That the father, in the patriarchal state, as well as at Rome, had the power of life and death over the son, as much as he could have it over the bondman, we see from the story in which Abraham consents to sacrifice Isaac, without any scruple on the ground of moral right, though doubtless with the deepest feelings of paternal sorrow. Ignorance of this fact has led to mistaken judgments, sometimes expressed in very strong language, as to the morality of the story, which, in its issue, is an abrogation of human sacrifices, such as were offered by the neighbouring nations, who made their children pass through the fire to Moloch.
It will also be seen from the same passage that the oath of a bondman was as good as that of a freeman. “Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth,” &c. In Greece during the classical times, or at Rome, a bondman’s oath would have been worth little. It would scarcely have been supposed that the Gods stooped to guard the faith or punish the perjury of a Slave.
The servant prays to God and blesses Him as “the God of his master Abraham” because the persons of all the tribe were gathered up as it were into the sacred person of the chief, and came into relation with God and with other tribes through him. So at Rome, the father of the family represented all its members before the Gods and the State.
Laban, the free head of a family, receives Abraham’s servant quite as an equal. “And he said, Come in, thou blessed of the Lord; wherefore standest thou
