Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible?
IF there is one subject which, above all others, may be regarded as of national interest at the present time, it is the subject of slavery. Wherever we go, north or south, east or west, at the fireside, in the factory, the rail-car or the steamboat, in the State legislatures or the national congress, this "ghost that will not down" obtrudes itself. The strife has involved press, pulpit, and forum alike, and spite of all compromises by political parties, and the desperate attempts at non-committal by religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper. But the distinctive feature of this, as compared with other questions of national import is, that here both parties draw their principal arguments from the Bible as a common armory of weapons for attack and defense. On the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil; that it is an innocent and lawful relation, as much as that of a parent and child, husband and wife, or any other in society; that the right to buy, sell, and hold men for purposes of gain, was given by express permission of God, and sanctioned by Christ and his apostles; that this right is founded on the golden rule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky., "I hardly know which is most unaccountable, the profound ignorance of the Bible, or the sublimity of cool impudence and infidelity manifested by those who profess to be christians, and yet dare affirm that the Book of God gives no sanction to slaveholding." All these affirmations are fairly summed up thus: "As slavery was practiced by the patriarchs, received sanction and legality from God in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced by Christ and his apostles, it must have been right. If right then, it is so still; therefore Southern slavery is right." On the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery is nowhere warranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is totally opposed both to its spirit and teachings. It will be the object of the present discussion to determine which of these opinions is correct. What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in American law? 1. It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense a man may be said to "possess" these; but he cannot buy or sell them. These are natural relations; and he who violates them for the sake of gain is branded by all as barbarous and criminal. 2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is temporary, having for its primary object, not the good of the master or guardian, but that of the apprentice or minor, his education and preparation for acting his part as a free and independent member of society; but chattelism is life bondage, for the sole good of the master. 3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a bond of agreement is implied, and therefore reciprocal rights, and the mutual power of dissolution on failure of either in the terms of mutual agreement; but chattelism ignores and denies the ability of the slave to make a contract. 4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was attached to the glebe or soil, and could not be severed from it, deprived of his family, or sold to another as a chattel; being retained as part of the indivisible feudal community. But the chattel slave is a "thing" incapable of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or how the master pleases. Chattelism is none of these relations; its principle is "property in man." Its definition is thus given in the law of Louisiana (Civil Code, art. 35): "A slave is one who is in the power of his master, to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, acquire nothing, but what must belong to his master." South Carolina says (Prince's Digest, 446), "Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, purposes, and constructions whatsoever." Judge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina (case of State vs. Mann), says a slave is "one doomed in his own person and his posterity to live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make anything his own, and to toil that another may reap the fruits." We now come to the point at issue: Does the Bible sanction this system? The Hebrew terms used in reference to this subject are awwadh, "to serve;" the noun, evedh, "servant" or "bondman," one contracting service for a term of years; saukir, a "hired servant" daily or weekly; aumau, and shiphechau, "maid-servant" or "hand-maid;" but there is no term in Hebrew synonymous with our word slave, for all the terms applied to servants are, as we shall show, equally applicable and applied to free persons. The verb awwadh, according to Gesenius, signifies primarily, to labor; then, to labor for one's self, for hire, or compulsory labor as a captive or prisoner of war. Gen. ii, 5, 15; iii, 23; xxix, 15; Ex. xx, 9; xxi, 2. Next, national servitude as tributary to others; as Sodom and the cities of the plain to Chedorlaomer, Gen. xiv, 4; Esau to Jacob, Gen. xxv, 23; the Israelites in Canaan to surrounding nations, Moabites, Philistines, and others, Judges iii, 8; Jer. xxvii, 7, 9. Next, national and personal servitude or serfdom, as of the Israelites in Egypt. Lastly, the service of God or idols, Judges iii, 7, &c. From these and similar passages we see that neither the generic nor specific meaning of the term, taken in its connections, implies chattel slavery, but labor, voluntary, hired, or compulsory, as of tributary nations or prisoners of war, whose claim to regain, if possible, their freedom and rights, is ever admitted and acted on; showing that freedom is the normal state of man, subjection and compulsory servitude the abnormal and unnatural. But it is objected that, though the proper meaning of the verb "to serve" does not imply chattel slavery, it is certain