“The work” (his own) “which is now submitted to the public, is limited
to an examination of the Scripture argument on the subject of slavery.”
Now, if it shall appear that his exertion has universally been to gloss
over the Scripture, or strain it into some meaning favourable to
abolition, and adverse to its rational and obvious interpretation, the
mind will be forced to the conclusion, that his real object has been to
hide the “Scripture argument,” and to limit his researches by what he
may deem to be sound reason and philosophy; and let it be remembered
that such has been the constant practice or every infidel writer, who
has ever attempted to reconcile his own peculiar theories to the
teachings of the holy books.
“And Abram took Sarai 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; and into the
land of Canaan they came.” _Gen._ xii. 5.
“And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and
he-asses, and men-servants (וַֽעַבָדִים _va abadim, male slaves_), and
maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹת _vu shephahoth, female slaves_), and she-asses
and camels.” xii. 16. “But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid
(שִׁפְחָהֵךְ _shiphhathek, female slave_) is in thy hand; do unto her as
it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly by her, she fled from her
face. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the
wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar,
Sarai’s maid (שִׁפְחַ֥ת _shiphhath, female slave_), whence camest thou
and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my
mistress Sarai; and the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy
mistress and submit thyself unto her hands.” _Gen._ xvi. 6–9.
“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant.” * * * “This is
my covenant.” * * * “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised
among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in the
house, or _bought with money_ of any stranger which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in thy house, and he that is _bought with thy money_
must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an
everlasting covenant.” _Gen._ xvii. 9, 10, 12, 13. “And all the men of
his house, born in the house, and _bought with money_ of the stranger,
were circumcised with him.” _Ver._ 27.
“And Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men-servants (וַ֥עֲבָדִים _va
abadim, male slaves_), and women-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת _vu shephhahoth,
female slaves_), and gave them unto Abraham.” _Gen._ xx. 14.
“Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out the bond-woman, and her son.
For the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, even with
Isaac. And God said unto Abraham, let it not be grievous in thy sight,
because of the lad, and because of thy bond-woman.” * * * “And also of
the son of the bond-woman I will make a nation, because he is of thy
seed.” _Gen._ xxi. 10, 12, 13.
“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid,
the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was after
the flesh, but he of the free-woman was by promise; nevertheless, what
saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of
the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman.” _Gal._
iv. 22, 23, 30.
“And he said, I am Abraham’s servant (עֶ֥בֶד _ebed, male slave_), and
the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great and he
hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and man-servants
(וַֽעֲבָד֭יִִם _va abadim, and male slaves_), and maid-servants
(וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת _vu shephahoth, and female slaves_), and camels and asses.”
_Gen._ xxiv. 34, 35.
“And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became
very great. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds,
and great store of servants (וַֽעֲבֻדָּ֖הּ _va abudda, of slaves_), and
the Philistines envied him.” _Gen._ xxvi. 13, 14.
“And the man (Jacob) increased exceedingly, and he had much cattle, and
maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחוֹת _vu shephahoth, and female slaves_,) and
men-servants (וַֽעֲבָדִים _va abadim, and male slaves_), and camels and
asses.” _Gen._ xxx. 43.
“And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and men-servants (וְעֶ֣בֶד _ve ebed,
and male slaves_), and women-servants (וְשִׁפְחָ֑ה _ve shiphha, and
female slaves_). And I have sent to tell my lord that I may find grace
in thy sight.” _Gen._ xxxii. 5.
Let us now notice how Mr. Barnes treats the records here quoted. He
says, page 70—
“Some of the servants held by the patriarchs were ‘bought with money.’
Much reliance is laid on this by the advocates of slavery, in justifying
the purchase, and consequently, as they seem to reason, the _sale_ of
slaves now; and it is, therefore, of importance, to inquire, how far the
fact stated is a justification of slavery as it exists at present. But
one instance occurs, in the case of the patriarchs, where it is said
that servants were ‘bought with money.’ This is the case of Abraham,
_Gen._ xvii. 12, 13. ‘And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised
among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the
house, or _bought with money of any stranger_, which is not of thy seed;
he that is born in thy house, and _he that is bought with thy money_,
must needs be circumcised.’ Compare verses 23, 27. This is the only
instance in which there is mention of the fact that any one of the
patriarchs had persons in their employment who were bought with money.
