[Transcriber's Note. --This e-text uses UTF-8 characters with diacriticalmarks. If they do not display correctly, please see the ASCII version. Italics are rendered as _underscores_. For information on the Hebrew, and a list of errata, see the end of the text. ]

 No. 45. 

 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE?

If there is one subject which, above all others, may be regarded as ofnational interest at the present time, it is the subject of Slavery. Wherever we go, north or south, east or west, at the fireside, in thefactory, the rail-car or the steamboat, in the state legislatures or thenational Congress, this "ghost that will not down" obtrudes itself. Thestrife has involved press, pulpit, and forum alike, and in spite of allcompromises by political parties, and the desperate attempts atnon-committal by religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper. 

But the distinctive feature of this, as compared with other questions ofnational import, is, that here both parties draw their principalarguments from the Bible as a common armory of weapons for attack anddefense. On the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists inthe United States, is not a moral evil; that it is an innocent andlawful relation, as much as that of parent and child, husband and wife, or any other in society; that the right to buy, sell, and hold men forpurposes of gain, was given by express permission of God, and sanctionedby Christ and his apostles; that this right is founded on the goldenrule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky. , "I hardly know whichis most unaccountable, the profound ignorance of the Bible, or thesublimity of cool impudence and infidelity manifested by those whoprofess to be Christians; and yet dare affirm that the Book of God givesno sanction to slaveholding. " All these affirmations are fairly summedup thus: "As slavery was practiced by the patriarchs, received sanctionand legality from God in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced by Christand his apostles, it must have been right. If right then, it is sostill; therefore Southern slavery is right. "

On the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery is nowherewarranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is totally opposed both to itsspirit and teachings. 

It will be the object of the present discussion to determine which ofthese opinions is correct. 

 SLAVERY DEFINED. 

What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in American law?

1. It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense a man may besaid to "possess" these; but he can not buy or sell them. These arenatural relations; and he who violates them for the sake of gain isbranded by all as barbarous and criminal. 

2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is temporary, havingfor its primary object, not the good of the master or guardian, but thatof the apprentice or minor, his education and preparation for acting hispart as a free and independent member of society; but chattelism is_life_ bondage, for the _sole_ good of the master. 

3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a bond or agreement isimplied, and therefore reciprocal rights, and the mutual power ofdissolution on failure of either in the terms of mutual agreement; butchattelism ignores and denies the ability of the slave to _make acontract_. 

4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was attached to theglebe or soil, and could not be severed from it, deprived of his family, or sold to another as a chattel; being retained as part of theindivisible feudal community. But the chattel slave is a "thing"incapable of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or how themaster pleases. 

Chattelism is none of these relations; its principle is "property inman. " Its definition is thus given in the law of Louisiana, (Civil Code, art. 35:) "A slave is one who is in the power of his master, to whom hebelongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, acquire nothing, but whatmust belong to his master. "

South Carolina says, (Prince's Digest, 446, ) "Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal inthe hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, purposes, andconstructions whatsoever. "

Judge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, (case of State _v. _ Mann, ) says a slave is "one doomed in _his ownperson_ and _his posterity_ to live without knowledge, and without thecapacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that another may reapthe fruits. "

We now come to the point at issue: Does the Bible sanction this system?

 OLD TESTAMENT. 

 1. _Hebrew Terms. _

The Hebrew terms used in reference to this subject are עָבַד, _auvadh_, "to serve;" the noun, עֶבֶד, _evedh_, "servant" or"bondman, " one contracting service for a term of years; שָּׂכִיר, _saukir_, a "hired servant" daily or weekly; אָמָה, _aumau_, andשִׁפְחָה, _shiphechau_, "maid-servant" or "handmaid;" but there is _no_term in Hebrew synonymous with our word _slave_, for all the termsapplied to servants are, as we shall show, equally applicable andapplied to free persons. 

The verb עָבַד, _auvadh_, according to Gesenius, signifies primarily, to labor; then, to labor for one's self, for hire, or compulsory laboras a captive or prisoner of war. Gen. 2:5, 15; 3:23; 29:15. Ex. 20:9;21:2. Next, national servitude as tributary to others; as Sodom and thecities of the plain to Chedorlaomer, Gen. 14:4; Esau to Jacob, Gen. 25:23; the Israelites in Canaan to surrounding nations, Moabites, Philistines, and others, Judg. 3:8; Jer. 27:7, 9. Next, national andpersonal servitude or serfdom, as of the Israelites in Egypt. Lastly, the service of God or idols, Judg. 3:7, &c. From these and similarpassages we see that neither the generic nor specific meaning of theterm, taken in its connections, implies chattel slavery, but labor, voluntary, hired, or compulsory, as of tributary nations or prisoners ofwar, whose claim to regain, if possible, their freedom and rights, isever admitted and acted on; showing that freedom is the normal state ofman, subjection and compulsory servitude the abnormal and unnatural. 

But it is objected that, though the proper meaning of the verb "toserve" does not imply chattel slavery, it is certain that the derivednoun עֶבֶד, _evedh_, translated "servant" and "bondman" in ourversion, is frequently used to designate involuntary servitude, theservice of one "bought with money, " and therefore a chattel slave. Wereply, By far the most frequent use of this term, as is well known, represents either the common deferential mode of address of inferiors tosuperiors, or equals to equals, used then and to-day in the East, or thepolitical subordination of inferior to superior rank invariably existingin Eastern governments. Otherwise we have Jacob saying to Esau, "Thechildren which God hath graciously given thy" _slave_; and Joseph'sbrethren saying to him, "Thou saidst to thy _slaves_, Bring him down tome. " "When we came up to thy _slave_ my father. " Saul's officers andsoldiers are his slaves, David is Jonathan's, and _vice versa_; Abigail, David's wife, is his slave; his people, officers, and even embassadorsare all his slaves; all are slaves to each other, and none are masters, unless it be the king. 

How, then, can we properly define the meaning and status of the term"servant" in any particular passage? We answer, only by the context andthe usage of the particular time and place, so far as known. 

