The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume I Part 34

V. ALL WERE REQUIRED TO PRESENT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES. Deut. xvi. 16, 17; 2 Chron. xv. 9-11; Numb. ix. 13, 14. Beside this, "every man" from twenty years old and above, was required to pay a tax of half a shekel at the taking of the census; this is called "an offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for their souls." Ex. x.x.x. 12-16. See also Ex.

x.x.xiv. 20. Servants must have had permanently the means of _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.

VI. SERVANTS WHO WENT OUT AT THE SEVENTH YEAR, WERE "FURNISHED LIBERALLY." Deut. xv. 10-14. "Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy G.o.d hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him."[A]

If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a like bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable cla.s.s of _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the seventh year,_ but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued cla.s.s of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this pa.s.sage is as follows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say, _'Loading, ye shall load him,'_ likewise every one of his family with as much as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be avariciously asked, 'How much must I give him?' I say unto _you, not less than thirty shekels,_ which is the valuation of a servant, as declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec.

3.]

VII. SERVANTS WERE BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in advance.[A] Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course received the compensation for themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their children till they became of age,[B] a mere reference to the fact is all that is required for the purposes of this argument. As all the strangers in the land were required to pay an annual tribute to the government, the Israelites might often "buy" them as family servants, by stipulating with them to pay their annual tribute. This a.s.sumption of their obligations to the government might cover the whole of the servant's time of service, or a part of it, at the pleasure of the parties.

[Footnote A: But, says the objector, if servants received their pay in advance, and if the Israelites were forbidden to surrender the fugitive to his master, it would operate practically as a bounty offered to all servants who would leave their master's service encouraging them to make contracts, get their pay in advance and then run away, thus cheating their masters out of their money as well as their own services.--We answer, the prohibition, Deut xxiii. 15. 16, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master," &c., sets the servant free from his _authority_ and of course, from all those liabilities of injury, to which _as his servant_, he was subjected, but not from the obligation of legal contracts. If the servant had received pay in advance, and had not rendered an equivalent for this "value received," he was not absolved from his obligation to do so, but he was absolved from all obligations to pay his master in _that particular way_, that is, _by working for him as his servant_.]

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen years.]

VIII. THE RIGHT OF SERVANTS TO COMPENSATION IS RECOGNISED IN Ex. xxi.

27. "And if he smite out his man-servant's, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." This regulation is manifestly based upon the _right_ of the servant to the _use_ of himself and all this powers, faculties and personal conveniences, and consequently his just claim for remuneration, upon him, who should however _unintentionally_, deprive him of the use even of the least of them. If the servant had a right to his _tooth_ and the use _of_ it, upon the same principle, he had a right to the rest of his body and the use of it. If he had a right to the _fraction_, and if it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for; he had a right to the _sum total_, and it was his to hold, to use, and to have pay for.

IX. WE FIND MASTERS AT ONE TIME HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF SERVANTS, AND AFTERWARDS NONE, WITH NO INTIMATION IN ANY CASE THAT THEY WERE SOLD. The wages of servants would enable them to set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and had many servants. Gen. x.x.x.

43; x.x.xii. 16. But all these servants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32. The case of Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, who had twenty servants, has been already mentioned.

X. G.o.d'S TESTIMONY TO THE CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM. Gen. xviii. 19. "For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT." G.o.d here testifies that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the Lord."

What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "Wo unto him that useth this neighbor's service WITHOUT WAGES!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is JUST AND EQUAL." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their DUES." Rom.

xiii. 7. "The laborer is WORTHY of HIS HIRE." Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to "_do justice_" to others? By doing injustice to _them_? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire"

by robbing them of _theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying _them_ "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very _Aristides_ in justice, then ill.u.s.trious examples, patriarchal dignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway against human perverseness!

XI. SPECIFIC PRECEPTS OF THE MOSAIC LAW ENFORCING GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic animals. Isa. x.x.x. 24. A _particular_ kind of service, _all_ kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man in a _certain_ way,--a general principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be enjoined, by G.o.d, both for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment of _a brute_, what would be a meet return for the services of _man?_--MAN with his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor.

