LESSON VI.

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.

Mr. Barnes has devoted twenty-four pages of his book to the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt, wherein we find no instance that histestis applied with either fairness of deduction or logical accuracy. Indeed, so far as our limited capacity can trace his application to thetest, he has made but two points:

I. After repeated judgments upon the Egyptians, for hesitating to set the Hebrews free, God, in his providence, effected theirdeliverance from slavery. Therefore, we are to infer the indignation of God against the institution of slavery. What were the facts of the case? On account of their sins rendering them unfit for the blessings promised their fathers, God imposed on them slavery four hundred years,—at the expiration of which time he delivered them from it. When a free negro becomes a public nuisance, the court will give judgment that he shall be sold to be a slave five years. The term having expired, if the purchaser holds on, and refuses to let him go, the same court will interfere, set him free, and impose heavy penalties on the master. Does the case show that the court feels indignation against the institution of slavery? We think it proves exactly the opposite!

If the four hundred years of slavery operated to fit the Hebrews for the reception of the blessing; if the five years of slavery re-fitted the negro for the rational enjoyment of liberty, we think the providence of God places the institution of slavery in a valuable point of light.

II. In this review of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt, Mr. Barnes has noticed the fact of their rapid increase, to the extent of their becoming dangerous to the Egyptian government; and he has compared it with the more rapid increase of the slaves over the whites in the Slave States; and suggests a similar danger to the government of the United States,—adding, that such increase “can be arrested by nothing but emancipation.” Now all this may be true; but in what light does it show forth the institution of slavery? Does Mr. Barnes really mean to say, what is the fact, that the condition of slavery is so well adapted to the negro race, that, by it, their comforts, peace of mind, and general happiness are made so certain and well-secured to them, that they increase rapidly? And that, as they are a race of people whom we do not desire to bear rule over us, or become more numerous than they now are, it would be good policy, and he desires, to set them free, in order that they may be deprived of their present comforts, peace of mind, and happiness, with the view to lessen their increase, and waste them away? If such really be his view, we may regard it as an extraordinary instance of his Christian counsel, and form some idea of what he would be as a slave-holder. But the same increase of the slaves happened in Egypt in a different age, and in reference to a different class of men; nor could any exertion correct it. We may apply thetest, and safely infer,that God smiles on the institution of slavery.

There is, in this chapter on the slavery of the Hebrews, an allusion made to the States of Ohio and Kentucky, (see page 102;) the one represented as “adorned with smiling villages, and cottages, and churches, and the aspect of neatness, thrift, and order;” and that the other wears “the aspect of ignorance, irreligion, neglect, and desolation;” and that the reason of the difference is, because “God smiles upon the free State, and frowns upon the one where slavery exists.”

We do not deem it necessary to question or even examine the correctness of the view of Kentucky, as presented to us by Mr. Barnes: so far as the argument is concerned, we will take it as established. If the institution of slavery is of Divine origin, or if we are to form a notion of the will of God respecting it from his providences affecting the institution, we must keep our eye upon the subject of slavery, not upon those otherwise conditioned. We must look to the slave in Kentucky, and compare his conditions there with his conditions in a state of freedom; and Mr. Barnes has furnished us with data, proving that in Kentucky the slaves are in a rapid state of propagation and increase.

Page 95, he says—“The whites were to the slaves—

“From this it is apparent that, in spite of all the oppressions and cruelties of slavery, of all the sales that are effected, of all the removals to Liberia, and of all the removals by the escape of the slaves, there is a regular gain of the slave population over the free in the slave-holding States. No oppression prevents it here more than it did in Egypt, and there can be no doubt whatever that, unless slavery shall be arrested in some way, the increase is so certain that the period is not far distant when, in all the Slave States, the free whites will be far in the minority. At the first census, taken in 1790, in every Slave State there was a very large majority of whites. At the last census, in 1840, the slaves out-numbered the whites in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The tendency of this, from causes which it would be easy to state, can be arrested by nothing but emancipation.”

