ARTICLE III.

THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT ON SLAVERY.

By Rev. William C. Wisner, Lockport, N. Y.

AMONG other extremes which prevail in the discussion of the slavery question, is the effort of some slaveholders, on the one hand, to prove that the Old Testament Scriptures sustain and justify slavery, and that of some abolitionists, on the other, to prove that slavery did not exist among the Jews in Old Testament times. The fact that we believe these efforts to lie in opposite extremes, and view them as alike incorrect and untenable, has induced us to take up the subject of Old Testament slavery, and discuss it in the present form. In pursuing this discussion, we shall have occasion to review in part the pamphlet of T. D. Weld, Esq., entitled, "The Bible against Slavery." This work contains the whole argument of those who maintain that slavery did not exist among the Jews. It has received an unqualified eulogium from almost every abolition paper in the land; and has been triumphantly styled, "The unanswerable argument." That it evinces more than ordinary powers of mind on the part of its talented author, we are willing to admit; and we are just as ready to allow that his argument to show that the Old Testament does not sustain slavery is, when taken by itself, clear, powerful, and conclusive; but when taken in connection with his unsuccessful attempt to prove that slavery did not at that time exist among the Hebrews, it is shorn of half its power to convince, and appears comparatively weak and inconclusive. By attempting to grasp more than the facts in the case will allow, he has prejudiced and darkened the minds of many of his readers in regard to those truths, which, if throughout the whole of his discussion he had kept upon ground perfectly tenable, might have been made to blaze and burn upon the mind with such clearness and power as to have utterly swept away every Bible refuge of those who are the advocates of slavery. By raising a fog from the stagnant marshes of error, he has discol ored and rendered indistinct those objects which are surrounded

by the atmosphere of truth. But still, inconclusive as it appears to us, it is admitted by all parties, that he has said all that can be said upon the opposite side of this question. It is therefore proper that, in discussing the subject, we should in a measure review his argument.

The plan of the present article will be the following:
I. Define Old Testament Slavery.

II. Prove that such slavery had an existence and,

III. Show that the fact of its existence gives no warrant, and forms no apology, for slaveholding at the present day.

By Old Testament slavery, I do not mean a slavery that is justified by the Old Testament; for, as I shall show, in its proper place, the Scriptures no more justify slavery than they do polygamy, or the offensive slaughter of nations. But by Old Testament slavery, I mean, that slavery which existed in the church, or which was practised by her members during Old Testament times.

That such slavery did exist, we shall now attempt to prove; and in so doing, inquire,

I. What is slavery? It is the holding property in man in such a sense as to give the master entire control of all that the slave is, and all that he has, as well after he becomes of age as before, so that he can be bought and sold, or disposed of according to the pleasure of his owner, subject always, like other property, to any restrictions the law of the land may see fit to impose.

În order to decide whether an individual is a slave, we have no need to inquire how he became such. He may have sold himself into perpetual bondage, or he may have been kidnapped and sold by another, or he may have been taken prisoner in war and reduced to a state of bondage by the victor, or he may have been guilty of some crime, and, as a punishment, have been sold by the government into perpetual slavery. No matter how he became thus: the simple question is, Is he held, and can he be disposed of, as property?

Nor does the question of voluntary service decide whether an individual is a slave. Mr. Weld has a long article, and to us a very inconclusive one, to prove that the service among the Israelites was perfectly voluntary, from which he infers that their servants could not have been slaves. But, suppose it could be shown ever so clearly that this service was voluntary, or that their servants labored willingly, it would not disprove that they

were slaves. If it could be shown that the master could make no disposition of his servant without his consent, this would be conclusive evidence that he was not a slave. But if it be merely shown (which is all our author has attempted to show) that the servant renders a willing service to his master; and even if it be shown that he became a servant in a voluntary manner, it does not prove that he is not a slave. Among the ancients a man might sell himself into perpetual slavery, and might ever afterwards delight to serve a kind master; so that the master's will might be said to be his own. The most perfect slave the world ever saw may render willing service to his master.

Again, a man may be a slave while his children remain perfectly free. Mr. Weld, in proving what no one ever thought of denying, that convicts are not slaves, says, "Convicts cannot be slaves; because their children are not slaves." This argument would be conclusive, if the children of slaves were invariably born in bondage. But this is not the case. At the present day there are frequent instances in which the children of slaves are free. According to the laws of some of our states which have abolished slavery, all the children of slaves, who were born after a certain date, were declared free; and it so happened, in those days, that there was a whole generation of slaves whose children were free; and yet they continued to be slaves. But this, according to our author, could not be the fact, for the freedom of their children is a sufficient argument to prove that the parents were likewise free. So, at this day, in slaveholding states, the condition of the children is determined by that of the mother; and it sometimes happens that a slave marries a free colored woman; and in that case all his children are free.

