Читать бесплатно онлайн книгу  Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons

автор John Fletcher

STUDIES ON SLAVERY.

“Yet men have always flattered themselves with the hope that they could violate the moral law and escape the consequences which God has established. The reason is obvious. In physics, the consequent follows the antecedent, often immediately, and most commonly after a stated and well-known interval. In morals, the result is frequently long delayed; the time of its occurrence is always uncertain:—Hence, ‘because the sentence against an evil work is not speedily executed, therefore the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in them to do evil.’ But time, whether long or short, has neither power nor tendency to change the order of an established sequence. The time required for vegetation, in different orders of plants, may vary; but, yet, wheat will always produce wheat, and an acorn will always produce an oak. That such is the case in morals, a heathen poet has taught us. ‘Raro, antecedentum scelestum deseruit pede pœna claudo.’ Hor. lib. iii. car. 2.

The biblical scholar will recollect a multitude of instances where this doctrine is clearly advanced, recognising sin as the antecedent of slavery.

The abuse of slavery, like the abuse of any thing else, is doubtless a great sin. Of the blessings God bestows on man, there is perhaps no one he does not abuse; and while we examine the laws of God, as presenting to the mind the vast field of cause and effect,—of antecedent and consequent,—we may be led to a reflection on the necessity of a conformity thereto, lest a long continuance of such abuses shall become the antecedent to future calamities and woes, either to ourselves or posterity; woes and calamities prefigured by those nations and tribes already under the infliction of slavery, as a just punishment of sin.

It was unnecessary to inform us that man possesses higher mental endowments than the brute. But the main object of the author in the foregoing paragraph is his deduction; that, because we can operate on man by an appeal to his consciousness of right and wrong, therefore any other mode of governing him is wrong. This consequent we fail to perceive. We also fail in the perception that his postulate is universally true: which we think should have been proved before he can claim assent to the deduction. If this our view be correct, we beg the reverend author to reflect how far he may have made himself obnoxious to the charge of sophistry!

Hanno, the Carthaginian navigator, in his Periplus, eight hundred years before the birth of Christ, gives a similar account of a race he calls Gætuli.

It is highly probable that among savage tribes, punishment and the infliction of pain are often applied with no higher view than to torture the object of displeasure. But to us it seems remarkably unfortunate, in a student of moral and civil jurisprudence, to suggest that legal punishment, among civilized men, is ever awarded or ordered with any such feeling. If our education has given us a correct view of the subject, the man who inflicts pain even on the brute, solely on the account of such a feeling, instantly, so far as it is known, sinks to the grade of a savage; and much more explicitly when the object of revenge is his fellow man. On the contrary, when “the offender” has given unquestionable evidence of a depravity too deeply seated for any hope of regeneration, and the law orders his death, it selects that mode of execution which inflicts the least suffering, and which shall have also the greatest probable influence to deter others who may be downward bound in the road of moral deterioration. There never has been a code of laws among civilized nations, where the object of punishment was to inflict pain on the implicated; only so far as was thought necessary to influence a change of action for the better. The object of punishment invariably has been the improvement of society.

LESSON III.

This faculty of moral sense puts us in mind of Dr. Testy’s description of the peculiar and distinct particles upon the tongue, which render a man a liar, a lunatic, or a linguist; a treacher, a tattler, or a teacher, and so on. His theory is that every mental and moral quality of a man has its distinct particle, or little pimple, upon the tongue, whereby the quality is developed; or, by the aid of which the man is enabled to make the quality manifest. Long practice in examining the tongues of sick people enabled him, he says, to make the discovery. We should like to know what acuminated elevation of the cuticle of the tongue represented “conscience or moral sense,” as a separate and distinct faculty!

Hence, Channing says:

The ignorant fanaticism, so proudly buoyant even in repose upon its ill-digested reason,—here so flippantly uttered,—to us bespeaks a dangerous man, (as far as he may have capacity,) in whatever station he may be found. The most hateful idolatry has never presented to the world a stronger proof of a distorted imagination giving vent to the rankest falsehood. It is to be deeply regretted that such intellects are ever permitted to have any influence upon the minds of the young. We deem it would be a fearful inquiry, to examine how far the strange assassinations, lately so common at the North, have been the direct result of that mental training of which we here see an example. We fear too little is thought of the quick transition from this erroneous theology to the darkened paths of man when enlightened alone by his own depraved heart.

The teaching of this doctrine, untrue as it is, may, therefore, be very harmful; as ill-informed individuals often form a very erroneous judgment about right and wrong, and, under the influence of its teachings, may come to think and believe that their conclusion concerning right and wrong is the product of their infallible guide, the conscience, or moral sense, and therefore past all doubt and beyond question; that their minds are under the influence and control of a new and spiritually higher law than the law of the land, or even the moral law as laid down in the Bible, when not in unison with their feelings. And we venture to prophesy, in case this doctrine shall gain general credence, that such will be the rocks on which multitudes will founder; for simple and ill-informed people may thus be led, and doubtless are, to do very wicked and mischievous acts, under the influence of this belief—a belief of their possessing this power, which no one ever did possess, unless inspired.

We do not charge Dr. Wayland with being the author of this new doctrine that man possesses an independent and distinct power, faculty, or sense, by the exercise of which he perceives right and wrong, or, in other words, the moral quality of the actions of men, and upon which perception he may rest with safety, as to its accuracy and truthfulness; for the same doctrine has been suggested by greater men than Dr. Wayland, long ago. Lord Shaftesbury, Dr. Hutchinson, and Dr. Reid have laid the foundation; the latter of whom says, (p. 242,) “The testimony of our moral faculty, like that of the external senses, is the testimony of nature, and we have the same reason to rely upon it.“ Again: “As we rely upon the clear and distinct testimony of our eyes, concerning the figures and colours of bodies about us, we have the same reason, with security, to rely upon the clear and unbiassed testimony of our conscience with regard to what we ought or ought not to do.”