But Mr. Barnes does not state what those causes are; and willhe acknowledge that they really are what we have before stated? So far as these facts teach any thing, it is that God smiles on the institution of slavery. Let it be true, as Mr. Barnes says it is, that Ohio exhibits a state of prosperity, and Kentucky a state of “desolation,”—the legitimate deduction is, that those, having the direction and government of affairs in Ohio are wiser and more intelligent than those of the same class in Kentucky. We shall leave all further view of the matter to Mr. Barnes and the people of Kentucky.

The four hundred years of slavery in Egypt were not a sentence on the Hebrews for the especial benefit of the Egyptians, but for that of the Hebrews themselves. The court did not sentence the free negro, who had become a nuisance, to five years of slavery, for the especial benefit of the purchaser, but for the prospect of amelioration in the negro himself. The races of Ham were not made subject to slavery for the especial benefit of Shem and Japheth; but because, in such slavery, their condition would be more elevated, and better, than in a state of freedom. The slave-owner may be very wicked, and God may destroy him for his wickedness, and yet his merciful designs, by the institution of slavery, not be affected thereby. An eastern monarch, determined to destroy his minister, sent him a present of a thousand slaves and a hundred elephants. The minister dared not refuse the present; but not being able profitably to employ them, was ruined. But the condition of the slave and the elephant was not injured. The poor-house was not made for the especial benefit of its keeper, but for its subjects.

The benefit of the slave-owner depends on a different principle, upon the wisdom, propriety, and prudence with which he governs and manages his slaves. If he neglect their morals, suffering them to become idle, runaways, dissolute, thieves, robbers, and committers of crime, he is made, to some extent, responsible; or if he neglect to supply suitable clothing, food, and medicine, attention in sickness, and all other necessary protection, he is liable to great loss; his profit may be greatly diminished; or, if he abuse his slave with untoward cruelty, he may render him less fit for labour,—may destroy him altogether; or the law may set in, andcompel the slave to be sold to a less cruel master.The interest of the master has become protection to the slave; and this principle holds good in all countries, in all ages, and among all men. But it is yet said, that there are men who most outrageously abuse, and sometimes kill their slaves. Very true and because some men do the same to their wives, is it any argument against marriage? It proves that there are men who are not fit to be slave-owners. And what is the providence of God, as generally manifested, in these cases? That such husband does not enjoy the full blessing designed by the institution of marriage; or such marriage is, in some way, shortly set aside. That such slave-owner does not enjoy the full benefit a different course would insure to him; or, in some way, he is made to cease being a slave-owner. Such instances are most direct and powerful manifestations against the abuses,—not of the institution itself.

But God has not left his displeasure of the abuses of slavery to be found out by our poor, dim, mortal eyes; by our weak view of his manifestations. He made direct laws on the subject.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God;in itthou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thyman-servant(עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkāabeddeka,male slave,) nor thymaid-servant(וַֽאֲמָֽתֶךָwaʾămātekāva amatheka,nor thy female slave), nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.”Exod.xx. 10.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant (וְעַבְדְּךָׄwĕʿabdĕkāve abeddeka,male slave), nor thy maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָחֶךָwaʾămāḥekāva amatheka,female slave), nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkāabeddeka,male slave) and thy maid-servant (וַֽאֲמָֽתֶךָwaʾămātekāva amatheka,female slave) may rest as well as thou.”Deut.v. 14.

But we find laws correcting abuses of quite a different nature; abuses that grow out of the perverse nature of man towards his fellow-man of equal grade, touching their mutual rights in property:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor hisman-servant(וְעַבְדּ֤וֹwĕʿabdôve abeddo,male slave), nor hismaid-servant(וַֽאֲמָתוֹwaʾămāhôva amatho,female slave), nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”Exod.xx. 17.

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or hisman-servant(וְעַבְדּ֤וֹwĕʿabdôve abeddo,male slave), or hismaid-servant: (וַאֲמָתוֹwaʾămātôva amatho,female slave), his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”Deut.v. 21—the 18th of the Hebrew text.