ix. 9, 10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth G.o.d take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR sakes? that he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, and that he that thresheth in hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE." In the context, Paul innumerates the four grand divisions of labor among the Jews in ill.u.s.tration of the principle that the laborer, whatever may be the service he performs, is ent.i.tled to a _reward_. The priests, Levites and all engaged in sacred things--the military, those who tended flocks and herds, and those who cultivated the soil. As the latter employment engaged the great body of the Israelites, the Apostle amplifies his ill.u.s.tration under that head by much detail--and enumerates the five great departments of agricultural labor among the Jews--vine-dressing, plowing, sowing, reaping and threshing, as the representatives of universal labor. In his epistle to Timothy. 1 Tim. v. 18. Paul quotes again this precept of the Mosaic law, and connects with it the declaration of our Lord. Luke x. 7. "The laborer is worthy of his hire,"--as both inculcating the _same_ doctrine, that he who labors, whatever the employment, or whoever the laborer, is ent.i.tled to a reward. The Apostle thus declares the principle of right respecting the performance of service for others, and the rule of duty towards those who perform it, to be the same under both dispensations. (2.) "If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, YEA THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy G.o.d. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35-37. Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY? Did G.o.d declare the poor stranger ent.i.tled to RELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize them to "use his service without wages;" force him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS?

IV.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?

This topic has been unavoidably somewhat antic.i.p.ated, in the foregoing discussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.

I. SERVANTS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES NOR LIABLE TO THE CONTINGENCIES OF PROPERTY. 1 _They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts_. Children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isa. l. 1; Matt.

xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the soil; Lev. xxv.

27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26, 27; Deut. xxiv. 10-13; Matt. v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were taken in _no instance_. 2. _Servants were never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts was pledged for value received; household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets, personal ornaments, &c., but no servants. 3. _Servants were not put into the hands of others, or consigned to their keeping_. The precept giving directions how to proceed in a case where property that has life is delivered to another "to keep," and "it die or be hurt or driven away,"

enumerates oxen, a.s.ses, sheep or "any _beast_," but not "_servants_."

Ex. xxii. 10. 4. _All lost property was to be restored_. Oxen, a.s.ses, sheep, raiment, and "all lost things," are specified--servants _not_.

Deut. xxii 1-3. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the runaway servant. Deut. xxiii, 15. 5. _Servants were not sold_. When by flagrant misconduct, unfaithfulness or from whatever cause, they had justly forfeited their privilege of membership in an Israelitish family, they were not sold, but _expelled_ from the household. Luke xvi. 2-4; 2 Kings v. 20, 27; Gen. xxi. 14. 6 _The Israelites never received servants as tribute_. At different times all the nations round about them were their tributaries and paid them annually large amounts. They received property of all kinds in payment of tribute. Gold, silver, bra.s.s, iron, precious stone, and vessels, armor, spices, raiment, harness, horses, mules, sheep, goats, &c., are in various places enumerated, but _servants_, never. 7. _The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents_. They made costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of domestic animals, beds, merchandize, family utensils, precious metals, grain, honey, b.u.t.ter, cheese, fruits, oil, wine, raiment, armor, &c., are among their recorded _gifts_. Giving presents to superiors and persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv.

18, 19. Abigail the wife of Nabal to David, 1 Sam. xxv. 18. David to the elders of Judah, 1 Sam. x.x.x. 26. Jehoshaphat to his sons, 2. Chron. xxi.

3. The Israelites to David, 1. Chron. xii. 39, 40. Shobi Machir and Barzillai to David, 2 Sam. xvii. 28, 29. But no servants were given as presents, though it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations.

Gen. xii. 16, xx. 14. In the last pa.s.sage we are told that Abimelech king of the Philistines "took sheep and oxen and men servants and women servants and gave them unto Abraham." Not long after this Abraham made Abimelech a present, the same kind with that which he had received from him except that he gave him _no servants_. "And Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them unto Abimelech." Gen. xxi. 27. It may be objected that Laban "GAVE" handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, suffice it to say that the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and 1 Chron. v. 1; also by the equality of their children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban given them as _articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "good old slaveholder and patriarch," Saint Laban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation when he found that his "G.o.dS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the desert in hot pursuit seven days by forced marches; how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit; invoking his protection, and the benediction, of his "G.o.dS!" Again, it may be objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If that proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's WIFE, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his a.s.s, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories of mere property, if servants are included, it is in such a way as to show that they are not regarded as property. Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the design is to show, not merely the wealth, but the _greatness_ and _power_ of any one, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if _riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if _greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2, 5. "And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." Yet we are told, in the verse preceding, that he came up out of Egypt "with _all_ that he had."

