Slavery and Religion--Continued.
LAW OF MOSES AND SLAVERY.
It is claimed by the advocates of human bondage that in the law
delivered by Moses for the government of the children of Israel, until
the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, slavery is distinctly
recognized, carefully regulated, and unequivocally sanctioned; and
hence, that it is an institution upon which Jehovah now looks with
approbation. We cannot believe, they argue, that it is wrong for
christians to practice what the law of Moses permitted or sanctioned.
To this argument we reply:--
1. That many things were allowed by the law of Moses which are strictly
prohibited by the law of Christ. That law was imperfect in its
character, limited in its application, and temporary in its design. It
contained a number of statutes which could by no means be incorporated
into the laws of a christian state.
Among the things commanded and allowed by the law under consideration,
the following may be specified:--
1. It commanded a Hebrew, even though a married man, with wife and
children living, to take the childless widow of a deceased brother, and
beget children with her; Deut., 25: 5-10.
2. The Hebrews, under certain restrictions, were allowed to make
concubines, or wives for a limited time, of women taken in war; Deut.
21: 10-14.
3. A Hebrew who already had a wife, was allowed to take another also;
provided he still continued his intercourse with the first as her
husband, and treated her kindly and affectionately; Exodus 21: 9-11.
4. By the Mosaic law, the nearest relative of a murdered Hebrew could
pursue and slay the murderer, unless he could escape to the city
of refuge; and the same permission was given in case of accidental
homicide; Num. 35: 9-34.
5. The Israelites were commanded to exterminate the Canaanites, men,
women and children; Deut. 9: 12; 20: 16-18.
"Each of these laws, although in its time it was an ameliorating
law, designed to take the place of some barbarous abuse, and to be
a connecting link by which some higher state of society might be
introduced, belongs confessedly to that system which St. Paul says made
nothing perfect. They are a part of the commandment which he says was
annulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, and which, in
the time which he wrote, was waxing old, and ready to vanish away."
(_Dr. Stowe._)
Now, will any one pretend that it is proper for a christian, having
a wife, to take also the wife of a deceased brother? But the law of
Moses authorized this as clearly as any one pretends that it authorized
slavery. Is it allowable for a christian to take a concubine or marry
three or four wives? But the law of Moses allowed this as distinctly
as any one believes that it allowed slavery. Would it be right for
a christian to pursue a neighbor who had committed accidental or
intentional homicide, overtake and slay him? But the law of Moses
justified the Jewish man-slayer as plainly as the most ultra defender
of slavery maintains that it justified slaveholding. Suppose we
admit, for argument sake, that slavery was authorized by the law of
Moses, does it follow as a matter of course, that the law of Christ
authorizes it? By no means; for we have seen that the former authorized
concubinage, polygamy, extermination of the heathen, and summary
vengeance upon the unwitting murderer, all of which things are utterly
incompatible with the precepts of the latter. And slavery might very
properly be placed in the category of those practices allowed by the
law, but prohibited by the gospel. Thus the argument for slavery from
the law of Moses proves too much, and therefore proves nothing.
2. But if, as is claimed, the Jews _were_ authorized to enslave their
fellow men, which we by no means admit, it was by express authority
from God, who alone may deprive any of his creatures of the rights
with which he has invested them. Express grants _were_ made to the
"chosen seed," as for instance, the forcible occupancy of the land of
Canaan, and of the cities thereof. Now those grants were not made to
Americans, but to the ancient Israelites, and it is neither modest nor
sensible for citizens of the United States to act under a charter which
they admit was made to an ancient nation, for a temporary purpose. Let
the American slaveholder show the same _authority_ for slaveholding
which he maintains the Jew could produce. Has God ever made a grant to
_Americans_ to enslave the Africans?
3. Again, the passage mainly relied upon is found in Leviticus, 25:
44-47; in which the Jews are authorized to procure servants of the
_nations_, (not heathen, for _heathen_ is not in the original) round
about them. Now if this celebrated passage be at all to the purpose,
it is, as Pres. Edwards has said, "a permission to every nation under
heaven to buy slaves of the nations round about them; to us, to buy
of our Indian neighbors; to them, to buy of us; to the French to
buy of the English, and to the English to buy of the French; and so
through the world. Thus according to this construction, we have here an
institution of a universal slave trade, by which every man may not only
become a merchant, but may rightfully become the merchandize itself of
this trade, and be bought and sold like a beast." Who is willing to
admit the consequences of this construction?