It does appear to us that these statutes speak volumes—portraying the providences of God, and his design in regard to the institutions of slavery. The word covet, as here used, as well as its original, implies that action of the mind which reaches to the possession of the thing ourselves, and to the depriving of our neighbour, without a glimpse at the idea of payment, reciprocity, or compromise; consequently, it is the exact action of mind, which, when cultivated into physical display, makes a man a thief. The command forbids that the mind shall be thus exercised, for the command only reaches to the exercise of the mind; an exercise, which, from the very nature of it, must for ever draw us deeper into crime. It is a command that well comes to us from Jehovah direct, because it is a command that man could never enforce: the individual, and Jehovah alone, can only and surely tell when it is broken. But it may be broken in various ways; it may be broken by writing books persuading others that it is no crime, that it is even praiseworthy, by any other course of conduct, to weaken the tenure of the proprietor in the property named.

“But fools do sometimes fearless tread,Where angels dare not even look!”

“But fools do sometimes fearless tread,

Where angels dare not even look!”

We hold the doctrine good that, whenever we find that the providence of God frowns upon the abuse of a thing, such abuse is contrary to his law. So, also, the doctrine is indisputably true that all laws, all providences against the abuse of a thing, necessarily become laws and providences for the protection of the thing itself; consequently, it always follows that they contemplate protection.

Mr. Barnes compares the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt to the condition of slavery in the United States, and complains of the harsh treatment of the slaves in the latter country. See p. 92:

“Preventing the slaves from being taught to read and write; prohibiting, as far as possible, all knowledge among themselves of their own numbers and strength; forbidding all assemblages, even for worship, where there might be danger of their becoming acquainted with their own strength, and of forming plans for freedom; enacting laws of excessive severity against those who runaway from their masters; appointing severe and disgraceful punishments, either with or without the process of law, for those who are suspected of a design to inform the slaves that they are men and that they have the rights of human beings; and solemnly prohibiting the use of arms among the slaves, designed to prevent their rising upon their masters, or ‘joining themselves to an enemy to fight against their masters,’ and ‘getting up out of the land.’”

We did suppose from this passage that Mr. Barnes might desire us to lie down, andlet the slaves kill or make slaves of us. But he has presented us with his cure for all these wrongs on pages 383, 384. He says—

“Now here, I am persuaded, is a wise model for all other denominations of Christian men, and the true idea of all successful efforts for the removal of this great evil from the land. Let all the evangelical denominations but follow the simple example of the Quakers in this country, and slavery would soon come to an end. There is not power of numbers and influence out of the church to sustain it. Let every denomination in the landdetach itselffrom all connection with slavery, without saying a word against others; let the time come when, in all the mighty denominations of Christians, it can be assured that the evil has ceasedwith themFOR EVER; and let the voice, from each denomination, be lifted up in kind, but firm and solemn, testimony against the system; with no ‘mealy’ words; with no attempt at apology; with no wish to blink it; with no effort to throw the sacred shield of religion over so great an evil; and the work is done. There is no public sentiment in this land, there could be none created, that would resist the power of such testimony. There is no poweroutof the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it. Not a blow need be struck. Not an unkind word need be uttered. No man’s motive need be impugned. No man’s proper rights invaded. All that is needful is for each Christian man, and every Christian church, to stand up in the sacred majesty of such a solemn testimony; to free themselves from all connection with the evil, and utter a calm and deliberate voice to the world; andTHE WORK WILL BE DONE!”

This looks very much like converting the church into an instrument of political power. We might indulge in severe remarks. We might quote some very cogent and rebuking passages of Scripture; but, since we believe that where the spirit of Christ is, he will be there also, we do not deem it necessary.

From the very considerable labour evidently bestowed in the preparation of thetest, apparently to be applied in his reasoning on this subject, a feeling of disappointment rests upon the mind when we discover how little use Mr. Barnes has made of it.

We have given a view of Mr. Barnes’s peroration; his complaints; the wrongs that excite his sympathy; and his final conclusion of the whole matter. We have attempted to reason by the same rule he has adopted, and, so far as he has chosen to apply it, leave it to others to judge whether it is not most fatal to the cause he advocates.

