A dissertation on servitude : embracing an examination of the Scripture doctrines on the subject, and an inquiry into the character and relations of slavery.

Introduction

The following Dissertation is devoted to an extensive subject, and one oY great practical importance. Servitude occupies a prominent place in the Scriptures, and is illustrated by a great variety of Scripture precepts and examples. It enters into several of the most important institutions of civilized and christian society, and opens a field for investigation, pertaining to the deepest principles of morality and religion.

This subject in all its branches is now brought into discussion, by the existing excitement in relation to slavery. The advocates and apologists for slavery, are examining it for the purpose of fortifying their positions and' maintaining more effectually their tottering cause.

The opposers of slavery are examining it for the opposite purpose ; namely, that of assailing more effectually the object of their opposition. This subject, therefore, is one of interest to all classes of persons.

The order pursued in this Dissertation, has appeared to the writer to possess several important advantages. It follows the divine communications on this subject, beginning with the earliest, and proceeding regularly to the latest. On leaving them, it proceeds naturally from the more simple to the more complicated and difficult topics of inquiry. Whatever may have been his success, the writer has sought diligently and honestly for the truth, in respect to the Scripture examples of servitude, and the doctrines they inculcate on this subject. Those doctrines and examples, as they have aj)peared to him, are herein impartially set forth, and are com-

INTRODUCTKON.

mended, not to the blind credulity, but to the diligent investigation of every reader.

Truth will bear examination. It is our high privilege to prove all things by free and liberal inquiry ; and we must do it in order to attain and hold fast that, and that only, which is truly good.

The present inquiry has led the writer to several conclusions which he' did not anticipate at the commencement of it. Many of them have been highly gratifying to his feelings, and in his opinion, favorable to the honor of religion. As far as those conclusions are according to truth, and no farther, he would be glad to conduct others to the same.

The truth is not bound. It is not altogether concealed, nor yet does it all appear to the superficial and hasty inquirer. It must be sought for with diligence and patience, and with continued attention and repeated effort, in order to its being fully explored even in its most simple developments. Moral truth must also be sought with a humble, submissive, teachable, and christian spirit, in order to its being fully understood and appreciated. Labor and argument are often expended in vain upon the unhumbled and un teachable, already wiser in their own eyes, and in entire ignorance, than seven men who can demonstrate the truth of their opinions. Prov. xxvi. 16.

A christian spirit is peculiarly necessary in the investigation of the nature and relations of slavery. Here it becomes us all to feel that we are but men, and that truth is of God. Here our inquiries ought to be prosecuted with special deliberation and care, remembering that we are responsible to God for our opinions and words, as well as for our actions. Errors of opinion lead to those of affection and action. We must think right on all practical subjects, in order to feel and act right.

The subject of slavery is one of practical interest to every citizen of the United States. We all have something to do with it as citizens, to approve or disapprove,

INTRODtJCTlON.

to encourage or discourage, to build up or pull down. We have done too much in ignorance ; it becomes us now to act with intelligence and discretion. Not to feel a desire to understand this subject, indicates an imusual and criminal apathy in respect to the interests of humanity and religion ; and also in respect to the influence which we are bound as individuals to exert.

Slavery is not only supported by the slave-holding states and districts in which it exists, but by every portion of the United States. Every part of the Union is implicated in its support, by the action of their representatives in congress. The national legislature has assumed the responsibility of continuing it in the District of Columbia, the heart of the nation, and the very Citadel of freedom, and in other districts under its entire control, at the South and West. It has permitted this acknowledged evil to increase and extend itself from year to year, till its present alarming magnitude has been attained. In this procedure of the national government, the North and non slave-holding states have generally co-operated. The voice of remonstrance from this quarter has been occasionally heard ; but it has been only occasional, feeble, and consequently ineffectual. This co-operation of the North in the support and extension of slavery, is the more surprising en account of the general condemnation and abhorrence of this institution by the mass of northern men. It is acknowledged to be wrong. It is deplored as a great political evil, and a source of imminent peril to our liberties as a nation. Over the South it is seen to hang like a dark portentous cloud of the wrath of the Almighty, who declares both by his word and providence, that though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished ; (Prov. xi. 21 ;) and that evil shall pursue them. A sentiment has generally prevailed, that something effectual ouofht to be done to check this extending and increasing evil ; but till this time it has gone on unchecked, and is now in the full tide of advancement.

