II.  GOD TESTIFIES THAT IN OUR DUTY TO OUR FELLOW MEN, ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS HANG UPON THIS COMMAND, “THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.”  Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted verbatim one of the laws of the Mosaic system.  Lev. xix. 18.  In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of strangers, “The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF.”  If it be loving others as ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of love! Super-disinterested benevolence!  And if it be doing unto others as we would have them do to us, to make them work for our own good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, “No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it.”

III.  SERVANTS WERE OFTEN WEALTHY.  As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large amount.  Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David “Two hundred loaves of bread, and a hundred bunches of raisins, and a hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine.” 2 Sam. xvi. 1.  The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants.  In Lev. xxv. 47-49, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be redeemed, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF.  Having been forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable property after he became a servant.  If it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23.  As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if servants could “own nothing, nor acquire anything,” to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity.  The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft.[B] But since it was common for servants to own property, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act.  His master, though he rebuked him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26.  We find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8.  Arza, the servant of Elah, was the owner of a house.  That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from its being a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9.  When