We are told that book-making, among some, has become a trade. That some men write books to order, to suit the market; that there is no knowing what may be an author’s principles, or whether he has any at all, by what may be in his book.

The principal object of such a writer must be his money—his pay: if in great haste to get it in possession, he may be expected sometimes to be careless; and unless very talented and experienced in the subject on which he writes, to record contradictions.

Page 83, Mr. Barnes says—“The Hebrews were not essentially distinguished from the Egyptians, as the Africans are from their masters in this land, by colour.” But he continues, pages 86 and 87—“They (the Hebrews) were aforeignrace, as the African race is with us. They were not Egyptians, any more than the nations of Congo are Americans. They were not of the children of Ham. They were of another family; they differed from the Egyptians, by whom they were held in bondage, as certainly as the African does from the Caucasian or the Malay divisions of the great family of man.”

In page 228, on another subject, he says—“If, therefore, it be true that slavery did not prevail in Judea; that there is no evidence that the Hebrews engaged in the traffic, and that the prophets felt themselves at liberty to denounce the system as contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, these FACTS will furnish an important explanation of some things in regard to the subject in the New Testament, and will prepare us to enter on the inquiry how it was regarded by the Saviour; for if slavery did not exist inPalestine in his time: if he never came in contact with it, it will not be fair to infer that he was not opposed to it, because he did not often refer to it, and expressly denounce it.”

This is in strict conformity with the following:

Page 242. “There is no conclusive evidence that he ever came in contact with slavery at all. * * * There is no proof which I have seen referred to from any contemporary writer, that it existed in Judea in his time at all; and there is no evidence from the New Testament that he ever came in contact with it.”

Also, page 244. “There is not the slightest proof that the Saviour ever came in contact with slavery at all, either in public or in private life.”

Also, page 249. “We have seen above, that there is no evidence that when the Saviour appeared, slavery in any form existed in Judea, and consequently there is no proof that he ever encountered it.”

Permit us to compare these statements withMatt.viii. 5–14:

“And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, (verse 6,) and saying, Lord, myservant, &c. (Verse 9,) For I am a man of authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to mySERVANT(δουλῳ,slave), Do this, and he doeth it,” &c.

Also,Lukevii. 2–10. “And a certain centurion’sservant(δοῦλος,slave) was sick,” &c. * * * “beseeching him that he would come and heal hisservant(δοῦλον,slave.)” (Verse 10,) “And they that were sent, returning to the house, found theservant(δοῦλον,slave) whole that had been sick.”

So also,Lukexix. 12–16. (Verse 13,) “And he called his tenservants(δοῦλους,slaves),” &c. AlsoJohnviii. 33–36: “And they answered him, we be Abraham’s seed, and were neverin bondage(δεδουλεύκαμεν,in slavery) to any man; how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (Verse 34,) “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος,slave) of sin.” (Verse 35,) “And the servant (δοῦλος,slave) abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore make you free, you shall be free indeed.”

Permit us also to compare them with the following, Mr. Barnes’sown statements. See page 250: “All that the argument does require, whatever conclusion we may reach as to the manner in which the apostles treated the subject, is, the admission of thefact,that slaveryeverywhereabounded; that it existed in forms of great severity and cruelty; that it involved all the essential claims that are now made by masters to the services or persons of slaves; that it was protected by civil laws; that the master had the right of transferring his slaves by sale, donation, or testament; that in general he had every right which was supposed to be necessary to perpetuate the system; and that it was impossible that the early preachers of Christianity should not encounter this system, and be constrained to adopt principles in regard to the proper treatment of it.”

And, again, page 251: “It is fair that the advocates of the system should have all the advantage which can be derived from the fact, that the apostles found it in its most odious forms, and in such circumstances as to make it proper that they should regard, and treat it as an evil, if Christianity regards it as such at all.”

