There would naturally also be cases, in which the raising the maiden to the dignity of wife of the master, or of his son, was not to be thought of; and when too there was no ground of fear in respect to her chastity; when, for example, a Hebrew woman somewhat advanced in years sold herself on account of poverty. In such cases the Hebrew woman (Deut. xv, 12-17) was put on the same terms with the man-servant in respect to the time of redemption and the presents then given.*

Tradition says, that a Hebrew woman was never sold into slavery on account of theft. So, too, according to the Rabbinical view, the boring through of the ear to prolong the period of service was never practised in the case of the Hebrew maid-servant. As she could never marry a slave, there was in most cases no reason for making provision for prolonging her period of service beyond the legal limit. Besides, this boring of the ear would not be in her case a sign of debasement, as it is probable that the female sex, in antiquity, usually had

* In this way is most easily settled the apparent discrepancy between Exodus xxi, 7 and Deut. xv, 12, 17. The first passage refers to the special case, in which the father sells his daughter as a servant, which case generally presupposed that the master meant to make her his or his son's wife. In Deuteronomy, on the other hand, the case is that of the sale of a Hebrew woman for common service, which did not include any such condition. Comp. Hengstenberg, Authentie des Pentateuchs, ii, 438 sq.-That Hebrew women were in fact sold as mere laboring servants is seen from Jerem. xxxi, 9-12. The Mishna, too, in some passages (Baba mezia, i, 5; Erubin, vii, 6; Maasar scheni, iv, 4, where, too, the inconsistent usage shiphcha, and amah, is not to be overlooked) clearly seems to take for granted, that Hebrew women of mature age could be held to bond-service. The representation in the Gemara (Baba mezia, 12, b, Gittin, 64, b) is indeed otherwise; it is there said that only a minor could become a Hebrew maid-servant; one, viz. who might be sold by her father, and who in any event, if the master did not marry her, obtained freedom at the age of puberty.

+ Mishna, Sota, iii, 8; compare, also, Maimonides, Abad. i, 2.

Kiduschin, 17, 6; Comp. Maimonides, iii, 18. Philippson, who, in other cases, has due regard to the traditional interpretation, maintains, however, here (loc. cit. 424), appealing to Dext. xv, 17, that the Hebrew maiden could remain in service by such a boring through of the ear. The traditional interpretation, however, refers the clause-And also unto thy maid-servant shalt thou do likewise,' back to verse 13, and considers the 16th verse and the seventeenth up to this clause (to 'for ever'), only as a parenthesis. The next verse (18th) seems to favor this, as it manifestly refers back to the 13th verse.

the ears pierced for fastening the ear-rings. And then, too, it may have seemed incompatible with propriety, for so public and degrading an act to be consummated in the person of a

woman.

$13.

Final Abolition of the Enslaving of Hebrews.

It cannot with certainty be determined, how long and to what extent the Mosaic laws about the servitude of persons of the Hebrew nation were carried into execution. That, generally speaking, the slaves had the benefit of the mild treatment. and the favorable conditions, which the law demanded, may be safely inferred from the silence of the prophets; for these advocates of all the oppressed and injured would assuredly not have failed to rebuke any open violation of such enactments. Towards the end of the old Jewish kingdom, however (as appears from Jerem. xxxiv, 14), the injunction about their release after six years of service had not for some time been complied with. The neglect of this particular provision is easily explained. The law itself, with a careful consideration for certain circumstances, allowed the prolongation of the servitude beyond the limit of six years, if the servant desired it. The wealthier class naturally found it for their interest to make. free use of this permission, and to induce their Hebrew bondmen to continue in their service by enticing promises. The prescribed notification to the judges, which was meant to guard against such a perversion, was probably in most cases omitted; as the master would naturally be afraid that the servant might be deterred from his purpose by the representations of the judges, and by the boring through of the ear to which he must be subjected. In this way the Mosaic law, limiting the service to six years, gradually came into such desuetude, that servants were retained against their will beyond this period; and it was even imagined that the masters had a well-grounded right to the unlimited services of those who had been once bought as slaves. Even in the reform of the kingdom undertaken by the pious Josiah, in the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, the attempt was not made to reïntroduce the pre

