CHAPTER V. `

The Mosaic Institutions in relation to Servitude.

THE Scriptural argument on which most reliance is placed by the advocates of slavery, is, probably, that it made a part of the Mosaic institutions. We have seen (ch. 1) that those who appeal to the Bible, in defence of the institution, make the argument from the Mosaic laws prominent, and seem to consider it decisive in the case. A single reference here to the article, so often quoted, in the Princeton Biblical Repertory, will illustrate the usual mode of making this appeal, and the manner in which reliance is placed on the argument. "The fact that the Mosaic institutions recognised the lawfulness of slavery, is a point too plain to need proof, and is almost universally admitted. Our argument from this acknowledged fact is, that if God allowed slavery to exist, if he directed how slaves might be lawfully acquired, and how they were to be treated, it is in vain to contend that slavery is a sin, and yet profess reverence for the Scriptures. Every one must feel that if perjury, murder, or idolatry had been thus authorized, it would bring the Mosaic institutions into conflict with the eternal principles of morals, and that our faith in the divine origin of the one or the other must be given up." This may be regarded as the current method of appeal by the advocates of slavery-often expressed, indeed, in stronger language, and made more directly to bear on the institutions of slavery in our country, but still constituting, in fact, the same appeal. The argument is usually alleged as if it were decisive in the case. A bare reference to the fact that slavery existed; that it was tole

* Page 287.

rated by law; that it was the subject of express enactments; that the Hebrew people might own slaves; and that it "was no sin for a priest to purchase a slave with his money," ,"* is generally supposed to be all that the argument requires. There is usually little attempt to show what slavery was under the Mosaic institutions; to inquire how it was modified, checked and controlled; to ask what privileges were conceded by law to those who were held in servitude; to compare the Mosaic system with that which existed in surrounding nations; and still less to compare it with that which exists in our land. There is little care taken to inquire into the true spirit of the Mosaic laws on the subject, or what would be the effect on slavery in the United States if the Mosaic statutes were at once substituted in the place of those existing here. Yet it is plain that all this is necessary in order to see the real force of the argument, or to do justice to Moses. The argument is brought to defend the institution of slavery as it exists among us. But how can there be any force in it, unless it be shown that Moses was at heart the friend of slavery as a permanent institution, and that his laws on the subject, if applied now, would sustain and perpetuate the institution as it exists among us?

The propriety, therefore, of a somewhat extended examination of this point, will be at once apparent. It is impossible to convince the advocates of slavery that it is in any sense a wrong, unless the argument which they derive from the Mosaic institutions shall be met and answered. To do this, it will be necessary to show, 1. What the argument is on which so much reliance is placed; 2. To investigate the Mosaic institutions on the subject, that we may understand the system as arranged by the Hebrew legislator; 3. To compare that system with slavery as it exists in the United States; and, 4. To inquire how far it is legitimate to argue

* See the Letter of the Presbytery of Tombecbee to the Conference of Maine, p. 14.

from the one to the other, or how far the Mosaic institutions would countenance slavery as it exists in this country.

§ 1. What the argument which is relied on, is.

The argument in favour of slavery, from the Mosaic institutions, is not commonly drawn out at length, but it may be supposed to be comprised in the following particulars :—

1. That slavery in fact existed under the Mosaic institutions, or entered into institutions which had their origin in a divine arrangement.

2. That it existed there unrebuked, or that there was no express condemnation of it; that there is to be found no explicit and positive declaration that it was wrong per se, or that they who practised on the system were doing wrong. The argument here is, that whatever is incorporated into a divine institution, or an institution under divine arrangement, without express rebuke and condemnation, must be regarded as in itself right.

3. That there was express legislation on the subject, recognising the relation of master and slave; giving permission to purchase slaves; directing the method of their treatment; arranging their duties and the duties of their masters; prescribing their privileges and the rights of their masters; and, in general, legislation for this relation in the same way as there was for the relation of husband and wife, and parent and child. The inference which would be derived from this by the advocate of slavery, would be, that this relation was considered to be as lawful as any other. The argument is, that whatever is made the subject of express legislation must be regarded as right and proper by the legislator, or that it cannot be inferred that he regarded it as wrong or as undesirable.

4. That this arrangement extended to all classes of men under the Mosaic system. Even the priests might become the owners of slaves, and it was not regarded as wrong in

them to purchase a slave with money.'* The argument here would be, that a system could not be regarded as wrong in itself where even the ministers of religion were allowed, in common with all others, to participate in it. Could God allow one to purchase, a slave just as he was about to approach the very altar, and yet regard the institution as evil? Perhaps, also, in this case, the appeal to the permission given to the Jewish priesthood might be urged to give a sanction to the fact that a minister of the gospel may lawfully "purchase a slave with his money," and to show that it is not improper that he should lend the sanction of his name and example to so good an institution. If a Jewish priest might purchase and own a slave, how can it be inferred that the same thing wrong for a Christian minister in the United States?

is

5. It would be said, in addition to all this, that there is express sanction given to the institution as one that was to be permanent, or, in the language of the Presbytery of Tombecbee, "the Bible warrants the purchase of slaves as an inheritance for children for ever."-p. 14. The passage on which reliance is placed in this argument, is Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46: "Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bond-men for ever."

This, perhaps, drawn out at greater length, would be substantially the argument in favour of slavery derived from the Mosaic institutions. I have designed not to do injustice to it; and indeed I have made it stronger than I have found it in

* Letters of the Presbytery of Tombecbee, p. 14.

any of the books to which I have access. Compare, however, Paulding on Slavery, pp. 19, 20.

What now is the real force of this argument? What weight should it be allowed to have in vindicating slavery as it exists in the United States? What are we to infer from the Mosaic institutions in regard to the divine feelings towards servitude in our own land? Was Moses FRIENDLY to slavery, or was he not? Or rather, since God was the author of the Mosaic institutions, was he friendly to slavery, and did he regard it as a good and desirable institution to be perpetuated on earth, as contributing to the best good of society? Or if he was friendly to slavery as it existed under the Mosaic institutions, is it fair to infer that he is friendly to it as it exists in the United States?

Now it will be apparent that, in order to the validity of the argument in favour of slavery from the Mosaic institutions, it is essential that the following points be made clear, viz. :—

1. That it was regarded by Moses as in itself a good thing; a thing which it would have been proper for him to originate if he had not found it already in existence. For it may be conceived, that, for certain reasons, he might have regarded it as proper to tolerate that which he found in existence, and which could not be at once removed, but which he did not regard in itself as good or right, and which he would by no means have originated. The true inquiry here, therefore, should be, whether we can find in his arrangements, any evidence that he regarded it per se as good and desirable; or any evidence that he would have originated it as conducive to the valuable ends which he had in view. Can we infer from the Mosaic arrangements that he would have the system originated now where it does not already exist, or perpetuated where it can easily be abolished?

2. It must be shown that God approved the system as a good and desirable one. It must be made apparent that he did not regard it as among the evils that were to be removed as speedily as practicable, consistently with the preservation