The only other case which occurs at that period of the world is that of
the sale of Joseph, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to the
Egyptians—a case which, it is believed, has too close a resemblance to
slavery as it exists in our own country, ever to be referred to with
much satisfaction by the advocates of the system. In the case, moreover,
of Abraham, it should be remembered that it is the record of a mere
_fact_. There is no command to buy servants or to sell them, or to hold
them as property—any more than there was a command to the brethren of
Joseph to enter in to a negotiation for the sale of their brother. Nor
is there any approbation expressed of the fact that they were bought;
unless the command given to Abraham to affix to them the seal of the
covenant, and to recognise them as brethren in the faith which he held,
should be construed as such evidence of approval.
“The inquiry then presents itself, whether _the fact that they were
bought_ determines any thing with certainty in regard to the nature of
the servitude, or to the propriety of slavery as practised now. The
Hebrew, in the passages referred to in Genesis, is ‘the born in thy
house, and _the purchase of silver_,’ מִקְנַה־כֶּסֶף— _mi knath
keseph_—not incorrectly rendered, ‘those bought with money.’ The verb
קָנָה _kânâ_, from which the noun here is derived, and which is commonly
used in the Scriptures when the purchase of slaves is referred to, means
_to set upright_ or _erect_, to _found_ or _create_. _Gen._ xiv. 19, 22.
_Deut._ xxxii. 6; _to get for oneself_, _to gain_ or _acquire_. _Prov._
iv. 7, xv. 32; to _obtain_, _Gen._ iv. 1; and _to buy_, or _purchase_,
_Gen._ xxv. 10; xlvii. 22. In this latter sense it is often used, and
with the same latitude of signification as the word _buy_ or _purchase_
is with us. It is most commonly rendered by the words _buy_ and
_purchase_ in the Scriptures. See _Gen._ xxv. 10; xlvii. 22; xlix. 30;
1. 13; _Josh._ xxiv. 32; 2 _Sam._ xii. 3; _Ps._ lxxviii. 54; _Deut._
xxxii. 6; _Lev._ xxvii. 24, and very often elsewhere. It is applied to
the purchase of fields, of cattle, of men, and of every thing which was
or could be regarded as property. As there is express mention of
_silver_ or _money_ in the passage before us respecting the servants of
Abraham, there is no doubt that the expression means that he paid a
price for a part of his servants. A part of them were ‘born in his
house;’ a part had been ‘bought with money’ from ‘strangers,’ or were
foreigners.
“But still, this use of the word in itself determines nothing in regard
to the tenure by which they were held, or the nature of the servitude to
which they were subjected. It does not prove that they were regarded as
_property_ in the sense in which a slave is now regarded as a chattel;
nor does it demonstrate that the one who was bought ceased to be
regarded altogether _as a man_; or that it was regarded as right to sell
him again. The fact that he was to be circumcised as one of the family
of Abraham, certainly does not look as if he ceased to be regarded _as a
man_.
“The word rendered _buy_ or _purchase_ in the Scriptures, is applied to
so many kinds of purchases, that no safe argument can be founded on its
use in regard to the kind of servitude which existed in the time of
Abraham. A reference to a few cases where this word is used, will show
that nothing is determined by it respecting the tenure by which the
thing purchased was held. (1.) It is used in the common sense of the
word _purchase_ as applied to inanimate things, where the property would
be absolute. _Gen._ xlii. 2, 7; xliii. 20; xlvii. 19; xxx. 19. (2.) It
is applied to the purchase of _cattle_, where the property may be
supposed to be _as_ absolute. See _Gen._ xlvi. 22, 24; iv. 20; _Job_
xxxvi. 33; _Deut._ iii. 19; _and often_, (3.) God is represented as
having _bought_ his people; that is, as having ransomed them with a
price, or purchased them to himself. _Deut._ xxxii. 6: ‘Is he not thy
Father that hath _bought_ thee?’ קָּנֶךָ—_kânĕkhâ_, thy purchaser.
