So, also, "the Moabites became David's
servants, and brought gifts." —2 Sam. viii. 2. The same is said of the
Syrians?  But will it be pretended that all these tributaries were
slaves? In after times, the Israelites themselves became tributaries to
foreign nations, but they are not on that account described, even by
our translators, as " bond men."
But what was the fate of the women, where the men were put to
the sword?  They either became members of the Jewish Commonwealth, "strangers in Israel," enjoying the protection of equal and
just laws, or, remaining in their native country, they married the new
occupants of the conquered cities, or the residents of such of the
neighboring cities as submitted to pay tribute.' In the memorable war
with the Midianites, an exception was made to the general rule, and a
portion of the women were put to death, for the reason given in Num.
xxxi. 16. Thirty-two thousand young females, including children, were
saved alive. What was to be done with them?  They were orphansnot one had a mother living-they were poor and friendless.  Were
they sent to auction, and sold to the highest bidder, and their price
paid' into the treasury 1  The best disposition possible was made of
them. They were distributed among the people; that is, they were received into the families, both of those who had been engaged in the
war, and those who had remained at home.  Thirty-two of them were
intrusted to the high priest, and fifty to the Levites. We have no
farther particulars of them. Very many of them were mere infants.
These were of course brought up to the knowledge of the true God.
The others, who were old enough to adopt a form of religion, renounced idolatry, and embraced Judaism, or they were banished from Judea.
As the law expressly contemplates the case of a victor marrying his female captive, there can be little doubt that many of these captives be



JEWISH SLAVERY WOULD NOT WARRANT ANY OTHER.             56
came wives and mothers in Israel.  These Midian females were advantageous to the families in which they were domesticated, in two ways:
first, as domestics-and thus making by their labor a compensation for
their maintenance;' and secondly, by the lmoney received for them on
their marriage. Fathers and guardians undoubtedly sold daughters
and wards for wives.  In other words, their consent was necessary to
the marriage, and for that consent they were accustomed to demand pay.
But, throughout the Pentateucl, we have no hint of any manzt having
been sold by another to a third party, with the single exception of Joseph; and he, instead of regarding his sale as a lawful business transaction, vehemently insisted that he had been stolen.-Gen. xl. 15.
JEWISH   SLAVERY, HAD     IT EXISTED, WOULD      NOT HAVE
WARRANTED ANY OTHER.
The common argument in behalf of the lawfulness of American
Slavery is, that the Jews were divinely authorized to hold slaves, and
therefore that we may hold them.  It has been the object of the preceding pages to show that the assertion from which the conclusion is
drawn, is wholly false.  We will now reverse the argument, and contend that, even had the assertion been true, the conclusion would still
be false.
The Pro Slavery argument has been put by the Rev. Dr. Fuller, of
South Carolina, in the imposing form of a syllogism, viz.:
"' Whatever the Holy God has expressly sanctioned, cannot be in itself sin.
" God did expressly sanction Slavery among the Hebrews.
"Therefore, Slavery cannot be in itself sin."
It will at once be seen, that the whole point and force of the major
proposition, and on which the conclusion rests, is that no act similar to
that which God once sanctioned can ever after he sinful. To say that
what God sanctions cannot, while he sanctions it, be in itself sin, is but a
bald truism; and the major, thzzs expressed, would have no logical
connection whatever with the conclusion.  Sin is disobedience to the
known will of God, whether discovered by revelation, the light of reason, or the convictions of conscience. Now, the predicate of the proposition implies what is evidently false, that the will of God is the same
in all ages, under every dispensation, and under all circumstances; and
hence, that conduct which was once agreeable to his will can at no future period be in itself sin, if repeated.  Let us apply this principle,
and see where it will lead us.
The Holy God did expressly sanction every Hebrew in putting to




54            THE MOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
death his own wife or son, if guilty of idolatry.  Would it be no sin
in an American citizen to do the sanme  God authorized the Jews to
make war on certain nations, and to put to the sword every male in
every city that refused to capitulate. Would it have been law-ful for
the American army in Mexico to have observed the same divine rule?
The Hebrews were required to offer bulls and rams iu atonement for
their sins. May we do the same?  The man who gathered sticks on
the Sabbath, was by Divine commanulment put to death. May our
Legislatures enact a similar law?  Of all the various practices and
institutions of the Mosaic dispensation which are inconsistent with the
Spirit of Christianity, is the pretended bondage of foreigners, tle only
one that can now be vindicated by the South Caro.ina Syllogism?
But if what the Holy God once sanctioned can never after be sinful,
surely what he has once forbidden, can never after be lawful.  Now
God expressly prohibited the Jews to eat an oyster, to yoke together an
ass and an ox, to sow diverse seeds together in the same field, to weave
linen and woollen thread in the same web, or to lend money on interest.
The Doctor's logic will as readily prove all these things to be now sinful
as it will vindicate American Slavery.
It is alleged that God did select and point out to the Hebrews certain people whom they might hold as slaves. Miost strangely this s)ecial grant to the Hebrews of certcain slaves, is made in Dr. Fuller's
logic a warrant for Slavery in all ages and nations-the Slavery of
Greece and Rome, the villenage of Europe, the serfdom of Russia,
and that' sum of all villanies," American Slavery!
Neither Dr. Fuller nor any of his fellow champions of humanl bondage, attempt to explain the evangelical enodlus ojpe)randic' of robbing an
innocent fellow man of all his rights, civil and religious, and reducing
him to what Aristotle calls  a living machine."  The Hebrews, it
would seem, had no diffculty on this point.  They vwere divinely instructed how and where, and of whom, they were to get their slaves.
But who is to exercise for us this high attribute of Deity?  Who, for
instance, selected the men held as slaves by the Rev. Dr. Fuller?  He
held them by authority derived from the Legislature of South Carolina, and, of course, by a very different title from that which he claims
for the Hebrews to their slaves. Now, God never did sanction, nor
does the Rev. Doctor a:ffirm that he did, the various modes of manufacturing slaves out of freemen, practiced by our American legislators.
By the law of Dr. Fuller's own State, a mariner from any,part of the
globe, having a black skin and curly hair, entering a port of the State,
even through stress of weather, is to be immediately i-hprisoned, and
kept in jail till the departure of the vessel; and then if he, or some




CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.                     55
one for 1him, does not defray the expense of his imprisonment, he is
converted into a slave by being sold at auction to the highest bidder.
So, in some States, if a manumitted slave remains in the State a certain time, or afterwards returns to the State, he is converted into a
chattel.  In the capital of the Republic, and in almost every slave
State, free men are mlanufactured into slaves, by being arrested and
thrown into prison, on suspicion, real or affected, of being a fugitive
slave.  Notice is given in the newspapers of their arrest, with a d.escription of their persons, that their owner may recover them. But
when no pretended owners appear, and when, of course, the presunmption is that they are freemen, what then'?  W lhy, then they are sold
as slaves for life, to raise money to pay their " jail fees 1"  And what
law of Moses is adduced to justify this and a thousand other atrocities
connected with American Slavery?  None in particular, but merely
the unsupported allegation that God sanctioned Slavery among the
Hebrews    The truth is, Slavery never emanated from that holy, just,
and merciful Being, who is the' Father of us all," and of whom it is
declared-, " GOD is LovE!"  This horrible institution originated in
force, and has in all ages been maintained by force.  It is the subjection of the weak by the strong, of the poor by the rich; the most
awful and disastrous triumph ever achieved by might over right.
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.
The view we have now taken of Hebrew domestic servitude, presents it as a peculiar and most extraordinary system.  Embracing both
natives and foreigners, it conferred on all equal privileges, and exacted
from all equal conformity to the established religion.  As a system,
its extreme mildness, wisdom, and wonderful beneficence, excite our
amazement and our admiration.  Such a system was never devised nor
adopted by human pride and selfishness.  No institution so immediately adapted to elevate the character and promote the comfort,
happiness, and morality, of the poor and friendless, was ever before
or since, incorporated into the frame of civilized society.
As a general rule, the relation of master and servant was indissoluble for lthe period of six years. This tended to protect both from
many of the evils resulting from hasty, passionate separations.  The
servant was secured agsainst the loss of his place for trivial faults, or
through the caprices and ill-humor of his employer, as well as through
his own reckless love of change.  The master, on the other hand, wtas
relieved from the inconvenience of being unexpectedly abandoned by




56            THE.MTOSAIC LAWS OF SERVITUDE.
his servants, while his inability to dismiss them encouraged on his part
a forbearing deportment, and a desire to cultivate their good will. The
permanent nature of the relation naturally excited mutual kindness,
and a feeling of common interest. The servants were all fcamnily servants, and in a far more literal sense than in any other age or country.
This system, moreover, secured the servant a safe and peaceful refuge
amid theinfirmities of declining years.  In the bosom of the family
in which he had served when in health and strength, he found a resting-place in age and decrepitude. The friendless, destitute female,
if once employed in the family, was certain of an abode and maintenance for six years; and might, if she pleased, on the expiration of the
term, continue in its service.
It is scarcely possible for us, accustomed as we are to the refinements and distinctions of an artificial state of society, to estimate the
different influence on the feelings, affections, and comforts, of the poor
and humble, of that cold and distant and reserved intercourse with
their employers, exacted by pride, wealth, and rank; and of that easy,
friendly intimacy between master and servant, encouraged by the Jewish laws.  The long and thorough domestication of the Hebrew servant, his participation in all religious rites, his presence with his
master and family in the great feasts, his frequent journeys to Jerusalem, and his mingling for weeks in the vast and joyous multitudes there
assembled at the three festivals, all seei to unite in raising him from
the condition of a servant to that of a companion.
It is painfully startling to turn suddenly from the contemplation of
the highly-favored Hebrew servant, to that of the American slave-a
vendible beast of burden. Had we found in the Word of God the
figure and type of human chattelhood, bearing the impress of Divine
approval, the discovery would have proved a, more formidable objection to the truth of Revelation, than any ever raised by the combined
ingenuity and malignity of infidelity. But, blessed be God, the volume
of inspiration contains no warrant to the rich and strong to rob, to
oppress, to degrade, to keep in ignorance, the poor and the weak.  On
the contrary, we find in this blessed book a system of voluntary service, which for equity and benevolence is unparalleled by any ever
practiced before or since. The system of Hebrew servitude is one of
the strongest testimonies born by the Bible to its own divine origin,
since no human art could have contrived so perfect an illustration of
the attributes claimed by its author-the Lord God, merciful and
gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness-justice and mercy
are the habitation of his throne, mercy and truth go before his facewhich. delivereth the poor from him that is too strong for him —who
executeth judgment for all that are oppressed-a swift witness against
all who oppress the hireling in his wages-I am the Lord God, which
exercise loving kindness and judgment and righteousness on the earth,
for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.