of the land. We shall advert to some of the reasons for the difference that was made between the Hebrew servants and those from the families of sojourners, or of proselytes, or from the heathen. But we are now prepared to consider the 46th verse, the remainder of the third clause of the Jubileeenactment, in its true meaning. In our version it "runs thus: And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever.

Taking the Hebrew, phrase by phrase, it is as follows: And ye shall take them as an inheritance, n. The verb is Hithpael of b, to receive, or to inherit, and with ? following it, is rather transitive than active; so that, instead of meaning, "Ye shall take them for an inheritance," it rather means, "Ye shall leave them behind as an inheritance," Ye shall bequeath them as an inheritance; or, Ye shall possess them to be bequeathed. Gesenius renders the phrase thus: Eosque possidebitis relinquendos filiis vestris post vos, Ye shall possess them to be left to your children after you, to your children after you, to inherit a possession; not them for a possession, but, simply, to inherit a possession; that is, the right to their services during the legal, contracted period. The Hebrew phrase is: n, to occupy a possession, to receive as heir a possession. Comp. Gen. 15: 3, 4. 21: 10. Jer. 49: 1, 2. Num. 27: 11. 36: 8.

The next phrase, translated, they shall be your bondmen forever, contains no word for 'bondmen,' but is as follows, in the original: h, forever on them ye shall lay service, or, from them ye shall take service; or, as in similar passages it is sometimes translated, shall serve yourselves of them. Comp. Jer. 30: 8. 25: 14. 22: 13. In this last passage in Jeremiah, this form of phraseology is applied to the serving one's self of his neighbor without wages. And so, Ex.1:14, all

כָּל־עֲבֹדָתָם אֲשׁר־עָבְדוּ בָהֶם,their service which they served upon them

The same phrase would be applied to designate the employment of a Hebrew servant, the ordinary six years' servant, so that there is no meaning of a bondman, or of bondservice, connected with it. It means," Ye may have them for

your servants forever;" that is, as we have seen, for the longest permissible and legal time of contract.

Or, the qualifying epithet of duration may belong to the previous phrase, to inherit a possession forever; and then the phrase of service would stand alone, of them ye shall serve yourselves. It makes little or no difference with whichsoever member the word of duration, i, be coupled. Whether applied to the individuals, as a class, or to the service contracted for, as a possession, it is clearly limited by the statute itself, as in Deut. 15: 17, and in Ex. 21: 6. It is simply the permission to engage and keep until the Jubilee, servants from among the heathen and from the families of sojourners in the land. Such contracts should be binding in law, and in fact they served to incorporate the strangers and sojourn ers more immediately and closely with the people, and constituted a process of naturalization eminently wise and favorable, considering the character and habits which those born and bred in heathenism, and but recently come to sojourn in the Hebrew country, must have assumed. This would seem to be one of the reasons for the difference put by law between the nature and extent of the lease by which Hebrew servants might be hired, and that by which the heathen might be bound; the former being by law always treated as hired servants, even when bound till the Jubilee, but the latter subjected according to the letter of the con

tract.

Fourth Clause, of Personal Liberty.

But the meaning of this verse is settled still more entirely beyond question by the next clause in the enactment, where the phrase a possession and inheritance for your children after you, is defined and explained by a phrase in the 47th verse, where the case is supposed of a native Hebrew selling himself to a stranger or sojourner, to be taken in the same manner as an inheritance for their children after them; the Hebrew selling himself for a servant TO THE STOCK OF THE STRANGER'S FAMILY. Here is the whole meaning of the preVOL. XIII. No. 51.

51

ceding contract as applied to servants from the families of the strangers and sojourners selling themselves to the Hebrews until the Jubilee, that is, to the stock of the Hebrew's family. If such sale on the part of the Hebrew servant did not constitute him a bondservant or a slave, neither on the part of the heathen servant did it constitute him a slave; and, if such sale, by which the Hebrew servant became an inheritance belonging to the stock of the stranger's family, did not interfere with the law of Jubilee, by which every inhabitant of the land was free in the fiftieth year, neither did it so interfere on the part of the heathen servant, when he had become an inheritance belonging to the stock of the Hebrew family.

