they relate? Compare Ezek. xliv. 28, And it shall be unto them for an inheritance (lenahalah.). I (Jehovah) am their inheritance (nahalthom:) and ye shall give them no possession (ahuzzah) in Israel: I am their possession, (ahuzzathom.) Num. xviii. 20, And the Lord spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.— Here, the same words which, in Lev. xxv. 45, 46, denote inheritance and possession, are employed in two senses; the one literal, the other figurative. Applied to God, they cannot signify actual property possession; but they are necessarily limited by their subject. In the same figurative sense, believers are called the inheritance of the Lord: Ps. xxviii. 9, Save thy people, and bless thine inheritance (nahalatheka,) xciv. 14, The Lord will not *** forsake his inheritance. See Ex. xxxiv. 9. Deut. iv. 20. ix. 26-29. xxxii. 9, &c. The word nahalah is applied by subjects to their kings; 2 Sam. xx. 1, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Compare 1 Kin. xii. 16. We are fully authorized to conclude, therefore, that "the terms inheritance and possession, when applied in the Scriptures to persons, are not to be taken in their primary sense as applied to things; but in a secondary or topical sense, which is to be determined by the connection." The heathen bondmen were the possession of the children of Israel, "in a limited and secondary sense, which must be determined, not by the expressions themselves when used in reference to other objects, but by the established laws and usages of the country, in respect to persons in their condition."-(See Letters of the Gen. Con. of Maine, (Cong.) to the Presby. of Tombigbee, p. 55.) These laws, as we have seen, regarded the stranger, not as a thing, but as a man, possessed of "certain inalienable rights" which the Hebrew was bound to respect. Jehovah threatened to "be a swift witness" against those who "turned aside the stranger from his right."

The position that Gentile servants were bought, only with their own consent, is fully sustained by a consideration of the religious duties demanded of such servants. Willing and cheerful services, and those only, are required and accepted by the

Lord. Such services could not be expected, nor reasonably asked, of heathen, purchased against their will, and held in perpetual slavery. To suppose the contrary is to insult the Majesty of Heaven. But the heathen, or stranger, who became a bond-man, was required, (1.) To be circumcised; (Ex. xii. 48, 49;) that is, to receive the token of a covenant in which the party solemnly avowed the Lord to be his God forever. What a mockery, to put such a token upon an involuntary slave! (2.) This covenant was occasionally renewed; (Deut. xxix. 10-15.) (3.) To eat the passover, and unleavened bread seven days: (Ex. xii. 44,) Every man-servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. Compare verses 15, 19. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Compare Num. ix. 6-14. [4.] To attend the public feasts with rejoicing; (Deut. xii. 10-12.) And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye and your sons, **** and your men-servants, and your maid-servants, &c. How could involuntary servants rejoice before a God whom they had not chosen? The thought reminds one of the slaves, compelled with the cat-o'-nine-tails, to dance on board ship, during the middle passage. Compare xvi. 10-15. [5] To receive religious instruction; [Deuteronomy xxxi. 10–13. Joshua viii. 33-35. [6.] To offer sacrifices; [ Exodus xxiii. 14-17;] Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God. [verse 15,] And none shall appear before me empty. Compare Deut. xvi. 16, 17, where the phrase, "all thy males," is seen to include servants; (verses Il and 14, and Num. ix. 13.] Now could such duties be, with justice, forcibly imposed on slaves? As well might christian masters now-a-days compel their slaves to make a profession of religion, receive baptism, conduct family worship, and partake of the communion. But if the heathen servant was purchased of himself, and with his own consent, that consent was a virtual abandonment of idolatry, and choice of the Lord's service. Nor can it be justly objected that such servants

were bribed into the Jewish church. It was one thing for a Hebrew to offer a heathen a bribe, as an inducement to become a bond-man and a proselyte; and quite another thing, to refuse to buy any Gentile who did not cordially prefer Judaism to Paganism. And here it may be proper to adduce the testimony of Maimonides: "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into covenant. But he that is born in the house is to be entered upon the eighth day, and he that is bought with money on the day in which the master receives him, unless the slave be unwilling. For if the master receives a grown slave, and he be unwilling, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year; after which, should he refuse so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than the twelve months, and the master must send him back to the strangers whence he came; for the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a willing heart."— [Quoted in Stroud's Sketch, page 63, from Gill's Exposition.]

