The passage (Lev. 25: 9, 10) seems very strong in favor of _universal_ liberty, not omitting bond-servants of foreign birth. The words are――“_Proclaim liberty through all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof_.” This proclamation was made with sound of trumpet, ringing out its shrill blast over all the land. Now let it be considered: If foreigners were not included, and if the seventh year emancipation law had been duly enforced, there could have been but a meager showing of freedmen――only those few Hebrew servants who had not filled out their six years of service. Is it credible that so much proclamation and so much public display could have meant only the emancipation of say one-tenth or one-twentieth of all the servants in the land?――――At any point of their history the number of foreign servants ought to have greatly exceeded the number of Hebrew birth――for two reasons:――――(a.) The law encouraged the taking of foreigners into this relation:――――and (b.) They continued in it at least till the Jubilee――their maximum service being therefore forty-nine years, awhile the maximum service of the Hebrew-born was only six. Therefore I urge that a proclamation so high sounding and in terms so absolutely universal can not have left out the great majority of bondmen in the land. The opponents of this view rely upon the words (v. 46)――“They shall be your bondmen forever”――which they claim must mean _during life_.――――But it may be replied――One human life is very much short of _forever_. Also, if the statute had meant during life, why did it not say so?――――Again; the order of the Hebrew words favors this construction: “Forever of them shall ye take servants”――or somewhat more literally: Forever among them shall ye serve yourselves, _i. e._ provide yourselves with servants. And this construction harmonizes fully with the drift of the context, the spirit of which is――Go to the heathen about you, or to heathen families living among you for your supply of bond-servants. Let this be the permanent arrangement. The English phrase――“bond-servant” may perhaps give a stronger sense than the Hebrew will warrant. The Hebrew suggests no sort of “bond”――no obligation of law or justice. It expresses a certain degree of emphasis by means of repeating the words for service and servant, in this way: (v. 39), If thy brother with thee shall become weak “[broken down financially], and shall sell himself to thee, thou shalt not exact of him the service of a servant, [or serve thyself in him with the service of a servant].” This is all that “bond-servant” can mean. It is a somewhat intensified idea of service.――――Another prohibition in this passage is sufficiently explicit: “Thou shalt not rule over him _with rigor_” (vs. 43, 46), _i. e._ literally, with crushing; shalt not break him down; or in the American slave-holder’s phrase “break him in.” * * * * *