In the opinion of the wisest and most discerrdng

INTRODUCTIOIV.

minds, this matter must ultimately come to a crisis. If it is not prosecuted and overtaken with remedial measures by usj it will ultimately become too great and dreadful to be sustained, and will recoil upon its supporters with tremendous and wide-spread ruin. We ought not to close our eyes against approaching danger ; but to forsee the evil which is advancing upon us, and if possible, avoid it.

On the church of Christ the subject of this Dissertation possesses undoubted and peculiar claims. That association was formed for the purpose of promoting the exercise of justice and mercy. We are bound to exercise mercy towards men, as the necessary condition of our receiving it from God. James ii. 13. We are bound as christians to sympathize with the aiflicted and oppressed everywhere, but especially within the sphere of our immediate influence.

If slave-holding is wrong, the church ought not in any way to countenance or encourage it. Here the light of truth ought to shine with unclouded radiance ; and from this sacred enclosure, the law of love ought to proceed. " Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things . are lovely, and of good report ; if there be any virtue and any praise, think of these things pursue them steadily and earnestly ; " and the God of peace shall be with you."

Come thou blessed Jesus in the glory of thy truth and love, and send forth judgment to victory ; (Matt. xii. 20 ;) and let every one that readeth say come.

A

DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE.

Section I. Patriarchal Servitude

The state of society in the early periods of our race, is involved in considerable obscurity. The Bible is the only source of authentic information on this subject, and the information which it contains is necessarily limited. It teaches us, however, that marriage existed from the commencement of human society, and that the relations of husband and wife, and of parent and child, were recognized in the family of Adam, and continued, and respected in every succeeding age.

At the commencement of human society, all government was naturally and almost necessarily patriarchal. Adam probably long continued to be the patriarchal head of his increasing posterity, and to exercise over them some degree of patriarchal authority. Each succeeding family was, however, a little kingdom of itself, having acknowledged rights and privileges of its own, and looking to its immediate head as the fountain of authority in respect to all ordinary affairs. How far family government was modified by patriarchal authority, or within what limits patriarchal authority was restrained, it is impossible to determine with precision.

Abraham was not subject to any patriarchal authority exercised by his ancestors, after his departure from Haran, when he was seventy-five years old. Gen. xii. 5. Previous to that time, he seems to have been in some degree under the authority of Terah his father, as did also Lot his nephew. Gen. xi. 31.

In Egypt, Abraham submitted to the monarchical government

DISSERTATION ON SKRVITUDE.

then existing in that country, and was for a time protected by it# At this time he possessed "sheep, and oxen, and asses, and men-servants, and maid.servants, and camels." It appears also, that Lot had not yel sepa rated from him. Gen. xii. 14 — 20,

Men-servants and maid-servants are here enumerated among Abraham's possessions. What authority he exercised over them, or by what right he held them in a state of servitude, we are not informed. It is evident, however, that Abraham's authority over his servants was not derived from the civil government of the countries in which he hved ; but that it was entirely independent of those governments. It made no difierence as to tiiat, whether he was in Egypt or Canaan ; within the domains of au absolute monarchy, or where no civil government of any kind extended its authority over him.

In Gen. xvi. we find an account of Hagar, an Egyptian female servant belonging to Sarah, Abraham's wife. After a residence of ten } cars in the land of Canaan, Sarah seeing that she had no children, requested Abraham to take Hagar her maid-servant as his concubine, or wife of the second class. Abraham complied with her request, and thus brought upon himself the stain and guilt of polygamy, and planted the seeds of severe domestic afflictions in his family. It is to be presumed that this female servant did not become the wife of Abraham without her consent, or contrary to her own will.