We repeat, how tottering must be the argument founded upon analogy where there is no relation! We all agree that the senses make truthful representations: all see, smell, and taste alike; vinegar will be sour to the savage, as well as the savant. But is their judgment the same about the moral qualities of actions? What says this moral sense, this conscience, in the savage, who is taught to steal from his friend and torture his enemy? Does the reverend doctor think his moral sense will dictate the same conclusion? What right has he, then, to say, it is the voice of nature—of God? Does he fail to perceive that the moral quality of actions is distinguished by man in conformity to his experience, his training, his education?

It is not true our notion, or idea, of the moral quality of an action “is simple and ultimate, and distinct from any other idea or notion:”

Idem. “Its effects must be disastrous upon the morals of both parties. By presenting objects on whom passion may be satiated without resistance and without redress, it tends to cultivate in the master, pride, anger, cruelty, selfishness, and licentiousness. By accustoming the slave to subject his moral principles to the will of another, it tends to abolish in him all moral distinctions; and thus fosters in him lying, deceit, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and a willingness to yield himself up to the appetites of his master.”

If Dr. Wayland’s argument be founded on truth, it will be easy to show that any system of things must be at variance with the ordinances of God which permit the possession of either power or wealth: consequently, in such case, we must and should all go back to the savage state. We ask this learned standard author to read the history of Abraham and Isaac, and inform us whether slavery produced the effect on them which he supposes to be an entailment of the institution; for the effect must be proved to be an unchangeable, a universal and unavoidable consequence, before it can receive the character of evidence in the case to which he applies it.

Our experience is, that the crimes here named, when detected in the slave, are punished, and, if necessary, with severity, if for no other reason, because they render the slave less valuable to his master. The master wishes to find in his slave one on whom he can rely with certainty; in whom there is no dissonance of interest from his own, and whose honesty and obedience are past doubt. The qualities which are the exact opposite of the crimes imputed are, therefore, sedulously cultivated in the slave,—and truly, very often, with small success. But we are surprised at the doctrine which proclaims a system of government that ever punishes and looks with displeasure on “lying, deceit, hypocrisy, and dishonesty,” to be the very thing to foster and nourish those vices! When such is proved to be the fact, we shall regard it as a new discovery in morals.

Now this is surely a proposition which requires to be proved itself before it can be received as a proof of an antecedent proposition; and President Wayland seems to have perceived that, under the general term, “labourers,” it would be incapable of proof; and, therefore, he informs us that by labourers he means producers. The logicians will agree that there is a disjointedness in this proposition (very common in this author) to which exception might be taken; but we suppose Dr. Wayland means that slavery decreases the number of those whose labour is employed in the production of the articles or products of agriculture; for we do not presume he means that the labours of the law, physic, divinity, the mechanic arts, commerce, politics or war, are rendered disgraceful by slavery, but agriculture alone; and that, therefore, it is at variance with the ordinances of God, because it thus diminishes the amount of national wealth. If this is not his meaning, we confess ourselves unable to find any meaning in it.

With a view to remedy the evils to which we have invited the attention of the Rev. Dr. Wayland, Sismondi, book vii. chap. 9, has proposed, that inasmuch, as he says, the low wages of the labouring poor redound wholly to the pecuniary benefit of the capitalists who employ them, those capitalists shall be charged by law with their support, when wages become too low to supply the necessary wants of the labourer; at the same time bestowing power on the capitalists to prevent all marriages when the labourer can give no evidence of a prospect of increased means of subsistence, satisfactory to the capitalist, that he will not be burdened with the support of the offspring. We are, by no means, the advocates of Sismondi’s proposed arrangement. But if the labourers, since in some sense they may be considered freemen, give their consent to it, we do not perceive that it would be “at variance with the ordinances of God.”

But let us contemplate, for a moment, a certain class of freemen, the lazaroni of Italy, who exist, merely, upon one small dish of macaroni, daily issued to them from the Hospital of St. Lazarus. We are all familiar with the condition of these people. Let us compare theirs with what would be the condition of the beggars and thieves of some other countries, were they placed under the control of some salutary power, whereby their necessary wants would be supplied by the product of their individual labour. We need not ask which condition is most “at variance with the ordinances of God!”

For many centuries, slavery extended over every part of Europe, yet history gives us no account of the ruin of the soil. In Greece and Rome, the numbers of slaves were extended to millions beyond any number these States possess; but their historians failed to discover their destructive influence on the fertility of those countries.

“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master, he standeth, or falleth: yea, he will be holden up; for God is able to make him stand.”

Did Jesus Christ ever hint such an idea as Dr. Wayland’s? What are we to understand, when he addresses God, the Father, and says, “I have given unto them the words thou gavest me, and they have received them?” What are we to deduce from his remark on a slaveholder, and who notified him of that fact, when he says to his disciples, “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel?” What impression was this remark calculated to produce on the minds of the disciples? Does Dr. Wayland found his assertion on Luke xvii. 7–10? or does he agree with Paley that Christ privately condemned slavery to the apostles, and that they kept such condemnation secret to themselves, to prevent opposition to the introduction of Christianity, and left the most wicked sin of slave-holding to be found out by a mere innuendo? Or does Dr. Wayland claim, through the aid of his distinct moral faculty infallibly teaching him the truth, to have received some new light on the subject of slavery, which the FATHER deemed not prudent to be intrusted to the SON, and, therefore, now more lucid and authoritative than what was revealed to the apostles?

We have not followed Dr. Wayland’s exact words, because we found them somewhat confused, and rather ambiguous. We prefer to have the case clearly stated, and we then accept the terms, and repeat the question, “Has God imposed obligations on man which are inconsistent with the existence of domestic slavery?”

“The manners of the Africans are hostile to the interests and advancement of women.”

