arcanum of public opinion and belief, arguing and contending that the institutions of Moses made no difference between the condition of Hebrew servants and the negro bond men of the Canaanitish description; and have striven to cover the latter with the immunities and privileges of the former, as if there really was no difference intended in that law.
The rigor, so often alluded to in the law of Moses, which might be exercised upon bond servants of the Canaanitish or heathen race, but not on servants of the Hebrews, we do not understand to have consisted of personal abuse or torture, either by hunger, stripes, mutilations, or improper exposures of life or limb; for the law forbade this, where it is written, that if a master knocked out a tooth, or an eye of his servant, he should go free on those accounts, as is stated in Exodus xxi, 26, 27; and yet it is written in the same chapter, namely, the xxi, at the 20th and 22d verses, that "if a man smite his (man) servant, or his (maid) servant, with a rod, and he (or she) die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he (or she) continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he was his money.
From this text, it is almost impossible to deny that the law did but little in defense of the personal and physical happiness of bond servants among the Hebrews; there is no way to avoid this conclusion, as the texts to this point, either direct or indirect, are numerous.
But no such treatment is allowed of in the law toward Hebrew servants, as it is strictly forbidden to oppress them, or to rule over them with rigor in any
