and is so often used in connection with the patriarchs, Moses, David, and the prophets. The term thus used expresses the quality of their devotedness and obedience, and not necessarily the quality of the individual. In this sense, the apostles style themselves the (dovλoi, douloi) slaves of Jesus Christ; not that they were personally douloi, but in their devotion and obedience to him, they were what the doulos was or should be to his master. It is probable that, in some sense, all men feel that in the hand of God they are as clay in the hands of the potter; that the great Jehovah overrules and governs all things; that, as existences, they are from and dependent on him: under such a sense, we sometimes find the term ebed applied, as in the name Obadiah, Obadyahu, the slave of God, and used as a proper noun. But such compound words are dependent for their meaning upon the complex ideas of what their primitives signified; and, in a somewhat analogous sense, the term ebed is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, he being in the hands of the Almighty, as clay in the hands of the potter, the mere instrument, the fabrication of his hand. There is, however, in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, a use of this word peculiar to them; but we should recollect that they were educated in the Persian capital and employed in high stations by the Persian monarch. We may therefore well expect some variation in their dialect.

LESSON VII.

AND we may well bring to mind the fact that there are two distinctly marked eras in the Hebrew language. The first ends at the Babylonish captivity. The Pentateuch and older prophets, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, and Proverbs, come within this era. The second commences with the return of the Israelites from that captivity, and extends to the introduction of Greek into Palestine, subsequent to the conquests of Alexander. The first period may be emphatically called ancient Hebrew; and the latter, more modern. The Hebrew of this period is strongly marked by an approximation to the Chaldee and Persian. To this period of the language belong the books of Nehemiah, Ezra, Daniel, Esther, Jonah, Haggai, Malachi, Ecclesiastes, and a part of the Psalms;

and these works will ever be regarded by the oriental scholar as inferior in classical literature to those of earlier date, notwithstanding their other merits of high excellence. But some

of the peculiarities of the writings of the second period are not to be regarded as recent alterations, but as the phonetic, un'written Hebrew of the more remote districts of Palestine itself. The variations of this more modern from the ancient Hebrew are extremely numerous, both as to the substitution of one word for another, but also as to a change of meaning of the same word; as, for instance, the more ancient would have used the word malak to signify a king, to rule, &c.; but the more modern have used a word, which, from its strong phonetic relation, has evidently been derived from it, shalat, to mean to rule, &c., and so

used Ps. cxix. 133, Eccl. ii. 19,

Esther ix. 1, Neh. v. 15, Dan. ii. 39, and in many other places. So also the ancient would use the word amar, to signify to speak, to say; but the more modern uses the same word to signify to command. What we say is, that we cannot always learn the original meaning of a word from the more modern use of it. We will now notice the use of the ancient word ebed in this more modern dialect of the Hebrews. In Ezra iv. 19, we find, "And that rebellion and sedition have been made therein" is translated from a mithabed. Let us examine the circumstances under which this sentence was written. Rehum had written to the monarch Artaxerxes in opposition to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, informing him that it had ever been a rebellious city, hurtful to kings, &c.; in answer to which, the king writes, "that the records have been examined, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition hath been made therein.” The Persian monarchs were all absolute; they regarded those whom they conquered as slaves; and when they rebelled, they used this word to signify that it was slaves who rebelled. Our word servile is somewhat analogous, and might very properly be substituted for it in the foregoing text, thus: "And it is found, this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that there hath been servile rebellion and sedition therein." When we speak of insurrection, sedition, rebellion, or war with slaves, we call it servile, as Artaxerxes did in this case, to show the fact that the war was with slaves. Ezra iv. 24, this word ' is translated

work. So in v. 8, NT work, vi. 7, y work, to show that the labour was done by slaves, or, figuratively, that the labour was intense, devoted, and obedient, as of slaves. vi. 8: "Ye shall do." 12: "Let it be done with speed." 13:17 "So they did speedily."

