in Lev. xxv. 47, 48, " And if a sojourner or a stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family, after that he is sold, he may be redeemed again." This transaction is represented as a purchase. Ver. 50, "And he shall reckon with him that bought him, (Heb. his purchaser, p konaihu,) from the year that he was sold unto the year of jubilee," &c. This was a mere purchase of time or service. It gave no right to sell the man again, or to retain him in any event beyond a certain period, or to retain him at all, if his friends chose to interpose and redeem him. It gave no right of property in the man, any more than the purchase of the unexpired time of an apprentice, or the purchase' of the poor in the state of Connecticut does. In no proper sense of the word could this be called slavery. (5.) The word buy or purchase was sometimes applied to the manner in which a wife was procured. Thus Boaz is represented as saying that he had bought Ruth. "Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased (p-kânithi) to be my wife." Here the word which is applied to the manner in which Abraham became possessed of his servants, is applied to the manner in which a wife was procured. So Hosea says, (ch. iii. 2,) "So I bought her to me (another word however being used in the Hebrew, a kárá) for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley." Jacob purchased his wives, Leah and Rachel, not indeed by the payment of money, but by labour. Gen. xxix. 15-23. That the practice of purchasing a wife, or paying a 'dowry' for her was common, is apparent from Ex. xxii. 17; 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Comp. Judges i. 12, 13. Yet it will not be maintained that the wife, among the Hebrews, was in any proper sense a slave, or that she was regarded as subject to the laws which regulate property, or that the husband had a right to sell her again. In a large sense, indeed,

she was regarded, as the conductors of the Princeton Repertory (1836, p. 293) allege, as the wife is now, as the property of her husband; that is, she was his to the exclusion of the claim of any other man, but she was his as his wife, not as his slave. (6.) The word 'bought' occurs in a transaction between Joseph and the people of Egypt in such a way as farther to explain its meaning. When, during the famine, the money of the Egyptians had failed, and Joseph had purchased all the land, the people proposed to become his servants. When the con

tract was closed, Joseph said to them, "Behold I have bought you- kânithi-this day, and your land for Pharaoh," Gen. xlvii. 23. The nature of this contract is immediately specified. They were They were to be regarded as labouring for Pharaoh. The land belonged to him, and Joseph furnished the people seed, or stocked the land,' and they were to cultivate it on shares for Pharaoh. The fifth part was to be his, and the other four parts were to be theirs. There was a claim on them for labour, but it does not appear that the claim extended farther. No farmers now who work land on shares, would be willing to have their condition described as one of slavery.

The conclusion which we reach from this examination of the words buy and bought as applied to the case of Abraham is, that the use of the word determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which his servants were held. They may have been purchased from those who had taken them as captives in war, and the purchase may have been regarded by themselves as a species of redemption, or a most desirable rescue from the fate which usually attends such captives-perchance from death. The property which it was understood that he had in them may have been merely property in their time, and not in their persons. Or the purchase may have in fact amounted to every thing that is desirable in emancipation, and, from any thing implied in the word, their subsequent service in the family of Abra

It is a very

ham may have been entirely voluntary. material circumstance also that there is not the slightest evidence that either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob ever SOLD α slave, or offered one for sale, or regarded them as liable to be sold. There is no evidence that their servants even descended as a part of an inheritance from father to son. So far, indeed, as the accounts in the Scriptures go, it would be impossible to prove that they would not have been at liberty at any time to leave their masters, if they had chosen to do so.. The passage, therefore, which says that Abraham had servants bought with money,' cannot be adduced to justify slavery as it exists now-even if this were all that we know about it. But

(4.) Servitude in the days of Abraham must have existed in a very mild form, and have had features which slavery by no means has now. Almost the only transaction which is mentioned in regard to the servants of Abraham, is one which could never occur in the slaveholding parts, of our country. A marauding expedition of petty kings came from the North and East, and laid waste the country around the vale of Siddim, near to which Abraham lived, and among other spoils of battle they carried away Lot and his possessions. Abraham, it is said, then ‘armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan,' and rescued the family of Lot and his goods. Gen. xiv. This narrative is one that must for ever show that servitude, as it existed in the family of Abraham, was a very different thing from what it is in the United States. The number was large, and it does not appear that any persons but his servants accompanied Abraham. They were all armed. They were led off on a distant expedition, where there could have been no power in Abraham to preserve his life, if they had chosen to rise up against him, and no power to recover them, if they had chosen to set themselves free. Yet he felt himself entirely safe, when accompanied with this band of armed men, and when far

away

from

his family and his home. What must have been the nature of servitude, where the master was willing to arm such a company; to put himself entirely at their disposal, and lead them off to a distant land?

Compare with this the condition of things in the United States. Here, it is regarded as essential to the security of the life of the master, that slaves shall never be intrusted with arms. "A slave is not allowed to keep or carry a weapon.' "He cannot go from the tenement of his master, or other person with whom he lives, without a pass, or something to show that he is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer." "For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or shot, or club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave incurs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice of the peace ;" and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, without a conviction by the justice. Here, there is every precaution from laws, and from the dread of the most fearful kind of punishment, against the escape of slaves. Here, there is a constant apprehension that they may rise against their masters, and every security is taken against their organization and combination. Here, there is probably not a single master who would, if he owned three hundred slaves, dare to put arms in their hands, and lead them off on an expedition against a foe. If the uniform precautions and care at the South against arming the slaves, or allowing them to become acquainted with their own strength, be any expression respecting the nature of the system, slavery in the United States is a very different thing from servitude in the time of Abraham, and it does not prove that in the species of servitude existing

* Rev. Code Virg. vol. i. p. 453, § 83, 84.

Ibid. vol. i. p. 422, § 6. See Paulding on Slavery, p. 146.

+ 2 Litt. and Swi. 1150; 2 Missouri Laws, 741, § 4.

Haywood's Manual, 521; Stroud on the Laws relating to Slavery,

P. 102.

here it is right to refer to the case of Abraham, and to say that it is a good patriarchal system.' Let the cases be made parallel before the names of the patriarchs are called in to justify the system. But

(5.) What real support would it furnish to the system, even if it were true that the cases were wholly parallel? How far would it go to demonstrate that God regards it as a good system, and one that is to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach its highest possible elevation? Who would undertake to vindicate all the conduct of the patriarchs, or to maintain that all which they practised was in accordance with the will of God? They practised concubinage and polygamy. Is it therefore certain that this was the highest and purest state of society, and that it was a state which God designed should be perpetuated? Abraham and Isaac were guilty of falsehood and deception, (Gen. xx. 2, seq.; xxvi. 7;) Jacob secured the birthright, by a collusive fraud between him and his mother, (Gen. xxvii,) and obtained no small part of his property by cunning, (Gen. xxx, 36–43 ;) and Noah was drunk with wine, (Gen. ix. 21;) and these things are recorded merely as facts, without any decided expression of disapprobation; but is it therefore to be inferred that they had the approbation of God, and that they are to be practised still, in order to secure the highest condition of society?

Take the single case of polygamy. Admitting that the patriarchs held slaves, the argument in favour of polygamy, from their conduct, would be, in all its main features, the same as that which I suggested, in the commencement of this chapter, as employed in favour of slavery. The argument would be this:-that they were good men, the 'friends of God,' and that what such men practised freely cannot be wrong; that God permitted this; that he nowhere forbade it; that he did not record his disapprobation of the practice; and that whatever God permitted in such circumstances, without expressing his disapprobation, must be regarded as