5. In view of the fact that what we may call “religious privileges” included rest from labor and more or less of religious and social festivity, the law was very specific in stipulating that the man-servant and the maid-servant must share in all these equally with the son and the daughter. We see this in the law of the Sabbath; in the feast upon the second tithes (Deut. 12: 17, 18); and in two of the great festivals, viz. the Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut. 16: 11, 14).――――Thus they were put religiously and socially upon the same footing as children in the family. No ban of exclusion, no stigma of caste, could attach to their condition so long as these statutes were duly observed. 6. By usage and without the necessity of statute, Hebrew servants held property. The old American doctrine――“The slave can own nothing”――had no place in the system of Hebrew servitude. The proof is twofold:――――(a) The statutes provided that “if able he might redeem himself” (Lev. 25: 49). This permission would be only a taunting insult if in fact no Hebrew servant could hold property.――――(b). The light of history bears witness: Ziba was a servant of the house of Saul; but he had servants under him――a round score; “fifteen sons and _twenty_ servants” (2 Sam. 9: 10 and 19: 17), and seems to have had charge of cultivating Saul’s estates. Thus manifold and effective were the humane provisions which softened the severities of slavery, toning them down to a very tolerable system of servitude. _The Slavery that Existed before Moses._ We have spoken of Hebrew servitude as a _modified_ system――which raises the question――“modified” _from what_? What was the pre-existing system upon which these modifications were superinduced? A full answer must include (a) The patriarchal system as it appears in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: and (b) The system of Egypt and perhaps other contemporary nations.