The Anti-Slavery Examiner
Chapter 17 : V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS THEIR LEGAL PROPERTY?The discussion of

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3.) _All lost_ PROPERTY _was to be restored._ "Oxen, a.s.ses, sheep, raiment, and whatsoever lost things," are specified--servant _not_.

Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were expressly forbidden to take back the runaway servant to his master. Deut. xxiii. 15.

(4.) _The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents_. They made princely presents of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of animals, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, and grain, armor, &c. are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to superiors and persons of rank when visiting them, and at other times, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5.

Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt. Gen.

xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pileser, 2 Kings xvi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings, x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were given as presents--though that was a prevailing fas.h.i.+on in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen. xx. 14.

OBJECTION 1. _Laban_ GAVE _handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives_.

Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, it is enough to say that the handmaids of wives, at that time, were themselves regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, (Gen.

xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1) also by the equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban given them _as articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a fore-closer to all argument.

Ah! We remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his "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!"

OBJECTION 2. _Servants were enumerated in inventories of property_. If that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "_Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's_ WIFE, _nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his a.s.s, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's_" EXODUS xx. 17.

An examination of all the places in which servants are included among beasts, chattels, &c., will show, that in inventories of _mere property_, servants are not included, or if included, it is in such a way, as to show that they are not regarded as _property_. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the design is to show, not merely the wealth but the _greatness_ of any personage, that he is a man of distinction, a ruler, a prince, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if _greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. _"And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold."_ No mention of _servants_. So in the fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, "_And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents_." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned, "_And there was a strife between the_ HERDMEN _of Abraham's cattle and the_ HERDMEN _of Lot's cattle_". See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. x.x.xiv. 23; Job. xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; x.x.xii. 27-29; Job 1. 3-5; Deut. viii.

12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and x.x.x. 43.

Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentioned in connection with property, it is in such a way as to _distinguish_ them from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, "All the _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father, that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle,"

"all his goods," "the cattle of his getting," &c. He had a large number of servants at the time, _but they are not included with his property_.

Compare Gen. x.x.x. 43, with Gen. x.x.xi. 16-18.

When he sent messengers to Esau, in order to secure his respect, and impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of _his_ RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had "_oxen, and 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 aimed to give it 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. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the former.

The Hebrew word _Mickna_ is an ill.u.s.tration. It is a derivative of _Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament--and is applied always to _mere property_--generally to domestic animals, but _never_ to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in _distinction_ from the _Mickna._ See Gen. xii. 5. _"And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son. And all their_ SUBSTANCE _that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan_." _Substance gathered_ and _souls gotten_! Many will have it, that these _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)--that they were _slaves_--probably captives in war, and now, by right of conquest, taken with him in his migration as part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually, or in heart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten_?" Until the slave trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is thus rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, thus: "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, placed by Jewish Rabbis at the head of their commentators, thus renders it: "The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers: "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian version thus gives the whole verse, "And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their wealth which they had acc.u.mulated, and the souls which they had _made_."

The Vulgate version thus translates it, "Universam substantiam quam possederant et animas quas fecerant in Haran." "The entire wealth which they possessed, and the souls which they had made." The Syriac thus, "All their possessions which they possessed, and the souls which they had made in Haran." The Arabic, "All their property which they had acquired, and the souls whom they had made in Haran." The Samarian, "All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present translation of the English Bible, renders it as follows:--"Quas de idolotraria converterunt[B]." "Those whom they have converted from idolatry."--Paulus f.a.gius[C]. "Quas inst.i.tuerant in religione."--"Those whom they had instructed in religion."--Luke Franke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago. "Quas legi subjicerant."--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law."

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the 9th chapter of 1 Samuel, we have an account of a high festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel, the chief judge and ruler in Israel, presided. None sat down at the feast but those that were bidden. And only "about _thirty_ persons" were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of the city of Zuph! Saul and his servant arrived at Zuph just as the party was a.s.sembling; 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 learn from 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9, that Elah, the King of Israel, was slain by Zimri, one of his chief officers, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. Without detailing other cases, we refer the reader to the intercourse between Gideon and his servant.--Judges vii. 10, 11.--Jonathan and his servant.--1 Samuel xiv. 1-14.--Elisha and his servant.

3. _The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrew commonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, nor even_ INVOLUNTARY _servants_. The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Israelites, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils made desperate 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_. It was their own proposition to Joshua to become servants. Joshua ix. 8, 11. Their proposition was accepted, but the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross imposition came to light; they were then a.s.signed to menial offices in the tabernacle.

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

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

(2.) It is preposterous to suppose that their tabernacle services could have furnished employment for all the inhabitants of these four cities.

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

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

That the argument derived from the condition of the Israelites in Egypt, and G.o.d's condemnation of it, may be appreciated, it is important that the Egyptian bondage should be a.n.a.lyzed. We shall then be able 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, the property of individual owners_[A]. They formed a _separate_ community. See Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24, and ix. 26, and x. 23, and xi. 7, and ii. 9, and xvi. 22, and xvii. 5.

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

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

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

(3.) _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_ of the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and the lintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_--Acts vii. 20, Ex. xii. 4--and from the regulation about the eating of the Pa.s.sover, they could hardly have been small ones--Ex. xii. 4--and probably contained separate apartments, and places for seclusion. Ex.

ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex.

xii. 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv.

11.

(4.) _They owned "a mixed 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, and xii.

19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18.