The word J-i^"^:::; mistress, which expresses the relation of

Sarah to Hagar, Gen. xvi. 8, 9, is applied in other parts of the Bible to denote a person of high rank, generally a queen. " And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him as a wife, the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes i^-n'^nr^^ the queen," 1 Kings xi. 19: xv. 13; 2

Kings X. 13 ; 2 Chron. xv, 16.

The severity which Hagar experienced from Sarah, was probably as inexcusable as the sin of polygamy, into which Abraham had been led by the advice of his first and principal wife.

We are told that Abraham made provision for the sons of his concubines, and that he sent them eastward into the East country, while he yet lived. Cren. xxv. 6.

The word concubines is the translation of &"^iL-:;'b'^5 and de-

notes wives of an inferior class, sucli as Hagar. in Gen. xxv. 10, 13, Hagar is called Jl?2^^ incorrectly translated bond-woman.

Hannah applies this word to herself, 1 Sam. i. 11, 16; Abigail,

PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE.

the wife of Nabal, does the same, 1 Sam. xxv. 24, 27, 28, 31, 41 ; and the wise woman of Teitoa, 2 Sam. xiv. 15. It undoubtedly denotes a state of subjection, in opposition to one of authority ; and an inferior, cons)idered in res]3ect to rank. But it does not denote a slave, or a person held as property. Hagar was not so held by Abraham ; certainly not after he had taken her to be his wife. An important difference of meaning between this word and the ordinary name of a female servant, is clearly indicated in 1 Sam. xxv. 41, where Abigail requests David to take herself for a servant.

In Gen. xx. 14, Abimeleck, king of Gerar, to compensate Abraham for an injury he had ignorantly.done him, " took sheep and oxen and men-servants and women-servants, and gave them to him." These were probably given as subjects are transferred from one civil government to another.

In Gen. xxx, 43, Jacob is said to have had " many sheep, and maid-servants, and men-servants, md camels, and asses." These passages bear a striking resemblance to Gen. xii. 16, where we have a similar inventory of the possessions of Abraham.

The most common names of patriarchal servants, were S'^^lJS?

men-servants, and nhstj female-servants. They are several

T •

times, however, mentioned in the patriarchal history by different appellations.

In Gen. xiv. 14, Abraham's servants are called ih"*! '^"^'^'b^

children of his family ; probably the same as family or household servants — servants belonging to his family. Of these he led out in person three hundred and eighteen, who were trained for military service, on a sudden expedition against the conquerors of Sodom and the adjacent country, by whom his nephew Lot had been taken captive. With this force and his confederates he marched from Hebron to Dan, Here he attacked them by night, retook their spoil and captives, and pursued them with great slaughter to Hobah, west of Damascus.

These were probably comprehended among those referred to as belonging to Abraham, Gen. xii. 16, under the appellation of men-servants. They may however have denoted a class of servants, attached in a peculiar manner to their master and civil governor, and liable to be called upon on any sudden emergency in preference to others, and may have been entitled to peculiar privileges.

In Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 23, n"'^ T^b"* child of the family, occurs

DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE.

as tlie appellation of a class of servants who were so far under the, authority of Abraham, as to be required by him to receive circumcision ; and of course they must have been equally under his control, in respect to other manifest duties.

They are in this chapter distinguished from others in a state of equal subjection so far as religious duties were concerned, termed jrjDSTUp^a the purchase of silver, or of money. -Thi^

latter name, derived fi*om the mode of their acquisition, by purcliase, denotes a distinct class of servants, without defining the nature of their servitude. It seems that all the scJrvants of Abraham belonged to one or other of these classes. Properly translated, the passages referred to read thus :

" 12. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations ; the household seiTant or child, of the family, and the purchase of money, him that is bought with money. 13. The household servant and he that is bought with thy money, must be circumcised. 23. And Abraliam took Ishmael his son, and all his household servants, and all his bought servants, every male among the men of the house or family of Abraham, and circumcised them in the same day, as God had commanded him."

