Chapter I: 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 divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word rendered _bondmen_, in this passage, is the same word uniformly rendered _servants_ elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentile servants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word "_Ebed_," the plural of which is here translated "_bondmen_." In Isaiah xlii. 1, the _same word_ is applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth." So Isaiah lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal prudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to _King Rehoboam_. "And they (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_ (_Ebed_) unto this people this day, and will serve them and answer them, and wilt speak good words to them, then they will be thy _servants_ forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, it is applied to the king and all the nation. In fine, the word is applied to _all_ persons doing service to others--to magistrates, to all governmental officers, to tributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to younger sons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _Lord_ and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectful addresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old Testament.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why had their language _no word_ that _meant slave_? If Abraham had thousands, and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system, why had they no such _word_ as slave or slavery? 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 "_Ebed_," yet he _"owned_" (!) twenty _Ebeds_. In _English_, we have both the words _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 _Ebed_ if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. The servants of individuals among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. _National_ servants or _tributaries_, are spoken of frequently, but so rarely are their _domestic_ servants alluded to, 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 told their condition; so that in applying to them the word _Ebed_, there would be no danger of being misunderstood. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, but besides these, a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, would have been indispensable for purposes of every day convenience. Further, the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on every side, to warn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantine ground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse between the _without_ and the _within_, not of _persons_, but of _usages_. The fact that the Hebrew language had no words corresponding to _slave_ and _slavery_, though not a conclusive argument, is no slight corroborative.

II. "FOREVER."--"They shall be your bondmen _forever_." This is quoted to prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and their posterity, from generation to generation.

No such idea is contained in the passage. 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; and it declares the duration of that general provision. As if God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers from the nations round about you--your _servants_ shall always be of _that_ class of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain--"_Forever of them shall ye serve yourselves_." This is the literal rendering of the Hebrew words, which, in our version, are translated, "_They shall be your bondmen forever_."

This construction is in keeping with the whole of the passage. "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the _heathen_ (the nations) 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," &c. The design of this passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the _class_ of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the _way_ in which they were to get them. 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, "THEY shall be your possession. Ye shall take _them_ as an inheritance for your children to inherit them for a possession." 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.

But suppose it otherwise; still _perpetual_ service could not be argued from the term _forever_. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter, limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "_Then shall thou cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month: in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout_ ALL _your land." "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and 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 classes of the inhabitants, in which servants and strangers are included. "_And the Sabbath of the land shall be meet for_ YOU--[For whom? For you _Israelites_ only?]--_for thee, and for thy_ SERVANT, _and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy_ STRANGER _that sojourneth with thee_."

Further, in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year, the strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promised blessings. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day of atonement. What was the design of these institutions? 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 the 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 partition wall survive the shock, that made earth quake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the temple vail? And did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perdition from its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God 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 God 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_. It not only eclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusal to release servants at the sound of the jubilee trumpet, falsified and disannulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and thus libelled the doctrine of Christ's redemption.

Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to the length of _individual_ service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee. The same word is used to define the length of time for which those _Jewish_ servants were held, who refused to go out in the _seventh_ year. And all admit that their term of service did not go beyond 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_"--as it would hardly be used in different senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeat that _forever_ respects the duration of the _general arrangement_, and not that of _individual service_. Consequently, it is not affected by the jubilee; so the objection does not touch the argument. But it may not be amiss to show that it is equally harmless against any other argument drawn from the use of forever in the 46th verse,--for the word there used, is _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever that may be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning _cutting off_, or _to be cut off_.

III. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION."--"_Ye shall take them as an_ INHERITANCE _for your children after you to inherit them for a possession_." This refers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_ servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance; that they became servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages; that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly _half the days in each year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were _protected_ in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters, &c. Now, truly, all remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre. What a profitable "possession" and "inheritance!" What if our American slaves were all placed in _just such a condition_! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Truly, emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met together!

What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages--and all to eke out such a sense as accords with existing usages and sanctifies them, thus making God pander for their lusts. Little matter whether the meaning of the word be primary or secondary, literal or figurative, _provided_ it sustains their practices.

