yourselves." Isa. lii. 3, “Ye have sold yourselves FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall be redeemed without money.”  See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14; Rom. vii. 14, vi. 16; John, viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, already quoted.  In the purchase of wives, though spoken of rarely, it is generally stated that they were bought of third persons.  If servants were bought of third persons, it is strange that no instance of it is on record.

[Footnote A:  Those who insist that the servants which the Israelites were commanded to buy of “the heathen which were round about” them, were to be bought of third persons, virtually charge God with the inconsistency of recognizing and affirming the right of those very persons to freedom, upon whom, say they, he pronounced the doom of slavery.  For they tell us, that the sentence of death uttered against those heathen was commuted into slavery, which punishment God denounced against them.  Now if “the heathen round about” were doomed to slavery, the sellers were doomed as well as the sold.  Where, we ask, did the sellers get their right to sell?  God by commanding the Israelites to BUY, affirmed the right of somebody to sell, and that the ownership of what was sold existed somewhere; which right and ownership he commanded them to recognize and respect.  We repeat the question, where did the heathen sellers get their right to sell, since they were dispossessed of their right to themselves and doomed to slavery equally with those whom they sold.  Did God’s decree vest in them a right to others while it annulled their right to themselves?  If, as the objector’s argument assumes, one part of “the heathen round about” were already held as slaves by the other part, such of course were not doomed to slavery, for they were already slaves.  So also, if those heathen who held them as slaves had a right to hold them, which right God commanded the Israelites to buy out, thus requiring them to recognize it as a right, and on no account to procure its transfer to themselves without paying to the holders an equivalent, surely, these slaveholders were not doomed by God to be slaves, for according to the objector, God had himself affirmed their right to hold others as slaves, and commanded his people to respect it.]

We now proceed to inquire into the condition of servants under the patriarchal and Mosaic systems.

I. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF SERVANTS.

The leading design of the laws defining the relations of master and servant, was the good of both parties—­more especially the good of the servants.  While the master’s interests were guarded from injury, those of the servants were promoted.  These laws made a merciful provision for the poorer classes, both of the Israelites and Strangers, not laying on burdens, but lightening them—­they were a grant of privileges and favors.