"That do after the will of your God."

and "To do with the rest of the silver and gold.” "It be done speedily." 23:

"Let it be

"Let

21: diligently done." 26: "Will not do." judgment be executed speedily." These instances of the use of this word seem somewhat peculiar; but we must recollect that the monarch of Persia is speaking, who regarded not only the Jews, but all his subjects, as slaves. It was the court manner of the eastern monarchs in such decrees to throw in occasionally an exclamation of the nature of an imperative interjection, such as, Slave, attend! Pay attention, slaves! Listen, slaves! &c., all in substance meaning that those to whom the decree is issued should perform it quickly and without further notice. And we find the same custom existing among them even at this day, and such is the true sense in which the term is here used. Let us exemplify it. Ezra vi. 12: "I, Darius, have made a decree;" then follows the Persian adverb D asepporna, which means quickly, speedily, diligently, &c.; then the word in question, as before noticed: "quickly, slaves," is therefore the literal meaning, i. e. what he had decreed they should instantly perform. We do not pretend to say that translating it to do, &c. gives a substantially wrong sense; but it seems it may have led lexicographers to an erroneous conception of the meaning of the word. Jer. x. 11: "The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth:" made is translated from 1. If this word is the correct reading, the

עֲבָדוּ is translated from

idea of the prophet had regard to the power, not to the act of a creator, the gods that have not subjected, have not placed in subjection, as if in slavery to, whose laws do not govern the heavens and the earth. The gods who could not do these things are not gods, and they shall perish. This was the idea of the prophet. But this word is marked in all the best copies with a keri, showing that this reading was suspected by the Jewish scholars to be bad; and they supply in the margin the words n nn, which is

at least some proof that they thought its use in this instance unusual; and Kennecott and De Rossi found these words used instead of 17 in some copies.

LESSON VIII.

BUT we have a sure method by which we may discover what meaning Ezra did affix to this word-by examining his use of it in those cases where its meaning cannot be doubtful. See Ezra iv. 11: "Thy servants," y. v. 11: "We are the servants," igar. 17, having relevance to their devotedness to God. vi. 16 commences with the word 1, which is omitted in our translation. The sentence should commence thus: "And the slaves, the children of Israel, the priests," &c. ix. 9: "For we were bondmen, yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,' 1. These instances clearly show how Ezra understood this word: notwithstanding his writings were touched with the Persian and Chaldee idioms. A similar result will be found upon the examination of Nehemiah and Daniel. Neh. ii. 10 and 19: "And Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite heard of it"— "And Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite." v. 5: "Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and lo, we bring into bondage (

sons and our daughters to be servants (

kovshim) our

slaves), and some

of our daughters are brought into bondage (subjections, not necessarily slavery) already,” ( kovash.) The root from which these two words are formed in no sense means slavery, but to reduce, to subdue, to humble; and in this sense is used in Esther vii. 8, and translated "force." But this word aids very much in showing what idea was affixed to the word ebed; and we ask to compare this passage of Nehemiah with Jer. xxxiv. 8-16: "This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them; that every man should let his man-servant, (y male slave,)

*

and every man his maid-servant inne, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve ( slave) himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. Now, when all the princes, and all the people which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his man-servant (y male slave), and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none serve themselves (y slave themselves), of them any more, then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned and caused the servants ('ha abadim, slaves), and the hand-maids, whom they had let go free, to return. Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, from the Lord, saying, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bond-men (y ebedim, slaves), saying, At the end of seven years, let go every man his brother a Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee (777 slaved for thee) six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee; but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name. But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, (17 ebeddo, slave,) and every man his hand-maid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection (1) to be unto you for servants ('y for slaves), and for hand-maids." The comparison of these passages proves the fact that Nehemiah and Jeremiah used the word ebed to mean a slave, without any variation of meaning. Nor will we hold Nehemiah responsible for his word kavash, subjection, being translated bondage. Neh. vii. 66, 67, gives an account of the captive Israelites that returned from Susa and Babylon to Jerusalem. "And the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. Besides their manservants (Dy male slaves), and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty score." trust that so varied, particular, and descriptive are the records left in the holy books through which we may search out what the Hebrews meant by their use of the word ebed (y), that its certainty and definiteness must place the inquiry beyond doubt.

We