as well as the stranger to the opulent Hebrew.

"It is absolutely necessary to the understanding of Jewish servitude, to bear in mind, that the distinction of Hebrew, and that of bondsmen, or strangers within the gates, implies no signification in the least analogous to free, in opposition to enslaved; but that it simply indicates lords of the soil, within the pale of the Mosaic covenant-in contradistinction to tributaries, without the pale of that peculiar covenant."-System, pp. 1-4.

Servants among the Jews were of two sorts:-hired servants: see Exod. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 40 and 53; Deut. xv. 18;-and purchased servants, or what we term slaves: see Lev. xxii. 11; Gen. xvii. 23. and 27; Exod. xii. 44; Lev. xxv. 39, 44, 45, 47, 51. Our author considers at large the case of each of these two classes. The description of the first we pass by as irrelevant to our present question. It is the case of the second class on which the advocates of WestIndia slavery affect to found their "Scriptural" sanction. Let us see, then, whether the parallel applies.

"Purchased servitude amongst the Jews was either, like hired servitude, voluntary on the part of the servant, or else the deprivation of liberty was a punishment annexed by the Jewish law to certain

offences.

"First, liberty was lost by a voluntary surrender. When a person in reduced circumstances, or temporary difficulties, but of education and habits superior to the lowest class, wished an occupation in which skill and fidelity might be exerted, and consideration and a participation in his former comforts be retained, he sold himself voluntarily, either to one of his Hebrew brethren, or to one of the opulent strangers within the gates. Both instances of such voluntary surrender are contemplated by the Mosaic law; Lev. xxv. 39-47, and Isaiah 1. 1.

"Under this head we may also include that of a father burthened with a large family of small children, and selling them, which he might do, till they were of age; see Exod. xxi. 7. A boy amongst the Jews is considered of age at thirteen, and a girl at twelve: beyond that age the parent could not sell them.

"Secondly, liberty was forfeited by a judicial sentence, inflicted under the following circumstances :—

"Insolvent debtors were sold by their creditors, to defray their own debts, Matt. xviii. 25; or those of their parents, if maintained by them, Matt. xviii. 25; or if, their parent being dead, they inherited his property, 2 Kings iv. 1, 7, and Isaiah 1. 1.

"Thieves, who had not wherewith to make full restitution, both of the thing stolen, and also of the legal fine, which was in many cases quadruple or quintuple its value, became by that means insolvent debtors, and were sold by the magistrate : see Exod xxii. 3, 4, and i.-iii. ; also 2 Sam. xii. 6; Luke xix. 8; Prov. vi. 31. "Thirdly, in case of war. If the garrison of a city and its male inhabitants had been destroyed by Hebrews, they were bound to adopt the daughters of that city, unless Canaanites, into their households, as handmaidens; Deut. xx. 14.

"Fourthly, children whose mothers were slaves, remained so themselves till twelve-when both children and mother the sons were thirteen, and the daughters were free. Thus masters were compelled to maintain and provide for their handmaidens and children, till they were of an age to maintain themselves. Were this custom borne in mind, the sending forth of Hagar and Ishmael would appear in a very different light to that in which it is generally viewed. Ishmael had very long since attained the age when it was usual to emancipate both mother and son-when their obligation to remain, and that of Abraham to retain them in his household, ceased.

Children amongst the Hebrews always followed the mother's condition.

"There was also another case in which slavery partook both of a judicial sentence and a voluntary choice. This was when persons had become slaves by a judicial sentence or by birth, but, after their legal period of servitude expired, chose still to remain in the family, which they in truth This in fact considered as their own. was the case with most Hebrew servants. Thus we trace Eleazar, the home-born slave of Abraham, for sixty years in his family. Again, we hear of Abraham's three hundred and eighteen home-born servants who bore arms. All these persons would by the Mosaic law, and must then probably have been by custom, free at thirteen."

"The acquisition of slaves by any other means than those above described, viz. voluntary choice or judicial sentence, was

termed man-stealing. And, under the Jewish law, man-stealing was punished by death-Iarchi says, by strangulation. And this law applied equally to the man who stole a Hebrew or a stranger and foreigner: If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him, then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put away evil from amongst you;' Deut. xxiv. 7. And again, in Exod. xxi. 16: He that stealeth a man (that is, any man, Hebrew or foreigner), and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.' By the first of these laws, the stealing a Hebrew, or using one unlawfully acquired as a servant, which is meant by the expression making merchandise, or the selling him, is visited with death. By the second, the same punishment is denounced on whoever not only steals any man, but even has in his possession a man originally stolen.

"Accordingly, St. Paul includes menstealing in the catalogue of the most hideous and abominable crimes which can brutalize human nature: see 1 Tim. i. 9, 10."-System, pp. 13-17.

So much for the tenures under which alone slaves could be held under the Jewish dispensation. If Mr. Bailey will point out to us the analogy between these tenures and the lawless, unprovoked, and brutal outrages by which the sons of Africa were torn from their homes and conveyed to the blood-stained plantations of the West Indies, we promise again to record his discovery for the admiration of posterity. The duration also of Jewish servitude and West-Indian slavery, was as differ

ent as their tenures.

a

"All slavery amongst the Jews was temporary. No Hebrew could be sold for longer period than until the return of the sabbatical year, be that when it would; consequently, the very longest period for which slavery could be imposed upon a Hebrew was six years. Deut. xv. 12, 18; Exod. xxi. 2; Lev. xxv. 1-6. At the expiration of that time the master was not only to send out the slave free, but he was not to send him away empty, but to furnish him liberally from his flock, his floor, and his wine-press. Deut. xv. 12 14. And if the slave was married when he entered his master's service, he went out with his wife and children. Exod. xxi. 1-3.