We might here rest the case, because these three considerations, taken
separately, or together, destroy entirely the whole force of the
argument for American slavery predicated upon Levitical servitude.
We shall now inquire what kind of servitude _was_ recognized and
regulated by the law of Moses. The particular statute upon which the
main reliance is placed, by the friends of slavery, and which is
supposed to contain the black and bloody _charter_ for the degradation
of humanity, is found in Leviticus 25: 44-47, and reads as follows:--
"Both thy bondmen and thy 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 strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they beget 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."[9]
1. The word _slave_, it will be observed, does not occur in this
passage, nor does bondmen and bondmaids mean anything more than
men-servants and women-servants. The word _bond_, as we have seen, is
gratuitously supplied by our translators, and is not in the original;
and the word _servants_ means no more than _laborers_ or _workers_. All
kinds of servants are described by the term here found, and hence from
its use in this place, it cannot be inferred that the persons referred
to were slaves. The passage clearly authorized the procurement of
servants from adjoining nations, which was a thing perfectly right in
itself, and that is all it did authorize.
2. Nor does the fact that the passage allowed the _purchase_ of
servants, prove that the persons purchased were slaves, or became
slaves. Irishmen were, many of them, a few years since, "bought
servants." They were sold to pay for their passage to this country,
but the whole transaction was voluntary on the part of the "sons of
Erin," and looked to their benefit. Jacob, as we have seen, purchased
Leah and Rachel with fourteen years of labor. Our blessed Savior hath
purchased us with his own blood. The idea of chattel slavery cannot
be associated with the word buy or bought, as used in the sacred
writings, without doing great violence to their meaning. The phrase,
"of them shall ye _buy_" may be properly rendered, "of them shall ye
_get_, or _obtain_ servants." The word translated buy, in the passage
before us, is in other places translated "get" or "getteth." Thus, "He
that beareth reproof _getteth_ understanding." Prov., 15: 32. "He that
_getteth_ wisdom, loveth his own soul." Prov., 19: 8. But the meaning
of the word buy, and sell, as applied to the purchase and sale of men,
is definitely settled by its use in the context of the passage which
we are examining. It is used in verse 47, "if thy brother wax poor and
_sell himself_" etc. In verse 39, the reading is, "and _be sold_."
These passages are intended to convey an idea of the same transaction,
and that transaction was nothing more nor less than the voluntary sale
of a poor man to a rich one, not as a slave, but as a servant. The sale
was made, and the _money was received by the servant who sold himself_,
with which he released himself and family from pecuniary embarrassment.
In this sale and purchase of a man, the idea of slavery is utterly
excluded. Now is it probable that the words buy, and sell, in this
same chapter, when applied to foreign servants, were used in a totally
different sense? To suppose this would be to charge Moses, as Wm. Jay
observes, with a fraudulent intent to render the meaning of his law
doubtful and unintelligible.
3. Considerable stress is placed upon the phrase, "shall be of the
_heathen_," as if heathenism was a crime to be punished with a still
deeper degradation than idolatry can produce. "The word heathen,"
says Mr. Jay, "is gratuitously inserted by our translators instead of
_nations_, the meaning of the original."
4. Permission was also given for the purchase of the "children of
the strangers." "'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." (_Jay._)
5. "They shall be your bondmen forever." In this phrase is supposed to
be found a charter for perpetual, hereditary, hopeless bondage. Mr.
Jay very justly remarks upon it as follows: "The preconceived opinions
of the translators tempted them to give such a color to this sentence
as best accorded with their proslavery theory. Hence this strong
expression in the text, while in the _margin_ 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."
The proslavery construction renders the permission absurd, because in
the first place it would be impossible for any one man literally to be
a bondman forever, unless servitude could be continued in heaven or
hell. And, in the next place, it could not continue in the same person
in Israel beyond the great jubilee.