And, again, pages 259, 260: “I am persuaded that nothing can be gained to the cause of anti-slavery by attempting to deny that the apostles found slavery in existence in the regions where they founded churches, and that those sustaining the relation of master and slave were admitted to the churches, if they gave real evidence of regeneration, and were regarded by the apostles as entitled to the common participation of the privileges of Christianity.”

But there are other errors in this “Scriptural View of Slavery,” page 245:

“He (the Saviour) never uttered a wordin favourof slavery, * * * not even ahintcan be found, in all he said, on which a man * * * who meant to keep one already in his possession, could rely to sustain his course.”

We ask that this assertion of Mr. Barnes shall be compared withLukexvii. 7–11:

“But which of you having a servant (δοῦλον,slave) ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him, by and by, when he has come from the field, Go, sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken, and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant (δούλῳ,slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.” “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.”

And, again, Mr. Barnes says: “The nations of Palestine were devoted to destruction, not to servitude.” See page 118.

Compare this with the following, from page 156: “There were particular reasons operating for subjecting the nations around Palestine to servitude, which do not exist now. They weredoomedto servitude forsins.”

Deut.xxiii. 9. “When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing”—directions what to do, or what not to do, in time of war, being continued, the 15th and 16th verses read thus:

“Thou shalt not deliver up to his master the servant (slave) which is escaped unto thee.” * * * “He shall dwell with thee,evenamong you in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him.”

This passage is quoted by Mr. Barnes, upon which he says, page 140—

“I am willing to admit that the commandprobablyrelates only to the slaves which escaped to the country of the Hebrews from surrounding nations; and that in form it did not contemplate the runaway slaves of the Hebrews in their own land.”

Pray, then, for what purpose does he speak as follows?

“A seventh essential and fundamental feature of the Hebrew slavery was, that the runaway slave was not to be restored to his master; on this point the law was absolute.”

And to sustain this assertion, he quotes this same passage from Deuteronomy, and, commenting thereon, says, pages 140, 141—“This solemn and fundamental enactment would involve the following results or effects. (1.) No laws could ever be enacted in the Hebrew commonwealth by which a runaway slave could be restored to his master. No revolution of the government, and no change of policy, could ever modify this principle of the constitution. (2.) No magistrate could on any pretence deliver up a runaway slave.”

Then, again, page 190:

“Slaves of the United States are to be restored to their masters, if they endeavour to escape. We find among the fundamental principles of the Mosaic laws a provision that the slave wasneverto be restored, if he attempted to do thus. He was to find in the land of Judea an asylum. The power and authority of the commonwealth were pledged for his protection.”

And yet, again, page 226:

“As one of the results of this inquiry, it is apparent that the Hebrews were not a nation of slaveholders.”

We present these passages to shows Mr. Barnes’s mode of argument. But let us examine, for a moment, the indications of the holy books on the subject of runaway slaves. When David had protected the flocks of Nabal, upon the mountains of Carmel, on a holiday, he sent his young men, to ask a present, as some compensation for the same.

“And Nabal answered David’s servants, and said, Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants(עֲבָדֵ֔יםabadim,slaves) nowadays that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and giveitunto men, whom I know not whence they be?” 1Sam.xxv. 10, 11.

We think the indications are that for slaves to run away was a common occurrence, and that it was immoral to give them countenance or protection and Nabal, pretending that David might be one of that class, excused himself from bestowing the present on that account.

“And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants (עֲבָדִיםʿăbādîmabadim,slaves) of Shemei ran away unto Achish, son of Maachah king of Gath; and they told Shemei, saying, Behold thy servants (עֲבָדֶיךָʿăbādêkā,abadeka,slaves)bein Gath. And Shemei arose and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants (עֲבָדָ֑יוʿăbādāywabadav,slaves); and Shemei went and brought his servants (עבָדָיוʿăbādāywabadav,slaves) from Gath.” 1Kings, ii. 39, 40.

If it can be said that Jehovah has views and wishes, then it may he said, that the views and wishes of Jehovah on the subject of runaway slaves must, at all times, be the same. “In him there is no variableness, nor shadow of turning.”

