the history of Isaac to sustain the idea that his servants were slaves, or were in any way an oppressed people, without means of redress if wronged by their

master.

Gen. xxix. 24. 29.

"Laban gave unto his daughter Leah, Zilpah his maid for a handmaid.”

"And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter, Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid."

Do these passages imply that these maids were slaves? I think not. There would be nothing implying a condition of slavery, should I say to my daughter, 'I give you Biddy for your handmaid, although Biddy is a free girl and can leave my service when she pleases.'. Besides, you will observe that these handmaids became the "wives" of Jacob, their mistresses' husband.

Gen. xxx. 43-xxii. 5.

"And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid servants and men servants, and camels and asses."

"I have oxen, and asses, flocks and men servants and women servants."

Were these maid and men servants slaves? But where is the proof? If Jacob had much cattle and camels and asses, he must necessarily have servants to take care of them. And I infer they were Jacob's servants, as Jacob was himself the servant of Laban-entitled to wages.

CHAPTER IV.

THE MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS.

Exodus xii. 43, 44, 45.

"AND the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.”

This was said to Moses and Aaron at the time the passover was first instituted. The advocate for slavery claims that the

servant bought for money was a slave. He argues on this subject as if the Jews borrowed their phraseology and terms from our usages; whereas we have rather appropriated the terms of the ancients to our customs and institutions, without making allowance for all the modifications of signification, which time and changes of circumstances would naturally effect. Hence the slavery defender, in the case before us, proceeds upon the assumption that only as slaves are men the subjects of purchase and sale. But if I can prove that the phrase "bought with money," had reference in any case to some other condition than that of slavery, or even of a bondservant, then the inference drawn from that phrase by the advocate of slavery falls to the ground. This I think can easily be done. In Leviticus xxv. 39 and 40, it will be seen that a Hebrew could not be made a bondman. "If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant: but as an hired servant, and as a sojourner he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the

year of jubilee." And in the 42d verse it is expressly enjoined "they shall not be sold as bondmen." How then were they sold? for if not sold as bondmen they certainly could not be sold as slaves, for although they might be bondmen without being slaves, they could not be slaves without being bondmen. So it appears they were to be sold as hired servants; of course it follows that the being "bought with money" is no evidence that they were slaves. And in the passage immediately under consideration, it appears that those who were not suffered to be bondmen were the very servants spoken of as being bought with money. But how then were they the subjects of sale? Their services for the time specified was paid for in advance, and hence when any one was to be redeemed, the reckoning had to be made "according to the time of an hired servant," Lev. xxv. 50., and the amount paid back to his master. Such servants, whether native Hebrews or circumcised strangers, were not slaves, were not bondmen, nor were they hired servants although they rendered the service of yearly hired

servants. What then were they? They were regarded as members of the household, entitled to the privileges of the family, and hence they mingled in the congregation and were partakers of the passover, which their uncircumcised foreign servants and occasional hired servants could not do.

Exodus xx. 10, 17.

"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, thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle that is within thy gates." (See also Deut. v. 14.)

1

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (See also Deut. v. 21.)

As both these commandments apply with full force as regards servants that are hired, as much as bondmen, or as they could possibly do even in relation to slaves, so in them the language affords no evidence