other with rigour.”[1] These words are the continuation of those before quoted from Leviticus respecting the liberation of Hebrew bondmen, and must be construed in connection with them. The object of the whole passage is to forbid the holding of Hebrew, not to command or encourage the holding of foreign, slaves. We shall presently see whether the Mosaic institutions tended practically to the multiplication of slaves of any kind.
Fortunate, probably, in a world of bondage, was the bondman who served in a Hebrew household and under the Hebrew law; nor would he have been morally the gainer by being sent back from the kingdom of Jehovah into that of Moloch, Baal, Kimmon, or Astarte. The Lawgiver knew the abominations of the heathen, and we shall see that he was not without regard for the religious interests of the foreign slave.
It must be remembered also that in war, as carried on in ancient times, the lot of the vanquished was slavery, or death. To have prohibited slavery then, as regards foreign captives, would have been in effect to enact that every prisoner, of whatever age or sex, taken in war, should be put to death.
The reason, however, why a Hebrew was allowed to hold a foreigner while he was not allowed to hold another Hebrew as a slave, is clear from the words of the law; and it is equally clear that it is one which has long since passed away. The Hebrew was his brother, the foreigner was not his brother. But under
