Slavery and Religion--Continued.
PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE AND SLAVERY.
The next Bible argument for slavery, usually adduced, is founded upon
the assumption that the patriarchs were slaveholders, and particular
stress is placed upon the example of Abraham, "the friend of God," who,
it is confidently asserted, was an extensive slaveholder.
The Harmony Presbytery, South Carolina, "_Resolved_, that slavery has
existed from the days of those good old _slaveholders_ and patriarchs,
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
The Presbytery of Tombecbee said: "In the Bible the state of slavery is
clearly recognized. Abraham the friend of God had slaves born in his
house and bought with his money."
Dr. Fuller, in his controversy with Dr. Wayland, assumed that father
Abraham was a slaveholder, and that his example was a sufficient
warrant for slaveholding in all ages. The same position was taken by
Dr. Rice in his debate with Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Fletcher, author of a
late voluminous defense of slavery, takes the same position.
It will be perceived that in this argument two things are assumed. 1st
That the patriarchs did hold slaves. 2d That the example of a patriarch
is conclusive evidence in the case. If it should appear after an
examination of the case, that none of the patriarchs owned slaves, or
that the example of a patriarch is not conclusive evidence on all moral
questions, and may not, in every case, be safely followed, then this
argument will also be found wanting.
Now, I assume the position that neither Abraham, nor any other
patriarch, ever owned a slave; and as evidence in support of this
position submit the following facts and considerations.
1. The Bible does not record such a fact. In no chapter or verse
is Abraham, Isaac or Jacob called a slaveholder, slave-driver,
slave-trader, or by any other name indicative of such a relation. Nor
is any man, or woman in their employ, either in the house or field,
or in any way associated with them, called a slave or by any name
indicative of that relation.
2. The Bible records in connection with the history of the patriarchs,
no circumstance from which slaveholding may be legitimately inferred.
Those inseparable concomitants of slavery, the _whip_, _coffle_,
_chain-gang_, _whipping-post_ and _overseer_, are not named in
patriarchal history.
3. Some circumstances are recorded from which we obtain presumptive
evidence that they did not own slaves. Take for example, an incident in
the life of Abraham. He was sitting in his tent door in the cool of the
day and saw at a little distance three strangers whom he immediately
approached and invited, in the spirit of genuine hospitality, to tarry
with him and partake of some refreshments. When he had obtained their
consent, he hastened unto the tent to Sarah and requested her to bake
some cakes with all possible dispatch, while he should run to the herd
and fetch a calf tender and good and have it dressed. The repast was
soon provided, the guests were seated around the wholesome meal, and
Abraham stood by them under the tree while they ate. Now, I submit, had
this patriarch been a slaveholder, he would have ordered "Cuffee" to
the flock after the calf, and had Sarah been a mistress of slaves she
would have ordered "Dinah" to the kneading trough. In this incident
there is no mention of slaves. A "young _man_" is respectfully noticed
without the slightest hint that he was a slave. Abraham and Sarah went
about preparing this entertainment precisely as good people do, who
attend to their own work, and have no slaves to order around.
4. We have good reasons for believing that chattel slavery had no
existence in the world at the time the patriarchs referred to,
flourished. Abraham was born only two years after the death of Noah,
and when as yet the postdiluvian world was in its infancy, and it
is not probable, leaving history out of view, that slavery could
have been instituted at so early a period. But the most ancient and
reliable history furnishes evidence that for a period after the flood,
reaching down far this side the patriarchal age, universal freedom was
preserved.[7]
On the authority of _Diodorus_, Shuckford says, that "the nations
planted by Noah and his descendants, _had a law against slavery; for
no person among them could absolutely lose his freedom and become a
bondsman_." (_Shuckford's Connections, Vol. II, pp. 80._)
"Athenaus, a Greek historian of great merit, observes that the
Babylonians, Persians, as well as the Greeks, and divers other nations,
celebrated annually a sort of Saturnalia, or feast, instituted most
probably IN COMMEMORATION OF THE ORIGINAL STATE OF FREEDOM, IN WHICH
MEN LIVED BEFORE SERVITUDE WAS INTRODUCED; AND AS MOSES REVIVED SEVERAL
OF NOAH'S INSTITUTIONS, so there are appointments in the law to
preserve the freedom of the Israelites."