It is but candid to admit, before leaving this topic, that Gentile servants seem to have been in a condition, in some respects inferior to that of Hebrew servants. [1.] They were never purchased for six years; but always till the Jubilee. [2.] No mention is made of Hebrew servants, even when their ears were bored, laboring for the children of their master; whereas, if the master of a Gentile died before the jubilee, he was inherited by the children, and retained until his whole time of service expired. (Lev. xxv. 46.)

Argument 5. The servitude of every class of persons was limited. That the service of one class of servants was limited to a period of six years, is expressly declared by the law; (Ex. xxi. 2. Deut. xv. 12.)-In regard to a second class, the law is equally explicit; (Lev. xxv. 39-43,) And 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, (lo-thaabod bo abodath abed, literally, thou shalt not serve thyself with him with the service of an ebed.) But as an hired servant (sakir,) and as a sojourner he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto

the year of jubilee. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bond-men [lo yimmakeru mimkereth abed, they shall not sell themselves with the sale of an ebed.] Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God. This statute is entirely distinct from that in Ex. xxi. 2, &c. Deut. xv. 12, &c. It relates to another class of persons. According to the latter, the servant is bought for six years, but may, at pleasure, extend the time of service, and become a servant "forever." In the former, no mention is made of a six years' engagement, nor of having the ear bored as a mark of continued servitude. The law in Deut. provides that the servant, going free at the end of six years, shall not be sent away empty; but shall be furnished liberally out of the flock, the floor, and the press. Nothing is said of his returning to his own possession. That in Lev. makes no provision for furnishing "the brother" liberally, when he departs; but expressly declares that he "shall return unto the possession of his fathers." servant of the one class was, and was called, an ebed; Ex. xxi. 2, If thou buy an Hebrew servant, (ebed ibri.) A servant of the other, could not be sold with the sale, nor be compelled to serve with the service of an ebed. Some commentators suppose that the six years' servants were sold for debt or crime; and that the other class sold themselves through poverty. [So Henry.] But the laws afford no reason for this distinction. The liberal provision allowed the six years' servant when his time had expired, shows that he too was poor, and by no means agrees with the supposition that he had been sold for crime. Dr. Crothers, in his "Gospel of the Typical Servitude," has clearly proved that the law, in Ex. xxi. contemplated the sale of younger brethren who were not land-holders: while the statute in Lev. xxv. 39, provided for the first born, the possessor of "the inheritance of his fathers," who, from poverty, had been compelled to part with his real estate until the jubilee. We refer our readers to the pamphlet above mentioned, for a full exhibition of the argument upon this passage. It is evident,

A

therefore, that Doctor J. is entirely at fault when he supposes that in Lev. xxv. 39-42, a contrast is drawn between Hebrew servants and "foreign slaves," who might be subjected to "rigorous treatment." [p. 28.] The contrast is really between Hebrew servants of one class, and Hebrew and heathen servants of another class. The inference that Gentile bond-men might lawfully be treated with rigor," (bepharek, oppression, cruelty, mochtho, Septuagint, the word used, Ex. i. 13, to describe the Egyptian cruelties towards the Hebrews,) because one sort of Hebrew servants might not, is worthy the head and the heart of a pro-slavery D. D. On the same principle the ancient Doctors of the Law inferred from the command, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, (Lev. xix. 18,) the right to hate their enemy. (See Mat. v. 43, and Bloomfield's Notes.)

Two classes of servants yet remain to be mentioned. Ex. xxi. 2-6, If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post: and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever, (leolam.) Compare Deut. xv. 12–18, and he shall be thy servant forever (olam). And also unto thy maid servant shalt thou do likewise.-Lev. xxv. 44-46, And ye shall take them (the heathen and the strangers) as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-men forever, (leolam bahem taabodu, literally forever of (or with) them shall ye serve yourselves.) The term of service of both these classes is expressed by the same word, olam, translated, forever; and Dr. J. insists that the ear-bored Hebrew, as well as the Gentile, were slaves for life. We will not say that "no commentator ever enter