The result to which we must come is, that a man may be a slave and affect no one but himself. This bondage may, and it may not, extend to his posterity. If a man is held as property, and can be disposed of at the will of a master,-no matter what may be the condition of his children,—he is a slave.

II. Slavery existed among the Hebrews in Old Testament times. This we prove,

1. From the fact that, in those times, maid-servants were bestowed upon daughters at their marriage, who appear to have been held and treated by their mistresses as property:-they certainly were at their disposal, to do with them as they pleased. Such a servant we believe Hagar, Sarai's maid, to have been.

Certainly Sarai disposed of her as she pleased. "And Sarai took Hagar and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Surely this looks as if she was passive in the matter, and the whole affair settled according to the will of her mistress. Again, "Abram said unto Sarai his wife, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee." Now let me ask, Would a maid be in the hand of her mistress to do to her as she pleased, unless she was her property? Would a husband, in our day, use such language as this to his wife in relation to his hired servant? Once more, "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face." If she was not her property, but merely in her employ, why flee? Why not tell her mistress that she treated her so, that she could work for her no longer, and leave in an open, fair manner, instead of running away? The truth is, the conduct of Sarai and Hagar cannot be accounted for upon any other principle than that the latter was at the entire disposal of her mistress: and if so, she was, to all intents and purposes, a slave.

We find that Rebecca, Isaac's wife, and Leah and Rachel, the wives of Jacob, had maid-servants bestowed upon them, which any unprejudiced reader of the Bible would take to be slaves. I know it is said by Mr. W. that "these maid-servants of wives were themselves regarded as inferior wives." But this assertion is made without the least shadow of evidence. If they became inferior wives by virtue of their being handmaids of the superior ones, this relation must have obtained at the time they were given as servants to these wives. But, instead of this being the case, we find they never became wives of an inferior order unless the wives whose servants they were gave them to their husbands in this relation. This was done by Sarai a long time after her marriage, and of course a long time after Hagar came into her possession; and it was not performed by Rachel and Leah until some years after their marriage. Rebecca never gave her maid to be the wife of Isaac, her husband. We are referred by Mr. W. to Gen. 49: 4, and 1 Chron. 5: 1, in support of his assertion. But these passages only prove that, at some period of Jacob's life, the handmaid of one of his wives became his wife, which we have not denied, but have admitted that he married both their maid-servants. These passages have nothing to do with the question, whether they became inferior wives by virtue of their being the servants of the superior.

Again: It is evident that these maids, who were given to be 5

SECOND SERIES, VOL. XI. NO. II.

wives to the husbands of their mistresses, were servants in such a sense, that their mistresses considered they had a right to claim their children as their own. The children were not treated as slaves, because they belonged to the husband; but they were considered as the children of the superior wife, which were born to her by her maid-servant. This was the motive which induced the wives of the patriarchs to give their maids to be wives to their husbands; not that their maids might be possessed of children, but that they might have children by them; as will be abundantly evident to those who will take the trouble to examine Gen. 16: 2, and 30: 1-13.

I am not ignorant of the fact that Josephus denies that Zilpah and Bilhah were slaves. His language is, "Now each of these had handmaids by their father's donation. Zilpah was handmaid to Leah, and Bilhah to Rachel; by no means slaves, but, however, subject to their mistresses." I wonder that the author of "The Bible against Slavery" did not introduce into his work this quotation from Josephus. It certainly would have been more to his purpose than many passages he has quoted. But he shall not be denied all the benefit this language of the Jewish historian can yield, although he has neglected to weave it into his argument.

In order that we may know what weight to give to this testimony of Josephus, the following things are worthy of notice:

First. He published his Antiquities A. D. 75, several centuries after the events here recorded transpired; and at this late period we cannot conceive of any possible way in which he could determine the situation of these maid-servants, except from the Bible history concerning them. But we have that history as well as Josephus, and are capable of judging for ourselves. As we have seen, the relation goes very far to favor the idea that they were slaves.

Second. That, in this statement, Josephus had another object in view besides a simple, ungarnished narrative of fact, is evident, because he makes this assertion concerning no other servants whom he mentions. When he spake of Hagar, Sarai's maid, why did he not say, she was "by no means a slave?" It is certain that Hagar sustained the same relation to her mistress that Zilpah and Bilhah did to theirs; for the same word is used in both cases to express this relation. How came it to pass, then, that Josephus took no pains to guard the former from being thought a slave, while he was at the trouble of asserting, con