that the derived noun evedh, translated "servant" and "bondman" in our version, is frequently used to designate involuntary servitude, the service of one "bought with money," and therefore a chattel slave. We reply, By far the most frequent use of this term, as is well known, represents either the common deferential mode of address of inferiors to superiors, or equals to equals, used then and to-day in the East, or the political subordination of inferior to superior rank invariably existing in Eastern governments. Otherwise we have Jacob saying to Esau, "The children which God hath graciously given thy" slave; and Joseph's brethren saying to him, "Thou saidest to thy slaves, Bring him down to me." "When we came up to thy slave my father." Saul's officers and soldiers are his slaves, David is Jonathan's, and vice versa; Abigail, David's wife, is his slave; his people, officers, and even ambassadors are all his slaves; all are slaves to each other, and none are masters, unless it be the king. How, then, can we properly define the meaning and status of the term "servant" in any particular passage? We answer, only by the context and the usage of the particular time and place, so far as known. We first meet with the term "servant" in the oft-disputed passage, Gen. ix, 25-27: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall be unto138his brethren. . . . Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." Now, as we have no state of servitude in the context or the usage of the times with which to compare this, and as only Canaan and his descendants are included in the curse, we must look to their subsequent history for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the kind of servitude there implied. We find the descendants of Canaan and their land defined in Gen. x, 15-20. They were not Africans, as some ignorantly assert, but the Canaanites, who dwelt in Canaan, and were there destroyed by the Israelites, or rendered tributaries, except the Gibeonites, who were doomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water," the serfs of the temple service. Josh. ix, 23, 27. There is not one word of buying and selling individuals—no chattelism, or any sanction of it; there is a performing of the service of the temple, or paying tribute, but never slaves or chattels. Canaan thus became the servant (not slave) of Shem; and when afterward Israel was oppressed and rendered tributary to other nations, the Canaanites became thus not only "servants," but "servants of servants." 3. Patriarchal Servitude.
The next example of the word "servant" brings us to that epoch in relation to which the Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina says, "Slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholders Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven), to the time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his master Philemon, and wrote a christian and paternal letter to this slaveholder, which we find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures." The account we have of Abraham's servants is briefly as follows: "That he had men-servants and maid-servants, Gen. xii, 16; xiv, 14; xvii, 27, (not slaves, for we have shown above by numerous passages that to give such a definition to the term 'servant' is false and absurd, unless sustained by the context or the usage of the times); that they numbered some two thousand persons (reckoning by the number of fighting men among them, generally one in five of the population), were trained and accustomed to arms (Gen. xiv, 14); could inherit property (Gen. xv, 3, 4); in religious ordinances were perfectly equal with the master (Gen. xvii, 10-14); had entire control not only over property, but also the heirs of the household (Gen. xxiv, 2-10); lastly, they were invariably considered as men, not slaves or chattels. Gen. xxiv, 30, 32. 'And the man (servant of Abraham) came into the house, and he ungirded his camels, and gave straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the men's feet that were with him.'" "But," it is objected, "some of these servants were 'bought with money;' therefore they must have been possessed as 'chattel slaves.'" This conclusion depends partly on the meaning of the Hebrew verb kaanan, "to buy;" and asserts that whenever this term is applied to persons, it implies the relation of chattel slavery. The primary definition of the verb, given by Gesenius, is, to erect; then, 1. To found or create; 2. To get, gain, obtain, acquire, possess; 3. To get by purchase, to buy. Let us see the meaning of this term, applied to persons in other passages. In Gen. xxxi, 15, Rachel and Leah say of their father, "He hath sold us, and quite devoured also our money," referring to Jacob's long service for them; were they chattels? Gen. xlvii, 23, Joseph bought the Egyptians; were they chattels? Ex. xxi, 2, "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing;" was he a chattel? Ruth iv, 10, "Ruth the Moabitess have I purchased this day to be my wife; was she a chattel? These passages clearly show that the simple application of the term 'bought with money' does not imply property and possession as a chattel. The phrase "bought with money" relates, in the case of wives, to the dowry usual in Eastern countries; in the case of servants, to the ransom paid for captives in war, and paid by the individual on adoption into the tribe; or to an equivalent paid as hire of time and labor for a limited period, either to parents for their children as apprentices, &c., or to the individual himself, as Jacob to Laban. Gen. xxxi, 41, "Thus have I been twenty years in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle, and thou hast changed my wages ten times." Thus Abraham could acquire a claim on the service of a man during life by purchase from himself; could acquire the allegiance