But let us inquire whether the words rendered "inherit" and "inheritance," when used in the Old Testament, necessarily point out the things inherited and possessed as _articles of property_. _Nahal_ and _Nahala_--_inherit_ and _inheritance_. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. "The people answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and we have none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of _property?_ Psalms cxxvii. 3--"Lo, children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord." Exodus xxxiv. 9--"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine _inheritance_." When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as his children, does he make them _articles of property?_ Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. 111--"Thy testimonies have I taken as a _heritage_ (inheritance) forever." Ezekiel xliv. 27, 28--"And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, saith the Lord God. And it shall be unto them for an _inheritance_; _I_ am their _inheritance_." Psalms ii. 8--"Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine _inheritance_." Psalms xciv. 14--"For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his _inheritance_." See also Deuteronomy iv. 20; Joshua xiii. 33; Chronicles x. 16; Psalms lxxxii. 8, and lxxviii. 62, 71; Proverbs xiv. 8.

The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY--"_possession_," has been already discussed--(See p. 36)--we need add in this place but a word. _Ahusa_ rendered "_possession_." Genesis xlii. 11--"And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded."

In what sense was the land of Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites? Answer, In the sense of, _having it to live in_. In what sense were the Israelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an _inheritance for their children?_ We 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--a national usage respecting them, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance_. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, both male and female, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of _them_ shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_ shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource," (for household servants.) "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ provision for your children after you, to hold as a _constant source of supply_. ALWAYS _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves."

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.

From the fact that only _one_ class of the servants is called _hired_, it is sagely inferred that servants of the _other_ class were _not paid_ for their labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas against those who "used their neighbor's service _without wages_," he granted a special indulgence to his chosen people to seize persons, force them 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 synonimous with _paid_, and that those servants not _called_ "hired" were _not paid_ for their labor, is a _mere assumption_.

The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is, as every one knows, to procure for a temporary use at a curtain price--to engage a person to _temporary_ service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrew word "_Saukar_." _Temporary_ service, and generally for a _specific_ object, is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when the procurement of _permanent_ service, for a long period, is spoken of. Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who constituted an integral and stationary part of the family, have been designated by the same term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctions made on this subject, are as familiar as table-talk. In many families, the domestics perform only such labor, as every day brings along with it--the _regular_ work. Whatever is _occasional_ merely, as the washing of a family, is done by persons _hired expressly for the purpose_. In such families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is "servants," or "domestics," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_ classes are _paid_. One is permanent, the other occasional and temporary, and therefore in this case called "_hired_." To suppose a servant robbed of his earnings, because when spoken of, 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, instead of giving him so much a month, I _give him such a portion of the crop_, or in other words, if he works my farm _"on shares,"_ he is no longer my _hired_ man. Every farmer knows that _that_ designation is not applied to him. 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 the twelve, paid him while he was my _hired_ laborer. Now, as the technic _"hired"_ is no longer used to designate him, and as he still labors on my farm, suppose my neighbors gather in conclave, and from such ample premises sagely infer, that since he is no longer my _"hired"_ laborer, I _rob_ him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of owls, they record their decision, and adjourn to hoot it abroad. My neighbors are deep divers!--like some theological professors, they not only go to the bottom, but come up covered with the tokens.

A variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, 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_ at the close of their period of service. Deut. xv. 12-13. (2.) The hired servant was paid _in money_, the bought servant received his _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and the product of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The _hired_ servant _lived by himself_, in his own family. The _bought_ servant was a part of his master's family. (4.) The _hired_ servant supported his family out of his wages; the _bought_ servant and his family, were supported by the master _besides_ his wages.