_Exod._ xv. 16: ‘By the greatness of thine arm they shall be still as a
stone, till thy people pass over; till the people pass over which thou
hast _purchased_,’ קָנִיהָ,_kânithâ_. See _Ps._ lxxiv. 2. Compare _Isa._
xliii. 3: ‘I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.’ But
though the word _purchase_ is used in relation to the redemption of the
people of God, the very word which is used respecting the servants of
Abraham, no one will maintain that they were held as _slaves_, or
regarded as _property_. Who can tell but what Abraham purchased his
servants in some such way, by redeeming them from galling captivity? May
they not have been prisoners in war, to whom he did an inestimable
service in rescuing them from a condition of grievous and hopeless
bondage? May they not have been _slaves_ in the strict and proper sense,
and may not his act of purchasing them have been, in fact, a species of
emancipation in a way similar to that in which God emancipates his
people from the galling servitude of sin? The mere act of paying _a
price_ for them no more implies that he continued to hold them as
slaves, than it does now when a man purchases his wife or child who have
been held as slaves, or than the fact that God has redeemed his people
by a price, implies that he regards them as slaves. (4.) Among the
Hebrews a man might sell himself, and this transaction on the part of
him to whom he sold himself would be represented by the word _bought_.
Thus, in _Lev._ xxv. 47, 48: ‘And if a sojourner or a stranger wax rich
by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and _sell
himself_ unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the
stranger’s family, after that he is sold, he may be redeemed again.’
This transaction is represented as a _purchase_. Ver. 50: ‘And he shall
reckon with him that _bought_ him, (Heb. _his purchaser_, קֹנֵהוּ
_konaihū_), from the year that he was sold unto the year of jubilee,’
&c. This was a mere purchase of _time_ or _service_. It gave no right to
sell the man again, or to retain him in any event beyond a certain
period, or to retain him _at all_, if his friends chose to interpose and
redeem him. It gave no right of property in the _man_, any more than the
purchase of the unexpired time of an apprentice, or the ‘purchase’ of
the poor in the State of Connecticut does. In no proper sense of the
word could this be called _slavery_. (5.) The word _buy_ or _purchase_
was sometimes applied to the manner in which a _wife_ was procured. Thus
Boaz is represented as saying that he had _bought_ Ruth. ‘Moreover, Ruth
the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I _purchased_ (קָנִיהִי
_kânithi_) to be my wife.’ Here the word applied to the manner in which
Abraham became possessed of his servants, is applied to the manner in
which a wife was procured. So Hosea says, (ch. iii. 2,) ‘So I _bought_
her to me (another word, however, being used in the Hebrew, כָּרָה
_kârâ_) for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an
half homer of barley.’ Jacob purchased his wives, Leah and Rachel, not
indeed by the payment of money, but by labour. _Gen._ xxix. 15–23. That
the practice of _purchasing_ a wife, or paying a _dowry_ for her, was
common, is apparent from _Exod._ xxii. 17; 1 _Sam._ xviii. 25. Compare
_Judg._ i. 12, 13. Yet it will not be maintained that the wife among the
Hebrews, was in any proper sense a _slave_, or that she was regarded as
subject to the laws which regulate property, or that the husband had a
right to sell her again. In a large sense, indeed, she was regarded, as
the conductors of the Princeton Repertory (1836, p. 293) allege, as the
wife is now, as the _property_ of her husband; that is, she was _his_ to
the exclusion of the claim of any other man; but she was his as his
_wife_, not as his _slave_. (6.) The word ‘_bought_’ occurs in a
transaction between Joseph and the people of Egypt in such a way as
farther to explain its meaning. When, during the famine, the money of
the Egyptians had failed, and Joseph had purchased all the land, the
people proposed to become his servants. When the contract was closed,
Joseph said to them, ‘Behold, I have _bought_ you —קָנִ֨יהִי— and your
land for Pharaoh.’ _Gen._ xlvii. 23. The nature of this contract is
immediately specified. They were to be regarded as labouring for
Pharaoh. The land belonged to him, and Joseph furnished the people seed,
or ‘stocked the land,’ and they were to cultivate it on shares for
Pharaoh. The fifth part was to be his, and the other four parts were to
be theirs. There was a claim on them for _labour_, but it does not
appear that the claim extended farther. No farmers who now work land on
shares would be willing to have their condition described as one of
_slavery_.