of a man and his family, and all born in it, by contract, not to be broken but by mutual agreement; and in a few years have a vast household under his authority, "born in his house," and "bought with money," yet not one of them a slave. Another general proof already alluded to is, that the terms evedh "servant," and naar, "young man," are applied synonymously and equally to servants and free persons. Gen. xiv, 24, Abraham calls his servants young men, and again in Gen. xvii, 23, 27. So in Job i, 15-19, the term auvadh is applied alike to Job's servants and sons. Also in Judges vii, 10; xix, 3, 11, 19; 1 Sam. ix, 3, 5, 10, 22, and numerous other places, these terms are applied indiscriminately to servants, showing that they were always regarded as men, never as chattels. But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the status or condition of Abraham's servants; we will bring proofs showing that it could not have been chattel slavery. Two of the fundamental characteristics of chattelism are, the status of the mother decides that of the child, and the slave, being property, cannot inherit or possess property. Was this the condition of "servants" in patriarchal society? If so, then these characteristics brand them as chattels; but on the contrary, if no record is found of their being sold (the buying we have already reasonably accounted for); if the children of these servants were reckoned free, if they and their children could inherit property, then even American slave law and custom declare them free persons, and not chattels personal. Take the case of Hagar. We read (Gen. xvi, 1), she was an Egyptian "handmaid, maid-servant," perhaps one of those referred to in Gen. xii, 16. Abraham, at Sarah's instigation, makes her his concubine. The usual bickering of Eastern harems ensues. Hagar leaves the tribe, is sent back by the angel, Ishmael is born, and this son of a slave (?) is regarded not only as free, but heir of the house of Abraham. Years pass, and the wild, reckless Ishmael is seen ridiculing Isaac, his puny brother and co-heir. At the sight, all the mother and the aristocrat again rise up in Sarah, and she cries out to Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for he shall not be heir with my son, even Isaac;" and Abraham, so far from regarding them as chattels personal, and selling them south, sends off the wild boy to be the wild, free Arab, "whose hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against his." Take the case of Bilhah and Zilpah, given by Laban (Gen. xxix, 24, 29), as handmaids to his daughters Leah and Rachel. Gen. xxx, 4-14. They become Jacob's concubines, and bear him four sons—Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Here the case is plain; the mothers are "servants," they have children, and these, instead of being (as in similar cases daily at the South) "reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal," are recognized as free and equal with the other sons, Reuben, Judah, &c., and become, like them, heads of tribes in Israel. In these cases,—and they are all which relate to the point at issue—either the status of these servants did or did not decide that of their children. If it did, then, by the laws of chattelism, the children being free prove the mother (though servant) to be free; if it did not, then the mother was held only by feudal allegiance, while the children were always free. In either case the conditions of chattelism did not exist; they were not slaves, but free persons in the same condition as members of wandering Arab and Tartar tribes to this day. Did the second fundamental condition of chattelism mentioned above exist? The slave, being property, cannot possess or inherit property. In Gen. xv, 3, we find Abraham complaining to the Lord, "Behold, to me thou hast given no seed, and lo, one born in my house is my heir!" The same term is used here as in speaking of Abraham's other servants; and yet this "servant" is declared by Abraham his acknowledged heir. Here there is a manifest contradiction of the conditions of a chattel slave. They cannot inherit property; this man could; therefore he was not a slave. It is an entirely gratuitous assumption to assert that Abraham's dependents were slaves; for similar cases occur daily in nomadic tribes, as formerly they did in Scottish clans. If the chief has no child capable of succeeding him in office, he chooses from his dependents some tried and trusty warrior, and adopts him as lieutenant or henchman, to succeed him as heir or chief. Just so Abraham, then nearly eighty years old, despairing of a son to take his place as chief of the tribe, adopted some young warrior (perhaps a leader in the battle of Hobah) as his heir, with the proviso of resigning in favor of a son if any be born. But in the case of Jacob's four sons the conclusion is self-evident—children of "servants" or "handmaids," yet recognized as free like the other sons, sharing the property of the father equally with them;—the conditions of a state of chattelism did not exist. These things prove conclusively that the term "servant" never meant slave in patriarchal families; that the term "bought with money" referred only to feudal allegiance or service for a time agreed on by both parties. These servants could possess and inherit property; their children were free; they were trained to the use of arms; in religious matters master and servant were alike and equal; and they were always considered and called men, never slaves or chattels,—all which are directly contrary to the principles and express enactments of American slave law, and are the characteristics of free persons even at the South. Add to this the significant fact that not one word is said in the patriarchal records of selling any of these servants, (the only act mentioned of selling a human being is that of Joseph