Now when this passage in Leviticus 25, is stripped of all the
proslavery glosses of the translators, the following is, as the
excellent writer just quoted observes, its plain and obvious
meaning:--"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 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 servitude permitted by the law of Moses has been most grossly
misrepresented, and misunderstood. It was not an institution looking
mainly to the advantage of the rich and powerful, while it crushed the
poor and defenseless into the dust, disregarding their interests and
their sorrows, but it was a benificent arrangement intended to relieve
the unfortunate and open a door of hope to the Gentile inquirer of the
way to Zion. Now observe carefully the following facts:--
1. Servants were not kidnapped or stolen from the surrounding nations.
The stealing of a man was made a capital offense. He that stealeth a
man and (_or_ it should be) selleth him, or if he be found in his hand,
he shall surely be put to death. Ex. 21: 16. Now, as all the slaves
in America have been stolen, those who stole them, and those who hold
them, are worthy of death according to the law of Moses.
2. All the servants obtained by the Jews from neighboring nations were
_voluntary_ servants. This is proved in the following way. 1. Foreign
servants, and native Hebrew servants were obtained in the same manner.
Native Hebrews became servants (except in cases of crime) by voluntary
contract. 2. Obedience to the law of Moses was a condition of servitude
in the Jewish state. An idolater was not allowed to remain in the land.
And a bought servant was obliged to renounce idolatry, receive the
rite of circumcision, and in all things conform to the law of Moses,
as his master was required to do. Gen. 17: 10-15. Ex. 23: 15-20. Deut.
16: 10-18. All were required to enter into the most solemn religious
covenant. "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 thy stranger
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. 29. But conformity to the law of Moses was voluntary.
We cannot conceive that a Jew was allowed to buy a heathen servant
against his will, tie him, inflict upon him the rite of circumcision,
and then compel him to observe the great feasts ordained by the law,
and, otherwise conform to the Jewish religion. Hence the acceptance
of a place as a servant in a Jewish family was a matter of choice.
3. Servants were not obliged to remain with their masters. If they
saw proper to change their situation, they had a perfect right to do
so, just as laborers now have, and there was no fugitive slave law to
prevent them from so doing. "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master
the servant that is escaped unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even
among you, in that place he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it
liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. 23: 15, 16. From
these facts, the conclusion is irresistible that servitude was not
_forced_ upon a foreigner, but voluntarily accepted by him, and that
his continuance in that relation was voluntary. How great the contrast
between this system and American slavery which utterly disregards the
_will_ of slaves.
3. Foreign servants were to be treated in all respects precisely as
native Hebrew servants were to be treated. "Ye shall have one manner of
law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own country, for I am
the Lord your God." Lev. 24: 22.
4. Ample provisions were made for the religious improvement of servants
of all classes and especially foreign servants. They were to observe
the sabbath, go up with their masters to the three great annual feasts
celebrated at Jerusalem, listen to the reading of the law, and in short
enjoy all the advantages of the Jewish religion. Mr. Barnes estimates
that in a period of fifty years, not less than twenty three were
appropriated to the exclusive benefit of servants, during which time
their whole attention might be devoted to the interests of their souls.
Does not this indicate that the great design of the employment of
foreign servants was religious? Is there the least similarity between
this system of servitude and American slavery?
5. Special provisions were made to secure the kind treatment of all
foreigners, foreign servants of course included. "Thou shalt not vex
a stranger nor oppress him." "Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for
ye know the heart of a stranger." "Cursed be he that perverteth the
judgment of the stranger." "The Lord your God regardeth not persons.
Love ye therefore the stranger." But does not American slavery vex and
oppress the stranger and pervert his judgment? The wide world cannot
produce a class of persons who are, or ever have been oppressed, if
American slaves are not. The word oppression is too feeble to express
the tyranny suffered by the strangers in our land.
6. Servants under the law of Moses could not be sold. No permission
was given for the sale of servants. They could not be taken for the
payment of debts, or as pledges, or presents. _They never were sold_
or given away. The reason of this is found in the fact that they were
not chattels,--they were recognized as men, and had made a contract for
service which their masters could not at pleasure annul. We have seen
that the trade in slaves is an extensive and lucrative business.