The African negro has no idea of marriage as a sacred ordinance of God. Many of the tribes worship aFetish, which is a personification of their gross notions of procreation; but it inculcates no idea like that of marriage; and we have known the posterity of that people, four or five generations removed from the African native, as firmly attached to those strange habits as if they had been constitutional. Negroes, who have only arrived to such a state of mental and moral development, would find it somewhat difficult to comprehend what the Christian church implied by the marriage covenant! Therefore, where there was no reason to believe that its duties were understood, or that their habits and conduct would be influenced by it any longer than until they should take some new notion, a ceremony of any high order has been thought to do injury. A rule, often broken, ceases to be venerated. And we feel quite sure that some Christians would deem it quite improper to permit those to join in any sacred ceremony which neither their physical nor mental development would permit them to comprehend or obey, whether freemen or slaves.

If these suggestions are true, will not Dr. Wayland look back upon his labours with dissatisfaction? Does he behold their effects with joy? Has he thrown one ray of light into the mental darkness of benighted Africa? Has he removed one pain from the moral disease of her benighted children? If so perfectly adverse have been his toils, will he expect us to countenance his school, sanction his morality, or venerate his theology? A very small portion of poison makes the feast fatal!

LESSON VIII.

What are we then to think of the intellect of that man who shall affirm that Jesus Christ and his apostles classed the slave-holder with the worst of these characters? Yea, what can such a man think of himself? Did the apostles counsel thieves and robbers how they should advisedly conduct themselves in the practice of these crimes? Were those who had been robbed carefully gathered up and sent back to some known robber, to be robbed again? And, on such occasion, did any of the apostles address such robber in the language of affection, saying, “I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus and toward all saints?”

We have not seen the remarks of Professor Taylor; but we can easily imagine that a professor of theology, free from the delirium of abolitionism, would not have found it a difficult labour to prove that the main point of the author’s argument was contradicted by Scripture, and that even he himself attempted to sustain it only by assumption. We regret that President Wayland has not given us Professor Taylor’s remarks that made him “doubt.” We, however, will venture our “remark” that the author’s assertion, “the inculcation of the duty of slaves affords no evidence that the Scriptures countenance slavery, more than the command to honour the king authorized the tyranny of Nero,” is a comparison where there is no parallel. Dr. Wayland must first make it appear that all kings, or chief magistrates, are, necessarily, wicked tyrants, like Nero; and that the wicked tyranny is a part and parcel of the thing to be honoured, before his parallel between slavery and monarchy can be drawn; and since, then, the deduction will be useless, we suppose he will not make the attempt.

There are a class of abolition writers who never fail to compare St. Paul’s instruction, to live in obedience to the civil authority, (making no exception even when the worst of monarchs are in power,) with his instruction to slaves to obey their masters; and then say that no argument is to be drawn from the latter in favour of slavery, any more than there is from the former in favour of the wickedness of the Emperor Nero. To some, this position may look quite imposing; while others will associate it with the false position of a wicked, unprincipled lawyer, who is ambitious only to gain his case, and cares not by what falsehood, or by what means. But it is truly mortifying to see such an argument presented, and attempted to be sustained, by any one who pretends to be an honest man, and a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we cannot but reflect that such an one must be in one of three predicaments; either in that of the lawyer, or his understanding must be so obtuse he cannot reason, or so crazed by fanaticism as to be equally stultified in intellect. Yet these men present this argument, or position, with an air which displays the utmost confidence of their having obtained a victory, and of their having established for themselves a lofty intellectual character.

We feel authorized to affirm that St. Paul would have rejected from the church a slaveholder, who murdered, starved, or otherwise maltreated his slaves, because these crimes would have been proof of his want of the Christian character. The same evidence of wicked conduct would have excluded any other man, even the emperor, from the church; yet, since slaveholders, who had not been guilty of such enormities, were admitted to the church, and distinguished as “beloved,” this fact becomes proof that slaveholding is no evidence of a sinful character. So monarchs and emperors, who gave proof of the possession of the Christian character, were always admissible to the Christian church. This fact also becomes demonstration, that being a monarch or an emperor gave no proofs of a sinful character.

“1. The application of these precepts is universal. Our neighbour is every one whom we may benefit. The obligation respects all things whatsoever. The precept, then, manifestly extends to men as men, or men in every condition; and if to all things whatsoever, certainly to a thing so important as the right of personal liberty.

Now let us apply the truly golden rule or precept, relied upon by Dr. Wayland in support of abolitionism. Would it teach to buy these slaves, or not?

We shall here close our remarks on the Rev. Dr. Wayland’s book; and however feeble they may be, yet we can conscientiously say, we have no “doubt” about the truth of our doctrine.

The first consideration is, what he means by “obligation.” In its usual acceptation, the term means something that has grown out of a previous condition, as the obligations of marriage did not, nor could they exist until the marriage was had. If he only means that the “obligations” of slavery arise, &c., then he has told us nothing of the arising of slavery itself. But as he has used the word in the singular number, and given it three progenitors, we may suppose, that, by some figure of rhetoric, not usual in works of this kind, he has used the consequent for the cause. In that case, the sentence should read, “Slavery may arise, consistently with the laws of nature, from three causes,” &c.; which is what we suppose the doctor really meant.

LESSON XII.

We have before us the testimony of travellers in regard to the indifference felt by the Africans on being sold as slaves; of their palpable want of love and affection for their country, their relatives, and even for their wives and children. Nor should we forget that a large portion of this race are born slaves to the chieftains, whose wars with each other are mere excursions of robbery and theft.

“I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman * * * as the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you; continue ye in my love. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for ALL THINGS that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you.” John xv. 1, 9, 13, 15.

In all Christian love and charity, we are constrained to believe that he had discovered his error; and that, had his life been spared longer, he, with diligence and anxiety, would have expunged from his works charges so reflecting on himself, and contrary to the character of the God of our hope.

But in the close of this study, we propose to take some notice of the arguments of another most distinguished writer in favour of the abolition of slavery, as it now affects the African race.

