(4) Sarah's Case. A curious fact is elicited by the peculiar circumstances in Sarah's case, which were almost the only circumstances that could have risen to try the question whether a mistress retained her power, as such, over a fe male slave whom she had thus vicariously em ployed, and over the progeny of that slave, even though by her own husband. The answer is given rather startlingly. in the affirmative in the words of Sarah, who, when the birth of Isaac had wholly changed her feelings and position, and when she was exasperated by the offensive con duct of lfagar and her son, addressed her husband thus: 'Cast forth this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with mv son, even with Isaac' (Gen. xxi:to).
(5) Previous Instance. A previous instance of adoption in the history of Abraham, when as yet he had no children, appears to be discoverable in his saying, 'One born in my house is mine heir.' This unquestionably denotes a house-born slave, as distinguished from one bought with money. Abraham had several such, and the one to whom he is supposed here to refer is his faith ful and devoted steward Eliezer. This, there fore, is a case in which a slave was adopted as a son—a practice still very common in the East. A boy is often purchased young, adopted by his master, brought up in his faith, and educated as his son; or, if the owner has a daughter, he adopts hint through a marriage with that daughter, and the family which springs from this union is counted as descended from him. But house-born slaves are usually preferred, as these have never had any home but their master's house, are con sidered members of his family, and are generally the most faithful of his adherents.
(6) Among the Romans. This practice of slave adoption was very common among the Romans, and, as such, is more than once referred to by St. Paul (Rom. viii :15; Gal. iv :5) ; the transition from the condition of a slave to that of a son, and the privilege of applying the tender name of 'Father' to the former 'Master,' affording a beautiful illustration of the change which takes place from the bondage of the law to the freedom and privileges of the Christian state.
As in most cases the adopted son was to be considered dead to the family from which he sprung, the separation of natural tics and con nections was avoided by this preference of slaves, who were mostly foreigners or of foreign descent.
(7) The Chinese. For the same reason the Chinese make their adoptions from children in the hospitals, who have been abandoned by their parents.
(8) The Tartars. The Tartars are the only people we know who prefer to adopt their near relatives—nephews or cousins, or, failing them, a Tartar of their own banner.
(9) Biblical Example. The only Scriptural example of this kind is that in which Jacob adopted his own grandsons, Ephraim and Manas seh, to be counted as his sons. Sonic have ques
tioned whether this was really an act of adoption, but it seems to us that there is no way in which an act of adoption could be more clearly expressed. Jacob says to Joseph, their father—'Thy two sons, Ephraim and :Manasseh, shall be mine; * * * as Reuben and Simeon (his two eldest sons). they shall be mine. But thy issue which thou begettest after them shall be thine' (Gen. xlviii:6).
(10) Result. The object of this remarkable adoption was, that whereas Joseph himself could only have one share of his father's heritage along with his brothers, the adoption of his two sons enabled Jacob, through them, to bestow two por tions upon his favorite son. One remarkable effect of this adoption was that the sons of Jacob, and the tribes which sprang from them, thus became thirteen instead of twelve; but the ulti mate exclusion of Levi from a share of territory rectified this so far as regarded the distribution of lands in Canaan.
(11) Moses. The adoption of Moses by Pha raoli's (laughter (Exod. ii:1-to) is an incident rather than a practice, but it recalls what has just been stated respecting the adoption of outcast children by the Chinese.
A man who had only a daughter would natu rally wish to build up a family, to be counted as his own, through her. We have seen that, under such circumstances, the daughter is often married to a freed slave, and the children counted as those of the woman's father, or the husband himself is adopted as a son. An instance of the former kind occurs in I Chron. ii :34, sq. Sheshan, of the tribe of Judah, gives his daughter to Jarha, an Egyptian slave (whom, as the Targum pre mises, he no doubt liberated on that occasion) ; the posterity of the marriage are not, however, reckoned to Jarha, the husband of the woman, but to her father, Sheshan, and as his descend ants they take their heritage and station in Israel. The same chapter gives another instance (I Chron. ii :21 ; Num. xxvii :1) : (12) Machir. Machir (grandson of Joseph) gives his daughter in marriage to Hezron, of the tribe of Judah. She gave birth to Segub, who was the father of Jair. This Jair possessed twenty three cities in the land of Gilead, which came to him in right of his grandmother, the daughter of Machir, and he acquired other towns in the same quarter, which made up his possessions to threescore towns or villages (i Chron. ii :21-24 ; Josh. xiii :3o: I Kings iv :13). Now this Jair, though of the tribe of Judah by his grandfather, is, in Num. xxxii :41, counted as of Manasseh, for the obvious reason which the comparison of these texts suggests, that, through his grand mother, he inherited the property, and was the lineal representative of Machir, the son of Ma nasseh.