The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume I Part 26

G.o.d here testifies that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service WITHOUT WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their DUES."

Rom. xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY OF HIS HIRE." Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to "_do justice_" to others? By doing injustice to them? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying them "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then ill.u.s.trious examples, patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against human perverseness!

X. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles_.

Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," or literally, while he thresheth. Deut.

xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic animals. Isa. x.x.x. 24. A _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be enjoined, by G.o.d, both for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment _of a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man_?--MAN with his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth G.o.d take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR SAKES? that he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, and that he that thresheth in hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE," (2.) "If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy G.o.d. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did G.o.d declare the poor stranger ent.i.tled to RELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize them to "use his services without wages;" force him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS?

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

The discussion of this topic has already been somewhat antic.i.p.ated, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.

1. Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to the contingencies of property. (1.) They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts, though children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isa. l., 1; Matt. xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov.

xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the soil; Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26-29, Deut. xxiv. 10-13, Matt, v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. (2.) Servants were never given as pledges. Property of all sorts was given in pledge. We find household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers other articles of property, used as pledges for value received; but no servants. (3.) All lost PROPERTY was to be restored. Oxen, a.s.ses, sheep, raiment, and "whatsoever lost things," are specified--servants _not_. Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the runaway servant. Deut. xxiii.

15. (4.) The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents. They made costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of animals, merchandise, family utensils, precious metals, grain, armor, &c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to superiors and persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv.

22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were given as presents--though it was a prevailing fas.h.i.+on in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14. It may be objected that Laban GAVE handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent suffice it to say that the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1; also by the equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban given them as _articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his "G.o.dS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches; how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit: invoking his protection, and the benediction of his "G.o.dS!" "Again, it may be objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his a.s.s, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories of _mere property_ if servants are included, it is in such a way, as to show that they are not regarded as _property_. See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the design is to show not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ of any personage, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if _greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. "And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." So in the fifth verse, "And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned, "And there was a strife between the HERDMEN of Abraham's cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle." See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen.

x.x.xiv. 23; Job xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; x.x.xii. 27-29; Job i. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, xxvi. 13, x.x.x. 43. Jacobs's wives say to him, "All the _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle," "all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." He had a large number of servants at the time but they are not included with his property. Comp. Gen. x.x.x. 43, with Gen. x.x.xi. 16-18. When he sent messengers to Esau, wis.h.i.+ng to impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had "oxen, and a.s.ses, and flocks, and men-servants, and maid-servants." Gen. x.x.xii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants; though he seems to have sought as much variety as possible. Gen. x.x.xii. 14, 15; see also Gen. x.x.xvi. 6, 7; Gen. x.x.xiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of cattle, which would require many herdsmen. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word _Mikne_, is an ill.u.s.tration. It is derived from _Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, _a possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to _mere property_, generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in distinction from the _Mikne_. And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE that they had gathered; and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan."--Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)--that they were slaves taken with him in his migration as a part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten_?" Until the slave trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran."

Jarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, "The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers, "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan all render it, "All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present translation of the Bible, renders it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they had converted from idolatry."--Paulus f.a.gius[B]. "Quas inst.i.tuerant in religione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke Francke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago. "Quas legi subjicerant"--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law."

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

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

II. The condition and treatment of servants make the doctrine that they were mere COMMODITIES, an absurdity. St. Paul's testimony in Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of all." That Abraham's servants were voluntary, that their interests were identified with those of their master's family, and that the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being armed.--Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him, "Drink, MY LORD,"

as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the brother of Rebecca, "ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his feet and the men's feet that were with him!" In 1 Sam. ix. is an account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only "about thirty persons" were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of the city. Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and _both_ of them, at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And Samuel took Saul and his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR(!) and made THEM sit in the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden." A _servant_ invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, who was at the same time anointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by Samuel into the PARLOR, and a.s.signed, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but "_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after a.s.ses. Again: we find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity.--1 Kings xvi. 8, 9.

See also the intercourse between Gideon and his servant.--Judg. vii. 10, 11. Jonathan and his servant.--1 Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant.--2 Kings iv. v. vi.

III. The case of the Gibeonites. The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils made desperate s.n.a.t.c.hes at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to _mock_ them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites? (1.) _It was voluntary_. Their own proposition to Joshua was to become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross imposition came to light; they were then a.s.signed to menial offices in the Tabernacle. (2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being distributed among the Israelites, and their internal organization as a distinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it was rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities. Josh. x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and G.o.d sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement?" At their demand, he delivered up to them, seven of Saul's descendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only the "house of G.o.d," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at Gilgal, a day's journey from their cities; and then at s.h.i.+loh, nearly two day's journey from them; where it continued about 350 years.

During this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_. It is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into cla.s.ses, ministering in rotation--each cla.s.s a few days or weeks at a time. This service was their _national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to have been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition, and lying, we might a.s.suredly expect that they would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels if there was _any_ case in which G.o.d permitted them to do so.

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

G.o.d's denunciations against the bondage of Egypt make it inc.u.mbent on us to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what they retained.