“And she had ahand-maid(שִׁפְחַהšipḥashiphehah,female slave), an Egyptian (מִצְרִיתmiṣrîtmitserith,Egyptian,a descendant of Misraim, the second son of Ham), whose name was Hagar.”Gen.xvi. 1.

Upon a feud between her and her mistress, her mistress dealt hardly by her, and she ran away: “And the angel of the Lordfound her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.” (8th verse,) “And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence comest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.” (The angel did not say to her, “Here is a shilling; get into Canada as soon as possible!”) “And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress and submit thyself under her hands.”Gen.xvi. 7–9.

On page 117, Mr. Barnes says—

“In the laws of Moses, there is but one way mentioned by which a foreigner could be made a slave; that is, by purchase.Lev.xxv. 44. And it is remarkable that the Hebrews were not permitted to make slaves of the captives taken in war.”

Let us compare this assertion, made by Mr. Barnes, with the 31st of Numbers:

“And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites. * * * (Verse 9,) And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones. * * * (Verse 11,) And they took all the spoils and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. (Verse 12,) And they brought the captives and the prey unto Moses and Eleazar the priest. * * * (Verse 25,) And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and beast. * * * (Verse 27,) And divide the prey into two parts, between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation. * * * (Verse 28,) And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle, one soul of five hundred, both of the persons and of the beeves. * * * (Verse 30,) And of the children of Israel’s half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty of the persons, &c. * * * (Verse 32,) And the booty, being the rest of the prey, which the men of war had, was * * * sheep. (Verse 35,) And thirty-two thousand persons in all. * * * (Verse 36,) And the half which was the portion of them that went out to war, was, &c. * * * sheep, &c. (Verse 40,) “And the persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty and two persons. (Verse 42) And the children of Israel’s half which Moses divided from the men that warred * * * was, &c. * * * sheep, &c. * * * (Verse 46,) and sixteen thousand persons. (Verse 47,) Even of the children of Israel’s half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.”

LESSON X.

In ancient times, all persons conquered in battle were liable to be put to death by the national laws then existing. If the conqueror suffered the captive to escape death, imposing on him only the cutting off his thumbs, hands, or ears; or, without these personal deformations, subjecting him to slavery, as was often the case, especially when the captive was of low grade,—it was ever regarded as an act of mercy in the conqueror.

In the 17th verse of the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, Moses commanded that “every male among the little ones, and every woman who had known a man,” should be killed, even after they had been taken to the Israelitish camp; and that none should be reserved for slaves, except female children, of whom, it appears, there were thirty-two thousand. The booty taken in this war, was distributed by Moses, in conformity to the especial direction of God himself, as follows:—(Verse 25,) “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, (verse 26,) Take the sum of the prey that was taken,bothof man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation, (verse 28,) and levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred,bothof thePERSONS, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: (verse 29,) Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest,fora heave-offering of the Lord. (Verse 30,) And of the children of Israel’s half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty of thePERSONS, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them to the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord. (Verse 31,) And Moses and Eleazar did as the Lord commanded Moses.”

Houbigant, in his commentary upon this chapter, has given us the following

This table has been adopted by Dr. Adam Clark in his Commentary, to which he adds—

“In this table the booty is equally divided between the people and the soldiers; a five-hundredth part being given to the Lord, and a fiftieth part to the Levites.” And this learned divine, in his commentary on the 28th verse, says—“And levy a tribute unto the Lord, one soul of five hundred, &c. * * * Thepersonsto be employed in the Lord’s service, under the Levites: thecattleeither for sacrifice or for the use of the Levites. (Verse 30.) Some monsters have supposed thatoneout of everyfive hundredof the captives was offered in sacrifice to the Lord! But this is abominable. When God chose to have the life of a man, he took it in the way ofjustice, as in the case of the Midianites above; but never in the way ofsacrifice.”