 2. _The Curse of Canaan. _

We first meet with the term "servant" in the oft-disputed passage, Gen. 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto hisbrethren. . . . Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be hisservant. " . . . Now, as we have no state of servitude in the context orthe usage of the times with which to compare this, and as only Canaanand his descendants are included in the curse, we must look to theirsubsequent history for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the kind ofservitude there implied. 

We find the descendants of Canaan and their land defined in Gen. 10:15-20. They were not the Africans, as some ignorantly assert, but theCanaanites, who dwelt in Canaan, and were there destroyed by theIsraelites, or rendered tributaries, except the Gibeonites, who weredoomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water, " the serfs of thetemple service. Josh. 9:23, 27. There is not one word of buying andselling _individuals_--no chattelism, or any sanction of it; there is aperforming of the service of the temple, or paying tribute, but neverslaves or chattels. Canaan thus became the servant (not slave) of Shem;and when afterward Israel was oppressed and rendered tributary to othernations, the Canaanites became thus not only "servants, " but "servantsof servants. "

 3. _Patriarchal Servitude. _

The next example of the word "servant" brings us to that epoch inrelation to which the Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina says, "Slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholdersAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven, ) tothe time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his masterPhilemon, and wrote a Christian and paternal letter to this slaveholder, which we find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures. "

The account we have of Abraham's servants is briefly as follows: Thathe had men-servants and maid-servants, Gen. 12:16; 14:14; 17:27, (not_slaves_, for we have shown above by numerous passages that to give sucha definition to the term "servant" is false and absurd, unless sustainedby the context or the usage of the times;) that they numbered some twothousand persons, (reckoning by the number of fighting men among them, generally one in five of the population, ) were trained and accustomed toarms, Gen. 14:14; could inherit property, Gen. 15:3, 4; in religiousordinances were perfectly equal with the master, Gen. 17:10-14; hadentire control not only over the property, but also the heirs of thehousehold, Gen. 24:2-10; lastly, they were invariably considered as_men_, not slaves or chattels. Gen. 24:30, 32. "And the _man_ (servantof Abraham) came into the house, and he ungirded his camels, and gavestraw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the_men's_ feet that were with him. "

"But, " it is objected, "some of these servants were 'bought with money;'therefore they must have been possessed as 'chattel slaves. '" Thisconclusion depends partly on the meaning of the Hebrew verb קָנָה, _kaunau_, "to buy;" and asserts that whenever this term is applied topersons, it implies the relation of chattel slavery. The primarydefinition of the verb, given by Gesenius, is, to erect; then, 1. Tofound or create; 2. To get, gain, obtain, acquire, possess; 3. To get bypurchase, to buy. 

Let us see the meaning of this term, applied to persons in otherpassages. In Gen. 31:15, Rachel and Leah say of their father, "He hath_sold_ us, and quite devoured also our money, " referring to Jacob's longservice for them; were they chattels? Gen. 47:23, Joseph _bought_ theEgyptians; were they chattels? Ex. 21:2, "If thou _buy_ a Hebrewservant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go outfree, for nothing;" was he a chattel? Ruth 4:10, "Ruth the Moabitesshave I _purchased_ this day to be my _wife_;" was she a chattel? Thesepassages clearly show that the simple application of the term "boughtwith money" does _not_ imply property and possession as a chattel. 

The phrase "bought with money" relates, in the case of wives, to thedowry usual in Eastern countries; in the case of servants, to the ransompaid for captives in war, and paid by the individual on adoption intothe tribe; or to an equivalent paid as hire of time and labor for alimited period, either to parents for their children as apprentices, &c. , or to the individual himself, as Jacob to Laban. Gen. 31:41, "Thushave I been twenty years _in thy house_; I served thee fourteen yearsfor thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle, and thou hastchanged my wages ten times. " Thus Abraham could acquire a claim on theservice of a man during life by purchase from himself; could acquire theallegiance of a man and his family, and all born in it, by contract, notto be broken but by mutual agreement; and in a few years have a vasthousehold under his authority, "born in his house, " and "bought withmoney, " yet not one of them a slave. 

Another general proof already alluded to is, that the terms עֶבֶד, "servant, " and נַעַר, _naar_, "young man, " are applied synonymouslyand equally to servants and free persons. Gen. 14:24, Abraham calls hisservants young men, and again in Gen. 17:23, 27. So in Job 1:15-19, theterm נַעַר is applied alike to Job's servants and sons. Also inJudg. 7:10; 19:3, 11, 19; 1 Sam. 9:3, 5, 10, 22, and numerous otherplaces, these terms are applied indiscriminately to servants, showingthat they were always regarded as men, never as chattels. 

But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the status or conditionof Abraham's servants; we will bring proofs showing that it could nothave been chattel slavery. 

Two of the fundamental characteristics of chattelism are, The status ofthe mother decides that of the child, and The slave, being property, cannot inherit or possess property. Was this the condition of "servants" inpatriarchal society? If so, then these characteristics brand them aschattels; but on the contrary, if no record is found of their beingsold, (the buying we have already reasonably accounted for;) if thechildren of these servants were reckoned free, if they and theirchildren could inherit property, then even American slave law and customdeclare them free persons, and not chattels personal. 