by his brethren, so bitterly reprobated and repented of by them soon after), though frequently bought; that no fugitive slave law existed, in fact could not exist in a wandering tribe,—and the natural conclusion is, that they were not slaves, but free men and women; and therefore the records of patriarchal society conclusively deny the existence of chattel slaves or slavery as one of its institutions. Years pass, and we find the Israelites reduced to a servile condition as the serfs of the Egyptians. God, in his purposes, allowed them to remain thus for a time, and then, instead of sanctioning even this modified form of slavery, demanded their instant release; and on refusal, with terrible judgments on their oppressors, he led forth that army of fugitive slaves, and drowned their pursuers in the Red sea. We come next to the sanction and authority of chattel slavery claimed to exist in the laws and economy of these people just escaped from bondage, and framed by him who had shown his displeasure against slavery by nearly destroying a nation of slaveholders for holding and catching slaves. The arguments for this claim are 1. That the term "servant" or "bondman" used in the Mosaic law means chattel slavery; 2. That in certain cases the Hebrews might hold their brethren as slaves forever; 3. They might buy slaves from the heathen around, and hold them forever. These positions, we admit, have some plausibility, and have doubtless had great weight in producing the opinion that chattelism is sanctioned by the Bible. We propose to consider the condition of the classes of servants referred to in their order. 1. Hebrew Servants. These were of four kinds—servants under contract or indenture for six years, probably from one sabbatic year to another; servants held till the year of jubilee, or "forever;" children born in the house, or hired out by their parents; convicted thieves; and afterward, though sanctioned by no law, debtors.
In respect to the first of these classes, the law is found in Ex. xxi, 2-6; Deut. xv, 12-18. "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." Here the term "buy" can only be applied to the service, sold by the servant for six years (or perhaps to the sabbatic seventh year, as daily or weekly service ended with the Sabbath), for it is applied to a state which no ingenuity whatever can construe as chattelism. The second class of Hebrew servants is mentioned Ex. xxi, 5, 6. "If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him to the judges: he shall also bring him to the door or to the door-post, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever." Deut. xv, 17, the same law adds, "And also to thy maid-servant shalt thou do likewise." But in Lev. xxv, 39, 40, 53, it is expressly enacted that one who served longer than six years was not to be treated or considered as an evedh, one contracting for a term of years, but as a saukir, a hired servant, to be well treated and compensated for his services. "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as a hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee." The servant must plainly say, "I will not go out": it must be voluntary service; but chattelism is involuntary, forced, and directly contrary to the case before us. "He shall serve him forever," not his sons after him, not giving the right of transfer or sale of service to a third person. "He shall serve," not his wife or children, but himself, till death, or his master's death, or the jubilee. This, then, was not chattelism, for it was voluntary, without purchase or sale, ending with the life of the servant, the master, or the year of release—the jubilee. The third class of servants—children—appear during minority to have been, as now in all Eastern countries, entirely at the service or control of their parents, and might by them be hired out [Neh. v, 2-9], but, when of age, were of course independent of parental acts and control. John ix, 21. That the offspring of servants in patriarchal times were free, we have already proved; that they were so among the Israelites is shown by the case of Abimelech, the son of a maid-servant [Judges ix, 18], yet free as his brethren, and afterward king of Israel; also of Sheshan. 1 Chron. ii, 34, 35. No service, indeed, could be recognized or demanded, in Jewish law, of grown persons, except as the result of contract or crime. In respect to the fourth class, it is plain from the language used that only sufficient service could be required of them to cancel the obligation of restitution. Ex. xxii, 3. "He should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft;" in case of debt (Matt. xviii, 34), "till he should pay all that was due to him." 2. Servants obtained from the heathen. These were, first, captives. From the account of the first taking of captives by the Israelites (Num. xxxi, 7-47), we learn (verse 7), that they marched into Midian, slew all the males, and seized the women, children, flocks, and herds. On their return Moses reprimanded them for disobeying God's command by preserving the grown women; and thereupon they killed all but the virgins and children, reserving them for adoption into the families of the nation. In Deut. xx, 14, and xxi, 10-14, we have these commands and regulations given, with an express prohibition of the enslavement of these captives, in case of repudiation by the captors. "It shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." Now, all slaveholding tribes and nations, when they seize captives for slaves, aim to obtain as many strong and vigorous men as possible; must it not, therefore, fairly be inferred from this regulation that God, by prohibiting instead of sanctioning the most productive mode of slave-making,—the enslavement of prisoners of war,—did not intend, but positively prohibited, the Israelites from becoming a slaveholding nation?