A careful investigation of the condition of "_hired_" and of "_bought_" servants, shows that the latter were, _as a class, superior to the former_--were more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied in every respect (_other_ things being equal) a higher station in society. (1.) _They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master_. They were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from which hired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2) _Their interests were far more identified with the general interests of their masters' family._ Bought servants were often actually, or prospectively, heirs of their master's estate. Witness the case of Eliezer, of Ziba, of the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah, and others. When there were no sons to inherit the estate, or when, by unworthiness, they had forfeited their title, bought servants were made heirs. Proverbs 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; also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a _hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.) _Marriages took place between servants and their master's daughters_. "Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters: and 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 seem to have been regarded with the same affection and respect as the other members of the family[A]._ The treatment of Eliezer, and the other servants in the family of Abraham, Gen. chap. 25--the intercourse between Gideon and his servant Phurah, Judges vii. 10, 11. and Saul and his servant, in their interview with Samuel, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; and Jonathan and his servant, 1 Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant Gehazi, are illustrations. No such tie seems to have existed between _hired_ servants and their masters. Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial. See John ix. 12, 13.

None but the _lowest class_ seem to have engaged as hired servants. No instance occurs in which they are assigned to business demanding much knowledge or skill. Various passages show the low repute and trifling character of the class from which they were hired. Judges ix. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 5.

The superior condition and privileges of bought servants, are manifested in the high trusts confided to them, and in the dignity and authority with which they were clothed in their master's household. But in no instance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the _bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in the family--with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, even negotiating marriage for them. Abraham besought Eliezer his servant, to take a solemn oath, that HE would not take a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaanites, but from Abraham's kindred. The servant went accordingly, and _himself_ selected the individual. Servants also exercised discretionary power in the management of their master's estate, "And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master, _for all the goods of his master were under his hand_." Gen. xxiv. 10. The reason assigned for taking them, 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_. See Gen. xxiv. 22, 23, 53. The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephiboseth, is a case in point. So is Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are to be found in the New Testament, Math. 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 considerable capital. One of them could not have had less than eight thousand dollars. The parable of the unjust steward is another illustration. Luke xvi. 4, 8. He evidently was entrusted with large _discretionary_ power, was "accused of wasting his master's goods." and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the _terms_ of settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.

The inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hunger among the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; "I will arise," he cried, "and go to my father." And then to assure his father of the depth of his humility, resolved to add imploringly, "Make me as one of thy _hired_ servants." It need not be remarked, that if _hired_ servants were the _superior_ class; to apply for the situation, and press the suit, 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 illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, 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 no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy_ HIRED _servants_." The supposition that _hired_ servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element of winning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student of the Bible, that _one_ class 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_ class, the prodigal was a sorry specimen of humility. Would our Lord have put such language, into the lips of one held up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, to illustrate its lowliness, its conscious destitution of all merit, and 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 apeing it.

Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to _each_ class of the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former class, whether Jews or Strangers, were in higher estimation, and rose to honors and authority in the family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been already shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely _political_ and _national_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought servants from the _Strangers_. No one from the Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to have been one reason for the different periods of service required of the two classes of bought servants--the Israelites and the Strangers. The Israelite was to serve six years--the Stranger until the jubilee[A].

[Footnote A: Both classes may with propriety be called _permanent_ servants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years' service is contrasted with the brief term of the hired servant.]

As the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within walled towns, most of them would choose to attach themselves permanently to Israelitish families. Those Strangers who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. See Levit. xxv. 47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, the Jewish polity furnished a strong motive to them, to become servants, thus incorporating themselves with the nation, and procuring those social and religious privileges already enumerated, and for their children in the second generation, a permanent inheritance. (This last was a regulation of later date. Ezekiel xlvii. 21-23.) Indeed, the structure of the whole Mosaic polity, was a virtual bounty offered to those who would become permanent servants, and merge in the Jewish system their distinct nationality. None but the monied aristocracy among them, would be likely to decline such offers.

For various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from the Strangers,) would prefer a _long_ service. They would thus more effectually become absorbed into the national circulation, and identify their interests with those in whose gift were all things desirable for themselves, and brighter prospects for their children. On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a sort of sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance, was, with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the _possession_ of one's inheritance, _after_ the division of the paternal domain, or to be restrained from its _control_, after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to be borne. To mitigate, as much as possible, such a calamity, the law, instead of requiring the Israelite to continue a servant until the jubilee, released him at the end six years[A], as, during that time--if, of the first class--the partition of the patrimonial land might have taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might have been earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume his station as a lord of the soil. If these contingencies had not occurred, then, at the end of another six years, the opportunity was again offered, and in the same manner until the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the Israelite, to discontinue his service as soon as the exigency had passed, which induced him to become a servant, every consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of service; and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years' service for the Israelite, assigned as the general rule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who, instead of being tempted to a brief service, had every inducement to protract the term.