scription about the liberation at the end of six years, as it was evident that such an attempt could not have permanent success. It in fact appeared more practicable, and more in harmony with the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, to abolish entirely the enslaving of Hebrews, and to introduce instead the system of hired service. Such an attempt seems to have been actually made before the fall of the old Jewish kingdom. For, at the time when Nebuchadnezzar began to lay siege to Jerusalem, King Zedekiah, probably led to this by the representations of the prophet Jeremiah-at a congregation of the people held in the temple for penitential observances in view of the imminent peril, made public proclamation, that every one should let his Hebrew man-servant and his Hebrew maidservant go free, and that no one should in future enslave a brother in the faith.* The people and princes declared themselves ready to obey, and the decree, sanctioned by a solemn covenant, was at once carried into execution. But hardly did the threatened danger seem to be passing away, than the rich and the mighty repented of what had been done, and again compelled the emancipated slaves to come under the yoke of bondage. The enslaving of Hebrews actually came to an end only with the complete overthrow of the old kingdom, an event announced with new emphasis by the prophet in consequence of this breach of faith. After the return from the Babylonian exile an attempt was made to introduce it again; but this was summarily suppressed by Nehemiah (Neh. v, 5-10). From this time there were, in the restored Jewish state, only foreign heathen slaves, of which we are to speak more fully in the

* Jerem. xxxiv, 8 sq. The assumption, that the deliverance here spoken of was only an expedient, prompted by present peril, "to increase the numbers of the army by those thus freed, as was sometimes done in other nations," is refuted by the fact, that the freedom was to extend to the female slaves, who could hardly be made use of in the contest. The solemn manner in which the decree of the king was sanctioned before the temple (vs. 15, 18, 19) rather indicates, that this emancipation was a means of propitiation, to avert the divine anger aroused by the enslaving of those of their own nation. That the decree had in view the abolishing of the slavery of Hebrews forever, seems to be declared in the express words of the verse, 'that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother,' and of verse tenth, that none should serve themselves of them any more.'

ninth

next division. Even after the destruction of the second Jewish kingdom, such slaves were held under the same conditions by Jews living in Palestine and the other nations of the East. The permission to hold a Hebrew as a slave was considered to have expired as a matter of course with the cessation of the celebration of the year of jubilee, i. e. about the time of the destruction of the first kingdom.* Accordingly from this time persons of the Hebrew nation could only be hired as free laborers, or by day's wages, as attendants and household servants. Under the despotic government of Herod the old law, allowing a Hebrew to be sold for theft, was again revived; but the people seem to have set themselves against its execution by refusing to buy such as slaves; and hence the king sent thieves into foreign lands to be sold, a measure which naturally aroused still greater discontent.‡

When Hebrews came into bondage to the heathen by war, or in any other way, their redemption was always regarded as one of the most sacred duties, binding on every Israelite who had the means.§

Kiduschin, 63, and Erachin, 29; see also Maimonides, Abadim, i, 10, and Jobel uschemita, x, 8, 9.

שמעי שמש שכיר פעלך ?

See Josephus, Antiq. xvi, i, 1.

§ Nehem. v, 8; comp. Baba bathra, fol. 8

[The remainder of this treatise, on Slaves of Foreign Descent held by the Hebrews, will be published in the July number of this REVIEW.]

ART. III.-ROTHE'S ADDRESS ON PHILIP
MELANCTHON.

Translated by Rev. ERSKINE N. WHITE, Richmond, Staten Island.*

WHILE all Protestant Germany unites in commemorating the anniversary of Philip Melancthon's death, the peculiar relations of the Theological Faculty of the Rupert-Carolina University to this great reformer especially forbid that it should withhold its tribute upon such an occasion.

We remember, with becoming pride, that Melancthon belonged by birth to our own Palatinate, and by descent, upon his father's side, to our very town. He commenced his academical studies at our university, and, while still a boy, here attained the honor of a baccalaureate in philosophy. At a later period, when himself known to fame, he labored to advance its welfare by his wise and prudent counsels, and some years before his death, with the same end in view, he again dwelt for a time within our walls. Finally, in accordance with the wish of the Elector Frederick III., he dedicated his last work to the infant evangelical church of the Palatinate.

A man whose death, after three hundred years, is still commemorated by the grateful hearts of an entire people, must have left behind him deep and wide traces of his influence, and must himself have had a world-wide significance. Vividly to portray this significance, is surely the appropriate duty of him who celebrates his memory. Bear with me, then, hon

*The following address was delivered before the University of Heidelberg, April 19, 1860, to commemorate the Three Hundredth Anniversary of the decease of the Præceptor Germania. The reputation of its distinguished author, Dr. Richard Rothe, Professor of Theology in Heidelberg, and the ability with which Melancthon's theological position and influence are delineated, will insure it a cordial welcome in this country, such as it has already received in Germany.