"And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned, "And there was a strife between the HERDMEN of Abraham's cattle and the HERDMEN of Lot's cattle." It is said of Isaac.

"And the man waxed _great_, and went forward, and grew until he became _very great_. For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and _great store of servants_." In immediate connection with this we find Abimelech the king of the Philistines saying to him. "Thou art much _mightier_ than we." Shortly after this avowal, Isaac is waited upon by a deputation consisting of Abimelech, Phicol the chief captain of his army, and Ahuzzath, who says to him "Let there be now an oath betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee, that thou wilt _do us no hurt_." Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29.--A plain concession of the _power_ which Isaac had both for aggression and defence in his "great store of _servants_;" that is, of willing and affectionate adherents to him as a just and benevolent prince. When Hamor and Shechem speak to the Hivites of the _riches_ of Abraham and his sons, they say, "Shall not their _cattle_ and their _substance_ and _every beast of theirs_ be ours?" Gen. x.x.xiv. 23. See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. x.x.xiv. 23; Job.

xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; x.x.xii. 27-29; Job. i. 3-5; Deut. viii. 12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35; xxvi. 13; x.x.x. 43. Jacob's wives say to him, "All the _riches_ which G.o.d has taken from our father that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of property--"All his cattle,"

"all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." His numerous servants are not included with his property. Comp. Gen. x.x.x. 43, with Gen. x.x.xi.

16-18. When Jacob sent messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that he had "oxen, and a.s.ses, and flocks, and men-servants, and maid-servants." Gen. x.x.xii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants; though he manifestly selected the _most valuable_ kinds of property. Gen. x.x.xii. 14, 15; see also Gen. x.x.xvi. 6, 7; x.x.xiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of cattle, which would require many herdsmen. When Jacob and his sons went down into Egypt it is repeatedly a.s.serted that they took _all that they had_. "Their cattle and their goods which they had gotten in the land of Canaan," "Their flocks and their herds" are mentioned, but no _servants_. And as we have besides a full catalogue of the _household_, we know that he took with him no servants. That Jacob _had_ many servants before his migration into Egypt, we learn from Gen, x.x.x. 43; x.x.xii. 5, 16, 19. That he was not the _proprietor_ of these servants as his property is a probable inference from the fact that he did not take them with him, since we are expressly told that he did take all his _property_. Gen. xlv. 10; xlvi. 1, 32; xlvii. 1. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mere property_, the terms used to express the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word _mikne_, is an ill.u.s.tration. It is derived from _kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth, riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to _mere property_, generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in distinction from the _mikne_. "And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their SUBSTANCE that they had gathered; and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan." Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these _souls_ were a part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)--that they were slaves taken with him in his migration as a part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten?_" Until the African slave trade breathed its haze into the eyes of the church and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, "The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings."

Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers, "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan all render it, "All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present translation of the Bible, renders it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they had converted from idolatry." Paulus f.a.gius,[B] "Quas inst.i.tuerant in religione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke Francke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago, "Quas legi subjicerant."--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law." The same distinction is made between _persons_ and property, in the enumeration of Esau's household and the inventory of his effects. "And Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters, and all the _persons_ of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his _substance_ which he had got in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob. For their _riches_ were more than that they might dwell together; and the land could not bear them because of their _cattle_." Gen. x.x.xvi. 6, 7.

[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament. The Targum of Onkelos is, for the most part, a very accurate and faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at about the commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, bears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably about five hundred years later. The Israelites, during their captivity in Babylon, lost, as a body, their own language. These translations into the Chaldee, the language which they acquired in Babylon, were thus called for by the necessity of the case.]

[Footnote B: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England to superintend the translation of the Bible into English, under the patronage of Henry the Eighth. He had hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a century before the date of our present translation.]

II. THE CONDITION AND SOCIAL ESTIMATION OF SERVANTS MAKE THE DOCTRINE THAT THEY WERE COMMODITIES, AN ABSURDITY. As the head of a Jewish family possessed the same power over his wife, children, and grandchildren (if they were in his family) as over his servants, if the latter were articles of property, the former were equally such. If there were nothing else in the Mosaic Inst.i.tutes or history establishing the social equality of the servants with their masters and their master's wives and children, those precepts which required that they should be guests at all the public feasts, and equal partic.i.p.ants in the family and social rejoicings, would be quite sufficient to settle the question. Deut. xii.