Take the case of Hagar. We read, Gen. 16:1, she was an Egyptian"handmaid, maid-servant, " perhaps one of those referred to in Gen. 12:16. Abraham, at Sarah's instigation, makes her his concubine. Theusual bickering of Eastern harems ensues. Hagar leaves the tribe, issent back by the angel, Ishmael is born, and this son of a slave (?) isregarded not only as free, but heir of the house of Abraham. Years pass, and the wild, reckless Ishmael is seen ridiculing Isaac, his punybrother and coheir. At the sight, all the mother and the aristocratagain rise up in Sarah, and she cries out to Abraham, "Cast out thisbondwoman and her son, for he shall not be heir with my son, evenIsaac;" and Abraham, so far from regarding them as chattels personal, and selling them south, sends off the wild boy to be the wild, freeArab, "whose hand will be against every man, and every man's handagainst his. "

Take the case of Bilhah and Zilpah, given by Laban (Gen. 29:24, 29, ) ashandmaids (אָמָה) to his daughters Leah and Rachel. Gen. 30:4-14. They become Jacob's concubines, and bear him four sons--Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Here the case is plain; the mothers are "servants, " theyhave children, and these, instead of being (as in similar cases daily atthe South) "reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal, " arerecognized as free and equal with the other sons, Reuben, Judah, &c. , and become, like them, heads of tribes in Israel. In these cases, --andthey are all which relate to the point at issue, --either the status ofthese servants _did_ or _did not_ decide that of their children. If it_did_, then, by the laws of chattelism, the children being free provethe mother (though servant) to be free; if it _did not_, then the motherwas held only by feudal allegiance, while the children were always free. In either case the conditions of chattelism did not exist; they were notslaves, but free persons in the same condition as members of wanderingArab and Tartar tribes to this day. 

Did the second fundamental condition of chattelism mentioned aboveexist? The slave, being property, can not possess or inherit property. In Gen. 15:3 we find Abraham complaining to the Lord, "Behold, to methou hast given no seed, and lo, _one born in my house_ is my heir!" Thesame term is used here as in speaking of Abraham's other servants; andyet this "servant" is declared by Abraham his acknowledged heir. Herethere is a manifest contradiction of the conditions of a chattel slave. They can not inherit property; this man could; therefore he was not aslave. It is an entirely gratuitous assumption to assert that Abraham'sdependents were slaves; for similar cases occur daily in nomadic tribes, as formerly they did in Scottish clans. If the chief has no childcapable of succeeding him in office, he chooses from his dependents sometried and trusty warrior, and adopts him as lieutenant or henchman, tosucceed him as heir or chief. Just so Abraham, then nearly eighty yearsold, despairing of a son to take his place as chief of the tribe, adopted some young warrior (perhaps a leader in the battle of Hobah) ashis heir, with the proviso of resigning in favor of a son if any beborn. But in the case of Jacob's four sons the conclusion isself-evident--children of "servants" or "handmaids, " yet recognized asfree like the other sons, sharing the property of the father equallywith them;--the conditions of a state of chattelism did not exist. 

These things prove conclusively that the term "servant" never meant_slave_ in patriarchal families; that the term "bought with money"referred only to feudal allegiance or service for a time agreed on byboth parties. These servants could possess and inherit property; theirchildren were free; they were trained to the use of arms; in religiousmatters master and servant were alike and equal; and they were alwaysconsidered and called _men_, never slaves or chattels, --all which aredirectly contrary to the principles and express enactments of Americanslave law, and are the characteristics of free persons even at theSouth. Add to this the significant fact that not one word is said in thepatriarchal records of _selling_ any of these servants, (the only actmentioned of selling a human being is that of Joseph by his brethren, sobitterly reprobated and repented of by them soon after, ) thoughfrequently bought; that no fugitive law existed, in fact could not existin a wandering tribe, --and the natural conclusion is, that they were notslaves, but free men and women; and therefore the records of patriarchalsociety conclusively deny the existence of chattel slaves or slavery asone of its institutions. 

Years pass, and we find the Israelites reduced to a servile condition asthe serfs of the Egyptians. God, in his purposes, allowed them to remainthus for a time, and then, instead of sanctioning even this modifiedform of slavery, demanded their instant release; and on refusal, withterrible judgments on their oppressors, he led forth that army offugitive slaves, and drowned their pursuers in the Red Sea. 

 4. _Mosaic Laws. _

We come next to the sanction and authority of chattel slavery claimed toexist in the laws and economy of these people just escaped from bondage, and framed by him who had shown his displeasure against slavery bynearly destroying a nation of slaveholders for holding and catchingslaves. The arguments for this claim are--1. That the term "servant" or"bondman" used in the Mosaic law means chattel slavery; 2. That incertain cases the Hebrews might hold their brethren as slaves for ever;3. They might buy slaves from the heathen around, and hold them forever. These positions, we admit, have some plausibility, and havedoubtless had great weight in producing the opinion that chattelism issanctioned by the Bible. We propose to consider the condition of theclasses of servants referred to in their order. 

1. _Hebrew servants. _ These were of four kinds--servants under contractor indenture for six years, probably from one sabbatic year to another:servants held till the year of jubilee, or "for ever:" children born inthe house, or hired out by their parents: convicted thieves; andafterward, though sanctioned by no law, debtors. 

In respect to the first of these classes, the law is found in Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18. "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shallhe serve, and in the seventh he shall go out _free_, for nothing. " Herethe term "buy" can only be applied to the _service_, sold by the servantfor six years, (or perhaps to the sabbatic seventh year, as daily orweekly service ended with the Sabbath, ) for it is applied to a statewhich no ingenuity whatever can construe as chattelism. 

The second class of Hebrew servants is mentioned Ex. 21:5, 6. "If theservant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; Iwill not go out free; then his master shall bring him to the judges: heshall also bring him to the door or to the door-post, and he shall borehis ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever. " Deut. 15:17, the same law adds, "And also to thy maid-servant shalt thou dolikewise. " But in Lev. 25:39, 40, 53, it is expressly enacted that onewho served longer than six years was not to be treated or considered asan עֶבֶד, _evedh_, one contracting for a term of years, but as aשָּׂכִיר, _saukir_, a hired servant, to be well treated and compensatedfor his services. "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as a hired servant and as a sojourner he shall be with thee. " Theservant must plainly say, "_I will not_ go out;" it must be _voluntary_service; but chattelism is involuntary, forced, and directly contrary tothe case before us. "He shall serve _him_ for ever, " not his sons afterhim, not giving the right of transfer or sale of service to a thirdperson, "_He_ shall serve, " not his wife or children, but himself, tilldeath, or his master's death, or the jubilee. This, then, was notchattelism, for it was _voluntary_, _without purchase_ or sale, _endingwith the life of the servant, the master, or the year of release--thejubilee_. 