7. The Hebrew law regarded servants as naturally equal to their
masters, and hence, they were allowed to marry into their master's
family, and inherit, under some circumstances, their master's property.
Deut. 21: 10-14. A slave is not regarded as a man, can own nothing,
and inherit nothing. What a contrast! American slavery, and Hebrew
servitude seem to be erected upon totally different foundations.
8. At stated periods the mild form of servitude instituted by the law
of Moses expired. A Hebrew who became a servant could not be required
to continue in that relation more than six years. And every fiftieth
year was a grand Jubilee, at the commencement of which liberty was
proclaimed throughout all the land unto _all the inhabitants thereof_.
Lev. 25: 10, 11. Contracts for service, under any circumstances, could
not hold beyond that great jubilee. It was a glorious institution, and
a type of the proclamation of the gospel. But American slavery knows no
joyful jubilee! For three hundred years no proclamation of freedom has
been made throughout all this land unto all the inhabitants thereof.
No, generation after generation of slaves goes down to their graves in
_despair_! Slavery is without a jubilee.
9. The grand design of the introduction of foreign servants into the
Jewish state was their salvation. From a careful examination of this
whole subject, we are fully satisfied that the 25th chapter of Lev.
contains, as Mr. Smith has said, "the constitution of Heaven's first
Missionary society, by which a door of mercy and salvation was opened
to the heathen, through which they could obtain access to the altar of
God, find mercy and live."
It will be observed that a foreigner could obtain a permanent residence
in Israel in but two ways,--1st By becoming a servant in a Jewish
family, and, 2d By purchasing a house in a walled city. Now, when
in connection with these facts, we consider that to the Jews were
committed the "lively oracles;" that the only temple of God on earth
was erected on Mt. Moriah; that the divinely appointed priesthood
and sacrifices were in Jerusalem; and also that a renunciation of
idolatry and hearty acceptance of the God and religion of the bible
was absolutely required of those foreigners who desired to become
servants; that when they did become servants they were blessed with all
the precious privileges of the Jewish religion, and after a few years,
became, with their families, adopted members of the Jewish state,
having all the rights, immunities and honors of the chosen people of
God; I say, when all these facts are impartially weighed, they convince
us that the _end_ of the provision alluded to for the admission of
foreign servants was religious--the salvation of those servants.
And history affords a powerful argument in support of this position.
What was the practical operation of the law of Moses in relation to
foreign servants? If the pro-slavery view of that law be correct, then
history would record the fact that the commonwealth of Israel was a
slaveholding commonwealth. It would state that the Jews traded in men,
and that this traffic was important. We should read of poor, ignorant,
chained idolaters traveling in mournful procession to a great slave
pen at Jerusalem, situated under the shadow, perhaps of the temple of
God, and from thence into every part of the land. And when our Savior
appeared, he would have come into contact with those wretched slaves,
and would have said something about them. Do we find these facts in
history? No, not one of them. Jerusalem, thank God, was a free city.
Judea a free state. Foreigners were employed from age to age, as
servants, but as was contemplated, they embraced the religion of God,
became adopted citizens and were fully identified with the commonwealth
of Israel. "After circumcision they were," as Jahn says, "recorded
among the Hebrews," and after the jubilee they enjoyed all the
immunities of the children of Abraham. Such was the intention, and such
the results of Levitical servitude. Between that system and American
slavery there is scarcely any thing in common. Slavery originated in
piracy, is a system of savage tyranny, degrading to the intellect,
destructive of morality, blasting to hope and happiness, and tending to
barbarism and crime. Servitude under the law of Moses, originated in a
benevolent desire to open a door of hope to the heathen, was kind and
just in its requirements, guarding with extreme jealousy the interest
of servants, and admirably calculated to lead their minds to morality,
virtue and the knowledge of God. Slavery, therefore, can find no
sanction in the law of Moses. Why, if that law were applied to American
slavery it would abolish it. Compel slaveholders to use their slaves
as the law of Moses required servants to be used, and you will soon see
an end of slavery.