The household or famiiy of Abraham comprehended these two classes of servants. It must of course have been very large, for we have three hundred and eighteen of one only of these classes mentioned on a former occasion, and those such as had been qualified by appropriate instruction and exercise for military service, and such as could be called into the field upon the shortest notice.

In Gen. xv, 2, 3, Abraham not yet having had any children, complains of his having no child to inherit his property and authority, and that Eliezur of Damascus, a household servant, was likely to be his heir. It appears from this remarkable passage, that in respect to the inheritance of property and authority, the household servants took precedence of all other relatives, except lineal descendants ; for Abraham had a nephew near, namely, Lot, and had other relatives in Haran; yet Eliezur his servant was at this time his presumptive heir, to the exclusion of all his relatives.

In Gen. xxiv. 2, mention is made of a patriarchal servant, the elder or ruler of Abraham's house or family, who is described as exercising under Abraliam the highest authority, and having ail

PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE.

. tiiB affah's of this extensive patriarchate or family, under his immediate supervision and control.

Tiie word translated eldest, in our common version of verse 2, is generally translated elder, and ought to be so rendered here. It IS the common Hebrew name for a ruler of any kind, whether civii or religious, or both.

This ruler calls himself Abraham's servant, verse 34, and calls Abraham his master, and describes him as having been greatly blessed, and as being a man of great distinction. Verse 35, He describes the possessions of Abraham as consisting chiefly in flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and men-servants, and female servants, and camels, and asses. All these possessions are said to have been given or transferred to Isaac, as his successor and heir. Verse 36,

Abraham seems to have exercised the authority of a prince or chief. He was the sole head and ruler of the little dynasty which was composed of his servants and children, and which is repeatedly referred to by Moses, aes his n^'In patriarchate or fam-

ily. The person who ruled under him, over all that he had, was only rn*'5 )2\ ^^^^^ i'^^^^' ^^^^ family.

Abraham's family or household, which he commanded to keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, (Gen. xviii. 19,) comprehended all his servants, both the servants of the family, properly so called, and those bought with money. Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 23.

The covenant of grace formed with Abraham, as the visible head of the church, CxXtended its kind provisions to his servants as well as to his children, inasmuch as they, equally with hi.s children, were required to receive the mark of circumcision, the external seal of that covenant. Gen. xvii. 12, 13, ,14.

The extent of his authority over his servants, so far as it is indicated in the inspired record of Moses, does not appear to be greater than it was over his children. He was the civil and religious sovereign of both. This sovereignty was probably vested in him partly by inheritance, partly by the usages of the times and countries in which he lived, and still more by the consent of his subjects.

Men who live in society must be the subjects of some governrnent they must bow to some authority which they become obligated to uphold, and which becomes obligated in its turn, to afford them protection. The government of Abraham was upheld

by the combined support of his servants.

2-^

So far as appears from the inspired account of this dynasty, that si:ipport must have been voluntary, or ciiiefly so. There was no higher power by whicli a reluctant submission could have been enforced. There was no middle class to stand between Abraham and his servants, who in consequence of peculiar privileges, might have had an interest to assist him in oppressing them. He stood nearly if not quite alone, with nothing to bind his servants to him, but the benefits they could derive from his government, patronage, and protection. Those benefits, we have reason to beheve, were not few nor small ; for his was a government in which the doing of judgment and justice was strictly enforced. Gen. xviii. 19.

A kindred species of government and of servitude still continues in the East, though with far less of judgment and justice, and with far more of the exercise of arbitraiy power, than can reasonably be attributed to Abraham and his successors in office.