12, 18; xvi. 10, 11, 13, 14. Ex. xii. 43, 44. St. Paul's testimony in Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, though he be lord of all." That the interests of Abraham's servants were identified with those of their master's family, and that the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being armed. Gen. xiv.

14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him. "Drink, MY LORD," as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the brother of Rebecca, "ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his feet, and the men's feet that were with him!" In the arrangements of Jacob's household on his journey from Padanaram to Canaan, we find his two maid servants treated in the same manner and provided with the same accommodations as Rachel and Leah. Each of them had a separate tent appropriated to her use. Gen. x.x.xi. 33. The social equality of servants with their masters and other members of their master's families, is an obvious deduction from Ex. xxi. 7, 10, from which we learn that the sale of a young Jewish female as a servant, was also _betrothed as a wife_, either to her master, or to one of his sons. In 1 Sam. ix. is an account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only "about thirty persons"

were invited. Quite a select party!--the elite of the city. Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and _both_ of them, at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And Samuel took Saul and his SERVANT, and brought THEM into the PARLOR (!) and made THEM sit in the CHIEFEST SEATS among those that were bidden." A _servant_ invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, who was at the same time anointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by Samuel into the PARLOR, and a.s.signed, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at the table! This was "_one_ of the servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the steward or the chief of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but "_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after a.s.ses. David seems to have been for a time in all respects a servant in Saul's family. He "_stood before him_." "And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, let David, I pray thee, _stand before me_." He was Saul's personal servant, went on his errands, played on the harp for his amus.e.m.e.nt, bore his armor for him, and when he wished to visit his parents, asked permission of Jonathan, Saul's son. Saul also calls him "my servant." 1 Sam. xvi. 21-23; xviii. 5; xx. 5, 6; xxii. 8. Yet David sat with the king at meat, married his daughter, and lived on terms of the closest intimacy with the heir apparent of the throne. Abimelech, who was first elected king of Shechem, and afterwards reigned over all Israel, _was the son of a_ MAID-SERVANT. His mother's family seems to have been of much note in the city of Shechem, where her brothers manifestly held great sway. Judg. ix. 1-6, 18. Jarha, an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, married his daughter. Tobiah, "the servant" and an Ammonite married the daughter of Shecaniah one of the chief men among the Jews in Jerusalem and was the intimate a.s.sociate of Sanballat the governor of the Samaritans. We find Elah, the King of Israel, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9.

See also the intercourse between Gideon and his servants. Judg. vi. 27, and vii. 10, 11. The Levite of Mount Ephraim and his servant. Judg. xx.

3, 9, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22. King Saul and his servant Doeg, one of his herdmen. 1 Sam. xx. 1, 7; xxii. 9, 18, 22. King David and Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth. 2 Sam. xvi. 1-4. Jonathan and his servant. 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14. Elisha and his servant, Gehazi. 2 Kings iv. v. vi. Also between Joram king of Israel and the servant of Elisha. 2 Kings viii. 4, 5, and between Naaman "the Captain of the host of the king of Syria" and the same person. 2 Kings v. 21-23. The fact stated under a previous head that servants were always invited guests at public and social festivals, is in perfect keeping with the foregoing exemplifications of the prevalent estimation in which servants were held by the Israelites.

Probably no one of the Old Testament patriarchs had more servants than Job; "This man was the greatest man of all the men of the east." Job, i.

3. We are not left in the dark as to the condition of his servants.

After a.s.serting his integrity, his strict justice, honesty, and equity, in his dealings with his fellow men, and declaring "I delivered the poor," "I was eyes to the blind and feet was I to the lame," "I was a father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not I searched out," * *

* he says "If I did despise the cause of my man-servant or my maid-servant when they CONTENDED with me * * * then let mine arm fall from the shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone." Job.

xxix. 12, 15, 16; x.x.xi. 13, 22. The language employed in this pa.s.sage is the phraseology applied in judicial proceedings to those who implead one another, and whether it be understood literally or figuratively, shows that whatever difference existed between Job and his servants in other respects, so far as _rights_ are concerned, they were on equal ground with him, and that in the matter of daily intercourse, there was not the least restraint on their _free speech_ in calling in question all his transactions with them, and that the relations and claims of both parties were adjudicated on the principles of equity and reciprocal right. "If I _despised_ the cause of my man-servant," &c. In other words, if I treated it lightly, as though servants were not men, had not rights, and had not a claim for just dues and just estimation as human beings. "When they _contended_ with me," that is, when they plead their rights, claimed what was due to them, or questioned the justice of any of my dealings with them.