The providence of God to man is practical. He never deals in the silly abstractions of foolish philosophers. He spends no time in experimenting by eristic syllogisms. He deals alone in his own power, which nowhere ever ceases to act, although wholly beyond our comprehension. Man may long for a full view of the Almighty, yet we are destined here to perceive but the “hinder parts” of his presence—the effect of his power, not Him! Let us worship; and, for our guidance, be content with the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night!

Study II.

Will the assertion be odious to the ear of truth, that the laws of God present the same class of conservative influences in the moral world that is every day discovered in the physical?—that the thing manifestly useless, from which no benefit can accrue, but from which a constant injury emanates, shall be cut away, nor longer “cumber the ground?” Or, where a less degree of enormity and sin have centered, it may be placed under influences of guidance, and controlled into the path of regeneration and comparative usefulness? Surely, if we detach from Jehovah these high attributes, we lessen his character.

“And God said unto him, I am God Almighty; a nation, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins. And the land which I gave to Abraham and to Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.” Gen. xxxv. 11, 12.

LESSON III.

The slavery of the Israelites in Egypt for the term of four hundred years was a sentence pronounced against them by Jehovah himself, who had previously promised them great worldly blessings, preceded by the promise of his own spiritual forbearance, of his own holy mercy, as the ultimate design of his providence towards them. And we now ask him, who denies that the design of this term of slavery was to ameliorate and suitably prepare that wicked race for the reception and enjoyment of the promises made, to extricate himself from the difficulties in which such denial will involve the subject. We are aware that there are a class of men so holy in their own sight, that, from what they say, one might judge they felt capable of dictating to Jehovah rules for his conduct, and that they spurn in him all that which their view does not comprehend. Do such forget, when they stretch forth their hand, imagining God to be that which suits them, but which he is not, that they make an idol, and are as much idolaters as they would be had they substituted wood and stone? Such, God will judge. We have no hope our feeble voice will be heard where the mind is thus established upon the presumption of moral purity—we might say divine foresight. But, by a more humble class, we claim to be heard, that, as mortal men, reasoning by the light it hath pleased God to give, we may take counsel together in the review of his providences, as vouchsafed to man, and, by his blessing be enabled to see enough to justify the ways of the Almighty against the slanders of his and our enemy.

LESSON IV.

Divine laws must be the subject of revelation. The law of a visible power cannot be known without some indications, much less the will of an invisible power, and that, too, of an order of existence so far above our own that even its mode is beyond our comprehension. Very true, the providence of God towards any particular course of conduct may be taken as the revelation of his will thus far, but, by no means, preclude the necessity of a more direct revelation, until man shall be able to boast that he comprehends the entire works of Jehovah.

Here is direct revelation, and faith gives us evidence of the truth of its being of Divine origin.

But our knowledge has cognizance of ideas only. These ideas we substitute for the things they represent, in which there is a liability to err. Thus a compound idea is an assemblage of the properties of a thing, and may be incomplete and inadequate; wholly different from any quality in the thing itself. What is our idea of spirit, colour, joy? Yet we may conceive an intelligence so extended as to admit that even analogical problems should become intuitive: with God every thing is intuitively known. But even intuitive propositions sometimes reach beyond our comprehension. Example—a line of infinite length can have no end: therefore, the half of an infinite line would be a line also of infinite length. But all lines of infinite length are of equal length; therefore, the half of an infinite line is equal to the whole. Such fallacies prove that human reason is quite limited and liable to err: and hence the importance of faith in God, in the steadfastness of his laws, and the certainty of their operations. “And Jesus answering said unto them, have faith in God.” Mark xi. 22. “And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.” Acts xiv. 27. “So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans x. 17. That is, by revelation. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. xi. 1. “But without faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Heb. xi. 6. “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead.” James ii. 17. “And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be; for they are a very froward generation, children in whom there is no faith.” Deut. xxxii. 20. To which add Romans xii. 3.

“But after all, what real sanction did God ever give either to polygamy or to servitude, as it was practised in the time of the patriarchs? Did he command either? Did he ever express approbation of either? Is there an instance in which either is mentioned with a sentiment of approval? The mere record of actual occurrences, even if there is no declared disapprobation of them, proves nothing as to the Divine estimate of what is recorded. There is a record of the ‘sale’ of Joseph into servitude, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to Potiphar. There is no expression of disapprobation. There is no exclamation of surprise or astonishment, as if a deed of enormous wickedness were done, when brothers sold their own brother into hopeless captivity. This was done also by those who were subsequently reckoned among the ‘patriarchs,’ and some of whom at the time were probably pious men. Will it be inferred that God approved this transaction; that he meant to smile on the act, when brothers sell their own brothers into hopeless bondage? Will this record be adduced to justify kidnapping, or the acts of parents in barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws of their nature, sell their own children? Will the record that the Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, or buy them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold into hopeless bondage! Why then should the fact that there is a record that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any expressed disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of society? The truth is, that the mere record of a fact, even without any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a record? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of future ages? Are we to maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good of mankind? Shall the biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and Alexander VI., and Cæsar Borgia be held responsible for approving of all that these men did, or of commending their example to the imitation of mankind? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus judged. Why then shall we infer that God approved of all that the patriarchs did, even when there is no formal approbation expressed; or infer, because such transactions have been recorded, that therefore they are right in his sight?”

I. After repeated judgments upon the Egyptians, for hesitating to set the Hebrews free, God, in his providence, effected their deliverance from slavery. Therefore, we are to infer the indignation of God against the institution of slavery. What were the facts of the case? On account of their sins rendering them unfit for the blessings promised their fathers, God imposed on them slavery four hundred years,—at the expiration of which time he delivered them from it. When a free negro becomes a public nuisance, the court will give judgment that he shall be sold to be a slave five years. The term having expired, if the purchaser holds on, and refuses to let him go, the same court will interfere, set him free, and impose heavy penalties on the master. Does the case show that the court feels indignation against the institution of slavery? We think it proves exactly the opposite!