[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the seventh year, seems to have been, its coincidence with other arrangements, and provisions, inseparable from the Jewish economy. That period was a favorite one in the Mosaic system. Its pecuniary responsibilities, social relations and general internal structure, if not _graduated_ upon a septennial scale, were variously modified by the lapse of the period. Another reason doubtless was, that as those Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, except as a last resort when other expedients to recruit their finances had failed--(See Lev. xxv. 35)--their _becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of _a course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]

It is important to a clear understanding of the whole subject, to keep in mind that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary expedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to be such when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them to it was a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a measure of prevention. It was not pursued as a _permanent business_, but resorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of their lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a _permanent employment_, pursued not merely as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, and prospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an _end_ for its own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not otherwise attainable.

We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_, as our translators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_. (2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ than that of the other class. (3.) As a class, they doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land, were _tributaries_ to the Israelites--required to pay an annual tribute to the government, either in money, or in public service, which was called a "_tribute of bond-service_;" in other words, all the Strangers were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word which is used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates _national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron. viii. 7-9. Deut. xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv. 21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they paid tribute to other nations. See 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judges iii. 8, 14. Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought servants, claims notice. It was in the _kinds_ of service assigned to each class. The servants from the Strangers, were properly the _domestics_, or household servants, employed in all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such mechanical labor, as was constantly required in every family, by increasing wants, and needed repairs. On the other hand, the Jewish bought servants seem to have been almost exclusively _agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for this by previous habits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations; kings engaged in them. After Saul was elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, the next report of him is, "_And behold Saul came after the herd out of the field_."--1 Sam. xi. 7.

Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen" when Elijah threw his mantle upon him. 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon, the deliverer of Israel, _was "threshing wheat_ by the wine press" when called to lead the host against the Midianites. Judges vi. 11. The superior honorableness of agriculture, is shown by the fact, that it was _protected and supported by the fundamental law_ of the theocracy--God thus indicating it as the chief prop of the government, and putting upon it peculiar honor. An inheritance of land seems to have filled out an Israelite's idea of worldly furnishment. They were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was, in their notions, the basis of family consequence, and the grand claim to honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_ employment, to assign a native Israelite to _other_ employments as a _business_, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed degrading. In short, it was, in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of Abraham and the Strangers--a distinction vital to the system, and gloried in by every Jew.

_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, God instituted the regulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, which stands at the head of this branch of our inquiry, "_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._" In other words, thou shalt not put him to _servants' work_--to the _business_, and into the _condition_ of _domestics_.

In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not assign to him the work of _servitude_," (or _menial_ labor.) In the Septuagint thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic or household servant_." In the Syriac thus, "Thou shalt not employ him after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan thus, "Thou shalt not require him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of Onkelos thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a household servant." In the Targum of Jonathan thus, "Thou shalt not cause him to serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants[A]." In fine, "thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," means, _thou shalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same services, with permanent domestics._

[Footnote A: Jarchi's comment on "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant" is, "the Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any thing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal attendance, as loosing his master's shoe latchet, bringing him water to wash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his master as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor, until his legal release."]

We pass to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:--

"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee_." Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their masters; they still retained their own family organization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this, even though they resided under the same roof with their master. While bought-servants were associated with their master's families at meals, at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants and sojourners were not. Exodus xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Not being merged in the family of his master, the hired servant was not subject to his authority, (except in directions about his labor) in any such sense as the master's wife, children, and bought servants. Hence the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures as practicable to masters, is that of _keeping back their wages_.

