Thus it appears that, precisely for the same reason of expediency that a Hebrew could not alienate the fee simple of his land, but only the leasehold till the semi-centenary Jubilee, he could not alienate himself beyond the septennial Jubilee. There must be a reconnection between the families and their lands. And, what is conclusive on this point, is the further fact that precisely the same reason of right is assigned in the law itself for both these provisions of the law. As to the first, the reason assigned is: "The land shall not be sold forever (i. e., in fee simple). For THE LAND IS MINE, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me" (and being mere tenants can pass no title to the fee simple). (Lev. 25: 23.) As to the second, the reason assigned is: "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant, but as a hired servant; FOR THEY ARE MY SERVANTS, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondsmen " (Lev. 25: 39, 42, and also v. 55). No Israelite could alienate his title to himself, then, for the same reason that he could not alienate his title to his land. Neither are his own, but Jehovah's; and, however poor he may be, he is yet one of a singular spiritual aristocracy, or rather of a royal line, from which Messiah the King is to descend, and, therefore, shall not, by reason of poverty and oppression, be allowed to have his name and household become extinct. Therefore, after temporary servitude he shall "return unto his family and the possession of his fathers"—not merely be free.

It is evidence of the confusion of ideas that is current touching the simplest principles and plainest provisions of the Mosaic law, that, in the minds of so many, the practical end and design of the septennial and semi-centenary Jubilees are confounded together. The common sense of practical life, aided by a little reflection, would suggest that, on the one hand, a septennial restoration of lands to

the families would operate practically an abolition of all debts, or at least of all real estate guarantee for debt: while, on the other hand, a personal servitude that might continue forty-nine years, and then be terminated, without consent of either master or servant, would operate the grossest cruelty in turning off servants, as old age approached, to poverty and starvation. Hence the singular absurdity of the notion, devised to bolster up a foregone anti-slavery conclusion, that all slavery must terminate every semi-centenary Jubilee. And aside from the absurdity of the thing from the nature of the case, the very language of the Jubilee law itself limits the right of going free at the Jubilee to those who have "the families and possessions of their fathers" given in the original distribution of the lands, to which they may "return." Hence this provision could not apply to slaves bought from foreign nations and their descendants.

It is this peculiar feature of the Mosaic code in reference to Hebrew servitude which the modern partisan expounders have seized upon as a proof that this law did not tolerate perpetual bondage. Any and every such construction of the law utterly ignores not only the fundamental design of the Hebrew constitution, but also the expresslyassigned reasons for the provision itself; "For they are My servants." Plainly there was no such thing as slavery in our modern sense of it at all, in the servitude of a Hebrew, and could not be without utter apostasy from the Hebrew faith in the Messiah. Hence the indignant rebuke and threatening of the prophets in subsequent ages against the people for allowing the Jubilee law to become obsolete, as indicating utter apostasy from the faith, and endangering the very argument for establishing that faith. The antislavery pulpi orators are used to seize upon these denunciations of the prophets, such as Jeremiah 34: 8-20, as

denunciations of the principle of slavery, and requiring the proclaiming of a general emancipation: whereas the very language of the prophet shows conclusively that he is not denouncing slavery, in the strict sense, at all, but "the men that have transgressed My covenant," specifically; and though using the expression, "proclaiming liberty every man unto his neighbor," the prophet defines, with even legal precision, the limit within which the indictment is to be understood-"That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maid-servant, being a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew, his brother" (Jerem. 34: 9); thus referring directly to the peculiar provision of Moses' law, now under consideration, and threatening the wrath of God, as Moses also did, upon the nation for the specific breach of that law. And if the language of the prophet left any room for doubt concerning the specific offence charged by Jeremiah, as the reason for subjecting the whole nation to bondage, the recorded history of the fulfilment of this very prophecy sets the matter at rest, that it was the violation of the specific Jubilee law.