The third class of servants--children--appear during minority to havebeen, as now in all Eastern countries, entirely at the service orcontrol of their parents, and might by them be hired out, Neh. 5:2-6, but, when of age, were of course independent of parental acts andcontrol. John 9:21. That the offspring of servants in patriarchal timeswere free we have already proved; that they were so among the Israelitesis shown by the case of Abimelech, the son of a maid-servant, Judg. 9:18, yet free as his brethren, and afterward king of Israel; also ofSheshan. 1 Chr. 2:34, 35. No service, indeed, could be recognized ordemanded, in Jewish law, of grown persons, except as the result ofcontract or crime. 

In respect to the fourth class, it is plain from the language used thatonly sufficient service could be required of them to cancel theobligation of restitution. Ex. 22:3. "He should make full restitution;if he have nothing, then he shall be _sold_ for his theft;" in case ofdebt, Matt. 18:34, "till he should pay all that was due to him. "

2. _Servants obtained from the heathen. _ These were, first, captives. From the account of the first taking of captives by the Israelites, Num. 31:7-47, we learn, verse 7, that they marched into Midian, slew all themales, and seized the women, children, flocks, and herds. On theirreturn Moses reprimanded them for disobeying God's command by preservingthe grown women; and thereupon they killed all but the virgins andchildren, reserving them for adoption into the families of the nation. In Deut. 20:14 and 21:10-14, we have these commands and regulationsgiven, with an express prohibition of the enslavement of these captives, in case of repudiation by the captors. "It shall be, if thou have nodelight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thoushalt not sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make merchandise ofher, because thou hast humbled her. " Now, all slaveholding tribes andnations, when they seize captives for slaves, aim to obtain as manystrong and vigorous men as possible; must it not, therefore, fairly beinferred from this regulation that God, by prohibiting instead ofsanctioning the most productive mode of slave-making, --the enslavementof prisoners of war, --did not intend, but positively prohibited, theIsraelites from becoming a slaveholding nation?

Secondly, "bought with money. " The law referring to these is Lev. 25:44, 46. "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have shall beof the heathen round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen andbondmaids. . . . And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your childrenafter you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmenfor ever. " As we have already stated, the Hebrews had but two terms for"servant"--the generic term _evedh_, one under contract for a term ofyears, and _saukir_, one hired by the day, week, or year. Now, the termhere translated "bondman" is the generic עֶבֶד, _evedh_, elsewheretranslated "servant, " and therefore should have been thus translatedhere, unless a different rendering is required by the context. The moreliteral reading of the Hebrew is, "And thy men-servants and thymaid-servants which shall be to thee from the nations around you, ofthem shall ye procure the man-servant and maid-servant. " What, then, wasthe difference between the Hebrew and heathen _evedh_?

This. The Hebrew could only be an _evedh_, a servant by contract, forsix years, Ex. 21:2--"Six years shall he serve, but in the seventh _heshall go out free_;" (longer service could not be contracted for, but_must be_ voluntary, Ex. 21:5;) or as a hired servant or sojourner tillthe jubilee, but _never_ beyond. Lev. 25:10, 39-41. But a heathen couldbind himself as an _evedh_ for longer than six years; and thus hisservice, unlike the Hebrew, could be "bought" as "an inheritance foryour children after you, " but, like the Hebrew voluntary "for ever"servants, they were bondmen for the longest time known by the law--tilldeath or the jubilee. 

Is it objected that the terms "buy, " "possession, " "for ever, " are used, and indicate chattelism? We answer, All admit the Hebrew was not achattel; for his service expired at the seventh year, the death ofhimself or his master. "_He_ shall serve _him_ for ever;" but, if bothlived on, this service, though voluntary, as has been shown, expiredwith all such claims at the jubilee. Since the same terms, and, as weshall show directly, the jubilee, applied equally to both, if it doesnot prove the one a chattel, it does not the other; therefore both areequally voluntary contractors. The service, and not the bodies, werebought; and both were equally free at the jubilee. 

Two objects were accomplished by this law. 1st. To permit the Hebrews toobtain that assistance in tilling the land, which otherwise they wouldnot have been allowed to do. 2d. To increase the numbers of thecommonwealth, since the Hebrews, in obedience to the Abrahamic covenant, Gen. 17:10-14; Ex. 12:44-49, were bound to circumcise these indentedservants "bought with money, " thus making them part of the householdduring their period of service, and also naturalized citizens of thestate, members of the congregation, partakers of all the rites andprivileges common to the mass of the people. Ex. 12:44-9. Num. 15:15-30, "One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also forthe stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in yourgenerations; _as ye are, so shall the stranger be_ before the Lord. "Lev. 19:34, "The stranger that dwelleth among you shall be as one bornamong you, and _thou shalt love him as thyself_. " In accordance with thefrequently-repeated injunction of this law of equality, they wereinvariably recognized as citizens, and alike with Hebrew servants, wereamenable to, and received protection from, the laws of the state. 

In further proof of this, and in direct opposition to chattelism, is thefact, that the laws regulating the relation of master and servant areeach and all enacted for the benefit and protection of the servant, andnot one for that of the master. Again, when property is spoken of, oxen, sheep, &c. , the term _owner_ is always used, _master_ never; whenservants and masters are spoken of, _master_ is always used, _owner_never. Ex. 21:29, "The ox shall be stoned, and his _owner_ also shall beput to death, " Ex. 21:34, If an ox or ass fall into a pit leftuncovered, "the _owner_ of the pit shall make it good, and give money tothe _owner_ of them. " But, Deut. 25:15, "Thou shall not deliver to his_master_ the servant which is escaped from his _master_ unto thee. "

The inference from all this is plain. No such thing as property in manis recognized in the Mosaic law; but God, finding polygamy and the lawof serfdom existing among the Israelites, did not see fit to abolishthem at once, but so hampered and hedged them about by restrictivestatutes as gradually and finally to abolish them altogether. 