From these authorities to which others might be added, we conclude that
slavery had no existence among the nations which arose immediately
after the flood. Noah, it seems was a good democrat, and gave
existence to institutions which secured the personal freedom of his
descendants; and absolutely prohibited their enslavement. And it also
appears that those institutions were for a long period observed, and
finally incorporated by Moses into the Law for the preservation of the
liberties of the Israelites. Now, Abraham was contemporary with the
sons of Noah, and was a governor of one of the very earliest nations
alluded to by the historians above quoted; hence it is clear, that
slavery had no existence in his day, and consequently he could not have
been a slaveholder.
Against this view it may be urged that slavery existed in Egypt in
the time of Joseph, that Joseph was sold as a slave, and that the
Israelites were slaves when in Egypt. To this objection we answer:
1. The assumption that slavery existed in Egypt in the time of the
patriarchs is without foundation. _Herodotus_, gives a "true and full"
account of the ancient Egyptians, specifies with great care the various
classes of men, but does not mention slaves. _Diodorus_, gives a
careful statement of the ancient Egyptian constitution, but is silent
respecting slavery.
_Rollin_ says: "Husbandmen, shepherds, and artificers formed the
three lower classes of lower life in Egypt, but were nevertheless had
in _very great esteem_, particularly husbandmen and shepherds." We
have the best of reasons, therefore, for believing that the wholesome
institutions of Noah were preserved for a long time in Egypt. That
a system of servitude existed in that country is true, but absolute
slavery was not permitted. Parents possessed great authority over their
children, and might sell them or their services, for a limited time,
but this was not slavery. A year of release was provided for all, so
that no one could, as Diodorus observes, "absolutely lose his freedom
and become a bondsman!"
2. Joseph was not a slave. He was doubtless sold as a servant for a
limited period, and evidently that period had expired before he arose
to the high station of Steward of Potipher's house.
3. The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt. They maintained their
nationality, preserved their family relations, owned property, and
were not distributed throughout the country, as chattel slaves are.
Their servitude was national. Their task masters were appointed by the
government, and they labored for the public benefit. They were not
domestic slaves.
The position I think is invulnerable, that in the nations which
arose and peopled the earth, immediately after the flood, slavery
had no existence; and as the patriarchs flourished in that period,
the inference is clear that they did not own slaves, and were not
slaveholders. Those holy men would hardly be the first to violate the
free institutions of Noah, and disgrace the golden age of freedom, by
the enslavement of their brothers.
But it is asserted with a show of confidence that the word servant,
as applied in the scriptures to a class of persons, means precisely
what our word slave means. Hence, when it is said that Abraham had
_servants_, it is assumed that he had SLAVES. Now, although what has
been proved, is altogether sufficient to exculpate that good man
and all the patriarchs from the charge of slaveholding, we deem it
important that the word translated servant be well understood; and with
the aid of the best authorities we shall now proceed to make it plain.
The Hebrew words translated servant, service, and servants, are derived
from _abadh_, meaning to labor, _to work_, to do work. This word occurs
in the Hebrew scriptures some hundreds of times, in various forms of
the word, and is never rendered _slaves_. Occasionally, our translators
have prefixed the word _bond_, and made it read _bond_-servant, but
this was done without authority, as precisely the same word is used in
the original. The original word is used to denote the following kinds
of service: To work for another; Gen. 29: 20. To serve or be servants
of a king; 2d Sam., 16: 19. To serve as a soldier; 2d Sam., 2: 12, 13,
15, 30, 31. To serve as an ambassador; 2d Sam., 10: 2, 4. It is applied
to a worshipper of the true God; Nehemiah, 1: 10. To a minister;
Isaiah, 49: 6. It is also applied to king Rehoboam; 1st Kings, 11: 7,
and to the Messiah, Isaiah, 42: 1.[8]
It is used in Gen. 2: 15. And the Lord God took the man, and put him in
the garden of Eden to DRESS IT. Adam was put into Eden, not to _serve_
or _dress_ the garden as a SLAVE, but as a man. The same word is used
to express the service performed for Laban by Jacob. The relation of
Joshua to Moses is expressed by the same word; Ex., 33: 21. It is also
used in the fourth commandment. Six days shalt thou _labor_, etc.
From these examples of the use of the word it is clear that the idea of
chattel slavery is not found in it. It is used to express all kinds of
service--the service of God, a king, a friend, or an employer.
The word _ama_, rendered _maid-servant_, _bond-maid_, _maid_,
_hand-maid_, and the word _shiphhah_ with similar renderings, are
applied to Hagar, Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, Bilhah and Zilpah, and
evidently mean no more than our English word servant in its usual
acceptation. Those women were not slaves, they were free women. It has
been very properly remarked that if _chattel_ slavery existed among the
Hebrews at any time it is not a little surprising that the language
contains no word which expresses the relation.