When Jacob left his father's residence, in order to escape the displeasure of Esau, whom he had both injured and offended, he visited Laban, his mother's brother, and abode with him for the space of a month. Gen. xxix. 14. Laban then " said unto him, because thou art my brother, shouldst thou therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me what shall be thy wages." Gen. xxix. 15. This passage teaches, that Jacob resided with Laban in the capacity of a servant, and that as such he was entitled to wages.

In verse 20, we arc informed that Jacob served seven years for Rachel. At the expiration of that term, he received Leah, an older sister, in place of Rachel, contrary to the terms of the agreement. He then had the offer of Rachel on condition that he should continue to serve Laban seven years more, verse 27, wdiich he accepted. Jacob's wives received the gift of a maid-servant for each, from their father.

Each of tViese maid-sarvants became at a later period the inferior wives of Jacob, at the request of their mistresses respectively. Gen. xxx. 4, 9 ; xxxv. 22.

The servitude of Jacob for his wives, consisted of two periods of seven years. It may be denominated septennial servitude, in distinction from that which is perpetual. It corresponds in respect to duration, to our present system of apprenticeship to trades, which is generally for a term of years, and in many cases that of seven. An apprentice is a servant, and continues such during the period of his apprenticeship. For aught that appears in the inspired narrative, the condition of Jacob during

PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE.

the period of his servitude for his wives, was substantially the same as that of others who were servants for Hfe, or during the pleasure of their masters. He may have been as much in the power of his master for the time being, as they were for life.

The word hand-maid, which so often occurs in the Old Testament, is the same as maid-servant, being a less eligible translation of the same word.

Isaac says to Esau, respecting the blessing which he had pronounced upon Jacob : " Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given him for servants." Gen. xxvii. 37.

The nature of the patriarchal government administered by Isaac, is here clearly indicated. Esau was Isaac's apparent heir by right of primogeniture. As such, he had evidently expected to be invested with the government of the patriarchate, on the decease or retirement of his father.

In the solenm patriarchal benediction, however, Jacob had been distinctly designated as the immediate ruler of the patriarchate, in preference to Esau, and his family as the ruling branch of the family of Isaac. In pronouncing this blessing upon Jacob, his father had acted under a false impression that he was blessing his first-born. But he was conscious of having acted under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, and he had no authority to recall what he had said.

In giving Jacob his brethren for servants, Isaac obviously intended to invest him with tlie exclusive government of the patriarchate. He did not divide that government among his sons, but he purposed to give it to the oldest, agreeably to the usages of those times. The brethren of the proposed sovereign in the |)atriarchal dynasty, were given to him not as slaves, but as subjects. Jacob was designated as the lawful successor of Isaac, and was to succeed to the exercise of his authority over his own brethren, as well as over the other subjects of his father.

This election of Jacob to succeed his father in the patriarchal government, does not appear to have resulted in his immediate elevation to that oflice.

He was soon obliged to leave the principality to the government of which he had been appointed, in order to escape the murderous displeasure of Esau ; and in his absence the reins of the patriarchal government seem to have fallen into Esau's hands.

Jacob, however, in pursuance of the high destination which the prophetic blessing of his father had assigned him, laid the

DISSERTATION ON SEIIVITUDE foundation of a new patriarchate, separate from that v*^hich fell into the hands of his less pious brother, and became the real successor of Isaac and Abraham, by succeeding to the exercise and maintenance of the patriarchal religion, and to the effectual establishment of the same among his descendants.

He realized the fulfilment of his father's prophetic blessing, by the standing which he ultimately attained through many trials and difficulties, as a prince having power with God, and swaying by his influence the destinies of men. He and his descendants are first ; Esau and his descendants, second, Jacob and his descendants became the light of the world, the salt of the earth, in whom ail nations are blessed ; whereas the patriarchate of Es^iu was far inferior, in political consequence, to that of his brother.