 5. _Restrictive Laws. _

But lest oppression should trample upon the rights of the laboringclasses, and aim at their enslavement, --which actually happenedafterward, and was one of the principal items of God's indictment (Jer. 22:3; 34:8-22) against the Jews prior to their destruction byNebuchadnezzar, --three special enactments were made to prevent suchiniquity, and break up any attempt at chattel slavery in the nation. 

_First. The law against kidnaping. _--Ex. 21:16, "He that stealeth a manand selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be putto death. " Thus the one great means of obtaining slaves is forbidden. Hewho (no matter where) seizes a human being, (no matter whom, ) andreduces him to involuntary servitude, shall die; for he seeks to takeaway the rights and privileges of freedom, all that goes to make uplife; seeks to make property of man, to extinguish the man in thechattel. 

"But, " it is said, "this only refers to stealing slaves. " Mark thelogic: a man could seize and enslave another with impunity; but if, afterward, the father, brother, or friend of the enslaved should attemptto rescue him, he must die! Glorious argument for slaveholders andslave-catchers! It is also said this refers to Hebrews, not strangers. Let God answer. Lev. 24:22, "Ye shall have one manner of law, as wellfor the stranger as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord yourGod. " This is his interpretation of the breadth of the law given in thepreceding verse, "He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. " Thelaw, therefore, is unrestricted and universal; Hebrew or heathen, hethat killeth a _man_ and he that stealeth a _man_ shall alike die; thusputting slavery and murder on the same footing, as equally criminal. Now, if God sanctioned slavery, why did he make such an inconsistent lawas this forbidding it?

_Second. The law concerning fugitives. _--Deut. 23:15, 16, "Thou shaltnot deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from his masterunto thee; he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place whichhe shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shaltnot oppress him. "

There is no equivocation here; "_thou shalt not deliver_ unto hismaster. " It is imperative; they were to receive him among them as acitizen, and, if need be, protect him from his master; mark, not a"heathen" or "Hebrew, " servant, but the "servant, " heathen or Hebrew, whoever should fly from the ill treatment or injustice of a hard master. Compare for a moment the Hebrew and American fugitive laws. The Hebrewsays, "Thou _shalt not_ deliver to his master the servant that isescaped. " The American says, "Thou _shalt_ deliver him up to his master, or be fined one thousand dollars, and suffer six months' imprisonment. "The Hebrew says, "He shall _dwell_ with thee . . . Thou shalt _notoppress_ him. " The American law says, "The commissioner who tries thecase shall get five dollars if he fails, and ten if he succeeds in'delivering to his master' the fugitive, on the simple affidavit of theformer that he is his slave. "

What are the deductions from this law of Moses? The return of stray_property_ is expressly commanded in Deut. 22:1-3; the return of_servants_ is expressly forbidden here; the servant could leave a hardmaster at any time, and the state could not compel him to return: it didnot recognize the condition of forced, but only voluntary servitude, andthus rendered the existence of chattelism impossible. 

_The third great protective law was that of the Jubilee. _--Lev. 25:10-55, "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim LIBERTYthroughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be ajubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his possession, andye shall return every man to his family. " . . . Here the expression isemphatic, no reservations are made, no restrictions allowed. As thesound of יוֹבֵל, יוֹבֵל, Yovāl, Yovāl, sounded through the land, and wasechoed back from hill and village, from hamlet and town, the cry wastaken up, and borne along by the laboring thousands of Israel, many ofwhom had been toiling under contract for years, by the unfortunatedebtor, and those whom poverty had compelled to part with "the old houseat home, " all returned, all were free. "Liberty, liberty!"

It is vain to assume that the benefits of the Jubilee were restricted toa particular class. To what class? Not the six years' servants; theywere freed in the seventh. Not to debtors; there _was no law_ compellingthem to serve at all; therefore they could only serve voluntarily to paytheir debts. Not to thieves; they could only be compelled to makerestitution of the thing stolen, or its value; that paid, they werefree. The only other classes to whom the law could apply were "all theinhabitants of the land" who served the longest time, the Hebrew "forever" servants, and the heathen servants, thus preventing thepossibility of the rise and growth of a servile class, the curse of anycountry. In this way only can we account for the fact that Jewishhistory never mentions the existence of a large servile class, or aservile insurrection in Israel, so common and disastrous an occurrencein the history of ancient slaveholding communities. 

Some object here, that the term "inhabitants" implies "all the Hebrews, "and excludes the strangers, Canaanites, &c. ; but by admitting that "allthe Hebrews" were freed at the Jubilee, they admit that those who, inEx. 21:6, are servants "for ever, " are also freed, and thus to serve"for ever" only implies till the Jubilee. If, then, "for ever" meansonly till the Jubilee in one case, it means no more in the other. And ifwe show that the strangers and Canaanites _were_ considered "inhabitantsof the land, " then the Jubilee referred to Hebrew and stranger alike, and both were free. In Ex. 34:12, 15, "Take heed to thyself, lest thoumake a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest;"and Lev. 18:25; Num. 33:52-55, Moses calls the heathen "the inhabitantsof the land;" and as he was likely to understand the meaning of the termpretty well, he either refers in the Jubilee law to Hebrews, Canaanites, and all, or he meant Canaanites and heathen alone, which is still moredecisive. Again, in 2 Sam. 11:2-27; 23:39, we find one of thesestrangers, Uriah the _Hittite_, not only an "inhabitant" of Jerusalem, but one of David's best officers, and his wife becoming queen of Israeland mother of Solomon; and in 2 Sam. 24:18-25, another, Araunah theJebusite is a householder, and more, is praised as acting like a kingtoward king David, who bought property of him whereon to build an altar;and yet, forsooth, they were not inhabitants!

But, as if to prevent equivocation, Moses defines the phrase "all theinhabitants;" "Ye shall return _every man_ to his possession, and yeshall return _every man_ to his family. " Not every Hebrew, but every_man_, the same generic term as in the law against killing or stealing"a man;" it is unqualified and universal. Thus with one blow this noblelaw strikes down the two principal sources of social oppression--monopolyof land and monopoly of labor. All who had by poverty been compelledto part with the old farm and homestead received it back; all claims ofservice against any person, however mean and humble, were canceled; andthe land and its inhabitants were again free as God had made them. 