We suppose this fourth clause, in regard to Hebrew servants and their treatment, to commence with the last paragraph in the 46th verse; and so commencing, it reads as follows: "Moreover, over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor. But if a stranger or sojourner wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, OR TO THE STOCK OF THE STRANGER'S FAMILY, after that he is sold, he may be redeemed again,” etc. The Hebrew here for the sale is, as in Ex. 21: 7, and Lev. 25: 39, 42, translated in verse 39 be sold, but in verse 47 sell himself, which latter is the true translation. But the phrase most important to be considered is the stock of the stranger's family,, i. e. if he sell himself to the stock, or family tree, of the stranger, to the trunk of the family of the stranger. The meaning is exactly that of the phrase in the 46th verse," an inheritance for your children after you to inherit a possession." The apprenticeship is to the stock of the family for fifty years.

The case in this clause is of a Hebrew waxing poor, and selling himself on this long lease of his services, limited only by the Jubilee, to the family of some rich stranger. He is said to have sold himself, in this transaction, to the stock of the family; that is, he has made a contract to abide in the family and serve them, and their children after them, until

the Jubilee. This is precisely what the strangers were supposed to do, when they were taken as an inheritance for the Hebrews and their children after them. They sold themselves to the stock of the Hebrew family, that is, they made a lasting contract for service, not to be interrupted till the Jubilee, unless they were redeemed, bought back again before the conclusion of the contract. A relative might re

deem the Hebrews thus sold, or, if they were able, they might redeem themselves, that is, might buy back the right to their own services, for which they had been paid beforehand.

For they had received the money for the whole fifty years, or rather forty-nine, when the contract was made. This is proved by verse 51, and by the provisions of the enactment regulating the manner of the re-purchase. The servant redeeming himself was to reckon with his master, and pay back part of the money for which he had sold himself, according to the number of years remaining of his unfulfilled contract up to the Jubilee. If more years remained, he would have to pay more, if less, less, as the price of his redemption. And the reckoning was to be year by year, according to the reckoning by which the yearly hired servant was paid for his services; for the peculiarity of the treatment of a Hebrew servant bound to his master's family until the Jubilee, was just this, that he should be treated as a yearly hired servant would have to be treated; this is appar ent from verses 50 and 53, compared with verse 40. It seems to have been considered a generous and gentle treatment of the servant on this long contract, if he were treated as a hired servant, a, but if not, then this long contract was a rigorous rule. It was enacted in behalf of every Hebrew servant that during this long contract he should be with his master as a yearly hired servant,, and that his master should not rule with rigor over him. But no such specification was made in behalf of the heathen servant, or the servant from the families of the sojourners and strangers, and in this important respect the native He brew was preferred before the foreigner, and greater privileges were secured to him by law. Indeed, the specifie

clauses of enactment in this Jubilee chapter, from verse 38 to the close, are occupied mainly with establishing these distinctions between one and the same class of Hebrew and heathen servants, namely, those whose lease of service extended to the Jubilee.

In this view, it is not important whether the latter half of the 46th verse, which we have preferred to read as the opening or preamble of the fourth clause, be joined to what follows or to what precedes. In our translation it belongs to what precedes, and the Hebrew conjunction has been translated but instead of and; so giving the force of contrast, as if the families of strangers might be subjected to a more rigorous service than of native Hebrews. In the respect which we have pointed out, this is true; but the word bondmen in the preceding part of the verse so translated, not being in the original, nor anything to justify it, a wrong impression is produced; it is made to appear as if the heathen might be used as bondmen or slaves, but the Hebrews not; whereas, there is no consideration of the state of a bondman or slave at all, nor any possibility of such state admitted, but only a specification of the respective manner in which the Hebrew and heathen servant, under the same contract as to time, should be treated during that time. Over such servants of the children of strangers as the Hebrews might buy, they might rule for the whole period of the contract, without being obliged to treat them during that time as hired servants must be treated; "but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." That this is the only point of contrast is proved by the 53d verse: "As a yearly hired servant shall he be with him, and his master shall not rule over him with rigor in thy sight."

This phrase, rule over him with rigor, as in verses 53, 46, and 43, thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,

is found only in this chapter of Leviticus, and in connection with this law of Jubilee. But in the first chapter of Exodus a similar phrase is employed, descriptive of the rigorous service imposed by the Egyptians on the children of Israel in the time of their oppression: They made the children of Is