LESSON V.
On page 6, Mr. Barnes says—
“The work” (his own) “which is now submitted to the public, is limited to an examination of the Scripture argument on the subject of slavery.”
Now, if it shall appear that his exertion has universally been to gloss over the Scripture, or strain it into some meaning favourable to abolition, and adverse to its rational and obvious interpretation, the mind will be forced to the conclusion, that his real object has been to hide the “Scripture argument,” and to limit his researches by what he may deem to be sound reason and philosophy; and let it be remembered that such has been the constant practice or every infidel writer, who has ever attempted to reconcile his own peculiar theories to the teachings of the holy books.
“And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.” Gen. xii. 5.
“And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and he-asses, and men-servants (וַֽעַבָדִיםwaʿabādîm va abadim, male slaves), and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹתûšĕpāḥōt vu shephahoth, female slaves), and she-asses and camels.” xii. 16. “But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid (שִׁפְחָהֵךְšipḥāhēk shiphhathek, female slave) is in thy hand; do unto her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly by her, she fled from her face. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid (שִׁפְחַ֥תšipḥat shiphhath, female slave), whence camest thou and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai; and the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress and submit thyself unto her hands.” Gen. xvi. 6–9.
“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant.” * * * “This is my covenant.” * * * “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” Gen. xvii. 9, 10, 12, 13. “And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.” Ver. 27.
“And Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men-servants (וַ֥עֲבָדִיםwaʿăbādîm va abadim, male slaves), and women-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹ֔תûšĕpāḥōt vu shephhahoth, female slaves), and gave them unto Abraham.” Gen. xx. 14.
“Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out the bond-woman, and her son. For the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And God said unto Abraham, let it not be grievous in thy sight, because of the lad, and because of thy bond-woman.” * * * “And also of the son of the bond-woman I will make a nation, because he is of thy seed.” Gen. xxi. 10, 12, 13.
“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was after the flesh, but he of the free-woman was by promise; nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman.” Gal. iv. 22, 23, 30.
“And he said, I am Abraham’s servant (עֶ֥בֶדʿebed ebed, male slave), and the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and man-servants (וַֽעֲבָד֭יִִםwaʿăbādyiim va abadim, and male slaves), and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחֹ֔תûšĕpāḥōt vu shephahoth, and female slaves), and camels and asses.” Gen. xxiv. 34, 35.
“And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants (וַֽעֲבֻדָּ֖הּwaʿăbuddāh va abudda, of slaves), and the Philistines envied him.” Gen. xxvi. 13, 14.
“And the man (Jacob) increased exceedingly, and he had much cattle, and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחוֹתûšĕpāḥôt vu shephahoth, and female slaves,) and men-servants (וַֽעֲבָדִיםwaʿăbādîm va abadim, and male slaves), and camels and asses.” Gen. xxx. 43.
“And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and men-servants (וְעֶ֣בֶדwĕʿebed ve ebed, and male slaves), and women-servants (וְשִׁפְחָ֑הwĕšipḥâ ve shiphha, and female slaves). And I have sent to tell my lord that I may find grace in thy sight.” Gen. xxxii. 5.
Let us now notice how Mr. Barnes treats the records here quoted. He says, page 70—
“Some of the servants held by the patriarchs were ‘bought with money.’ Much reliance is laid on this by the advocates of slavery, in justifying the purchase, and consequently, as they seem to reason, the sale of slaves now; and it is, therefore, of importance, to inquire, how far the fact stated is a justification of slavery as it exists at present. But one instance occurs, in the case of the patriarchs, where it is said that servants were ‘bought with money.’ This is the case of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 12, 13. ‘And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed; he that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.’ Compare verses 23, 27. This is the only instance in which there is mention of the fact that any one of the patriarchs had persons in their employment who were bought with money. The only other case which occurs at that period of the world is that of the sale of Joseph, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to the Egyptians—a case which, it is believed, has too close a resemblance to slavery as it exists in our own country, ever to be referred to with much satisfaction by the advocates of the system. In the case, moreover, of Abraham, it should be remembered that it is the record of a mere fact. There is no command to buy servants or to sell them, or to hold them as property—any more than there was a command to the brethren of Joseph to enter in to a negotiation for the sale of their brother. Nor is there any approbation expressed of the fact that they were bought; unless the command given to Abraham to affix to them the seal of the covenant, and to recognise them as brethren in the faith which he held, should be construed as such evidence of approval.