These accumulated arguments, each separately weighty and forcible, butcollectively insurmountable, we think prove conclusively that the formof servitude among the Israelites was not chattel slavery, and thatthere is no sanction or authority for it in the Mosaic laws andregulations. 

Thus in Jewish history we see the Israelites groaning under Egyptianbondage, and God's arm outstretched to rescue them when fugitives, andpunish their pursuers--a warning to all such thereafter; we see lawsenacted to prevent the existence of chattelism among them, byrestricting the master's power, and securing the servant's freedom atregular intervals, and the opposite doctrine of equality among menasserted; we see the Israelites disobeying these commands, and adopting, with the idolatry of their neighbors, their slavery also, and God'sfiery wrath denounced on them for it by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar in the destruction and captivity of thestate. 

 NEW TESTAMENT. 

 _Teachings of Christ. _

Ages pass, the Jews are restored to their land, but the Roman eagleovershadows it and all the civilized world. Despotism is enthroned; andthe idea that the world and its people are the property of Rome and itscitizens is questioned only in murmuring whispers. All the relations ofRoman life partake of this idea of absolutism; slavery is every where, liberty nowhere. Then the glad tidings of Messiah's coming is announcedto an expectant world. Whom will he side with--the crushed anddespairing millions, or the aristocratic and haughty few? Will he adoptand develop the idea of equality found in Jewish law, or the principlenow ascendant, --"Might makes right, "--the Roman slave law? Let himanswer. 

Standing in the synagogue at Nazareth, the home of his boyhood, amid hisexpectant friends and relations, he reads (Luke 4:16-21) from Isaiah, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to_preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal thebroken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering ofsight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preachthe acceptable year of the Lord_. And he closed the book and sat down, . . . And began to say to them, This day is this scripture fulfilled inyour ears. " There is his commission and the constitution of his kingdom. Can any thing be more explicit?

Christ himself comes with glad tidings for the poor, to destroy slaveryand oppression, and establish liberty. Rejoice, ye poor, taught hithertothat ye were made only for the service of the rich; there is gladtidings for you. Rejoice, captives and slaves, "bruised" with the lashand fetter; _God_ comes "to preach deliverance to the captives, libertyto them that are bruised, and the acceptable year (the Jubilee) of theLord. "

How did he fulfill this commission and pledge? No code of laws anddogmas, terse and dry, were issued by him for the government of hiskingdom; but the great principle was proclaimed of a common brotherhoodas children of God our Father, and of love to him as such. In his sermonon the mount, the parables of the lost sheep and silver piece, the goodSamaritan, the prodigal son, the Pharisee and the publican; in hisprivate teachings to his disciples; and, above all, by his daily examplehe taught and illustrated, as the leading characteristics of hiskingdom, love to God, the brotherhood of man, the rights of all, howeverpoor, degraded, or despised. More, he makes this idea of brotherhoodand equality even with himself, the great test in the judgment. Matt. 25:40, 45: "And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I sayunto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these mybrethren, ye have done it unto me. " What will those who now boast oftheir large churches, composed almost entirely of slaves, Christianministers, and church members, bought, sold, lashed, and treated likecattle, answer the King in that great day?

But to return: the result of such teachings was soon evident. "Thecommon people heard him gladly, " hung on his steps and words bythousands, and hailed him as deliverer; while Scribes and Pharisees, priests and rulers, denounced him as "a friend of publicans andsinners, " only seeking popularity among the masses, to disturb thepublic peace, and revolutionize the government. Mark, it was not simplyreligious, but _political_ interference and teaching they charged himwith, and on this charge they finally compassed his death. 

In his private teachings to his disciples he strongly inculcated thistruth. Striving among themselves for the supremacy, he charges them, Matt. 20:26-28, and many other places, "It shall not be so among you;but whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even asthe Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and togive his life a ransom for many. " The law thus explicitly laid down, andin John 13 enforced by his example, is the very opposite of chattelism. In his church, none were to claim supremacy over others, much less_enslave_ them; none to despise labor and the laborer, much less condemnothers to it while themselves lived in idleness. 

Thus Christ, so far from sanctioning chattelism or property in man inany shape or form, by precept and example taught the opposite, thedignity of labor and the laborer, the common brotherhood of man, andconsequent equality, political and religious. Did his apostles indorsethis doctrine, or, fearing the result, did they side with the allprevalent system of class legislation and slavery?

 _Teachings of the Apostles. _

The result of their teaching in Judea is given in Acts 4:32-35--"And themultitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul; neithersaid any of them _that aught of the things he possessed was his own_;but they had all things common. Neither was there any among them thatlacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, andbrought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down atthe apostles' feet, and distribution was made to every man according ashe had need. " They not only believed in "liberty, equality, andfraternity, " but practised its extreme--not only equality of rights, butequality of property, among the brotherhood. 

But this was comparatively easy in Judea, where the principle ofequality was already partly recognized, and the existence of chattelismprevented by the action of the Mosaic code. The apostles only fairlycame in conflict with the spirit of caste and slavery when, filled withlove and the Spirit, they entered heathen countries, "preaching the gladtidings of the kingdom, " and establishing every where the gloriousbrotherhood of humanity, whose primary law is, "A new commandment I giveunto you, That ye love one another as I have loved you. By this shallmen know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. " John13:34-5. And Paul expounds it to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12:13--"For by oneSpirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews orGentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drinkinto one Spirit. " Gal. 3:26-28: "Ye are all the children of God by faithin Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christhave put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, _there is neitherbond nor free_, there is neither male nor female; _for ye are all one inChrist Jesus_. " Again, Col. 3:11, "There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free;but Christ is all and in all. "

Can language be more express and conclusive than this? The distinctionshere dissolved by the waters of baptism, and blended into "one in ChristJesus, " are not, as our southern brethren assert, simply religious, butNATIONAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL--slavery, and the spirit of caste andclan which upholds it, alike forbidden, and liberty, equality, andfraternity, social, political, and religious, proclaimed as the rule ofChrist's kingdom. 