To have taken away these privileges in the case stated in the passage under consideration, would have been preeminent _rigor_; for the case described, is not that of a servant born in the house of a master, nor that of a minor, whose unexpired minority had been sold by the father, neither was it the case of an Israelite, who though of age, had not yet acceded to his inheritance; nor, finally, was it that of one who had received the _assignment_ of his inheritance, but was, as a servant, working off from it an incumbrance, before entering upon its possession and control[A]. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who had lived independently on his own inheritance, and long known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his fathers, with the competence and respectful consideration its possession secured to him, and to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment, both for himself and his family. Surely so sad a reverse, might well claim sympathy; but there remaineth to him one consolation, and it cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage. He is an _Israelite--Abraham is his father_, and now in his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred by the immunities of his birthright. To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all." To have assigned him to a _grade_ of service filled only by those whose permanent business was _serving_, would have been to _rule over him with peculiar rigor_.

[Footnote A: These two latter classes are evidently referred to in Exod. xxi. 1-6, and Deut. xv. 12]

Finally, the former part of the regulation, "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," or more literally, _thou shall not serve thyself with him, with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and secures to him a kind and grade of service, comporting with his character and relations as a son of Israel. And the remainder of the verse, "But as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee," continues and secures to him his separate family organization, the respect and authority due to his head, and the general consideration in society resulting from such a station. Though this individual was a Jewish _bought_ servant, the case is peculiar, and forms an exception to the general class of Jewish bought servants. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a household, the law so arranged his relations, as a servant, as to _alleviate_ as much as possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence and authority, to penury and subjection.

Having gone so much into detail on this point, comment on the command which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, would be superfluous. "_Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God_." As if it had been said, "In your administration you shall not disregard those differences in previous habits, station, authority, and national and political privileges, upon which this regulation is based; for to exercise authority over this class of servants, _irrespective_ of these distinctions, and annihilating them, is _to__rule with rigor_." The same command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the distinction between the servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, so vital to an Israelite as to make the violation of them, _rigorous_ in the extreme; while to the servants from the Strangers, whose previous habits and associations differed so widely from those of the Israelite, these same things would be deemed slight disabilities.

It may be remarked here, that the political and other disabilities of the Strangers, which were the distinctions growing out of a different national descent, and important to the preservation of national characteristics, and to the purity of national worship, do not seem to have effected at all the _social_ estimation, in which this class of servants was held. They were regarded according to their character and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments, and political condition.

The common construction put upon the expression, "_rule with rigor_," and an inference drawn from it, have an air so oracular, as quite to overcharge risibles of ordinary calibre, if such an effect were not forestalled by its impiety. It is interpreted to mean, "you shall not make him an article of property, you shall not force him to work, and rob him of his earnings, you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal protection." So much for the interpretation. The inference is like unto it, viz. Since the command forbade such outrages upon the _Israelites, it permitted and commissioned_ the infliction of them upon the _Strangers_. Such impious and shallow smattering, captivates two classes of minds, the one by its flippancy, the other by its blasphemy, and both, by the strong scent of its unbridled license. What boots it to reason against such rampant affinities!

In Exodus, chap. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians "made the children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor," "and all their _service_ wherein they made them _serve_, was with rigor." The rigor here spoken of, is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted from them, and the _mode_ of the exaction. This form of expression, "_serve with rigor_," is never applied to the service of servants either under the Patriarchal, or the Mosaic systems. Nor is any other form of expression ever used, either equivalent to it, or at all similar. The phrase, "thou shalt not RULE over him with rigor," used in Leviticus xxv. 43, 46, does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, nor inflictions of personal cruelty. _Such were provided against otherwise_. But it forbids, confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a Stranger, by assigning the former to the same grade of service, for the same term of time, and under the same national and political disabilities as the latter.

We are now prepared to survey at a glance, the general condition of the different classes of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each class. I. In the possession of _all fundamental rights, all classes of servants were on an absolute equality_, all were _equally protected_ by law in their persons, character, property and social relations. All were _voluntary_, all were _compensated_ for their labor. All were released from their regular labor nearly _one half of the days in each year_, all were furnished with stated _instruction_; none in either class were in any sense articles of _property_, all were regarded as _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes, and destinies of _men_. In these respects the circumstances of _all_ classes of servants among the Israelites, were not only similar but _identical_, and so far forth, they formed but ONE CLASS.