CHAPTER VI.'

Hebrew Servitude in the time of the Prophets.

In the previous chapters, I have gone into an extended examination of the subject of slavery or servitude as it existed among the Hebrew patriarchs, and under the Mosaic arrangements. The general conclusion which has been reached in this investigation is, that while slavery existed in the patriarchal times, and while the laws of Moses contemplated the possibility of its existence, just as they did of polygamy and divorce, yet that, so far as the Mosaic code tolerated it, it was comparatively a mild system, and one which it was the tendency of his institutions ultimately to abolish. He found it in existence, and could abolish it only by mild, but determined legislation. He made servitude under his code a different thing from what it was in surrounding nations. He made it a desirable thing for a slave elsewhere to place himself under his laws. He protected him there, and made it certain that, when once under the jurisdiction of his laws, he could never be returned again to his former master. He elevated the slave to many of the rights of a man; regarded him as a man, a moral agent, a religious being; gave him an opportunity of acquiring the knowledge of the true religion; allowed him time for the improvement of his mind, and for the acquisition of property; fitted him to be a freeman, and made arrangements which were incorporated in the very constitution of the commonwealth, that at certain periods, not far distant from each other, the whole land should be free from. every vestige of slavery. The Mosaic institutions were thus evidently opposed to the system, and contemplated its ultimate

entire abolition, in strong contrast, as we have seen, with the institutions of our own country, which contemplate its unmitigated perpetuity.

A very important question presents itself in regard to the working of the Mosaic system, and on this inquiry I now enter. The inquiry extends from the period of the close of the Mosaic code, or the death of Moses, to the winding up of the Hebrew institutions-the coming of the Messiah. So far as this subject is concerned, this may be regarded as one period-whether under the judges or the kings; whether the nation was itself free, or whether it was in bondage. The inquiry is, what was the operation of the Mosaic laws respecting servitude? Was it regarded as consistent with the spirit of those laws? Was the Hebrew nation a nation of slaveholders? If slavery existed at any time, what was its character? Did the prophets approve and commend it? And was it a fact that under the operation of that`system, the Saviour found slavery prevalent at the time of his appearing?

There is some difficulty in arriving at exact views on this point, arising from the indefinite meaning of the word servant, and the words relating to servitude, in the Scriptures. That there were servants in the times of the prophets, and through the entire period now under consideration, no one can doubt. Any one by opening a Hebrew, a Greek, or an English Concordance, will find that the words y ebědh-dövros doulosand servant, occur almost numberless times, though they are used in a great variety of senses. It is necessary, therefore, to bear in mind that the use of these words does not demonstrate that slavery existed in any proper form. The inquiry is not into the use of the word, but into the thing, and in order to this it is necessary to keep in constant remembrance what slavery is. The meaning of the word rendered servant in the Old Testament has been the subject of previous examination, (Chapter III.) and the results of this examination should be borne in mind in the inquiry on which

we now enter. The result of the examination, in substance, was, that the words used to denote servitude in the Scriptures, do not necessarily denote slavery in the proper sense of the term, or in the sense now under inquiry, and that the mere use of those terms determines nothing in the issue before us. It neither proves that slavery existed then, nor that it is lawful, any more than the word servant in England, or in the states north of Mason's and Dixon's line, proves that slavery exists there, or is regarded as right. We are to remember what constitutes the thing, (See Chap. II.) and to inquire whether there is evidence that that existed, and how it was regarded in the period under consideration.

If the view which has been taken of the Mosaic law be correct, we shall expect to find in the Hebrew commonwealth, that, if slavery existed at all, it was in a mild form. We shall expect to find that the Hebrews did not engage in the slave-trade or traffic. We shall expect to find that all cruelty was rebuked, and that the slave gradually rose in the public estimation, and was elevated nearer to the condition of a freeman. We shall expect to find that the institution gradually disappeared; that it was regarded as so contrary to the whole spirit of the Mosaic laws, that it finally ceased to be known in the nation. These are the fair and reasonable expectations which we should form from the examination of the subject which we have gone over; and if this should be found not to be the result, it would do much to make us doubt the correctness of the conclusions to which we have come respecting the nature of the Mosaic arrangements. The inquiry now is, what were the facts in the case as developed in their history? This inquiry will embrace the following points :-The treatment of the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan; the foreign traffic of the nation, and the question whether dealing in slaves constituted a part of that traffic; how it was regarded and treated by the prophets; and whether slavery continued to exist among the Hebrew people, or was finally abolished.

I. The inquiry in regard to the condition of the native inhabitants of the land of Palestine. I begin with this, because there is allusion to them in the sacred writings in such a way as to illustrate this subject; and because, if the Mosaic institutions had contemplated slavery as a desirable thing, and as a permanent arrangement, nothing would have been more natural than that whole people should have been reduced to permanent servitude.

To such a course there were strong inducements. They might be regarded as captives taken in war, and it was the ancient law that such captives were regarded as slaves. They were an abandoned race-a race devoted to destruction. None of them were regarded as the proper objects of mercy; none were to be considered as entitled to any privileges of citizenship, nor were they to become citizens of the Hebrew republic. Ex. xxxiv. 11-13; Numb. xxxiii. 51— 56; Deut. vii. 1-5. Yet, if their institutions contemplated slavery, and it was designed that slavery should enter into the permanent arrangements of the commonwealth, what would have been more natural than to have doomed that race to servitude? Where could any class of men have been found more fitted for it, or against whose subjugation to hopeless bondage fewer objections could have been raised? the view of the law of God, as promulgated by Moses, they had forfeited all claim to life or mercy. They might justly be driven from their land, or devoted to destruction. Yet it would seem to be a milder and more compassionate treatment to make them slaves; to permit them to live, and to give them the opportunity of becoming ultimately incorporated among the Hebrew people. This thought would certainly occur to the Hebrews themselves, if they had supposed that slavery was to be a part of their political arrangements; and if God had designed that it should enter into that system permanently, it is inconceivable why he did not at once point them to that people as a race that would supply them with all the slaves that they needed.

In

Nothing, moreover, would have been more natural than this course, if they had recalled one of the ancient predictions respecting a portion of this people-the malediction of Noah. Gen. ix. 25. "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." This passage, by a singular perverseness of interpretation, and a singular perseverance in that perverseness notwithstanding the plainest rules of exegesis, is often employed to justify the reduction of the African to slavery, because Ham, the father of Canaan,, peopled Africa. Nothing can be clearer, however, than that if a Hebrew had ever thought of employing this passage to justify slavery, it would not have been applied by him to the African, but to the Canaanite. It was Canaan and not Ham that was specified; and whatever there was in the passage, whether of prophecy or malediction, that could be interpreted in favour of the right of subjecting any one to servitude, a Hebrew would have applied it only to the Canaanite. The plea would have been plausible, that by an ancient prediction it was foretold that the Canaanite should be a slave; that the curse of the patriarch Noah, specifying Canaan by name, would make such subjection proper; and that it was in accordance with this ancient prediction that arrangements were now made by which he should be reduced to bondage. A far more plausible argument could have been derived from this application of the passage in favour of fastening the chains of servitude on the Canaanite, than has ever been urged in modern times from it in favour of the subjection of the African to bondage.

Yet this application of the prophecy, so far as we know, was never made, nor did these plausible considerations in favour of subjecting the inhabitants of Palestine to slavery, ever occur to the mind of the Hebrew conquerors. No arrangements were made to Kidnap them; no permission was given by Moses or Joshua to the victors to hold those taken in arms as slaves; nor was a slave-mart opened in which the captives were exposed to sale. There is not the slightest