thy 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; 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 for ever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." There can be no difference of opinion on the question whether this authorized the Hebrews to purchase those of the surrounding nations for slaves. The only question is, whether the slavery into which they were brought by this purchase was perpetual and hereditary, or whether those who were thus bought of the heathen came under the general operation of the law that liberty was to be proclaimed to all the inhabitants of the land' on the year of jubilee. The objection to this interpretation is found in the expression, “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; THEY SHALL BE YOUR BONDMEN FOR EVER. The question is, how, in connection with the proclamation of the year of jubilee, this is to be interpreted.

It is not to be denied that many respectable names may be adduced to prove that this law contemplates that slavery should be a perpetual institution among the Hebrews, and that, while all who were Hebrews by birth were to be manumitted in the year of jubilee, this arrangement did not extend to foreign slaves. This opinion is expressed 'decidedly by Judge Stroud,* though he endeavours to show that "the term perpetual, in its proper and absolute sense, was not applicable to the slavery of the Israelites, even of the heathen nations, and that the heathen slaves might become proselytes, and thus soon obtain their freedom. It is also the opinion of

* Laws of Slavery, p. 63.

Thomas Goodwin,*and is the opinion of Miegius,tquoted above. Probably this would be found also to be the opinion of all in our own country who endeavour to defend slavery from the Bible. Thus the conductors of the Princeton Repertory become absolutely confident on this point, and consider it as so clear that it excludes even the possibility of reasoning on the subject. They say,

"We do not know how this passage can be rendered plainer than it is, nor can we hope that any man, who is in such a state of mind as to prevent his seeing and admitting that it authorized the Hebrews to hold slaves, could be convinced even if one rose from the dead. It is here taught, 1. That if a Hebrew through poverty sold himself, he should not be reduced to the abject state of a slave. 2. That he should be treated as a hired servant. 3. And be allowed to go free at the year of jubilee. This is the precise condition which abolitionists assign to the heathen servants among the Hebrews, whereas it is here declared to be peculiar to servants who were children of Israel; who could not be sold as bondmen, venditione mancipii, as the elder Michaelis translates it. Of the other class it is taught, 1. That they might be bought for bondmen. 2. That they might be held as a possession or property. 3. They might be bequeathed by their masters to the children as a possession; hereditario jure possidebitis, as Michaelis renders the phrase; or as De Wette translates it to the letter: Ihr möget sie vererben auf eure Söhne nach euch als Eigenthum. You may bequeath them to your children after you for a possession. 4. This bondage was perpetual. They shall be your bondmen for ever. One of the points of distinction between the two classes was, that the former could not be sold in perpetuity, the latter might. As the land of a Hebrew could not be alienated, so his person could not be re

* Moses and Aaron, c. x., note 3, in Ugolin's Thes. Ant. Sacrar. tom. iii. p. 296.

See his work, in Ugolin. Thesaur. Ant. Sac. xxvi. p. 738.

duced to perpetual bondage. At the year of jubilee he was to go free, and his inheritance reverted to him. In contrast with this, Moses allows the heathen to be reduced to perpetual bondage. Hebrews shall not be sold with the sale of a slave, venditione mancipii, v. 42; the heathen may be thus sold, is the very point of contrast, v. 46. If the former passage forbade reducing Israelites to the condition of slaves, the latter allowed the heathen to be so reduced. Again, both the Hebrew words and the construction in v. 39, are the same as v. 46. An Israelite thou shalt not compel to serve as a bondservant;' the heathen shall be your bondmen.' forbidden in the one case, was allowed in the other."

What is

So plain is this passage in their eyes, that it is probable that a man who should even doubt whether all this is so would be regarded by them as of the same intellectual capacity and attainments as he, to use their own expression, who should gravely maintain that when it is said that "John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, it means that he drank no water, but only milk;" or as he who should assert that all the slaves were "ten feet high." Thus they say:

66

swer.

"The attempts made to evade this plain teaching of the Scriptures are precisely similar to those which are made to prove that the Bible condemns as sinful all use of wine as a beverage, and that it pronounces even defensive war to be sinful. It is impossible to answer mere assertions. And the more extravagant the assertion, the more impossible the anHow can a man be refuted who should say, as we know an ultra advocate of temperance did say, that the passage which speaks of John the Baptist coming neither eating nor drinking, means that he drank no water, but only milk; whereas Christ came drinking water; though he was called a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber. So when abolitionists say in reference to all the passages above referred to, that the bondmen of the Hebrews, even from among the heathen, were voluntary servants, who received themselves the purchase money paid for them, that they were in fact hired servants,

receiving wages, hiring themselves for a term of years instead of for a single year, or for a day, or week, or month, who could neither be sold nor bequeathed; we know not how they are to be answered, any more than if they were to assert, they were all ten feet high."

To the interpretation, however, which supposes that this passage means that slavery was to be perpetual, and that so far as it pertained to foreign slaves, their condition was not to be affected by the proclamation on the year of jubilee, there stand opposed the following objections-objections of so much force as to seem to make it necessary to seek some other interpretation. (1.) The positive nature of the command respecting the year of jubilee, "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof." This law is explicit; the terms, as we have seen, are such as refer to freedom from servitude, and the arrangement is one which accords with the general spirit of the Hebrew institutions. (2.) The liberty of the Hebrew slave was secured, by other enactments, at the termination of his six years of servitude, unless he chose to remain as a servant for a longer period, and submitted to a degrading ceremony, as a proof that he was willing to continue in that condition. Ex. xxi. The year of jubilee, therefore, could secure no real benefit to the Hebrew servants, unless it was to the comparatively small number who should have shown themselves willing to remain in this humiliating condition. The restoration to freedom of that comparative small number would have been an event by no means commensurate with the importance attached to the year of jubilee, as a year of universal emancipation. It was evidently the intention of this humane and remarkable law, that on the return of every fifty years things should go back where they were half a century before; that whatever wrongs had accumulated in society during that period should be at once rectified; that if there were any cases of oppression and cruelty which the usual operation of the law failed to reach, they should now at once be arrested

and corrected; and that if any cases of poverty had arisen by a reverse of circumstances, instead of becoming fixed, and leading to the permanent debasement of the family, the evil might be checked then, and the family have an opportunity of beginning life again. The idea of the great Hebrew legislator seems to have been, that in order to the perfection of a commonwealth, there should be no permanent causes of degradation; that no individuals or classes in society should be placed in such circumstances of permanent disadvantage that they could not rise; and that in order to secure the highest state of society it was proper that all should have the opportunity periodically of starting on life again under equal advantages. There was to be no institution, no law, no custom, no relation, no habit among the people, that was to become stereotyped, and that would send a malign influence onward inevitably to coming generations. It was felt that evils might accumulate which no ordinary operation of law would reach; that there might be cases of oppression and wrong which the usual course of jurisprudence could not affect; and that instead of allowing them to accumulate, there should be a time when, by a general enactment, all these evils should cease. It was like clearing out the channel of a river which is in danger of being obstructed with drift-wood, that it may run clear again; or like a law respecting a "general jail delivery," or the action of the court of oyer and terminer, where all untried cases must be tried-lest otherwise some who are accused of crime should be overlooked in the ordinary process of jurisprudence, and thus permanent injustice be done, and evils accumulate in a community. It is essential to society that there should be some such enactments. We apply them to judicial proceedings by the writ of habeas corpus, and by other enactments. Moses meant that by one general arrangement all these evils should be reached at once. He knew nothing, indeed, of the writ of habeas corpus, or of a court of oyer and terminer, but perhaps it would be found even now that his one appointment of the year of jubilee would accom