“The inquiry then presents itself, whether the fact that they were bought determines any thing with certainty in regard to the nature of the servitude, or to the propriety of slavery as practised now. The Hebrew, in the passages referred to in Genesis, is ‘the born in thy house, and the purchase of silver,’ מִקְנַה־כֶּסֶףmiqna-kesep— mi knath keseph—not incorrectly rendered, ‘those bought with money.’ The verb קָנָהqānâ kânâ, from which the noun here is derived, and which is commonly used in the Scriptures when the purchase of slaves is referred to, means to set upright or erect, to found or create. Gen. xiv. 19, 22. Deut. xxxii. 6; to get for oneself, to gain or acquire. Prov. iv. 7, xv. 32; to obtain, Gen. iv. 1; and to buy, or purchase, Gen. xxv. 10; xlvii. 22. In this latter sense it is often used, and with the same latitude of signification as the word buy or purchase is with us. It is most commonly rendered by the words buy and purchase in the Scriptures. See Gen. xxv. 10; xlvii. 22; xlix. 30; 1. 13; Josh. xxiv. 32; 2 Sam. xii. 3; Ps. lxxviii. 54; Deut. xxxii. 6; Lev. xxvii. 24, and very often elsewhere. It is applied to the purchase of fields, of cattle, of men, and of every thing which was or could be regarded as property. As there is express mention of silver or money in the passage before us respecting the servants of Abraham, there is no doubt that the expression means that he paid a price for a part of his servants. A part of them were ‘born in his house;’ a part had been ‘bought with money’ from ‘strangers,’ or were foreigners.
“But still, this use of the word in itself determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which they were held, or the nature of the servitude to which they were subjected. It does not prove that they were regarded as property in the sense in which a slave is now regarded as a chattel; nor does it demonstrate that the one who was bought ceased to be regarded altogether as a man; or that it was regarded as right to sell him again. The fact that he was to be circumcised as one of the family of Abraham, certainly does not look as if he ceased to be regarded as a man.
“The word rendered buy or purchase in the Scriptures, is applied to so many kinds of purchases, that no safe argument can be founded on its use in regard to the kind of servitude which existed in the time of Abraham. A reference to a few cases where this word is used, will show that nothing is determined by it respecting the tenure by which the thing purchased was held. (1.) It is used in the common sense of the word purchase as applied to inanimate things, where the property would be absolute. Gen. xlii. 2, 7; xliii. 20; xlvii. 19; xxx. 19. (2.) It is applied to the purchase of cattle, where the property may be supposed to be as absolute. See Gen. xlvi. 22, 24; iv. 20; Job xxxvi. 33; Deut. iii. 19; and often, (3.) God is represented as having bought his people; that is, as having ransomed them with a price, or purchased them to himself. Deut. xxxii. 6: ‘Is he not thy Father that hath bought thee?’ קָּנֶךָqānekā—kânĕkhâ, thy purchaser. Exod. xv. 16: ‘By the greatness of thine arm they shall be still as a stone, till thy people pass over; till the people pass over which thou hast purchased,’ קָנִיהָqānîhā,kânithâ. See Ps. lxxiv. 2. Compare Isa. xliii. 3: ‘I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.’ But though the word purchase is used in relation to the redemption of the people of God, the very word which is used respecting the servants of Abraham, no one will maintain that they were held as slaves, or regarded as property. Who can tell but what Abraham purchased his servants in some such way, by redeeming them from galling captivity? May they not have been prisoners in war, to whom he did an inestimable service in rescuing them from a condition of grievous and hopeless bondage? May they not have been slaves in the strict and proper sense, and may not his act of purchasing them have been, in fact, a species of emancipation in a way similar to that in which God emancipates his people from the galling servitude of sin? The mere act of paying a price for them no more implies that he continued to hold them as slaves, than it does now when a man purchases his wife or child who have been held as slaves, or than the fact that God has redeemed his people by a price, implies that he regards them as slaves. (4.) Among the Hebrews a man might sell himself, and this transaction on the part of him to whom he sold himself would be represented by the word bought. Thus, 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, קֹנֵהוּqōnēhû konaihū), 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 (קָנִיהִיqānîhî kânithi) to be my wife.’ Here the word 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, כָּרָהkārâ kârâ) 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 Exod. xxii. 17; 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Compare Judg. 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 contract was closed, Joseph said to them, ‘Behold, I have bought you —קָנִ֨יהִיqānîhî— and your land for Pharaoh.’ Gen. xlvii. 23. The nature of this contract is immediately specified. 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 who now 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 amounted in fact to every thing that is desirable in emancipation; and, from any thing implied in the word, their subsequent service in the family of Abraham may have been entirely voluntary. It is a very material circumstance, also, that there is not the slightest evidence that either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob ever sold a 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 slave-holding 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 all were 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 this with 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.’