There is, in this chapter on the slavery of the Hebrews, an allusion made to the States of Ohio and Kentucky, (see page 102;) the one represented as “adorned with smiling villages, and cottages, and churches, and the aspect of neatness, thrift, and order;” and that the other wears “the aspect of ignorance, irreligion, neglect, and desolation;” and that the reason of the difference is, because “God smiles upon the free State, and frowns upon the one where slavery exists.”

But Mr. Barnes does not state what those causes are; and will he acknowledge that they really are what we have before stated? So far as these facts teach any thing, it is that God smiles on the institution of slavery. Let it be true, as Mr. Barnes says it is, that Ohio exhibits a state of prosperity, and Kentucky a state of “desolation,”—the legitimate deduction is, that those, having the direction and government of affairs in Ohio are wiser and more intelligent than those of the same class in Kentucky. We shall leave all further view of the matter to Mr. Barnes and the people of Kentucky.

The benefit of the slave-owner depends on a different principle, upon the wisdom, propriety, and prudence with which he governs and manages his slaves. If he neglect their morals, suffering them to become idle, runaways, dissolute, thieves, robbers, and committers of crime, he is made, to some extent, responsible; or if he neglect to supply suitable clothing, food, and medicine, attention in sickness, and all other necessary protection, he is liable to great loss; his profit may be greatly diminished; or, if he abuse his slave with untoward cruelty, he may render him less fit for labour,—may destroy him altogether; or the law may set in, and compel the slave to be sold to a less cruel master. The interest of the master has become protection to the slave; and this principle holds good in all countries, in all ages, and among all men. But it is yet said, that there are men who most outrageously abuse, and sometimes kill their slaves. Very true and because some men do the same to their wives, is it any argument against marriage? It proves that there are men who are not fit to be slave-owners. And what is the providence of God, as generally manifested, in these cases? That such husband does not enjoy the full blessing designed by the institution of marriage; or such marriage is, in some way, shortly set aside. That such slave-owner does not enjoy the full benefit a different course would insure to him; or, in some way, he is made to cease being a slave-owner. Such instances are most direct and powerful manifestations against the abuses,—not of the institution itself.

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant (וְעַבְדּ֤וֹwĕʿabdô ve abeddo, male slave), or his maid-servant: (וַאֲמָתוֹwaʾămātô va amatho, female slave), his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Deut. v. 21—the 18th of the Hebrew text.

“Preventing the slaves from being taught to read and write; prohibiting, as far as possible, all knowledge among themselves of their own numbers and strength; forbidding all assemblages, even for worship, where there might be danger of their becoming acquainted with their own strength, and of forming plans for freedom; enacting laws of excessive severity against those who run away from their masters; appointing severe and disgraceful punishments, either with or without the process of law, for those who are suspected of a design to inform the slaves that they are men and that they have the rights of human beings; and solemnly prohibiting the use of arms among the slaves, designed to prevent their rising upon their masters, or ‘joining themselves to an enemy to fight against their masters,’ and ‘getting up out of the land.’”

From the very considerable labour evidently bestowed in the preparation of the test, apparently to be applied in his reasoning on this subject, a feeling of disappointment rests upon the mind when we discover how little use Mr. Barnes has made of it.

And, again, Mr. Barnes says: “The nations of Palestine were devoted to destruction, not to servitude.” See page 118.

“Slaves of the United States are to be restored to their masters, if they endeavour to escape. We find among the fundamental principles of the Mosaic laws a provision that the slave was never to be restored, if he attempted to do thus. He was to find in the land of Judea an asylum. The power and authority of the commonwealth were pledged for his protection.”

Upon a feud between her and her mistress, her mistress dealt hardly by her, and she ran away: “And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.” (8th verse,) “And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence comest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.” (The angel did not say to her, “Here is a shilling; get into Canada as soon as possible!”) “And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress and submit thyself under her hands.” Gen. xvi. 7–9.

LESSON X.

In the 29th verse, we learn that the Lord’s portion was to be given to Eleazar the priest, “for a heave-offering of the Lord.” The word heave-offering is rendered from the word תְּר֥ווּמַ֖תtĕrwûmat terūmath, from the root רוּםrûm rūm, which means a lifting up, exalting, elevation of rank, while the form here used means a gift, a contribution, associated with the idea of being lifted up, exalted, elevated to a higher condition. Hence, when the priest presented a heave-offering, he moved his censer upwards, in a perpendicular line, with the view to intimate the elevating tendency resulting from the relation of the person offering, the thing offered, and the one to whom it is offered; whereas, in a wave-offering, he moved his censer in a horizontal line, intimating a relation of steadfastness and unchangeability. Because the cross is represented by perpendicular and horizontal lines, some early commentators have imagined that the heave and wave-offerings were typical of the cross of Christ. The word “heave,” as here used, is purely Saxon; heafan, to lift, to raise, to move upward. We may well say to heave up; but it is bad Saxon to say heave down. From this same Saxon word comes our word heaven, on account of the notion of its lofty location, and the elevating influence of the acts of him who shall reach it; each act which makes us nearer heaven may not inappropriately be considered a heave-offering to the Lord. The corollary is, that if God had regarded the making these children slaves a sin,—since sin always deteriorates and degrades, the reverse of elevation or lifting up,—he never could have ordered any of them to be given to him as a heave-offering.

And permit us further to inquire how the assertion of Mr. Barnes, page 117, that, “in the laws of Moses there is but one way mentioned by which a foreigner could be made a slave; that is, by purchase, Lev. xxv. 44; and it is remarkable that the Hebrews were not permitted to make slaves of the captives taken in the war”—will compare with Deut. xx. 10–16:

LESSON XI.

