The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume I Part 33

xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a _right_ to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right of choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, "to give the master a right to _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_." Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a quite another thing to have a right to buy him of _another_ man.[A]

[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose of even the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers whom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not the argument.]

Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as WIVES. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be redeemed."[B]

[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this pa.s.sage is as follows:--"A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV.

Sec. XI. Jarchi, on the same pa.s.sage, says, "He is bound to espouse her to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her _espousal_."]

VII. VOLUNTARY SERVANTS FROM THE STRANGERS.

We infer that _all_ the servants from the Strangers were voluntary in becoming such, since we have direct testimony that some of them were so.

"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, OR OF THY STRANGERS that are in thy land within thy gates." Deut. xxiv. 14. We learn from this that some of the servants, which the Israelites obtained from the strangers were procured by presenting the inducement of _wages_ to their _free choice_, thus recognizing their right to sell their services to others, or not, at their own pleasure. Did the Israelites, when they went among the heathen to procure servants, take money in one hand and ropes in the other? Did they _ask_ one man to engage in their service, and _drag_ along with them the next that they met, in spite of his struggles. Did they knock for admission at one door and break down the next? Did they go through one village with friendly salutations and respectful demeanor, and with the air of those soliciting favors, offer wages to the inhabitants as an inducement to engage in their service--while they sent on their agents to prowl through the next, with a kidnapping posse at their heels, to tear from their homes as many as they could get within their clutches?

VIII. HEBREW SERVANTS VOLUNTARY.

We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his service, because he was preeminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his master, the law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more, his master was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get rid of him.

IX. THE MANNER OF PROCURING SERVANTS, AN APPEAL TO CHOICE.

The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to BUY them[A]--that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_.

Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency? NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they had earned enough to make rest.i.tution to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has nothing to do with the condition of servants.]

X. INCIDENTAL CORROBORATIVES. Various incidental expressions corroborate the idea that servants became such by their own contract. Job. xli. 4, is an ill.u.s.tration, "Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt thou take him for a SERVANT forever?" Isa. xiv. 1, 2 is also an ill.u.s.tration. "The strangers shall be joined with them (the Israelites) and _they shall_ CLEAVE to the house of Jacob, and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants and handmaids."

The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they came to Joseph and said, "There is not aught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25th verse, "We will be Pharaoh's servants." To these it may be added, that the sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present, were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i.

2. 3.

The pertinence and point of our Lord's declaration in Luke xvi. 13, is destroyed on the supposition that servants did not become such by _their own choice_. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other." Let it be kept in mind, that our Lord was a _Jew_. The lost sheep of the house of Israel were his flock. Wherever he went, they were around him: whenever he spake, they were his auditors. His public preaching and his private teaching and conversation, were full of references to their own inst.i.tutions, laws and usages, and of ill.u.s.trations drawn from them. In the verse quoted, he ill.u.s.trates the impossibility of their making choice of G.o.d as their portion, and becoming his servants, while they chose the world, and were _its_ servants. To make this clear, he refers to one of their own inst.i.tutions, that of _domestic service_, with which, in all its relations, incidents and usages, they were perfectly familiar. He reminds them of the well-known impossibility of any person being the servant of two masters, and declares the sole ground of that impossibility to be, the fact that the servant _chooses_ the service of the one, and _spurns_ that of the other. "He shall _hold to_ the one and _despise_ (reject) the other." As though our Lord had said, "No one can become the servant of another, when his will revolts from his service, and when the conditions of it tend to make him hate the man." Since the fact that the servant _spurns_ one of two masters, makes it impossible for him to serve _that one_, if he spurned _both_ it would make it impossible for him to serve _either_. So, also, if the fact that an individual did not "hold to" or choose the service of another, proves that he could not become his servant, then the question, whether or not he should become the servant of another was suspended on _his own will_.

Further, the phraseology of the pa.s.sage shows that the _choice_ of the servant decided the question. "He will HOLD TO the one,"--hence there is no difficulty in the way of his serving _him_; but "no servant can serve" a master whom he does not "_hold to_," or _cleave_ to, whose service he does not _choose_. This is the sole ground of the impossibility a.s.serted by our Lord.

The last clause of the verse furnishes an application of the principle a.s.serted in the former part, "Ye cannot serve G.o.d and mammon." Now in what does the impossibility of serving both G.o.d and the world consist?

Solely in the fact that the will which chooses the one refuses the other, and the affections which "hold to" the one, reject the other.

Thus the question, Which of the two is to be served, is suspended alone upon the _choice_ of the individual.

XI. RICH STRANGERS DID NOT BECOME SERVANTS. Indeed, so far were they from becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish servants. Lev. xxv. 47. Since _rich_ strangers did not become servants to the Israelites, we infer that those who _did_, became such not because they were _strangers_, but because they were _poor_,--not because, on account of their being heathen, they were _compelled by force_ to become servants, but because, on account of their _poverty_, they _chose_ to become servants to better their condition.