Some have endeavored to force into the word translated _servant_ &c.,
the idea of slavery because it is said that Abraham had servants
"bought with money." But from the ancient use of the word _buy_ or
_bought_ we are not to infer that the persons bought became slaves.
Wives were procured in the times of the patriarchs by _purchase_.
Boaz said--"Moreover Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have
I purchased to be my wife." The same word (_kanithi_) is used here
to express the manner in which Boaz obtained his wife, that is used
in Gen. to show how a part of Abraham's servants were obtained. But
the beautiful _Ruth_ was not a _slave_. Jacob purchased his beloved
Rachel, and less beloved Leah, but those wives and mothers of the
twelve patriarchs could not have been _slaves_. Had they been chattels,
why, then, according to an essential feature of the American slave
code, the twelve patriarchs would all have been born in the same
condition. _Partus sequitur ventrem._ A Hebrew might sell himself on
a limited time, and he might be bought by a wealthy neighbor, but no
one, I believe, has ever pretended that he became a SLAVE thereby. The
contract was voluntary. The employer bought the services of his fellow,
and paid in _advance_ for the same, not to a third person, but to the
servant himself. God is said to have purchased (_kanitha_) his people;
Ps., 75: 2.
Hence from the scriptural use of the word buy, or bought, we are not
authorized to infer that the persons purchased became slaves. Such an
inference would do violence to the holy word.
The true state of the matter in respect to Abraham, and his case is
mainly relied upon, was without a doubt this. Abraham, being a wise,
wealthy and good man, gathered around him many devoted friends who,
upon his removal to a distant location, desired to accompany him,
to receive the benefits of his friendship and counsels, live under
his patriarchship, as he was a prince, (see Gen., 23: 6,) and enjoy
the protection of his power. Some of these may have been involved in
pecuniary embarrassments or obligations of service to other persons,
which made it necessary for the benevolent patriarch to release them by
paying them in advance for many years of service.
Many of these servants were doubtless converts from idolatry, which
had been made in Haran. In Gen. 12: 5, the fact is recorded of the
removal of Abraham, Sarai, their effects, and of "the SOULS they
had gotten." This word "gotten" is translated, says Mr. Carothers,
from _osa_, which is used in Ezekiel 18: 31, to express the work of
conversion. "Cast away from you all your transgressions, and make you a
new heart and a new spirit." And this rendering of the word "gotten" is
confirmed by the Chaldee paraphrase on this passage, which reads thus:
"Souls they had instructed or turned from idolatry and taught in the
true religion." "The Hebrews have a tradition," says Banberg, "that
Abraham brought over many men, and Sarah many women from infidelity
to the knowledge and worship of the true God; and thus _made_ them
spiritually." A similar mode of expression is used by St. Paul: "I have
_begotten_ you through the gospel." The idea that Abraham and Sarah
made slaves of their converts is simply preposterous.
From the foregoing facts and considerations it is perfectly clear
to my mind, that the effort to find an apology for slaveholding
in patriarchal servitude is a total failure. The charge that the
patriarchs held slaves is _wholly_ without foundation,--is a
disingenuous attack upon their reputation, and a miserable subterfuge
for hard-hearted oppressors, who are seeking an apology or excuse for
sins which loudly cry for the vengeance of heaven! Could Father Abraham
arise from the dead, visit the South, and there behold thousands of
his spiritual children toiling without remuneration, shut out from
the blessings of family and home, denied an education and all means
of intellectual improvement, driven by the keen lash of a brutal
overseer, and then should he hear an appeal made to the patriarchs in
justification of this system of unmingled tyranny, he would indignantly
repel the appeal as a base calumny!
It is surprising with what confidence the example of the patriarchs
is urged in justification of slavery in the absence of all proof or
semblance of proof, that they were implicated in this practice. But
our surprise is increased when we consider that, even could it be made
appear that the patriarchs did hold slaves, this fact of itself, would
afford not the slightest apology for slaveholding now. The patriarchs,
it is admitted, had a plurality of wives, but their example is not now
a sufficient warrant for polygamy. There is not an ecclesiastical court
in the United States and territories, if we may except the Mormon,
Utah, which would accept the example of the patriarchs as an apology
for the man who should stand up before that court with two wives
leaning on his arms. The argument therefore appears utterly worthless
and shallow from every point of view.