In the 29th verse, we learn that the Lord’s portion was to be given to Eleazar the priest, “for a heave-offering of the Lord.” The wordheave-offeringis rendered from the wordתְּר֥ווּמַ֖תtĕrwûmatterūmath, from the rootרוּםrûmrūm, which means a lifting up, exalting, elevation of rank, while the form here used means a gift, a contribution, associated with the idea of being lifted up, exalted, elevated to a higher condition. Hence, when the priest presented a heave-offering, he moved his censer upwards, in a perpendicular line, with the view to intimate the elevating tendency resulting from the relation of the person offering, the thing offered, and the one to whom it is offered; whereas, in a wave-offering, he moved his censer in a horizontal line, intimating a relation of steadfastness and unchangeability. Because the cross is represented by perpendicular and horizontal lines, some early commentators have imagined that the heave and wave-offerings were typical of the cross of Christ. The word “heave,” as here used, is purely Saxon;heafan, to lift, to raise, to move upward. We may well sayto heave up; but it is bad Saxon to sayheave down. From this sameSaxon word comes our wordheaven, on account of the notion of its lofty location, and the elevating influence of the acts of him who shall reach it; each act which makes us nearer heaven may not inappropriately be considered a heave-offering to the Lord. The corollary is, that if God had regarded the making these children slaves a sin,—since sin always deteriorates and degrades, the reverse of elevation or lifting up,—he never could have ordered any of them to be given to him as aheave-offering.

We trust to establish the point that the enslavement of such people as we find the African hordes now to be, to those who have a more correct knowledge of God and his laws,—of those most wicked Midianites, to those to whom God had most especially revealed himself,—must, so long as the laws of God operate, have an elevating influence upon those so enslaved. Thus we shall perceive that the Hebrew word translated into our old Saxonheave-offeringwas the most appropriate, and significant of the facts of the case, that could be expressed by language.

Our received version of this chapter, which is a good translation of the original, contains no word by which we directly express the idea of slavery: so is it in the original. But we trust the readers of either will not be found so awry as not to perceive that the idea and facts are as fully and substantially developed as though those terms were used in each.

In the most of languages, an idea, and facts in relation to it, may be and are often expressed without the use of the name of the idea, and sometimes of the facts. The Greek is well deemed a most particular and definite language. In Thucydides, liber vii. caput 87, this sentence occurs: ἔπειτα πλην Αθὴναιῶν, καὶ εἴτινες Σικελιωτῶν ἤ Ἰταλιωτῶν ξυνεστρατευσαν, τοὺς ἄλλους ἀπέδοντο. Here, there is no word expressing the idea of slavery. Literally, it is: “Then, except the Athenians, and some of the Sicilians or Italians, who had engaged in the war, all others were sold.” Yet Dr. Smith, the rector of Holy Trinity Church, in Chester, England, who lived at an age beyond the reach of prejudice or argument on the subject of slavery, (he was born in 1711,) has correctly translated the passage thus: “But, after this term, all but the Athenians, and such of the Sicilians and Italians as had joined with them in the invasion, were sold out for slaves.”Smith’s Thucyd.p. 285.

And permit us further to inquire how the assertion of Mr. Barnes, page 117, that, “in the laws of Moses there is butoneway mentioned by which a foreigner could be made a slave; that is, by purchase,Lev.xxv. 44; and it is remarkable that the Hebrews were not permitted to make slaves of the captives taken in the war”—will compare withDeut.xx. 10–16:

“And when thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.” * * * “And it shall be, if it make answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be,thatall the peoplethatis found therein, shall be tributaries unto thee, andshall serve thee” (וַֽעֲבָדֽוּךָwaʿăbādûkāva abaduka,shall be slaves to thee). “And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it.” “And when the hand of thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.” “But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is within the city,evenall the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.” “Thus shalt thou do unto all the citieswhich arevery far off from thee, whicharenot of the cities of those nations.”

It is evident that the captives here allowed to be made were to be slaves, from what follows on the same subject, in the same book, xxi. 10–15: When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thy hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife: then thou shalt bring her home to thy house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails: and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that, thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money: thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”

Thus the fact is proved, that if he had not thus made her his wife, she would have been his slave and an article of merchandise.

Back to Index Next