XII. INSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SERVANTS. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants who were manifestly VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha.

1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. 2 Kings ii.

5. The word translated master, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1; iv.

10. Joshua was the servant of Moses. Ex. x.x.xiii. 11. Num. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27. See also the case of the Gibeonites who _voluntarily_ became servants to the Israelites and afterwards performed service for the "house of G.o.d" throughout the subsequent Jewish history, were incorporate with the Israelites, registered in the genealogies, and manifestly of their own accord remained with them, and "_clave_" to them. Neh. x. 28, 29; xi. 3; Ez.

vii. 7.

Finally, in all the regulations respecting servants and their service, no form of expression is employed from which it could be inferred, that servants were made such, and held in that condition by force. Add to this the entire absence of all the machinery, appurtenances and incidents of _compulsion_.

Voluntary service on the part of servants would have been in keeping with regulations which abounded in the Mosaic system and sustained by a mult.i.tude of a.n.a.logies. Compulsory service on the other hand, could have harmonized with nothing, and would have been the solitary disturbing force, marring its design, counteracting its tendencies, and confusing and falsifying its types. The directions given to regulate the performance of service for the _public_, lay great stress on the _willingness_ of those employed to perform it. For the spirit and usages that obtained under the Mosaic system in this respect, see 1 Chron.

xxviii. 21; Ex. x.x.xv. 5, 21, 22, 29; 1 Chron. xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, 17; Ex.

xxv. 2; Judges v. 2; Lev. xxii. 29; 2 Chron. x.x.xv. 8; Ezra i. 6; Ex.

x.x.xv; Neh. xi. 2.[A]

[Footnote A: We should naturally infer that the directions which regulated the rendering of service to individuals, would proceed upon the same principle in this respect with those which regulated the rendering of service to the _public_. Otherwise the Mosaic system, instead of const.i.tuting in its different parts a harmonious _whole_, would be divided against itself; its principles counteracting and nullifying each other.]

Again, the voluntariness of servants is a natural inference from the fact that the Hebrew word _ebedh,_ uniformly rendered _servant_, is applied to a great variety of cla.s.ses and descriptions of persons under the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, _all of whom_ were voluntary and most of them eminently so. For instance, it is applied to persons rendering acts of _worship_ about seventy times, whereas it is applied to _servants_ not more than half that number of times.

To this we may add, that the ill.u.s.trations drawn from the condition and service of _servants_ and the ideas which the term servant is employed to convey when applied figuratively to moral subjects would, in most instances, lose all their force, and often become absurdities if the will of the servant _resisted_ his service, and he performed it only by _compulsion_. Many pa.s.sages will at once occur to those who are familiar with the Bible. We give a single example. "_To whom YE YIELD YOURSELVES servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey._" Rom. vi. 16. It would hardly be possible to a.s.sert the voluntariness of servants more strongly in a direct proposition than it is here a.s.serted by implication.

III. WERE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY

As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue.

1. BECAUSE G.o.d REBUKED THE USING OF SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, AND GIVETH HIM NOT FOR HIS WORK." Jer. xxii. 13. The Hebrew word _rea_, translated _neighbor_, means any one with whom we have to do--all descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"As when a man riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR." Ex. xx. 16. "If a man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." Ex. xxi. 14, &c. The doctrine plainly inculcated in this pa.s.sage is, that every man's labor, or "service,"

being his own property, he is ent.i.tled to the profit of it, and that for another to "use" it without paying him the value of it, is "unrighteousness." The last clause of the verse "and giveth him not for his work," reaffirms the same principle, that every man is to be _paid_ for "his work." In the context, the prophet contrasts the unrighteousness of those who used the labor of others without pay, with the justice and equity practiced by their patriarchal ancestor toward the poor. "Did not thy father eat and drink and _do judgment and justice_, and then it was well with him. He _judged the cause of the poor and needy_; then it was well with him. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy _covetousness_, and for to shed innocent blood, and for _oppression_, and for violence to do it." Jer. xxii. 15, 16. 17.[A]

[Footnote A: Paul lays down the same principle in the form of a precept "Masters give unto your servants that which is JUST and EQUAL." Col. iv.

1. Thus not only a.s.serting the _right_ of the servant to an equivalent for his labor, and the duty of the master to render it, but condemning all those relations between master and servant which were not founded upon justice and equality of rights. The apostle James enforces the same principle. "Behold, the hire of the laborers, who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back _by fraud_, crieth." James v. 4. As though he had said, "wages are the _right_ of laborers; those who work for you have a just claim on you for _pay_; this you refuse to render, and thus _defraud_ them by keeping from them what _belongs_ to them."

See also Mal. iii 5.]

II. G.o.d TESTIFIES THAT IN OUR DUTY TO OUR FELLOW MEN, ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS HANG UPON THIS COMMAND, "THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of strangers, "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others as ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, would be a stronger ill.u.s.tration still of the law of love! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it."