In the context Job virtually affirms as the ground of his just and equitable treatment of his servants, that they had the same rights as he had, and were, as human beings, ent.i.tled to equal consideration with himself. By what language could he more forcibly utter his conviction of the oneness of their common origin and of the ident.i.ty of their common nature, necessities, attribute and rights? As soon as he has said, "If I did despise the cause of my man-servant," &c., he follows it up with "What then shall I do when G.o.d raiseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make _him_? and did not one fashion us in the womb." In the next verse Job glories in the fact that he has not "_withheld from the poor their desire_." Is it the "desire" of the poor to be _compelled_ by the rich to work for them, and without _pay_?

III. THE CASE OF THE GIBEONITES. The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils made desperate s.n.a.t.c.hes at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to mock them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron could not extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites? 1. _It was voluntary_. Their own proposition to Joshua was to become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross imposition came to light; they were then a.s.signed to menial offices in the Tabernacle. 2. _They were not domestic servants in the families of the Israelites_. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the functions of a _distinct_, though not independent community. They were subject to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. So far from being distributed among the Israelites and their internal organization as a distinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--it was rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities. Josh. x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and G.o.d sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement?" At their demand, he delivered up to them seven of Saul's descendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no intimation that they served either families or individuals of the Israelites, but only the "house of G.o.d," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at Gilgal, a days' journey from their cities; and then at Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them; where it continued about 350 years. During this period the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as _at home_.

It is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into cla.s.ses, ministering in rotation--each cla.s.s a few days or weeks at a time. As the priests whose a.s.sistants they were, served by courses in rotation a week at a time; it is not improbable that their periods of service were so arranged as to correspond. This service was their _national tribute_ to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to have been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition and lying, we might a.s.suredly expect that they would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels, if there was _any_ case in which G.o.d permitted them to do so.

IV. EGYPTIAN BONDAGE a.n.a.lYZED. Throughout the Mosaic system, G.o.d warns the Israelites against holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the Egyptians. How often are they pointed back to the grindings of their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and kindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened judgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all within them that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"--waking anew the memory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them. But what was the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt? Of what rights were they plundered and what did they retain?

1. _They were not dispersed among the families of Egypt,[A] but formed a separate community_. Gen. xlvi. 34. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi.

7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. 2. _They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen,[B] "the best part of the land" of Egypt_. Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27; Ex. viii. 22; ix. 26; xii. 4.

Goshen must have been at a considerable distance from those parts of Egypt inhabited by the Egyptians; so far at least as to prevent their contact with the Israelites, since the reason a.s.signed for locating them in Goshen was, that shepherds were "an abomination to the Egyptians;"

besides, their employments would naturally lead them out of the settled parts of Egypt to find a free range of pasturage for their immense flocks and herds. 3. _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not _tents_. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_. Acts vii. 20. Ex.

xii. 4--and judging from the regulation about the eating of the Pa.s.sover, they could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4; probably contained separate apartments, as the entertainment of sojourners seems to have been a common usage. Ex. iii. 23; and also places for concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. 4. _They owned "flocks and herds," and "very much cattle_." Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the fact that "_every man_" was commanded to kill either a lamb or a kid, one year old, for the Pa.s.sover, before the people left Egypt, we infer that even the poorest of the Israelites owned a flock either of sheep or goats.

Further, the immense mult.i.tude of their flocks and herds may be judged of from the expostulation of Moses with Jehovah. Num. xii. 21, 22. "The people among whom I am are six hundred thousand footmen, and thou hast said I will give them flesh that they may eat a whole month; shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them to _suffice_ them." As these six hundred thousand were only the _men_ "from twenty years old and upward, that were able to go forth to war," Ex. i. 45, 46; the whole number of the Israelites could not have been less than three millions and a half.

Flocks and herds to "suffice" all these for food, might surely be called "very much cattle." 5. _They had their own form of government_, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16, 18. 6. _They had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time._ Ex. iii. 16, 18; xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29-31. _They seem to have practised the fine arts_. Ex. x.x.xii. 4; x.x.xv. 22, 35. 7. _They were all armed_. Ex. x.x.xii. 27. 8. _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable_. No intimation is given that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of property. 9. _All the females seem to have known something of domestic refinements_. They were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; x.x.xv. 25, 26; and both males and females were able to read and write. Deut. xi. 18-20; xvii. 19; xxvii. 3. 10. _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. 11.

_Their food was abundant and of great variety_. So far from being fed upon a fixed allowance of a single article, and hastily prepared, "they sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3; and their bread was prepared with leaven. Ex. xii. 15, 39. They ate "the fish freely, the cuc.u.mbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5; xx. 5. Probably but a small portion of the people were in the service of the Egyptians at any one time. The extent and variety of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have kept at home the main body of the nation.

During the plague of darkness, G.o.d informs us that "ALL the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were _there_ to enjoy it. See also Ex. ix. 26. It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex. iv. 29-31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_. The adult males of the Israelites were probably divided into companies, which relieved each other at stated intervals of weeks or months. It might have been during one of these periodical furloughs from service that Aaron performed the journey to h.o.r.eb. Ex. iv. 27. At the least calculation this journey must have consumed _eight weeks_. Probably one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the Israelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it from their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_) they exacted it of them in brick making; and labor might have been exacted only from the _poorer_ Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their tribute in money. The fact that all the elders of Israel seem to have controlled their own time, (See Ex. iv. 29; iii. 16; v. 20,) favors the supposition. Ex. iv. 27, 31. Contrast this bondage of Egypt with American slavery. Have our slaves "flocks and herds even very much cattle?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, "sit by the flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread to the full"? Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of country for the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of their own cattle--and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are our female slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own time, and the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and for personal improvement? THE ISRAELITES UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. True, "all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor." But what was this when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves; the robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the "power to own any thing, or acquire any thing?" a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food![C] their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and _one_ pair of pantaloons!"[D]_two hours and a half_ only, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four![E]--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human residence, with but one apartment, where both s.e.xes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.[F] Add to this, the ignorance, and degradation;[G] the daily sunderings of kindred, the revelries of l.u.s.t, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, G.o.d smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she pa.s.sed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." HE DID COME, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her. If such was G.o.d's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with religion a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can, that G.o.d commissioned his people to rob others of _all_ their rights, while he denounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_ oppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the least and cheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered even of these. What! Is G.o.d divided against himself? When He had just turned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He license the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_, did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes and his hosts, till "h.e.l.l was moved to meet them at their coming?"

[Footnote C: See law of North Carolina, Haywood's Manual 524-5. To show that slaveholders are not better than their laws. We give a few testimonies. Rev. Thomas Clay, of Georgia, (a slaveholder,) in an address before the Georgia presbytery, in 1834, speaking of the slave's allowance of food, says:--"The quant.i.ty allowed by custom is a _peck of corn a week._" The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser of May 30, 1788, says, "a _single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of rice_, is the ordinary quant.i.ty of provision for a _hard-working_ slave; to which a small quant.i.ty of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_, added."

The Gradual Emanc.i.p.ation Society of North Carolina, in their Report for 1836, signed Moses Swaim, President, and William Swaim, Secretary, says, in describing the condition of slaves in the Eastern part of that State, "The master puts the unfortunate wretches upon short allowances, scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so that a _great part_ of them go _half naked_ and _half starved_ much of the time." See Minutes of the American Convention, convened in Baltimore, Oct. 25, 1826.

Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and for many years a preacher in slave states, says of the food of slaves, "It _often_ happens that what will _barely keep them alive_, is all that a cruel avarice will allow them. Hence, in some instances, their allowance has been reduced to a _single pint of corn each_, during the day and night. And some have no better allowance than a small portion of cotton seed; while perhaps they are not permitted to taste meat so much as once in the course of seven years. _Thousands of them are pressed with the gnawings of cruel hunger during their whole lives._" Rankin's Letters on Slavery, pp. 57, 58.

Hon. Robert J. Turnbull, of Charleston, S.C., a slaveholder, says, "The subsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of corn ground into grits, or meal, made into what is called _hominy_, or baked into corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the sweet potatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or favor_."

_See "Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States," by a South Carolinian. Charleston_, 1822.

Asa A. Stone, a theological student, residing at Natchez, Mississippi, wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Evangelist in 1835, in which he says, "On almost every plantation, the hands suffer more or less from hunger at some seasons of almost every year. There is always a _good deal of suffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and particularly in Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost utter famishment_ during a great portion of the year."

At the commencement of his letter, Mr. S. says, "Intending, as I do, that my statements shall be relied on, and knowing that, should you think fit to publish this communication, they will come to this country, where their correctness may be tested by comparison with real life, I make them with the utmost care and precaution."