OBJECTION III.  “Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.  Moreover of the children of the stranger that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possessions.  And ye shall take them as an inheritance of your children from you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever.”  Lev, xxv. 44-46.

The points in these verses urged as proof, that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery, are 1.  The word “BONDMEN.” 2.  “BUY.” 3.  “INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION.” and 4.  “FOREVER.”

The buying of servants was discussed, pp. 17-22, and holding them as a “possession.” pp. 37-46.  We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from the terms “bondmen,” “inheritance,” and “forever.”

1.  “BONDMEN.”  The fact that servants from the heathen are called “bondmen,” while others are called “servants,” is quoted as proof that the former were slaves.  As the caprices of King James’ translators were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them.  The word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere.  The Hebrew word “ebedh,” the plural of which is here translated “bondmen,” is in Isa. xlii. 1, applied to Christ.  “Behold my servant (bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen.”  So Isa. lii. 13.  “Behold my servant (Christ) shall deal prudently.”  In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, to King Rehoboam.  “And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a servant unto this people, then they will be thy servants forever.”  In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation.  In fine, the word is applied to all persons doing service for others—­to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to younger sons—­defining their relation to the first born, who is called Lord and ruler—­to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful addresses not less than fifty times in the Old Testament.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, if Abraham had thousands and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, why had their language no word that meant slave?  That language must be wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most common and familiar objects and conditions.  To represent by the same word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a solecism.  Ziba was an “ebedh,” yet he “owned” (!) twenty ebedhs!  In our language, we have both servant and slave.  Why?  Because we have both the things and need signs for them.  If the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some name for it:  but our dictionaries