"If, however, the slave, at the end of the six years, will not go away, because he loves his master and his house, and is comfortable there; Deut xv. 16, 17; or if his master had given him a wife after he entered his service, and that the wife was not entitled to quit; the man, if he was attached to his wife, and did not wish to divorce her, was to tell his master he did not wish to quit him: and they both went together before the spiritual elders of the place in which they resided; and the master, in their presence bored the ear of the slave with an awl to the door-post; after which he was bound to serve his master for ever-Deut. xv. 16, 17; Exod. xxi. 5, 6-that is, as the Jewish expression is defined, Lev. xxv. 10, until the next jubilee, when all the family was to go out free, Lev. xxv. 41.” pp. 17, 18.

"The observations hitherto made on the liberation of purchased servants, the reader may observe, have been chiefly confined to Hebrew servants; but, in fact, they included nearly all servants. For although strangers within the gate were equally liable to slavery as Hebrews, yet, in point of fact, no Hebrew was allowed to keep any servant in his household who did not embrace the Jewish faith within the year; and that being done, he ceased to be a stranger, and commenced Hebrew; on which he was consequently entitled to the benefit of all laws respecting Hebrews: nor might any purchased or homeborn slave be suffered to remain in a Hebrew family on any other terms. All persons, whether born in the house, that is homeborn, or bought with money of the stranger,

were to be brought into the Mosaic covenant.”—System, p. 22.

So much for the tenure and the

duration of the two kinds of servitude between which, with a most shallow hypocrisy, a pointed similarity is sometimes attempted to be proved. Now for the treatment of the two classes. And first as to the article of personal violence or cruelty, and its reference to manumission.

"Besides the periods above mentioned for the expiration of slavery, there were other circumstances which entitled the slave to immediate liberation, He who smites his man or maid-servant that they die under his hand, shall surely be punished; Exod. xxi. 20; that is, by death, as it appears from the preceding verses--see Exod. xxi. 12-19, and Ley. xxiv. 17,

where it is expressly stated, that he that killeth a man shall surely be put to death.' When we take into the account, that at the master's death all the servants were restored to freedom if he had no sons; and that, whether he had or not, the wife and children of the man freed from his tyranny by death were by that circumstance freed; and, unless it were jubilee, were entitled to go out with gifts; it will appear that the loss of property must have operated as a very heavy fine, independently of the capital punishment which was inflicted where no such bond subsisted as that between master and servant.

Again, if a master smote his man or maid-servant, so that they lost a limb, the servant was immediately to go out free; Exod. 21-27; that is, himself, his wife, and children; and with gifts. The Mish"nic doctors, in the targums of Jonathan Ben Uzziel and Jarchi, and also Aben Ezra, interpret the loss of limb as follows: By a limb, say they, is meant any one of the four-and-twenty principal members of the body; of which we count the fingers for one sort, the toes for another, &c. By the loss of a limb is understood its loss for use or beauty; that is, any injury which leaves a permanent effect or a permanent mark. On this point the Jews were peculiarly strict, the reasons for which were very obvious. As slavery amongst the Jews was only a temporary misfortune or punishment, no crime was visited with g greater severity than a master's so misusing his authority, as to inflict any punishment which would leave a dishonourable badge of his former servitude on one who would soon, like his master, be a free man.

"The temporary nature of slavery amongst the Hebrews ensured it against abuses; laws were not only made to protect the slave, but this circumstance efTectually ensured their enforcement."System, pp. 24, 25.

If all wounded and disfigured slaves were thus at once manu-mitted in our West-Indian colonies, some estates would be grievously thinned by the operation of the en

actment.a

The following detached passages from our author, will further shew the striking contrast between the two conditions under consideration. * Servants among the Hebrews bore no ignominious mark of servitude, as amongst the Greeks and Romans. This was the CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 274.

necessary consequence of their servitude being temporary. It is obvious from many passages in Scripture, that they could in no way be distinguished from the most respected members of the family, and that they were treated with precisely the same consideration. Thus, when Abraham. sends his home-born slave, Eliezer, to Nahor, with ten camels and several menservants, Gen. xxiv. 10-30, Eliezer, the slave, thus addressed Rebekah, the daughter of this wealthy and powerful emir! Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water from thy pitcher.' She again replies to this home-born slave, DRINK, MY LORD*; and she hasted and let down the pitcher upon her own hand, and gave him to drink; and when she had done giving him to drink, she said I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking; and she hasted and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well and drew for all the camels.' Gen. xxiv. 18-21. This passage renders it obvious that the condition of a homeborn slave was marked by no degrading circumstance in appearance or demeanor." p. 29.

I་་་*

"It is indeed perfectly plain, from the whole tenour of Scripture, that the condition of a purchased servant or slave was never considered as in any respect a degrading or a dishonourable one. Had it been so, could Joseph, not only a purchased, but a foreign purchased slave, have been exalted to be viceroy over all Egypt? In like manner we find Daniel, likewise a slave, exalted to the rank of chief minister of state in the court of Darius." p. 33.

"When we observe the affection and high consideration with which faithful purchased servants were treated, we shall not be surprised at St. Paul's declaration,

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;' Gal. iv. 1. And the same Apostle, speaking to Philemon of his newly converted Christian slave Onesimus, on the same principle which was recognized by Jews in their treatment of their proselyted Hebrew slaves, says, Receive him not now as a servant,' (that is, not as a Hebrew receives a a servant of the strangers within the gate,) but above a servant, as a brother beloved; that is, as we Hebrews receive those same strangers, when they are become our brethren,

It is the condition of Hebrew homeborn slaves, be it remembered, which is urged by colonists to be analogous to that of Negro field-slaves. 40