Principles like these came upon the world like the morning sunlight, scattering the mists of superstitious ignorance, melting the icy prideand selfishness of the mighty, permeating all classes and relations ofsociety with their secret influence, and blending all into oneharmonious brotherhood of love and peace. Apparently they were subjectas others to the laws of the state, but in secret were bound by strongerties, and governed by higher, nobler laws, than the world outsidedreamed of. 

Instead of the Roman law of marriage, regarding the wife as thehusband's slave, he must love her as himself; more, as Christ loved thechurch. Instead of the tyranny on one side, and the retaliatingdisobedience on the other, of the Roman parental relation, it became theimage of our heavenly Father's love, and our trusting obedience to him. The relation of slave, "pro nullo, pro quadrupedo, pro mortuo, " (as anobody, a quadruped, a dead man, ) to his master, became the relation ofbrethren, the one to render true and faithful service, Eph. 6:5, theother never to threaten, Eph. 6:9, much less punish; not to regard themas chattels, as under the Roman law, but to give them _just_ and _equal_compensation for their service, Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1, "knowing that yealso have a Master in heaven, " "neither is there respect of persons withhim. " The legal deed of manumission was unnecessary; for as, when masterand slave land in England, they may remain connected as master and freeservant, _never_ as master and slave, so, on admission into thebrotherhood of the church, the waters of baptism, as shown above, dissolved the relation of slavery, and substituted that of freemen andbrethren. 

Again, believers were members of Christ's body. He dwelt in them; andtherefore every indignity and injury done to them was done to him intheir person. To enslave, buy, and sell them was to enslave, buy, andsell Christ himself. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least ofthese my brethren, ye have done it unto me. " Who, then, would dare holda brother Christian as a slave? What! make merchandise of the person ofChrist? Never! the cry of Judas would ring around them as they weredriven ignominiously from the church. 

"Why, " it is objected, "did not the apostles preach immediateemancipation, instead of indorsing slavery by defining itsduties--'Servants, obey your masters, ' &c. ? and Paul even sent back aslave. " 1. The primary object of the apostles was not simply "to preachliberty to the captives;" this was but a branch of the tree planted "forthe healing of the nations. " Their object was to sow the principles offaith, love, justice, and equality, well knowing that, when these tookroot and flourished, among the first fruit would be "liberty to all theinhabitants of the land. " 2. Had this been their great object, they tookthe best and speediest plan for its accomplishment. Attacking the systemdirectly, the appearance of the Christian missionary would have been thesignal for servile war and untold bloodshed, the slave against themaster, the poor against the rich; and the heathen rulers, eager for apretext to crush them, would have denounced them as lighting the torchof rebellion and war; and the further spread of the gospel would havebeen drowned in the blood of its founders. But they took the very coursewhich God adopted among the Israelites in regard to servitude, notdirectly prohibiting it, but inculcating principles of social equalityand progress, restricting the master's power, and protecting theservant's rights, till, master and slave blended in one, the name ofslave was lost in that of Christian. 3. The relation and duties ofmaster and servant are defined by the apostles exactly as they might beto-day in England or the free states--as those of men, _never_ as ownerand property; on the contrary, all ownership of man by other than God isexpressly denied. 1 Cor. 6:19, 20, "What! know ye not that your body isthe temple of the Holy Ghost in you, which ye have of God, and _ye arenot your own_? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God inyour body and your spirit, _which are God's_. " There the ownership isclearly asserted; how can man claim it? "Render to Cesar the things thatare Cesar's, _and to God the things that are God's_, " lest you be foundrobbing God himself. Again, 1 Cor. 7:21, 23, "Art thou called, being aservant? care not for it; but, if thou mayst be made free, (δύασαιγενέσθαι, canst become free, ) use it rather. " What can be more explicitthan this? First, ownership of man is denied even to _himself_, muchmore to _another_. Next, the exhortation to slaves is, if they _cannot_ get free from this great wrong, to bear it as such, but, if they_can_, "use it rather;" and the reason given is followed by a rule ofaction to be adopted wherever possible. Verse 23, "Ye are bought with aprice; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN. " If this be not expressprohibition of chattelism, and command to slaves to free themselves fromit, then the language is totally contradictory and unintelligible. 

Contrast these laws of Paul with the laws of most of the southernstates, forbidding even the master to free his slaves, while states andCongress unite in hounding back to whip and task the poor slave whodares obey that command; nay, offer large rewards for men, evenChristian ministers, when attempting to obey it. "But Paul sent backOnesimus to his master, and therefore sanctioned the sending back offugitives. " We answer, there was no sending back at all. Paul, aprisoner, could not send him back: a Jew, he was forbidden by hisreligion to do so. Deut. 23:15. It was simply a recommendatory lettersent with Onesimus, returning voluntarily to Colosse and his master. Letus look at the letter. Verse 8 begins, "Wherefore, though I might bemuch bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet, forlove's sake, I rather beseech thee. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, . . . _which in time past was to thee unprofitable_, but now profitable tothee and to me; whom I have sent again, . . . Not now as a servant, butabove a servant, a brother beloved, " &c. Here Onesimus is described ashaving been, while heathen, an "unprofitable" trouble to his master, andhad either run away or been sent away by him. Converted at Rome, Paulheard his story, and in his letter, instead of thinking he is doingPhilemon a favor, has to earnestly "beseech, " almost command, hisreception as a favor to himself. Not one word of _property_ or _right_in him, save the right of love as one of the brotherhood. "NOT NOW AS ASERVANT, but _above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me_, buthow much more to thee!" Onesimus had left the "slave" in his heathenism;in Christ he became the "brother" of Philemon and Paul. Instead ofsanctioning chattelism, it positively denies it by affirming voluntaryservice, the equality of men as brethren, to be loved as Christhimself. 

Thus Christ and his apostles, so far from upholding chattelism in theirteachings, denounced the ownership of man by any but God, and inculcatedits opposite--love, liberty, equality, and fraternity--by precept andexample. And subsequent history showed the result. 