“The conclusion which we reach from this examination of the words _buy_
and _bought_ as applied to the case of Abraham is, that the use of the
word determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which his servants
were held. They may have been purchased from those who had taken them as
captives in war, and the purchase may have been regarded by themselves
as a species of redemption, or a most desirable rescue from the fate
which usually attends such captives—perchance from death. The property
which it was understood that he had in them may have been merely
property in their _time_, and not in their persons; or the purchase may
have amounted in fact to every thing that is desirable in emancipation;
and, from any thing implied in the _word_, their subsequent service in
the family of Abraham may have been entirely voluntary. It is a very
material circumstance, also, that _there is not the slightest evidence
that either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob ever sold a slave, or offered one
for sale, or regarded them as liable to be sold_. There is no evidence
that their servants even descended as a part of an inheritance from
father to son. So far, indeed, as the accounts in the Scriptures go, it
would be impossible to _prove_ that they would not have been at liberty
at any time to leave their masters, if they had chosen to do so. The
passage, therefore, which says that Abraham had ‘servants _bought_ with
money,’ cannot be adduced to justify slavery as it exists now—even if
this were all that we know about it. But (4.) servitude in the days of
Abraham must have existed in a very mild form, and have had features
which slavery by no means has now. Almost the only transaction which is
mentioned in regard to the servants of Abraham, is one which could never
occur in the slave-holding parts of our country. A marauding expedition
of petty kings came from the north and east, and laid waste the country
around the vale of Siddim, near to which Abraham lived, and, among other
spoils of battle, they carried away Lot and his possessions. Abraham, it
is said, then ‘armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three
hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan,’ and rescued the family
of Lot and his goods. _Gen._ xiv. This narrative is one that must for
ever show that servitude, as it existed in the family of Abraham, was a
very different thing from what it is in the United States. The number
was large, and it does not appear that any persons but his servants
accompanied Abraham. They all were armed. They were led off on a distant
expedition, where there could have been no power in Abraham to preserve
his life, if they had chosen to rise up against him, and no power to
recover them, if they had chosen to set themselves free. Yet he felt
himself entirely safe when accompanied with this band of armed men, and
when far away from his family and his home. What must have been the
nature of servitude, where the master was willing to arm such a company,
to put himself entirely at their disposal, and lead them off to a
distant land?
“Compare this with the condition of things in the United States. Here,
it is regarded as essential to the security of the life of the master
that slaves shall never be intrusted with arms. ‘A slave is not allowed
to keep or carry a weapon.’[A] ‘He cannot go from the tenement of his
master, or other person with whom he lives, without a pass, or something
to show that he is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or
overseer.’[B] ‘For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or _shot_, or
_club_, or _other weapon whatsoever_, offensive or defensive, a slave
incurs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice of
the peace;’[C] and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by
the nearest constable, _without_ a conviction by the justice.[D] Here,
there is every precaution from laws, and from the dread of the most
fearful kind of punishment, against the escape of slaves. Here, there is
a constant apprehension that they may rise against their masters, and
every security is taken against their organization and combination.
