The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-10-27

servant should share IN the paSchal least pro-
videi by his employer That was a family
feast; and the hired servant not belonging to
the family, could not partake of il, but was
| bound TO eat it in his own dwelling and with
his own family. 1t was this absence Of all do
nestle social ties between the hired servant and
his employer that probably led to the remark:
"The hireiing f1eeth, because he IS an hireiing,
and careth not for the sheep"--John K, ls.
The parable Of the lsbOrers in the vineyard
illustrates both the law and the relation Of the
hireling to the master. The laborers were
found standing in the market place They
agreed to work for certain wages, and at night
received their wages and were dismissed.
DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
These were domestcated in the family of
their employer for term of years They
| formed part Of the family, and in contradis-
| tnction from hired servants, were admitted to
the pascbal supper, jointly with the master,
mistress, and children while not friend or
| neighbor could be invited a. a guest. The very
| intimate incorporation Of the domestic servant
into the family Of the master, is incidentally
shown in the rule respecting holy flesh Tins
flesh was such parts of the sacrih ,ial victims
NJ were the perquisites IF the priest, and none
might eat of it but n priest and the members
~
priest, unless her husband was priest could
not eat Of it. because she was no longer mem.
Der of a priests family. So also the hired sor-
want was forbidden to eat of it; but to the do
mestic servant, the servant bought with money
was accorded privilege denied to his masters
married daughter Leu XIII lob.
These domestic servants we're both Hebrews
| and foreigners. For reasons which will appear
| hereafter, we shall at present confne our re-
marks to the first class; but we beg the reader
to bear IN mind that there are not two distinct
| codes respecting the two classes Many of the
| laws IN relation to domestic servitude are gen.
eral In their terms; while others apparently
limited to Hebrew servants, are by u general
statute extended to foreign servants.
HEBREW DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
| The first question that presents itself in re-
| gard to these servants is, Was their service
voluntary or compulsory? The laws of Moses
authorized no compulsory labor IN Payment Of
| deb. We indeed find woman complaining
to Elisha that her husband was dead, and 1.-The
creditor has come to take unto hsn my two
sons to be bODdmen I'll Kings iv, |. Ii is
| the conoeit of the trsnslators that these sons
we're to be seized and held IA "bondmen -
| 'laves-and were pen haps to be sent 10 market
| to pay the debt Of their deceased father. 1t
| would seem, from the complaint of the woman,
| shat in the idolatrous kingdom of Israel, abou,
| SIX hundred years after the giving of the law
and during the reign of the prohigate son Of
| The implous Ahab, creditor WAS entitled to
| he labor OF the sons to satisfy debt left by
heir father. To what extent this claim on
Che children of debtor was carried, We know
not but whatever was the claim it had no
foundation in the laws of Moses.
Servitude as a punishment for crime was I'M
| known to the Mosaic code In case of theft
che party robbed was, under certain circum.
stances, entitled to large compensation, to be
paid by the thief But possibly the thief might
DO unable to pay the penalty. The case is
provided for: a" II he have nothing, then he
-hali be sold for his theft"-Er xxi, 3. He
shall forfeit his time and labor for the benefit
ii the party he had wronged But the s"rvice
| IL this thief was not unlimited, nor was he oon-
Serted into q chattel His case was goveI ned
ny the general law: "lf thou buy an Hebrew
-ervant, six years he shall serve and in the
seventh year he shall 20 out free"-Er. XXI, 2
OF course, the thief could not be sold for d
longer term and it is to be Presumed that he
was to be sold for as short term less than six
years as would satisfy the legal claims of the
! person robbed 1t is very obvious that sales
/
number, and would furnish very inadequate
and very unsatisfactory supply Of servants
The other and general source of domestic
servants was what in Scripture phraseology il
| called BUYING AND SELLING. These purchases
we're in several respects regulated by law. The
statute just quoted fixes the term of service
" IT thou buy Hebrew servant s'I years shall
| he serue" Servants were not TO be received in
and Incorporated with the family Except 10 a
| particular case, to be hereafter nOticed) for
| longer period, nor were purchases To be made
| for shorter one. The law proceeds: "ln the
seventh year he shall 20 out FREQ" Thus it
| appears that sale for six years insured the
1 freedom of The servant after that term Who,
| IN this case, was the sollerl Ii is evident he
| could not have been Il former purchaser OF the
man sold since q man enoe sold became fee at
the end of Six years. OF course, he could not
be held rs property after the expiration Of that
term Was the seller n father virtually bind
| ing out his child for six years This cannot
be, for the law suppo5cs the servant may be
married man, and may he sold together with
his wte-Er xxi g. Was the servant, then,
the slave Of the seller, having been born has
| chattel This seems utterly impossible, not
| only because there il no law authorizing such
a state of servitude, no mode pointed out
| whereby ono descendant of Abraham might
lawfully become the hereditary chattol OF an
other, but also because every fftieth year SER
| vtude Of every form terminated and oil the
inhabitants of the land were declared to be
free and also because, ut the Jubilee all re-
covered the family inheritance if 1T had been
4lienatsd, and every Jew was freeholder in
possession or expectancy.
The cause assigned for the sale throws light
L 10 y,t, az tha or,lA
brother that dwolleth by thee be waIe, poor
and be sold unto thec."-Lep XIV, 80. Hence,
| the man sold was not an hereditary chattc
incapable Of rcaring poor, bnt freeman who
nad lost his property. Now, who sold this
poor freeman? The question is caused solely
| by the perversity OF the translators. Their
theory Of Jewish Slavery induced Thorn TO rem
der be Sold the Identical word which, in tho
47th verse, they translated "sell himselfD
These two verses, fairly translated as they are
in the Vulgate, remove all doubt "a TO the
seller in question. IF thy brother that dwell
eth by thee be waxeu poor, and sell himSeJ
unto thee,r &c. "And if a sojourner or q stran-
ger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that
dweloth by him be waxen poor, and sell HIM
self unto the stranger or sdjourner." Thus we
find that the salc of Jew whether to one of
his own people or TO foreigner, was q v0lun-
tary act. The word sell, AZ thus used 10 not
according 10 our idiom, aud would DO better
expressed by hire i; but when thus fairly rem
dered no serious misoonoeption can result from
its use.
| The domestic differed from the hired servant
in becoming one Of his employers family and
partaking IN the rel gious rites Of the house.
hold but thsro was still another important
and marked difference The hired servant re.
ceived his wages after his stipulated service
had been performed, but tho domestic received
his wages in Alliance. Tho contract, as we
have already seen, was necessarily for six years.
But a provision, Us mercful as 1t is extraordi.