III. SERVANTS WERE OFTEN WEALTHY. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David "Two hundred loaves of bread, and a hundred bunches of raisins, and a hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 47-49, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be _redeemed,_ either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable property _after_ he became a servant.

If it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v.

22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if servants could "own nothing, nor acquire anything," to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft.[B] But since it was common for servants to own property, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, though he rebuked him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency.

1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_.

That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from its being a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. When Jacob became the servant of Laban, it was evidently from poverty, yet Laban said to him, Tell me "what shall thy _wages_ be?" After Jacob had been his servant for ten years, he proposed to set up for himself, but Laban said "Appoint me thy wages and I will give it," and he paid him his price.

During the twenty years that Jacob was a servant, he always worked for wages and at his own price. Gen. xxix. 15, 18; x.x.x. 28-33. The case of the Gibeonites, who, after becoming servants, still occupied their cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for centuries;[C] and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, who worked out their "tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically relieving each other, are additional ill.u.s.trations of independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and now, yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]

[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing a large amount of money? They _"know how to take care of themselves"_ quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on such a small scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make detection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then, and a gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in the footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if, after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their betters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, at a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried on around them! Ign.o.ble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellencies," and to emulate the ill.u.s.trious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very Reverends!_ Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their _situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as well as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take a _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who would slay him?"]

[Footnote C: The Nethinims, which name was afterwards given to the Gibeonites on account of their being _set apart_ for the service of the tabernacle, had their own houses and cities and "dwelt every one in his own possession." Neh. xi. 3. 21; Ezra ii. 70; 1 Chron. ix. 2.]

Again. The Israelites often _hired_ servants from the strangers. Deut.

xxiv. 17.

Since then it is certain that they gave wages to a part of their Canaanitish servants, thus recognizing their _right_ to a reward for their labor, we infer that they did not rob the rest of their earnings.

If G.o.d gave them a license to make the strangers work for them without pay--if this was good and acceptable in His sight, and _right and just in itself_, they must have been great fools to have wasted their money by paying wages when they could have saved it, by making the strangers do all their work for nothing! Besides, by refusing to avail themselves of this "Divine license," they despised the blessing and cast contempt on the giver! But far be it from us to do the Israelites injustice; perhaps they seized all the Canaanites they could lay their hands on, and forced them to work without pay, but not being able to catch enough to do their work, were obliged to offer wages in order to eke out the supply!

The parable of our Lord, contained in Mat. xviii. 23-34, not only derives its significance from the fact, that servants can both _own_ and _owe_ and _earn_ property, over which they had the control, but would be made a medley of contradictions on any other supposition.--1. Their lord at a set time proceeded to "take account" and "reckon" with his servants; the phraseology itself showing that the relations between the parties, were those of debt and credit. 2. As the reckoning went on, one of his servants was found to _owe_ him ten thousand talents. From the fact that the servant _owed_ this to his master, we naturally infer, that he must have been at some time, and in some way, the responsible _owner_ of that amount, or of its substantial equivalent. Not that he had had that amount put into his hands to invest, or disburse, in his master's name, merely as his _agent_, for in that case no claim of _debt_ for value received would lie, but, that having sustained the responsibilities of legal _proprietorship_, he was under the liabilities resulting therefrom. 3. Not having on hand wherewith to pay, he says to his master "have patience with me _and I will pay thee all_." If the servant had been his master's _property_, his time and earnings belonged to the master as a matter of course, hence the promise to earn and pay over that amount, was virtually saying to his master, "I will take money out of your pocket with which to pay my debt to you," thus adding insult to injury. The promise of the servant to pay the debt on condition that the time for payment should be postponed, not only proceeds upon the fact that his time was his own, that he was constantly earning property or in circ.u.mstances that enabled him to earn it, and that he was the _proprietor_ of his earnings, but that his master had _full knowledge_ of that fact.--In a word, the supposition that the master was the _owner_ of the servant, would annihilate all legal claim upon him for value received, and that the servant was the _property_ of the master, would absolve him from all obligations of debt, or rather would always _forestall_ such obligations--for the relations of owner and creditor in such case, would annihilate each other, as would those of _property_ and _debtor_. The fact that the same servant was the creditor of one of his fellow servants, who owed him a considerable sum, and that at last he was imprisoned until he should pay all that was due to his master, are additional corroborations of the same point.

IV. HEIRSHIP.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property; especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family.

Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, Gen. xv. 23; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth; Jarha, the servant of Sheshan, who married his daughter, and thus became his heir, he having no sons, and the _husbandmen_ who said of their master's son, "this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are ill.u.s.trations; also Prov. x.x.x. 23, an _handmaid_ (or _maid-servant_,) that is _heir_ to her mistress; also Prov. xvii. 2--"A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This pa.s.sage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and plunder of earnings, a cla.s.s of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their daughters?