EGYPTIAN BONDAGE a.n.a.lYZED. (1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among the families of Egypt[A], but formed a separate community. Gen. xlvi.

35. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5.

(2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen[B]. Gen.

xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. (3.) They lived in permanent dwellings. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, 22, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_,--Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4--and judging from the regulation about the eating of the Pa.s.sover, they could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4, probably contained separate apartments, and places for concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. To have their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv. 11. (4.) They owned "a mixed mult.i.tude of flocks and herds,"

and "very much cattle." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. (5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16, 18. (6.) They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time,--Ex. xxiii. 4; iii. 16, 18, xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. And to have practiced the fine arts. Ex. x.x.xii. 4; x.x.xv. 22-35. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. x.x.xii. 27. (8.) They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable. No intimation is given that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of property. (9.) All the females seem to have known something of domestic refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; x.x.xv. 25, 26. (10.) Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could he inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. (11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was abundant, and of great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3; xxiv. 1; xvii. 5; iv. 29; vi. 14; "they did eat fish freely, and cuc.u.mbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5; x. 18; xx. 5. (12.) The great body of the people were not in the service of the Egyptians. (a.) The extent and variety of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have furnished constant employment for the main body of the nation. (b.) During the plague of darkness, G.o.d informs us that "ALL the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were _there_ to enjoy it. (c.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_. Probably one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the Israelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it from their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor was exacted only from the _poorer_ Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their tribute in money. Ex. iv. 27-31. Contrast this bondage of Egypt with American slavery. Have our slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed mult.i.tude of flocks and herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, "sit by the flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread to the full?" Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of country for the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of their own cattle--and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are our female slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own time and the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.

True, "all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor." But what was this when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the power to "own any thing, or acquire any thing?" a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food[C]! their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ s.h.i.+rt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[D]!" _two hours and a half only_, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[E]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human residence, with but one apartment, where both s.e.xes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field. Add to this, the ignorance, and degradation; the daily sundering of kindred, the revelries of l.u.s.t, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, G.o.d smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she pa.s.sed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." HE DID COME, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.

If such was G.o.d's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with religion a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can that G.o.d commissioned his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he denounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_ oppression of Egypt--which robbed it's victims of only the least and cheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered even of these. What! Is G.o.d divided against himself? When He had just turned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He license the victims of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_ did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes, and his hosts, till "h.e.l.l was moved to meet them at their coming?"

[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living in their families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them in Ex. ix. 14, 20, 21.]

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

[Footnote C: Law of N.C. Haywood's Manual 524-5.]

[Footnote D: Law of La. Martin's Digest, 610.]

[Footnote E: Law of La. Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12.]

We now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless be set in array against all the foregoing conclusions.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery find themselves at their wits end in pressing the Bible into their service. Every movement shows them hard-pushed.

Their ever-varying s.h.i.+fts, their forced constructions, and blind guesswork, proclaim both their _cause_ desperate, and themselves. The Bible defences thrown around slavery by professed ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical facts it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy, predominates in the compound; each strives so l.u.s.tily for the mastery it may be set down a drawn battle. How often has it been bruited that the color of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Cain's posterity started an opposition to the ark, forsooth, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and fill out for slaveholders a Divine t.i.tle-deed, vindicating the ways of G.o.d to man?

OBJECTION 1. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Gen. ix. 25.

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mec.u.m_ of slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it; it is a pocket-piece for sudden occasion, a keepsake to dote over, a charm to spell-bind opposition, and a magnet to draw around their standard "whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie." But "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to ease a throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, to unquiet tossings, and vainly crying "Peace be still," where G.o.d wakes war, and breaks his thunders.

Those who justify negro slavery by the curse of Canaan, _a.s.sume_ all the points in debate. (1.) That _slavery_ was prophesied rather than mere _service_ to others, and _individual_ bondage rather than _national_ subjection and tribute. (2.) That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; at least absolving those whose crimes fulfill it, if not transforming the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharoahs might have quoted the prophecy _"Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and they shall afflict there four hundred years."_ And then, what _saints_ were those that crucified the Lord of glory! (3.) That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and they were settled by Mizraim and Cush. For the location and boundaries of Canaan's posterity, see Gen. x. 15-19. So a prophecy of evil to one people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy is yet unfulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled Egypt and a.s.syria, and, conjointly with Shem, Persia, and afterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman empires. The history of these nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas, the history of Canaan's descendants for more than three thousand years, records its fulfilment. First, they were put to tribute by the Israelites; then by the Medes and Persians; then by the Macedonians, Grecians and Romans, successively; and finally, were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan has been for ages the servant mainly of Shem and j.a.phet, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham. It may still be objected, that though Canaan alone is _named_ in the curse, yet the 23d and 24th verses show the posterity of Ham in general to be meant. "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said,"

&c. It is argued that this "_younger_ son" can not be _Canaan_, as he was the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham._ We answer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse.

Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, or _any_ of _one_ the posterity of an individual. "_Know ye Laban the SON of Nahor?_" Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxix. 5. "_Mephibosheth the SON of Saul_." 2 Sam. xix. 24. Mephibosheth was the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. "_There is a SON born to Naomi._" Ruth iv. 17. This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. "_Let seven men of his (Saul's) SONS be delivered unto us._" 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_ were delivered up. "_Laban rose up and kissed his SONS._"

Gen. xxi. 55. These were his _grandsons_. "_The driving of Jehu the SON of Nims.h.i.+._" 2 Kings ix. 20. Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nims.h.i.+. Shall we forbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson? Further; Ham was not the "_younger_" son. The order of enumeration makes him the _second_ son. If it be said that Bible usage varies, the order of birth not always being observed in enumerations, the reply is, that, enumeration in that order is the _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if a younger member of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of pre-eminence, either in endowments, or providential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, stands first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history shows him pre-eminent; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkatan_ rendered "the _younger_," means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isa. xl.

22. "_A LITTLE ONE shall become a thousand_." Isa. xxii. 24. "_All vessels of SMALL quant.i.ty_." Ps. cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that fear the Lord both SMALL and great_." Ex. xviii. 22. "_But every SMALL matter they shall judge_." It would be a literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus. "When Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno Hakkatan_) had done unto him, he said cursed be Canaan,"

&c. Further, even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the a.s.sumption that their enslavement fulfils this prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, only a _fraction_ of the Africans have at any time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been slaves _at home_, we answer: _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often to serve a turn; and _if it were true_, how does it help the argument?

The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be _unto his_ BRETHREN," not unto _himself_!

[Footnote A: The French follows the same a.n.a.logy; _grandson_ being _pet.i.t fils_ (little son.)]

OBJECTION II.--"If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." Ex. xxi. 20, 21. What was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity, and an a.s.surance, that if they beat them to death, the offense shall not be _capital_? This is substantially what commentators tell us. What Deity do such men wors.h.i.+p? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered from Sinai's flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_?

Whoever a.n.a.lyzes the Mosaic system, will find a moot court in session, trying law points--settling definitions, or laying down rules of evidence, in almost every chapter. Num. x.x.xv. 10-22; Deut. xi. 11, and xix. 4-6; Lev. xxiv. 19-22; Ex. xxi. 18, 19, are a few, out of many cases stated, with tests furnished the judges by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them. Their ignorance of judicial proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary.

The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them to get at the _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill. (1.) "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num. x.x.xv. 16, 18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant die _under his hand_, then the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he _dies_, argues a great many blows and great violence, and this kept up to the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence "He shall _surely_ be punished." But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length of time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,") all made a strong case of circ.u.mstantial evidence, showing that the master did not design to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered _punished_, is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is translated "_avenge_," in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the p.r.o.noun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to pay a _sum of money_; and yet our translators employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal. The other, an accidental, and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same thing! "He shall surely be punished." Now, just the discrimination to be looked for where G.o.d legislates, is marked in the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says, "It (the death) shall surely be _avenged_," that is, the life of the wrong doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury, in the following verse, G.o.d says, "He shall surely be _fined_,"

(_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19: "They shall amerce him in one hundred shekels," and in 2 Chron. x.x.xvi.

3: "He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of gold."

That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine, but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer, (1.) From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen. iv. 24; Josh.

x. 13; Judg. xiv. 7; xvi. 28; I Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; xxv. 31; 2 Sam.

iv. 8; Judg. v. 2: I Sam. xxv. 26-33. (2.) From the express statute, Lev. xxiv. 17; "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death."

Also Num. x.x.xv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall be put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death."

(3.) The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem. "Vengeance shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi, the same. The Samaritan version: "He shall die the death," Again the clause "for he is his money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's property, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. The a.s.sumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY." proves not only that the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article of property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking the principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let them stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as the following: "This (bread) is my body;" "this (wine) _is_ my blood;"

"all they (the Israelites) _are_ bra.s.s and tin;" "this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord G.o.d _is_ a sun and a s.h.i.+eld;" "G.o.d _is_ love;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and the seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "G.o.d _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A pa.s.sion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this case. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he." The objector's principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch trans.m.u.tes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into _solid silver!_ Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble with all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase, "_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since, if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the fact of his living some time after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all together make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property!_ The other inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, the loss of the slave would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. G.o.d would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. "Ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death." Num. x.x.xv. 31. Even in excusable homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest. Numb. x.x.xv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it prescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law in all cases where man took the life of man, whether with or without the intent to kill. In short, the objector annuls an integral part of the system--makes a _new_ law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine legislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him free. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he dies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's tooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both cases is the same_. If the loss of the slave's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing him, would _G.o.d_ command the _same_ punishment for the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth?_ Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertantly_, the loss of the servant's services was only a _part_ of the punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the _main_ punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the _community_. To set the servant free, and thus proclaim his injury, his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of _public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender. That "those that remain might hear and fear." "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. Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev xxiv. 19, 20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out his servant's tooth the law smote out _his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for the injury done, and exempting him form perilous liabilities in future.

OBJECTION III. "Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the stranger 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 possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance of your children from you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever." Lev, xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses urged as proof, that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." and 4. "FOREVER."