Here, there is probably not a single master who would, if he owned three
hundred slaves, _dare_ to put arms in their hands, and lead them off on
an expedition against a foe. If the uniform precautions and care at the
South against arming the slaves, or allowing them to become acquainted
with their own strength, be any expression of the nature of the system,
slavery in the United States is a very different thing from servitude in
the time of Abraham; and it does not prove that in the species of
servitude existing here it is right to refer to the case of Abraham, and
to say that it is ‘_a good patriarchal system_.’ Let the cases be made
parallel before the names of the patriarchs are called in to justify the
system. But—
“(5.) What _real_ support would it furnish to the system, even if it
were true that the cases were wholly parallel? How far would it go to
demonstrate that _God_ regards it as a good system, and one that is to
be perpetuated, in order that society may reach its highest possible
elevation? Who would undertake to vindicate all the conduct of the
patriarchs, or to maintain that all which they practised was in
accordance with the will of God? They practised concubinage and
polygamy. Is it therefore certain that this was the highest and purest
state of society, and that it was a state which God designed should be
perpetuated? Abraham and Isaac were guilty of falsehood and deception,
(_Gen._ xx. 2, _seq._; xxvi. 7;) Jacob secured the birthright by a
collusive fraud between him and his mother, (_Gen._ xxvii.) and obtained
no small part of his property by cunning, (_Gen._ xxx. 36–43,) and Noah
was drunk with wine, (_Gen._ ix. 21;) and these things are recorded
merely _as facts_, without any decided expression of disapprobation; but
is it therefore to be inferred that they had the approbation of God, and
that they are to be practised still, in order to secure the highest
condition of society?
“Take the single case of polygamy. Admitting that the patriarchs held
slaves, the argument in favour of polygamy, from their conduct, would
be, in all its main features, the same as that which I suggested, in the
commencement of this chapter, as employed in favour of slavery. The
argument would be this:—That they were good men, the ‘friends of God,’
and that what such men practised freely cannot be wrong; that God
permitted this; that he nowhere forbade it; that he did not record his
disapprobation of the practice; and that whatever God permitted in such
circumstances, without expressing his disapprobation, must be regarded
as in itself a good thing, and as desirable to be perpetuated, in order
that society may reach the highest point of elevation. It is perfectly
clear that, so far as the conduct of the patriarchs goes, it would be
just as easy to construct an argument in favour of polygamy as in favour
of slavery—even on the supposition that slavery existed then essentially
as it does now. But it is not probable that polygamy would be defended
now as a good institution, and as one that has the approbation of God,
even by those who defend the domestic institutions of the South.' The
truth is, that the patriarchs were good men in their generation, and,
considering their circumstances, were men eminent for piety. But they
were imperfect men; they lived in the infancy of the world; they had
comparatively little light on the subjects of morals and religion; and
it is a very feeble argument which maintains that a thing is _right,
because any one or all of the patriarchs practised it_.
“But after all, what _real_ sanction did God ever give either to
polygamy or to servitude, as it was practised in the time of the
patriarchs? Did he command either? Did he ever express approbation of
either? Is there an instance in which either is mentioned with a
sentiment of approval? The mere _record_ of actual occurrences, even if
there is no declared disapprobation of them, proves nothing as to the
Divine estimate of what is recorded. There is a _record_ of the ‘_sale_’
of Joseph into servitude, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to
Potiphar. There is no expression of disapprobation. There is no
exclamation of surprise or astonishment, as if a deed of enormous
wickedness were done, when brothers sold their own brother into hopeless
captivity. _This_ was done also by those who were subsequently reckoned
among the ‘patriarchs,’ and some of whom at the time were probably pious
men. Will it be inferred that God approved this transaction; that he
meant to smile on the act, when brothers sell their own brothers into
hopeless bondage? Will this record be adduced to justify kidnapping, or
the acts of parents in barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws
of their nature, sell their own children? Will the record that the
Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him
there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God
approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unoffending inhabitants of
Africa, or _buy_ them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold
into hopeless bondage! Why then should the fact that there is a _record_
that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any expressed
disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards
slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated
under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of
society? The truth is, that the mere record of a _fact_, even without
any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the
views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of
all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a
record? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the
deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of
future ages? Are we to maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all
which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good of mankind?
Shall the biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and
Alexander VI., and Cæsar Borgia be held responsible for approving of all
that these men did, or of commending their example to the imitation of
mankind? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus
judged. Why then shall we infer that _God_ approved of all that the
patriarchs did, even when there is no formal approbation expressed; or
infer, because such transactions have been _recorded_, that _therefore_
they are right in his sight?”
-----
Footnote A:
Rev. Cod. Virg. vol. i. p. 453, sections 83, 84.
Footnote B:
Ibid. vol. i. p. 422, section 6. See Paulding on Slavery, p. 146.
Footnote C: