The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume I Part 36

xxi. 18, 19, are some of the cases stated, with tests furnished the judges by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them.

Their ignorance of judicial proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them to get at the _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill. 1. "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num.

x.x.xv. 16-18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant "_die under his hand_," then the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for, striking with a _rod_ so as to cause death, presupposed very many blows and great violence, and this kept up till the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence "He shall _surely_ be punished." But if he continued a day or two, the _length of time that he lived_, the _kind_ of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,") all made a strong case of presumptive evidence, showing that the master did not _design_ to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered _punished_, occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is translated "_avenge_," in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the p.r.o.noun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to pay _a sum of money_; and yet our translators employ the same phraseology in both places! One, an instance of deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal; the other, an accidental, and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same thing! Now, just the discrimination to be looked for where G.o.d legislates, is marked in the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says, "It (the death) shall surely be _avenged_," that is, the life of the wrong doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury, in the following verse, G.o.d says, "He shall surely be _fined_, (_anash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19: "They shall _amerce_ him in one hundred shekels," and in 2 Chron. x.x.xvi.

3: "He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold." That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer, 1. From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen.

iv. 24; Josh. x. 13; Judg. xv. 7; xvi. 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; xxv. 31; 2 Sam. iv. 8; Judg. v. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 26-33. 2. From the express statute, Lev. xxiv. 17: "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death." Also, Num. x.x.xv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall be put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." 3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem, "Vengeance shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi, the same.

The Samaritan version: "He shall die the death." Again, the clause "for he is his money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's property, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished.

The a.s.sumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY," proves not only that the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article of property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking this principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let them stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as the following: "This (bread) _is_ my body;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ bra.s.s and tin;" this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord G.o.d _is_ a sun;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "G.o.d _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A pa.s.sion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in this case. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he."

The objector's principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch trans.m.u.tes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble withal--reasoning against _"forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase, "_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since, if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the fact of his living sometime after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it.) all together make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master from _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, the loss of the servant would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. G.o.d would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. "Ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death." Num. x.x.xv. 31. Even in excusable homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest. Num. x.x.xv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it prescribes a kind of punishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where man took the life of man, whether with or without intent to kill. In short, the objector annuls an integral part of the system--makes a _new_ law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine legislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him free. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he dies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's tooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same_. If the loss of the servant's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing him, would G.o.d command the same punishment for the accidental knocking out of a _tooth_? Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of the servant's services was only a part of the punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the main punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the _community_. To set the servant _free_, and thus proclaim his injury, his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of _public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender, that "those that remain might hear and fear." "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out _his_ servant's tooth, the law smote out his tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilous liabilities in future.

OBJECTION III. "_Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever._" Lev. xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER."

We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from these terms.

1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called "_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," is quoted as proof that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The Hebrew word "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated "_bondmen_," is often applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman, slave?) whom I uphold." Isa. xlii. 1. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal prudently." Isa. lii. 13. "And he said it is a light thing that thou (Christ) shouldst be my _servant_." Isa. xlix. 6. "To a _servant_ of rulers." Isa. xlix. 7. "By his knowledge shall my righteous _servant_ (Christ) justify many." Is. liii. 11. "Behold I will bring forth my _servant_ the BRANCH." Zech. iii. 8. In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to King Rehoboam. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_ unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_ forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation.

The word is used to designate those who perform service for _individuals or families_, about thirty-five times in the Old Testament. To designate _tributaries_ about twenty-five times. To designate the _subjects of government_, about thirty-three times. To designate the worshippers both of the true G.o.d, and of false G.o.ds, about seventy times. It is also used in salutations and courteous addresses nearly one hundred times. In fine, the word is applied to all persons doing service for others, and that _merely to designate them as the performers of such service_, whatever it might be, or whatever the ground on which it might be rendered. To argue from the fact, of this word being used to designate domestic servants, that they were made servants by _force_, worked without pay, and held as articles of property, is such a gross a.s.sumption and absurdity as to make formal refutation ridiculous. We repeat what has been shown above, that the word rendered bondmen in Lev.

xxv. 44, is used to point out persons rendering service for others, totally irrespective of the principle on which that service was rendered; as is manifest from the fact that it is applied indiscriminately to tributaries, to domestics, to all the subjects of governments, to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to younger sons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _lord_ and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, and to the Messiah. To argue from the meaning of the word _ebedh_ as used in the Old Testament, that those to whom it was applied rendered service against their will, and without pay, does violence to the scripture use of the term, sets at nought all rules of interpretation, and outrages common sense. If _any_ inference as to the meaning of the term is to be drawn from the condition and relations of the various cla.s.ses of persons, to whom it is applied, the only legitimate one would seem to be, that the term designates a person who renders service to another in return for something of value received from him. The same remark applies to the Hebrew verb _abadh_, to serve, answering to the noun _ebedh_ (servant). It is used in the Old Testament to describe the _serving_ of tributaries, of worshippers, of domestics, of Levites, of sons to a father, of younger brothers to the elder, of subjects to a ruler, of hirelings, of soldiers, of public officers to the government, of a host to his guests, &c. Of these it is used to describe the serving of _worshippers_ more than forty times, of _tributaries_, about thirty five, and of servants or domestics, about _ten_.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but mult.i.tudes of them, if Abraham had thousands, and if they abounded under the Mosaic system, why had their language no word that _meant slave_? That language must be wofully poverty-stricken, which has no signs to represent the most common and familiar objects and conditions. To represent by the same word, and without figure, property, and the owner of that property, is a solecism. Ziba was an "_ebedh_," yet he "_owned_" (!) twenty _ebedhs_!

In our language, we have both _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because we have both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had a sheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: but our dictionaries give us none. Why? Because there is no such _thing_.

But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _ebedh_ if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. Their _national_ servants or tributaries, are spoken of frequently, but domestics servants so rarely, that no necessity existed, even if they were slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their being domestics, under _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their liabilities; their _locality_ made a _specific_ term unnecessary. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, but a mult.i.tude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, would have been indispensible for every day convenience.

Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on the outposts to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse in usages between the without and the within.

2. "BUY." The _buying_ of servants, is discussed at length. pp. 17-23.

To that discussion the reader is referred. We will add in this place but a single consideration. This regulation requiring the Israelites to _"buy"_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their taking them without buying. _Buying_ supposes two parties: a _price_ demanded by one and paid by the other, and consequently, the _consent_ of both buyer and seller, to the transaction. Of course the command to the Israelites to _buy_ servants of the heathen, prohibited their getting them unless they first got _somebody's_ consent to the transaction, and paid to _somebody_ a fair equivalent. Now, who were these _somebodies_? This at least is plain, they were not _Israelites_, but heathen. "Of _them_ shall ye buy." Who then were these _somebodies_, whose right was so paramount, that _their_ consent must be got and the price paid must go into _their_ pockets? Were they the persons themselves who became servants, or some _other_ persons. "Some _other_ persons to be sure,"

says the objector, "the countrymen or the neighbors of those who become servants." Ah! this then is the import of the Divine command to the Israelites.

"When you go among the heathen round about to get a man to work for you, I straightly charge you to go first to his _neighbors_, get _their_ consent that you may have him, settle the terms with _them_, and pay to them a fair equivalent. If it is not _their_ choice to let him go, I charge you not to take him on your peril. If _they_ consent, and you pay _them_ the full value of his labor, then you may go and catch the man and drag him home with you, and make him work for you, and I will bless you in the work of your hands and you shall eat of the fat of the land.

As to the man himself, his choice is nothing, and you need give him nothing for his work: but take care and pay his _neighbors_ well for him, and respect _their_ free choice in taking him, for to deprive a heathen man by force and without pay of the _use of himself_ is well pleasing in my sight, but to deprive his heathen neighbors of the use of him is that abominable thing which my soul hateth."

3. "FOREVER." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and their posterity from generation to generation.[A]

No such idea is contained in the pa.s.sage. The word "forever," instead of defining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the permanence of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, that their _permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of the Israelites; it declares the duration of that general provision. As if G.o.d had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from the nations round about you; your servants shall _always_ be of that cla.s.s of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain--"_Forever of them shall ye serve yourselves_." This is the literal rendering.

[Footnote A: One would think that the explicit testimony of our Lord should for ever forestall all cavil on this point. "_The servant abideth not in the house_ FOR EVER, but the Son, abideth ever." John viii. 35.]

That "_forever_" refers to the permanent relations of a _community_, rather than to the services of _individuals_, is a fair inference from the form of the expression, "Both thy bondmen, &c., shall be of the _heathen_. OF THEM shall ye buy." "They shall be your possession." "THEY shall be your bondmen forever." "But over your brethren the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL," &c. To say nothing of the uncertainty of _these individuals_ surviving those _after_ whom they are to live, the language used applies more naturally to a _body_ of people, than to _individual_ servants.

Besides _perpetual_ service cannot be argued from the term _forever_.

The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "Then thou shalt cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound * * throughout ALL your land." "And ye shall proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL the inhabitants thereof." It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_ inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto ALL _the inhabitants thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse, there is an enumeration of the different cla.s.ses of the inhabitants, in which servants and Strangers are included; and in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the Strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promises. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in by the day of atonement. What did these inst.i.tutions show forth? The day of atonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee, the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to _Jews_ only? Were they types of sins remitted, and of salvation proclaimed to the nation of Israel alone? Is there no redemption for us Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption and impiety? Did that old part.i.tion wall survive the shock that made earth quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple veil? and did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The G.o.d of OUR salvation lives. "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people." One shout shall swell from all the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed us unto G.o.d by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to the servants from the _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_.[A] It not only eclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out its sun. The refusal to release servants at the jubilee falsified and disannulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and was a libel on the doctrine of Christ's redemption. But even if _forever_ did refer to _individual_ service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same word defines the length of time which _Jewish_ servants served who did not go out at the end of their six years' term. And all admit that they went out at the jubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17. The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" in the 46th verse extends beyond the jubilee. "The land shall not be sold FOREVER, for the land is mine"--since it would hardly be used in different senses in the same general connection. As _forever_, in the 46th verse, respects the _general arrangement_, and not _individual service_ the objection does not touch the argument. Besides, in the 46th verse, the word used is _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning, a _cutting off_, or _to be cut off_; and the import of it is, that the owner of an inheritance shall not forfeit his _proprietorship_ of it; though it may for a time pa.s.s from his control into the hands of his creditors or others, yet the owner shall be permitted to _redeem_ it, and even if that be not done, it shall not be "_cut off_," but shall revert to him at the jubilee.

[Footnote A: So far from the Strangers not being released by the proclamation of liberty on the morning of the jubilee, they were the only persons who were, as a body, released by it. The rule regulating the service of Hebrew servants was, "Six years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free." The _free holders_ who had "fallen into decay," and had in consequence mortgaged their inheritances to their more prosperous neighbors, and become in some sort their servants, were released by the jubilee, and again resumed their inheritances. This was the only cla.s.s of Jewish servants (and it could not have been numerous,) which was released by the jubilee; all others went out at the close of their six years' term.]

3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a POSSESSION. This, as has been already remarked refers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_ servants procured from the senations. The holding of servants as a _possession_ is discussed at large pp. 47-64. To what is there advanced we here subjoin a few brief considerations. We have already shown, that servants could not he held as a _property_ possession, and inheritance; that they became such of their _own accord_, were paid wages, released from their regular labor nearly _half the days in each year_, thoroughly _instructed_ and _protected_ in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the l.u.s.t of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in _just such a condition_! Alas, for that soft, melodious circ.u.mlocution, "OUR PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager s.n.a.t.c.hes at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other pa.s.sages--and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making G.o.d pander for l.u.s.t. The words _nahal_ and _nahala_, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify _articles of property_. "The people answered the king and said, "we have none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of _property_? "Children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps.

cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine _inheritance_."

Ex. x.x.xiv. 9. When G.o.d pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them _articles of property_? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "_I_ am their _inheritance_." Ezek. xliv. 28.

"I shall give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_." Ps. ii. 18. See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lx.x.xii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov.

xiv. 18.

The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"_possession_," has been already discussed, pp. 47-64, we need add in this place but a word.

As an ill.u.s.tration of the condition of servants from the heathen that were the "possession" of Israelitish families, and of the way in which they became servants, the reader is referred to Isa. xiv. 1, 2. "For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land; and the strangers will be _joined_ with them, and _they shall CLEAVE to the house of Jacob_. And the people shall take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel shall _possess_ them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over the oppressors."

We learn from these verses, 1st. That these servants which were to be "_possessed_" by the Israelites, were to be "joined with them," i.e., become proselytes to their religion. 2d. That they should "CLEAVE to the house of Jacob," i.e., that they would forsake their own people voluntarily, attach themselves to the Israelites as servants, and of their own free choice leave home and friends, to accompany them on their return, and to take up their permanent abode with them, in the same manner that Ruth accompanied Naomi from Moab to the land of Israel, and that the "souls gotten" by Abraham in Padanaram, accompanied him when he left it and went to Canaan. "And the house of Israel shall _possess_ them for servants," i.e. shall _have_ them for servants.

In the pa.s.sage under consideration, "they shall be your _possession_,"

the original word translated "possession" is _ahuzza_. The same word is used in Gen. xlvii. 11. "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlvii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of _having it to live in_, not in the sense of having it as _owners_. In what sense were the Israelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their children_? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of _them_ shall ye buy male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_ shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ source of supply to whom your children after you shall resort for servants. ALWAYS, _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the pa.s.sage is manifest from its structure. So far from being a permission to purchase slaves, it was a prohibition to employ Israelites for a certain term and in a certain grade of service, and to point out the _cla.s.s_ of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which they were to get them.[A]

[Footnote A: Rabbi Leeser, who translated from the German the work ent.i.tled "Instruction in the Mosaic Religion" by Professor Jholson of the Jewish seminary at Frankfort-on-the-Main, in his comment on these verses, says, "It must be observed that it was prohibited to SUBJECT _a Stranger to slavery_. The _buying_ of slaves _alone_ is permitted, but not stealing them."

Now whatever we call that condition in which servants were, whether servitude or slavery, and whatever we call the persons in that condition, whether servants or _slaves_, we have at all events, the testimony that the Israelites were prohibited to _subject_ a Stranger to that condition, or in other words, the free choice of the servant was not to be compelled. ]

OBJECTION IV. "_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a BOND-SERVANT but as an HIRED-SERVANT, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee_." Lev. xxv. 39, 40.

As only _one_ cla.s.s is called "_hired_," it is inferred that servants of the other cla.s.s were _not paid_ for their labor. That G.o.d, while thundering anathemas against those who "used their neighbor's service without wages," granted a special indulgence to his chosen people to force others to work, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in selecting their victims, they spared "the gentlemen of property and standing," and pounced only upon the strangers and the common people.

The inference that "_hired_" is synonymous with _paid_, and that those servants not _called_ "hired," were _not paid_ for their labor, is a mere a.s.sumption. The meaning of the English verb to _hire_, is to procure for a _temporary_ use at a certain price--to engage a person to temporary service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word "_saukar_." It is not used when the procurement of _permanent_ service is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who const.i.tuted a stationary part of the family, have been designated by the same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions in this matter, are familiar as table-talk. In many families the domestics perform only the _regular_ work. Whatever is occasional merely, as the washing of a family, is done by persons hired expressly for the purpose.

The familiar distinction between the two cla.s.ses, is "servants," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_ cla.s.ses are _paid_. One is permanent, and the other occasional and temporary, and _therefore_ in this case called "hired."[A] A variety of particulars are recorded distinguishing, _hired_ from _bought_ servants. 1. Hired servants were paid daily at the close of their work. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2; Matt. xx. 8. "_Bought_" servants were paid in advance, (a reason for their being called _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventh year received a _gratuity_. Deut. xv. 12, 13. 2. The "hired"

were paid _in money_, the "bought" received their _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xv. 14. 3. The "hired" _lived_ in their own families, the "bought" were a part of their masters' families. 4. The "hired" supported their families out of their wages; the "bought" and their families were supported by the master _beside_ their wages. 5. Hired servants were expected to work more _constantly_, and to have more _working hours_ in the day than the bought servants. This we infer from the fact, that "a hireling's day,"

was a sort of proverbial phrase, meaning a _full_ day. No subtraction of time being made from it. So _a hireling's year_ signifies an entire year without abatement. Job. vii. 1; xiv. 6; Isa. xvi. 14; xxi. 16.

[Footnote A: To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings because he is not called a _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelve dollars a month to work my farm, he is my "_hired_" man, but if _I give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he works my farm "_on shares_," every farmer knows that he is no longer called a "_hired_" man. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same times, and with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of work in the year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month, instead of twelve. Now as he is no longer called "hired," and as he still works my farm, suppose my neighbors sagely infer, that since he is not my "_hired_" laborer, I _rob_ him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of owls, p.r.o.nounce their oracular decision, and hoot it abroad.

My neighbors are deep divers! like some theological professors, they go not only to the bottom but come up covered with the tokens.]

The "bought" servants, were, _as a cla.s.s, superior to the hired_--were more trust-worthy, were held in higher estimation, had greater privileges, and occupied a more elevated station in society. 1. They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master, were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10, 11; Ex. xii. 43, 45. 2. Their interests were far more identified with those of their masters' family. They were often, actually or prospectively, heirs of their masters' estates, as in the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, and the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah. When there were no sons, or when they were unworthy, bought servants were made heirs. Prov. xvii. 2. We find traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves saying, this is the _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours_." Luke xx. 14. In no instance does a _hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. 3. Marriages took place between servants and their master's daughters. "Sheshan had a _servant_, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife." 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a _hired_ servant forming such an alliance. 4. Bought servants and their descendants were treated with the same affection and respect as the other members of the family.[A] The treatment of Abraham's servants.

Gen. xxiv. and xviii. 1-7; the intercourse between Gideon and Phurah Judg. vii. 10, 11; Saul and his servant, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; Jonathan and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and Gehazi are ill.u.s.trations.

The tenderness exercised towards home-born servants or the children of _handmaids_, and the strength of the tie that bound them to the family, are employed by the Psalmist to ill.u.s.trate the regard of G.o.d for him, his care over him, and his own endearing relation to him, when in the last extremity he prays, "Save the son of thy _handmaid_." Ps. lx.x.xvi.

16. So also in Ps. cxvi. 16. Oh Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thy _handmaid_. Also, Jer. ii. 14. Is Israel a servant? Is he a _home-born_?[B] WHY IS HE SPOILED? No such tie seems to have existed between _hired_ servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness was proverbial. John x. 12, 13. They were reckoned at but half the value of bought servants. Deut. xv. 18. None but the _lowest cla.s.s_ of the people engaged as hired servants, and the kinds of labor a.s.signed to them required little knowledge and skill. No persons seem to have become hired servants except such as were forced to it from extreme poverty. The hired servant is called "poor and needy," and the reason a.s.signed by G.o.d why he should be paid as soon as he had finished his work is, "For _he is poor_, and setteth his heart upon it." Deut.

xxiv. 14, 15. See also, 1 Sam. ii. 5. Various pa.s.sages show the low repute and trifling character of the cla.s.s from which they were hired.

Judg. ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5. The superior condition of bought servants is manifest in the high trust confided to them, and in their dignity and authority in the household. In no instance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. The _bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in the family, sometimes with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham adjured his servant, not to take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites. The servant himself selected the individual. Servants exercised discretionary power in the management of their masters'

estates, "And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, _for all the goods of his master were in his hand_." Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason a.s.signed is not that such was Abraham's direction, but that the servant had discretionary control. Servants had also discretionary power in the _disposal of property_. Gen. xxiv. 22, 30, 53. The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephibosheth, is a case in point. So is Prov. xvii.

2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New Testament, Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So in the parable of the talents, the master seems to have set up each of his servants in trade with a large capital. The unjust steward had large _discretionary_ power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods," and manifestly regulated with his debtors the _terms_ of settlement. Luke xvi. 4-8.

Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.

[Footnote A: "For the _purchased servant_ who is an Israelite, or proselyte, shall fare as his master. The master shall not eat fine bread, and his servant bread of bran. Nor yet drink old wine, and give his servant new: nor sleep on soft pillows, and bedding, and his servant on straw. I say unto you, that he that gets a _purchased_ servant does well to make him as his friend, or he will prove to his employer as if he got himself a master."--Maimonides, in Mishna Kiddushim. Chap. 1, Sec. 2.]

[Footnote B: Our translators in rendering it "Is he a home-born SLAVE,"

were wise beyond what is written.]

The inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is ill.u.s.trated in the parable of the prodigal son. When he came to himself, the memory of his home, and of the abundance enjoyed by even the _lowest_ cla.s.s of servants in his father's household, while he was perishing with hunger among the swine and husks, so filled him with anguish at the contrast, that he exclaimed, "How many _hired_ servants of my father, have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger." His proud heart broke.

"I will arise," he cried, "and go to my father;" and then to a.s.sure his father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add; "Make me as one of thy _hired_ servants." If _hired_ servants were the _superior_ cla.s.s--to bespeak the situation, savored little of that sense of unworthiness that seeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature _climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humility sinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The design of the parable was to ill.u.s.trate on the one hand, the joy of G.o.d, as he beholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injured father's face," who runs to clasp and bless him with an unchiding welcome; and on the other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert he sobs aloud, "The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can abide no other." Or in those inimitable words, "Father I have sinned against Heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy HIRED servants." The supposition that _hired_ servants were the _highest_ cla.s.s, takes from the parable an element of winning beauty and pathos.

It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that _one_ cla.s.s of servants, was on terms of equality with the children and other members of the family. Hence the force of Paul's declaration, Gal. iv.

1, "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." If this were the _hired_ cla.s.s, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of humility.

Would our Lord have put such language upon the lips of one held up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to ill.u.s.trate its deep sense of all ill-desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts, and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders in aping it.