The facts referred to in the tbregoing pages, few as they are, comprehend every thing of importance in the patriarchal history, relating to the system of servitude which they administered ; a system which is erroneously regarded by many as similar to modern slavery.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are described as successive chiefs or patriarchal rulers of a dynasty, founded by the first of these distinguished men.

They were all men of uncommon excellence, and are justly enrolled among the benefactors of their race. They commenced a train of exertion to promote and perpetuate true religion among men, which is yet, after the lapse of so many centuries^ but partially developed ; and which is destined to fill the world with righteousness, and heaven with redeemed and rejoicing worshipers of God.

These lights of the world were, however, but men, compassed with the usual infirmities of our fallen nature, subject to temptation, to errors of judgment, to perversions of moral feeling, to sin. As such they are described by Moses. A poet or novelist would have described them as angels. But the pen of inspiration, faithful to truth, has drawn their picture, diversified with all the varieties of light and shade which belong to man, both as human and depraved. In their faith and devotion to the service of God and to the promotion of piety, they were examples for our imitation. In the blessings which they received as the consequence of their piety, they were examples for our encouragement. But in their errors and sins, they were examples for our warning, and were designed to illustrate the weakness and imperfection of human virtue, even in the best men.

PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE.

We have no evidence that the patriarchs held their servants in a state of slavery. There are no traces in the patriarclial history, of laws which resemble tlie modern systems of legislation designed to support the institution of slavery. Abraham does not appear to haife been a slave-holder, but a patriarchal ruler or chief, such as the state of society in that period and countryrequired. His example, therefore, and that of the other patriarchs, cannot be safely relied on as affording any scriptural warrant for slavery, particularly that of the United States,

The fact, that some of Abraham's servants were acquired by purchase, does not prove that they were acquired without their consent, or that they were held as property, or that they were required to surrender to their masters their rights of free-agency, and to submit to an irresponsible sovereignty, established and administered for the exclusive benefit of the master.

Abraham's servants were accounted members of his family, equally with his children, and entitled to high privileges as such. It does not appear that they were deprived of the rights of marriage, of holding and transferring property, or of acquiring knowledge and improving their minds to any extent possible* But the contrary is clearly established.

Even if Abraham and the other patriarchs were convicted of holding their servants in a relation in any respects similar to that of slaves, it would not prove slave-holding to be right.

Abraham and Jacob lived in the practice of polygamy, in violation of the Divine institution of marriage, handed down from the beginning of the world. God's institution of marriage contemplated the union of two persons, one man and one woman, in the matrimonial relation, and no more. Under that institution, no man had a right to more than one wife, and no woman to more than one husband. Polygamy never has been conformable to the Divine law. It was not right in the days of the patri. archs, and it is not now. God's displeasure against the patriarchs for this sin, was unequivocally expressed by the domestic trials which were brought upon them by this means. The most severe afflictions of Abraham arose from his polygamy. The same was true of Jacob. The lives of both those patriarchs were greatly embittered by the evils which came upon them as the consequence of their sins in this respect. Their families were divided against themselves, and greatly distressed on this account. The sale of Joseph into Egypt, and all the trouble

DISSERTATION ON SERVITUDE.

which it occasioned, arose from the fact of his l)eing the son of a favorite wife, and not of the only one.

The sin of polygamy, though doubtless a sin, in the days of the patriarchs and in the state of society then existing in Palestine, is still more criminal now, in this and other christian countries.

The same is true of oppression, by holding persons in unrighteous servitude. There are various modilications of servitude which are right. That of a subject to a lawful sovereign; of a child to a parent ; of an apprentice to the master to whom he is apprenticed ; and of other servants who are hired for lawful purposes, and who are duly recompensed for their services, are all right and necessary. These servitudes were always right.

If the servitude of the patriarchs was oppressive in any way, it was so far wrong, and as truly so as polygamy , was. So far as any modern systems of servitude upheld in christian and civilized countries are oppressive, they are still more criminal than the same would have been in the less enlightened and less improved times of the patriarchs.