[[A]] ‘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.’[[B]] ‘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;’[[C]] and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, without a conviction by the justice.[[D]] 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 of 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 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 in itself a good thing, and as desirable to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach the highest point of elevation. It is perfectly clear that, so far as the conduct of the patriarchs goes, it would be just as easy to construct an argument in favour of polygamy as in favour of slavery—even on the supposition that slavery existed then essentially as it does now. But it is not probable that polygamy would be defended now as a good institution, and as one that has the approbation of God, even by those who defend the domestic institutions of the South.' The truth is, that the patriarchs were good men in their generation, and, considering their circumstances, were men eminent for piety. But they were imperfect men; they lived in the infancy of the world; they had comparatively little light on the subjects of morals and religion; and it is a very feeble argument which maintains that a thing is right, because any one or all of the patriarchs practised it.
“But after all, what real sanction did God ever give either to polygamy or to servitude, as it was practised in the time of the patriarchs? Did he command either? Did he ever express approbation of either? Is there an instance in which either is mentioned with a sentiment of approval? The mere record of actual occurrences, even if there is no declared disapprobation of them, proves nothing as to the Divine estimate of what is recorded. There is a record of the ‘sale’ of Joseph into servitude, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to Potiphar. There is no expression of disapprobation. There is no exclamation of surprise or astonishment, as if a deed of enormous wickedness were done, when brothers sold their own brother into hopeless captivity. This was done also by those who were subsequently reckoned among the ‘patriarchs,’ and some of whom at the time were probably pious men. Will it be inferred that God approved this transaction; that he meant to smile on the act, when brothers sell their own brothers into hopeless bondage? Will this record be adduced to justify kidnapping, or the acts of parents in barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws of their nature, sell their own children? Will the record that the Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, or buy them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold into hopeless bondage! Why then should the fact that there is a record that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any expressed disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of society? The truth is, that the mere record of a fact, even without any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a record? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of future ages? Are we to maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good of mankind? Shall the biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and Alexander VI., and Cæsar Borgia be held responsible for approving of all that these men did, or of commending their example to the imitation of mankind? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus judged. Why then shall we infer that God approved of all that the patriarchs did, even when there is no formal approbation expressed; or infer, because such transactions have been recorded, that therefore they are right in his sight?”
[A]. Rev. Cod. Virg. vol. i. p. 453, sections 83, 84.
[B]. Ibid. vol. i. p. 422, section 6. See Paulding on Slavery, p. 146.
[C]. 2 Litt. and Smi. 1150; 2 Missouri Laws, 741, section 4.
[D]. Haywood’s Manual, 521; Stroud on the Laws relating to Slavery, p. 102.
Does the mind hesitate as to the design of this laboured and lengthy argument? That its object is to do away, to destroy the scriptural force of the facts stated in these records? Does not this argument substantially deny that Abraham had slaves bought with money? And even if he did have them, then that it was just as wicked at that time as he thinks it to be now? Or, if he shall thus far fail, then to bring down the characters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a level with Nero, Caligula, Richard III., and Cæsar Borgia? And the holy books themselves to the standard of Herodotus, Tacitus, and Livy; and inure our mind to compare them with the writings of Hume and Gibbon?
The writer who lessens our veneration for the characters of the ancient worshippers of Jehovah; who, as by a system of special pleading, attempts to overspread the simple announcements of the holy books with doubt and uncertainty, however conscientious he may be in these labours of his hand, while he assumes a most awful responsibility to God, must ever call down upon himself the universal and determined opposition of the intelligent and good among men.
The more secret, the more adroit the application of the poison, the more intensely wicked is the hand that presents it.