The position of the slave in regard to religious privi- leges was favorable. He was to be circumcised (Gen. xvii, 12), and hence was entitled to partake of the Pas- chal sacrifice (Exod. xii, 44) as well as of the other re- ligious festivals (Dent, xii, 12, 18; xvi, 11, 14). It is implied that every slave must have been previously brought to the knowledge of the true God, and to a will- ing acceptance of the tenets of Judaism. This would naturally be the case with regard to all who were " born in the house," and who were to be circumcised at the usual age of eight days; but it is difficult to understand how those who were "bought with money," as adults, could always be induced to change their creed, or how they could be circumcised without having changed it. The Mosaic law certainly presupposes a universal ac- knowledgment of Jehovah within the limits of tlie promised land, and would therefore enforce the dismis- sal or extermination of slaves who persisted in hea- thenism.
The occupations of slaves were of a menial character, as implied in Lev. xxv, 39, consisting partly in the work of the house and partly in personal attendance on the master. Female slaves, for instance, ground the corn in the handmill (Exod. xi, 5; Job xxxi, 10; Isa. xlvii, 2), or gleaned in the harvest-field (Kuth ii,8). They also baked, washed, cooked, and nursed the children (Mishna,
KeiJiub. V, 5). The occupations of the men are not speci- fied ; the most trustworthy held confidential posts, such as that of steward or major-domo (Gen. xv, 2; xxiv, 2), of tutors to sons (Prov. xvii, 2), and of tenants to per- sons of large estate ; for such appears to have been the position of Ziba (2 Sam. ix, 2, 10).
In Mohammedan Asia the slaves termed "house- born" are regarded with peculiar esteem. They form part of their master's family, and their welfare is an ob- ject of his peculiar care. They are the most attached of his adherents, and often inherit a large share of his wealth. It is sometimes the practice of childless per- sons to adopt a favorite slave of this class as their own child and heir, or sometimes they purchase promising boys when young; and, after having brought them up in their own faith, formally adopt them as their children.
4. Gibeonitish Sei'vitude. — The condition of the in- habitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath- jearira, under the Hebrew commonwealth, was not that of slavery; it was voluntary (Josh, ix, 8-11 ). They were not employed in the families of the Israelites, but resided in their own cities, tended their own flocks and herds, and exercised the functions of a distinct, though not independent, community (x, 6-18). The injuries inflicted on them by Saul were avenged by the Al- mighty on his descendants (2 Sam. xxi, 1-9). They appear to have been devoted exclusively to the service of the " house of God," or the Tabernacle ; and onlj' a few of them, comparatively, could have been engaged at any one time. The rest dwelt in their cities, one of which was a great city, as one of the royal cities. The service they rendered may be regarded as a natural tribute for tlie privilege of protection. No service seems to have been required of their wives and daughters. On the return from the Babylonian captivity they dwelt at Ophel(Neh. iii, 26; see also 1 Chron. ix, 2; Ezra ii,43; Neh. vii, 24; viii, 17; x, 28; xi. 21). See Nkthinim.
5. Roman Slavery. — Our limits will not allow us to enter into detail on the only kind of slavery referred to in the New Test., for there is no indication that the Jews possessed any slaves in the time of Christ. Suf- fice it, therefore, to say that, in addition to the fact that Roman slavery was perpetual and hereditary, the slave had no protection whatever against the avarice, rage, or lust of his master. The bondman was viewed less as a human being, subject to arbitrary dominion, than as an inferior animal, dependent wholly on the will of his owner. The master possessed the uncontrolled power of life and death over his slave — a power which contin- ued, at least, to the time of the emperor Hadrian. He might, and frequently did, kill, mutilate, and torture his slaves, for any or for no offence, so that slaves were some- times crucified from mere caprice. He might force them to become prostitutes or gladiators; and, instead of the perpetual obligation of the marriage-tie, their temporary unions {contiiberni(i) were formed and dissolved at his command, families and friends were separated, and no obligation existed to provide for their wants in sickness or in health. But, notwithstanding all the barbarous cruelties of Roman slavery, it had one decided advan- tage over that which was introduced in modern times into European colonies — both law and custom being de- cidedly favorable to the freedom of the slave (Blair, In- quiry into the State of Slavery among the Romans [ 1833J), The Mohammedan law, also, in this respect, contrasts favorably with those of the European settlements.
Although the condition of the Roman slaves was no doubt improved under the emperors, the early effects of Christian principles were manifest in mitigating the horrors, and bringing about the gradual abolition, of slavery. Onesimus, according to the concurrent testi- mony of antiqinty, was liberated by Philemon (ver. 21); and in addition to the testimonies cited in Wright's <S/a- rery {ut infra, p. 60), see the preface of Euthalius to this epistle. The servile condition formed no obstacle to attaining the highest dignities of the Christian priest- hood. Our space will not allow us to pursue this sub-