The Anti-Slavery Examiner
Chapter 19 : "_He that killeth_ ANY _man_ shall surely be put to death." Also Numbers x.x.

"_He that killeth_ ANY _man_ shall surely be put to death." Also Numbers 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 a.s.suredly be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem thus, "Vengeance shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi gives the same rendering. The Samaritan version thus, "He shall die the death."

Again, the last clause in the 21st verse ("for he is his money") is often quoted to prove that the servant is his master's _property_, and _therefore_, if he died, the master was not _to be punished_. _Because_, 1st. A man may dispose of his _property_ as he pleases. 2d. If the servant died of the injury, the master's _loss_ was a sufficient punishment. A word about the premises, before we notice the inferences.

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 will take this principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turn it loose, let them either give bonds for its behavior, or else stand and draw in self-defence, "lest it turn again and rend" them. 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 they find its stroke clearing the whole table, and tilting them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as the following: "This (bread) _is_ my body;"

"this (wine) _is_ my blood;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ bra.s.s, and tin, and iron, and lead;" "this _is_ life eternal, that they might know thee;" "this (the water of the well of Bethlehem) _is_ the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "I _am_ the lily of the valleys;" "a garden enclosed _is_ my sister;" "my tears _have been_ my meat;" "the Lord G.o.d _is_ a sun and a s.h.i.+eld;" "G.o.d _is_ love;" "the Lord _is_ my rock;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and the seven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the seven thin and ill-favored kine _are_ seven years, and the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind _shall be_ seven years of famine;" "he _shall be_ head, and thou _shall_ be tail;" "the Lord _will_ be a wall of fire;" "they _shall_ be one flesh;" "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 Bible language is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify it 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 with all--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted.

Who in his senses believes that in the expression, "_He is his money_,"

the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a _chattel_? The obvious meaning is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since, if the master killed him, it would take money out of his pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the fact of his living some time after the injury_, (as, if the master _meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) all together make out a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of _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. Answer.

Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or continued a day or two, he was _equally_ his master's 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 slave 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_, const.i.tuted no part of the claims of the law, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such case, the law utterly spurned money, however large the sum. G.o.d would not so cheapen human life, as to balance it with such a weight. "_Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death_." See Numb. x.x.xv. 31. Even in excusable homicide, a case of death purely accidental, as 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.

Numbers x.x.xv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits the master's _guilt_--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--resolves himself into a legislature, with power in the premises, makes a _new_ law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit, both in kind and quant.i.ty.

Mosaic statutes amended, and Divine legislation revised and improved!

The master who struck out the tooth of a servant, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him free for his tooth's sake. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though the servant had _died_. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so severely, that after a day or two he dies of his wounds; another master accidentally strikes out his servant's tooth, and his servant is free--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same._ The objector contends that the loss of the slave's services in the first case is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing him; yet G.o.d commands the _same_ punishment for even the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth_!

Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of the servant's services is 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_ for injury to one of its members. 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, "those that remain might hear and fear." _"If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. You 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 the tooth of a servant, 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 the 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."

The _second_ point, the _buying_ of servants, has been already discussed, see page 15. And a part of the _third_ (holding servants as a "possession." See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."

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 pa.s.sage, 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 mult.i.tudes 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 mult.i.tude 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 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; and 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 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 pa.s.sage. "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 pa.s.sage is manifest from its structure. It was 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. 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 cla.s.ses 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 inst.i.tutions? 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 part.i.tion 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 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_. 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 l.u.s.t 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 circ.u.mlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!"

Truly, emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met 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 accords with existing usages and sanctifies them, thus making G.o.d pander for their l.u.s.ts. 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 x.x.xiv. 9--"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine _inheritance_." When G.o.d 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 G.o.d. 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 lx.x.xii. 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_ cla.s.s of the servants is called _hired_, it is sagely inferred that servants of the _other_ cla.s.s were _not paid_ for their labor. That is, that while G.o.d 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 a.s.sumption_.

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 const.i.tuted 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 was.h.i.+ng of a family, is done by persons _hired expressly for the purpose_. In such families, the familiar distinction between the two cla.s.ses, is "servants," or "domestics," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_ cla.s.ses 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, distinguis.h.i.+ng _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 cla.s.s, 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 t.i.tle, 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 ill.u.s.trations. 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 cla.s.s_ seem to have engaged as hired servants. No instance occurs in which they are a.s.signed to business demanding much knowledge or skill. Various pa.s.sages show the low repute and trifling character of the cla.s.s 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 a.s.signed 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 ill.u.s.tration. 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.