Secondly, "bought with money." The law referring to these is Lev. xxv, 44, 46. "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. . . . 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." As we have already stated, the Hebrews had but two terms for "servant"—the generic term evedh, one under contract for a term of years, and saukir, one hired by the day, week, or year. Now, the term here translated "bondman" is the generic evedh, elsewhere translated "servant," and therefore should have been thus translated here, unless a different rendering is required by the context. The more literal reading of the Hebrew is, "And thy men-servants and thy maid-servants which shall be to thee from the nations around you, of them shall ye procure the man-servant and the maid-servant." What, then, was the difference between the Hebrew and heathen evedh? This. The Hebrew could only be an evedh, a servant by contract, for six years. Ex. xxi, 2: "Six years shall he serve, but in the seventh he shall go out free; [longer service could not be contracted for, but must be voluntary, Ex. xxi, 5]; or as a hired servant or sojourner till the jubilee, but never beyond. Lev. xxv, 10, 39-41. But a heathen could bind himself as an evedh for longer than six years; and thus his service, unlike the Hebrew, could be "bought" as "an inheritance for your children after you," but, like the Hebrew voluntary "forever" servants, they were bondmen for the longest time known by the law—till death or the jubilee. Is it objected that the terms "buy," "possession," "forever," are used, and indicate chattelism? We answer, All admit the Hebrew was not a chattel; for his service expired at the seventh year, the death of himself or his master. "He shall serve him forever," but, if both lived on, this service, though voluntary, as has been shown, expired with all such claims at the jubilee. Since the same terms, and, as we shall show directly, the jubilee, applied equally to both, if it does not prove the one a chattel, it does not the other; therefore both are equally voluntary contractors. The service, and not the bodies, were bought; and both were equally free at the jubilee. Two objects were accomplished by this law. 1. To permit the Hebrews to obtain that assistance in tilling the land, which otherwise they would not have been allowed to do. 2. To increase the numbers of the commonwealth, since the Hebrews, in obedience to the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. xvii, 10-14; Ex. xii, 44-49), were bound to circumcise these indented servants, "bought with money," thus making them a part of the household during their period of service, and also naturalized citizens of the State, members of the congregation, partakers of all the rites and privileges common to the mass of the people. Ex. xii, 44-49; Num. xv, 15-39. "One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance forever in your generations; as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord." Lev. xix, 34. "The stranger that dwelleth among you shall be as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." In accordance with the frequently-repeated injunction of this law of equality, they were invariably recognized as citizens, and alike with Hebrew servants, were amenable to, and received protection from, the laws of the State. In further proof of this, and in direct opposition to chattelism, is the fact, that the laws regulating the relation of master and servant are each and all enacted for the benefit and protection of the servant, and not one for that of the master. Again, when property is spoken of, oxen, sheep, &c., the term owner is always used, master never; when servants and masters are spoken of, master is always used, owner never. Ex. xxi, 29. "The ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death." Ex. xxi, 34. If an ox or ass fall into a pit left uncovered, "the owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money to the owner of them." But, Deut. xxv, 15. "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee." The inference from all this is plain. No such thing as property in man is recognized in the Mosaic law; but God, finding polygamy and the law of serfdom existing among the Israelites, did not see fit to abolish them at once, but so hampered and hedged them about by restrictive statutes as gradually and finally to abolish them altogether. —Premium Tract.