“And them that escaped from the sword carried he away captive to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons, until the reign of the kingdom of Persia: To fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years." (2 Chron. 36: 20, 21).*

* It was, probably, the hazy vision suggested to his imagination by some reckless abolition pulpit performer, haranguing from this passage in Jeremiah, or that in Isaiah 58: 6, and still floating before him, that led President Lincoln, in his Inaugural, March 4, 1865, to utter that blasphemous sentence, "Yet if God wills that it (the war) continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and

Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than that these denunciations and threatenings of Jeremiah were not levelled at all at the principle of slavery, but at a specific transgression of a specific law of Moses' civil and ecclesiastical

until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid with another drawn by the sword: as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Now, to say nothing of the fact that President Lincoln has already drawn with the sword, at least a pint of blood for every 16 drop" "drawn with the lash since slavery existed in the Southern States, and spent of the nation's wealth, at least threefold the amount that any intelligent jury would ever award as back pay for all the Negro labor "unrequited" by food, clothing, and protection that has been done in the Southern States-of which this is not the place to speak-if Mr. Lincoln will insist in expounding the purposes, prophecies, and providences of God, in his public utterances, he should, at least, examine so profound a matter with a little more care than Abolition orators usually bestow on any teachings of the Bible.

Without troubling himself with profound research among the biblical critics, Mr. Lincoln could have found in any one of ten thousand cabins in the country, Scott's, or Clarke's, or Henry's, or Jenk's Comprehensive Commentaries-both of the former earnest British Abolitionists, who would have assured him that these prophecies, "three thousand years ago," had no reference to slavery in the sense of the permanent bondage legalized by Moses, at all, nor to the blood drawn by the slave-lash; but to the violation of the jubilee rights of Jehovah's own servants, the freeborn Israelites, as shown in the discourse above.

Dr. Adam Clarke would have told him, that the proper paraphrase of Jeremiah 34: 8, is-"They had agreed to manumit them at the end of the seventh year, but recalled the engagement." Therefore, "You promised to give liberty to your enslaved brethren. I was pleased and bound the sword in its sheath. You broke your promise and brought them again into bondage. Igave liberty to the sword," &c.

Scott would have told him, in Jer. 34: 8, "The law of liberating Hebrew slaves at the end of seven years was an express condition of the National Covenant. The seventh year was the year of release." (Deut. 15: 9.)

Even Dr. Jenk's (Boston) Comprehensive Commentary would have told him on the same place :

"The law of God was very express that those of their own

code. And with just as much propriety might these preachers found upon Ezekiel's denunciations (Ezek. 18: 12), against those who "did not restore the pledge," and who "have given forth upon usury and taken increase in violation of specific laws of Moses-arguments and denunciations against the current practice of holding "collaterals," or other pledge for the payment of debts; or the current usage among all commercial peoples of requiring a percentage of interest on money loaned.

The evident conclusion from this review of the whole subject is, that the temporary servitude of the Hebrew under a master has, properly speaking, no relation to the question of slavery at all; nor did the prohibition of slavery to a Hebrew rest upon the ground of its violation of natural right, but upon the ground of its inconsistency with a specific peculiarity of the Hebrew faith. It is plainly in reference to this religious faith also, and not to foreign slaves, that the enactment is made of death to him that stealeth a man, etc. (Deut. 24: 7; and Ex. 21: 16).*

nation should not be held in servitude above seven years. Whereas those of other nations, taken in war or bought with money, might be held in perpetual slavery, they and theirs."

Matthew Henry would have told him that Isaiah 58: 6, refers to this same breach of the covenant, concerning temporary Hebrew servants-that it means, "Ye exact all your labors from your servants, and will neither release them according to law," &c.(Jer. 24: 8-9.)

No right-minded man can refrain from shuddering at the thought of such ethics, and such notions of God's Word and Providence, in such a position, at such a time.

"He that stealeth a man," &c.-A land so completely a thoroughfare for merchants as Canaan and Arabia Petrea was, must have offered peculiar facilities for this crime. He who in this " manner not only deprived AN ISRAELITE of his liberty, but also sold him to a heathen people, was certainly a criminal worthy of death." (Otto Von Gerlach, on Ex. 20: 16.)

"This was a very heinous offence; for, first, it was robbing