bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.  Doth God take care for oxen?  Or saith he it altogether for OUR sakes? that he that ploweth should plow in HOPE, and that he that thresheth in hope should be PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE.”  In the context, Paul innumerates the four grand divisions of labor among the Jews in illustration of the principle that the laborer, whatever may be the service he performs, is entitled to a reward.  The priests, Levites and all engaged in sacred things—­the military, those who tended flocks and herds, and those who cultivated the soil.  As the latter employment engaged the great body of the Israelites, the Apostle amplifies his illustration under that head by much detail—­and enumerates the five great departments of agricultural labor among the Jews—­vine-dressing, plowing, sowing, reaping and threshing, as the representatives of universal labor.  In his epistle to Timothy. 1 Tim. v. 18.  Paul quotes again this precept of the Mosaic law, and connects with it the declaration of our Lord.  Luke x. 7.  “The laborer is worthy of his hire,”—­as both inculcating the same doctrine, that he who labors, whatever the employment, or whoever the laborer, is entitled to a reward.  The Apostle thus declares the principle of right respecting the performance of service for others, and the rule of duty towards those who perform it, to be the same under both dispensations. (2.) “If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, YEA THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER or a SOJOURNER that he may live with thee.  Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy God.  Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.”  Lev. xxv. 35-37.  Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY?  Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the same breath, authorize them to “use his service without wages;” force him to work and ROB HIM OF HIS EARNINGS?

IV.—­WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS LEGAL PROPERTY?

This topic has been unavoidably somewhat anticipated, in the foregoing discussion, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.

I. SERVANTS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO THE USES NOR LIABLE TO THE CONTINGENCIES OF PROPERTY. 1 They were never taken in payment for their masters’ debts.  Children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isa. l. 1; Matt. xviii. 25.  Creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy their demands.  Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productions of the soil; Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26, 27; Deut. xxiv. 10-13; Matt. v. 40,