Christ said of the teachings of the Pharisees, "By their fruits ye shallknow them. " Apply this test to the teachings of the apostles and theprimitive churches in regard to slavery. When they went forth, "darknesscovered the earth, and gross darkness the people;" slavery sat enthronedin might over Europe; and the cries of the oppressed millions had onlyhad a hearing on the battle or before the throne of God. 

When the Reformation came slavery had disappeared in Europe; and thevoice of the people was heard asserting their rights, feebly, indeed, atfirst, but ever since growing stronger and stronger "as the voice ofmany waters. " What has caused this change?

Historians, Protestant and Catholic, ascribe it to the influence of thechurch, not by direct emancipatory decrees, but, following the exampleof God through Moses, by gradually restricting the master's power, andprotecting the slave; by girdling the poison tree till it withered andfell, though, sad to say, the ruins still disfigure too much field, ofthe fair fields of Europe and America. 

No fact is more patent in history than the truth expressed by Paul tothe Corinthians: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. "The whole tendency of the Bible and true Christianity, direct andindirect, is to the liberty and advancement, never the slavery anddegradation, of man; and those who have attempted to shield the monstercurse of our country and age with the garb of the gospel may find toolate, when that awful voice shall ring in their ears, "Inasmuch as yehave done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done itunto me, " that Christ came not only "to preach deliverance to thecaptives" and "to set at liberty them that are bruised, " but also "theday of vengeance of our God. "

 * * * * *

 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 28 Cornhill, Boston. 

 * * * * *

 EXTRACT FROM MR. O'CONOR'S ARGUMENT

 _Before the New York Court of Appeals, on the "Lemmon Slave Case. "_

"I submit most respectfully that the only desire I have manifested hereor elsewhere, in reference to the question, has been to draw the mind ofthe court and the intelligent mind of the American people, to the truequestion which underlies the whole conflict, and that is the question towhich my friend (W. W. Evarts, Esq. ) has addressed the best, and, in myjudgment, the finest part of his very able argument. * * * My frienddenounces the institution of slavery as a monstrous injustice, as a sin, as a violation of the law of God and of the law of man, of natural lawor natural justice; and in his argument in another place, he called yourattention to the enormity of the result claimed in this case, that theseeight persons--and not only they, but their posterity to the remotesttime--were, by your Honors' judgment, to be consigned to this shockingcondition of abject bondage and slavery. Why, how very small and minutewas that presentation of the subject! My friend must certainly have usedthe microscope or reversed the telescope, when, in seeking to presentthis question in a striking manner to your Honors' minds, he called yourattention to these _few_ persons and their posterity. Why, if yourHonors please, our territory embraces at the least estimate _threemillions of these human beings_, who, by our laws and institutions, asnow existing in these states, * * * are not only consigned to hopelessbondage throughout their whole lives, but to a like condition is theirposterity consigned to the remotest times. * * * It is a question of themightiest magnitude. But the reason why I call your Honors' attention toits magnitude is this: that you may contemplate it in the connection inwhich my learned friend has presented it; that it is a SIN--a violationof natural justice and the law of God; that it is a monstrous scheme ofiniquity for defrauding the laborer of his wages--one of those sins thatcrieth aloud to heaven for vengeance; that it is a course of unbridledrapine, fraud, and plunder, by which three millions and their posterityare to be oppressed throughout all time. Now, is it a sin? Is this anoutrage against divine law and natural justice? _If it be_ such anoutrage, then I say it is a sin of the greatest magnitude, of the mostenormous and flagitious character that was ever presented to the humanmind. The man who does not shrink from it with horror is utterlyunworthy the name of a man. It is no trivial offence, that may betolerated with limitations and qualifications; that we can excuseourselves for supporting because we have made some kind of a bargain tosupport it. The tongue of no human being is capable of depicting itsenormity; it is not in the power of the human heart to form a justconception of its wickedness and cruelty. And what, I ask, is therational and necessary consequence, if we regard it to be thus sinful, thus unjust, thus outrageous?"

 * * *

Dr. Hopkins, of Newport, being much engaged in urging the sinfulness ofslavery, called one day at the house of Dr. Bellamy in Bethlem, Connecticut, and while there pressed upon him the duty of liberating hisonly slave. Dr. B. , who was an acute and ingenious reasoner, defendedslaveholding by a variety of arguments, to which Dr. H. As ably replied. At length Dr. Hopkins proposed to Dr. Bellamy practical obedience to thegolden rule. "Will you give your slave his freedom if he desires it?"Dr. B. Replied that the slave was faithful, judicious, trusted withevery thing, and would not accept freedom if offered. "Will you free himif _he_ desires it?" repeated Dr. H. "Yes, " answered Dr. Bellamy, "Iwill. " "Call him then. " The man appeared. "Have you a good, kindmaster?" asked Dr. Hopkins. "Oh! yes, very, very good. " "And are youhappy?" "Yes, master, _very_ happy. " "Would you be more happy if youwere free?" His face brightened. "Oh! yes, master, a great deal morehappy. " "_From this moment_, " said Dr. Bellamy, "_you are free_. "

[Transcriber's Note, Continued. --The following minor errors have beencorrected: the word "in" missing before "spite" on p. 1 ("and spite ofall compromises . . . "), a superfluous quotation mark on p. 5 (""That hehad men-servants . . . "), a missing "d" in "praised" on p. 17 ("is praiseas acting"), "is" used for "in" on p. 25 ("now existing is these states. . . "), an accent error in the Greek on p. 22 ("δὑασαι" to "δύασαι") andtwo transposed letters on p. 6 ("עַנַר" to "נַעַר"). Also note that theauthor used Ashkenazic pronunciation for his transliteration, and thatit would not be considered accurate by modern standards. Alternativetransliterations are:

 1. Auvadh--avad 2. Evedh--eved 3. Saukir--sakhir 4. Aumau--ama 5. Shiphechau--shifḥa 6. Kaunau--kana 7. Naar--na'ar 8. Yovāl--Yovel]