Such, then, being the fact, we cannot find it in our heart to blame him for “expressing the sympathies of brotherhood.” But we feel disposed with kindness to relieve his mind from the burthen of such portion of sympathy for those of his race who are in slavery, as he may conceive to be a duty imposed by the injunction, “Remember those who are in bond, as bound with them.” We will quote the passage, Heb. xiii. 3: “Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them.” It is translated from the Greek— Μιμνήσκεσθε τῶν δεσμίων ὡς συνδεδεμένοι, Mimnēsicĕsthe tōn dĕsmiōn hōs sundĕdĕmĕnoi. The words translated “bonds,” “bound with,” &c. are derived from the root δέω, deo, and signifies to bind, to bring together, to chain, to fetter, to hinder, to restrain, &c., which meaning falls into all its derivations. When one was accused of some offence, and was, on that account, restrained, so that he might be surely had at a trial for the same, such restraint would be expressed, as the case required, by some of its derivations. Hence we have δέσις, dĕsis, the act of binding; δέσμα, desma, a bond, a chain; δέσμιος, desmios, chained, fettered, imprisoned, &c.; δεσμός, desmos, a bond, chain, knots, cords, cables; δεσμόω, desmŏō, to enchain, to imprison; δεσμοφύλαξ, desmophulax, a jailer, &c.

Such was the fact. Surely no one, by any course of rational deduction, could construe it into an injunction to remember or do any thing else, in regard to slavery or its subjects, unless upon the condition that the slave was, by some means, under restraint upon a similar charge. St. Paul was never married; cannot be said to have looked with very ardent eyes upon the institution of marriage; by many is thought to have been unfavourably disposed towards it. We have among us, to this day, some who pretend that they think it a great evil, are its bitter enemies, and give evidence that, if in their power, they would totally abolish it. Suppose such a man should say that, because he belonged to the same race with those who were bound in the bonds of wedlock, it was his privilege to express the sympathies of brotherhood, and expostulate against that evil institution; nay, that he was enjoined by St. Paul to do so, in this passage, “Remember those who are in bonds, as bound with them,”—what would be the value of this appeal to St. Paul? But the very word he uses, in the passage quoted, is also used, almost invariably, in the gospels, to express the restraint imposed by matrimony; yet it is never used to express any condition, or quality, or station, in regard to slavery.

Olybius may have seen some beautiful features in this system; but his philosophy forbid his faith. He calmly decided that it was a superstition too low to combat—worthy only of contempt. But he perceived that the blood of a hundred made a thousand Christians, and was convinced the only remedy was to improve and elevate the mind,—to imbue it with deep religious feeling and principle, a reverence and veneration for the gods.

“There was darkness over all the land. Olybius, then:—

Sing to the Lord! No more shall frantic Sibyl’s yell,

“Slavery among the Romans remained substantially the same under the Tarquins, the consuls, and the Cæsars; when the tribunes gained the ascendency, and when the patricians crushed them to the earth. It lived in Europe when the northern hordes poured down on the Roman Empire; and when the caliphs set up the standard of Islam in the Peninsula. It lived in all the revolutions of the Middle Ages,—alike, when spiritual despotism swayed its sceptre over the nations, and when they began to emerge into freedom. In the British realms, it has lived in the time of the Stuarts, under the Protectorate, and for a long time under the administration of the house of Hanover. With some temporary interruptions, it lived in the provinces of France through the revolution. It lived through our own glorious Revolution; and the struggles which gave liberty to millions of the Anglo-Saxon race did not loosen one rivet from the fetters of an African, nor was there a slave who was any nearer to the enjoyment of freedom after the surrender of Yorktown, than when Patrick Henry taught the notes of liberty to echo along the hills and vales of Virginia. So in all changes of political administration in our own land, the condition of the slave remains unaffected. Alike whether the Federalists or Republicans have the rule; whether the star of the Whig or the Democrat is in the ascendant; the condition of the slave is still the same. The pæans of victory, when the hero of New Orleans was raised to the presidential chair, or when the hero of Tippecanoe was inaugurated, conveyed no * * * intimation of a change to the slave; nor had he any more hope, nor was his condition any more affected, when the one gave place to his successor, or the other was borne to the grave. And so it is now. In all the fierce contests for rule in the land; in the questions about changes in the administration, there are nearly three millions of our fellow-beings, who have no interest in these contests and questions, and whose condition will be affected no more, whatever the result may be, than the vapour that lies in the valley is by the changes from sunshine to storm on the summits of the Alps or the Andes.”

LESSON XIII.

About thirty years ago, we had a knowledge of an African slave, the property of Mr. Bookter, of St. Helena Parish, La. Sedgjo was apparently about sixty years of age—was esteemed to be unusually intelligent for an African. We propose to give the substance of his narrative, without regard to his language or manner. For a length of time we made it an object to draw out his knowledge and notions; and on the subject of the Deity, his idea was that the power which made him was procreation; and that, as far as regarded his existence, he needed not to care for any other god. This deity was to be worshipped by whatever act would represent him as procreator. It need not be remarked that this worship was the extreme of indecency; but the more the act of worship was wounding to the feelings or sense of delicacy, the more acceptable it was to the god. The displays of this worship could not well be described.

On shipboard, many try to starve, or jump into the sea, to keep themselves from being eaten by the red-lips. Did they but know what was wanted of them, the most would be glad to come. He cannot tell how long he was on the way to the ships, nor did he know where he was going; thinks he was sold many times before he got there; never saw the white man till he was near the sea; all the latter part of his journey to the coast the people did not kill or eat their slaves, but sold them. Their clothing is a small cloth about the loins. The king and some others have a large cloth about the shoulders. Many are entirely naked all their lives. Sedgjo has no wish to go back; has better clothing here than the kings have there; if he does more work, he has more meat. If he is whipped here, he is struck with a club there. There, always afraid of being killed; jumped like a deer, if, out of the village, he saw or met a stranger; is very glad he came here; here he is afraid of nobody.

“Beyond the Lixitiæ dwell the inhospitable Ethiopians, who pasture a wild country, intersected by large mountains, from which they say the river Lixus flows. In the neighbourhood of the mountains lived the ‘Troglodytæ,’ (people who burrowed in the earth,) men of various appearance, whom the Lixitiæ described as swifter in running than horses. * * * Thence we proceeded towards the east the course of a day, * * * from which proceeding a day’s sail, we came to the extremity of the lake, that was overhung by large mountains, inhabited by savage men clothed in skins of wild beasts, who drove us away by throwing stones, and hindered us from landing. * * * Thence we sailed towards the south twelve days, * * * the whole of which is inhabited by Ethiopians, who would not wait our approach, but fled from us. Their language was not intelligible, even to the Lixitiæ who were with us. * * * When we had landed, we could discover nothing in the daytime except trees; in the night we saw many fires burning, and heard the sound of pipes, cymbals, drums, and confused shouts. We were then afraid, and our diviners ordered us to abandon the island; * * * at the bottom of which lay an island like the other, having a lake, and in this lake another island, full of savage people, the greater part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and whom our interpreters called Gorillæ. Though we pursued the men, we could not seize any of them; all fled from us, escaping over the precipices, and defending themselves with stones. Three women were however taken; but they attacked their conductors with their teeth and hands, and could not be prevailed on to accompany us. Having killed them, we flayed them, and brought their skins with us to Carthage.”

Page 312: “At Boossa.—The manners of the Africans too, are hostile to the interest and advancement of woman, and she is very rarely placed on an equality with her husband.”

Page 225: “The king then said, with a serious countenance, that there was no necessity for further discussion respecting the white men, (the two brothers Lander,) his mind was already made up on the subject; and for the first time, he briefly explained himself, to this effect: That circumstances having thrown us in the way of his subjects, by the laws and usages of the country he was not only entitled to our own persons, but had equal rights to those of our attendants. That he should take no further advantage of his good fortune than by exchanging us for as much English goods as would amount in value to twenty slaves.”

In Mohammedan countries, the most unfavourable portions of the slave’s existence, as such, is while in the hands of the geeleb, or slave-merchant, and until he is sold to one who designs to keep him permanently. In the first instance, if negroes, they suffer much in the journey from the place of purchase to that of sale. For instance, it has been known, in the journey from Sennaar and Darfour to the slave-mart at Cairo, or even the intermediate one at Siout, the loss in a slave caravan, of men, women, camels, and horses, amounted to not less than 4000. The circumstances of the mart itself scarcely appear in a more favourable aspect than those of the journey,—whether we regard the miserable beings, as in the market at Cairo, crowded together in enclosures like the sheep-pens in Smithfield market, amid the abominable stench and uncleanness which result from their confinement; whether, as at another great mart at Muscat, we perceive the dealer walking to and fro, with a stick in his hand, between two lots of ill-clothed boy and girls, whom he is offering for sale, proclaiming aloud, as he passes, the price fixed on each; or else leading his string of slaves through the narrow and dirty streets, and calling out their prices as he exhibits them in this ambulatory auction. * * * The slaves, variously exhibited, usually appear quite indifferent to the process, or only show an anxiety to be sold, from knowing that as slaves, finally purchased, their condition will be much ameliorated. * * * How little slavery is dreaded is also shown by the fact that even Mohammedan parents or relatives are, in cases of emergency, ready enough to offer their children for sale. During the famine which a few years since drove the people of Mosul to Bengal, one could not pass the streets without being annoyed by the solicitations of parents to purchase their boys and girls for the merest trifle; and even in Koordistan, where no constraining motive appeared to exist, we have been sounded as to our willingness to purchase young members of the family. Europeans in the East are scarcely considered amenable to any general rules, but Christians generally are not allowed to possess any other than negro slaves.” London Penny Mag. 1834, pp. 243, 244; also, Sketches of Persia, and Johnson’s Journey from India.

“I took the boat this morning, and crossed the ferry over to Portsmouth, the small town which I told you was opposite to this place, (Norfolk.) It was court-day, and a large crowd of people was gathered about the door of the court-house. I had hardly got upon the steps to look in, when my ears were assailed by the voice of singing, and turning round to observe from what quarter it came, I saw a group of about thirty negroes, of different sizes and ages, following a rough-looking white man, who sat carelessly lolling in his sulkey. They had just turned round the corner, and were coming up the main street, to pass by the spot where I stood, on their way out of town. As they came nearer, I saw some of them loaded with chains to prevent their escape, while others had hold of each other’s hands, strongly grasped, as if to support themselves in their affliction. I particularly noticed a poor mother, with an infant, as she walked along, while two small children had hold of her apron on either side, almost running, to keep up with the rest. They came along singing a little wild hymn, of sweet and mournful melody, flying, by Divine instinct of the heart, to the consolations of religion, the last refuge of the unhappy, to support them in their distress.”

Mr. Barnes has admitted one into his book, pages 136, 137, and 138, which adds strength to our position: its length excludes a copy. We quote again from the Christian Observer, vol. xv. p. 541: “Missions of the United Brethren at Surinam.”—Mr. Campbell writes: “On the plantations and at Sommelsdyk there was a great desire among the negroes to hear the gospel, which finds entrance into many of their hearts. * * * At Paramaribo, the negro congregation consisted, at the close of 1813, of 550.” “On the 30th of August, 1814, the same missionary writes that the word of God among the negroes in Paramaribo continues to increase, and we have great reason to rejoice and take courage when we see marked proofs of the Divine blessing upon our feeble ministry.” See page 542. “Antigua.”—“A letter from this island, dated, Grace Hill, Jan. 14th, 1814. * * * The congregation of Christian negroes at this place consisted, at the close of 1813, of 2087 persons.” Again, page 543: “Some poor negroes, who, although they sigh under the pressure of slavery and various hardships, or ailments of body, seek consolation and refreshment from the meritorious passion of Jesus, are enabled, with tears of joy, to lay hold on these words of Scripture: ‘I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.’” Again, p. 554: “Jamaica.”—Mr. Lang, the missionary, writes thus, on the 5th February, 1814: “It pleases the Lord still to bless our labours with success, so as to encourage us to believe that he has thoughts of peace regarding the negroes in Jamaica also, and will visit them yet more generally with his salvation,” &c. Page 546: “Danish Islands.—The number of Christian negroes belonging to the different missions in the Danish Islands, was, at the end of 1813, as follows:

The Dutch took possession of the Cape of Good Hope in 1650. Slaves from various parts of Africa, Mozambique, and the Malay Islands were introduced; we have no means of knowing to what extent. Somerville found the city of Cape Town to contain 1145 houses, 5500 white and free people of colour, and 10,000 slaves. In all of the years 1736–1792, and 1818, the Moravians established 27 missionaries to the blacks. But they, nor no other people, have ever been able to produce any considerable effect there, or elsewhere, upon the natives, except upon such as were in slavery among a Christian people. The sound of the gospel had no charms for the wild, roving savage.

LESSON XVI.

And if it shall be found that there may be truth in this position, we might submit the inquiry: If God in his wisdom foresaw that the family of Jacob would become so degraded, in one generation, that it would require the counteracting influence of four hundred years of slavery to place them in a condition fit to receive and enjoy the blessings promised their fathers; how long will it require a similar state of control to produce a like renovation among the descendants of Ham, the degraded Africans? But we think, so far as the inquiry can interest us, it has been answered by St. Paul: “Let as many servants (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren; but rather do them service (δουλευέτωσαν, be slaves to them,) because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness, with contentment, is great gain, for we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we can carry nothing out; and having food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil; which while some covet after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God! flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge, in the sight of God who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment (ἐντολήν, an order, a command, a precept, a charge, injunction) without spot (ἄσπιλον, free from stain, spotless, faultless), unrebukable (ἀνεπίληπτον, of whom no hold can be taken, not to be attacked, irreprehensible), until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Tim. vi. 1–14.

“If we may draw an inference also from this case, (the Hebrews in Egypt,) in regard to the manner in which God would have such a people (slaves in America) restored to freedom, it would be in favour of immediate emancipation.”

Mr. Barnes has quoted some few passages of Scripture to which he applies a meaning we deem erroneous; but we attach no blame to him on this account; because our English version itself, of the passages referred to, has a tendency to lead to an inadequate conception of the idea conveyed by the original. The doctor says, page 128—“That even the servant that was bought was to have compensation for his labour; and there are some general principles laid down, which, if applied, would lead to that: thus, Jer. xxii. 13, 'Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that uses his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work.'” He quotes this same passage for the same purpose, pp. 353 and 360, and seems to regard it as a secure pillar, and on which he founds his doctrines. The words, “that useth his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work,” are translated from

The truth is, that the word δουλος, doulos, is the peculiar word to denote slavery, and is so used in the New Testament and everywhere else; but this word also means slave, &c., and is never used disconnected from the idea of slavery, but carries with it the idea of some change, as to place, condition, possession, or ownership. We shall notice how some men are striving to change the Greek, as to the meaning of the word δοῦλος, doulos, because, unless they do so, the New Testament is strongly against them. However, of the word used in 1 Tim. i. 10, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, andrapodistais, it is true, that it is used “with the most marked disapprobation of the thing denoted by it;” and it is just as true that the thing denoted by it is the stealing and enticing away other men’s slaves! Slave-stealers is its only and legitimate meaning in the place used. Had St. Paul intended to express the idea, men-stealers, he would have used the word ἀνθροποκλεπταῖς, anthropokleptais; which would have expressed the very thing wanted by Mr. Barnes. We shall examine these words in another portion of our study. But Mr. Barnes does not appear to be aware why it was that St. Paul instructed Timothy that the law was made for slave-stealers: for whose benefit we will explain; and by which explanation he will learn that the abolitionists commenced their labours during the days of the apostles. From some of the relations of Christianity, not well understood by the Gentile churches, the idea was entertained by some that the operation of Christianity abolished the bonds of matrimony between a believing and an unbelieving party; that it abolished the authority of an unbelieving parent over a believing child; that it abolished slavery in case the slave was converted to the faith, and especially if the master belonged to the household of God. On these subjects and others, the Corinthian church addressed St. Paul for instruction and advice. It is to be regretted that their letter has not come down to us; but, we can gather what it contained, from the answer of St. Paul: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me.” 1 Cor. vii. 1.

But it is conceded by Mr. Barnes, page 260, that “the apostles did not openly denounce slavery as an evil, or require that those who were held in bondage should be at once emancipated. * * * These things seem to me to lie on the face of the New Testament; and whatever argument they may furnish to the advocates of slavery in disposing of these facts, it seems plain that the facts themselves cannot be denied.”

Thus the mercy of God is manifested to the degraded and heathen nations, by substantially placing them under a protection and guidance, which, however slow may be the progress, must of necessity have an elevating influence on thousands, in proportion as they, with heart-felt willingness, yield themselves to it. “Oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness. Such as sit in darkness and the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron; because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsels of the Most High: therefore, he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, there was none to help. Then they cried unto the Lord in their trouble, and he raised them out of their distresses. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder. Oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men.” Psa. cvii. 8–15.

But the sentence here quoted from Mr. Barnes, containing the proposition that Josephus said, in his Antiquities, vol. ii. chap. xii sec. 3, that all slaves were set at liberty in the year of jubilee, is consecutively followed in his book, thus: “The fiftieth year is called by the Hebrews the jubilee, wherein debtors are freed from their debts, and slaves are set at liberty.” And this sentence is marked as quoted from Josephus, and as though it was the exact passage to be found in the place just before referred to. The fact is, this sentence is nearly a part of what may be found in book iii. chap. xii. sec. 3 of Antiquities, thus: “And that fiftieth year is called by the Hebrews the jubilee wherein debtors are freed from their debts, and slaves are set at liberty; which slaves became such, though they were of the same stock, by transgressing some of those laws whose punishment was not capital, but they were punished by this method of slavery.”

And it may be said that nations and individuals thus enslave themselves. “Behold, for your iniquities ye have sold yourselves.” Isa. l. 1. These principles may be seen every day operating among the most degraded of even the most enlightened nations. The history of the present day informs us of the deep degradation of the African tribes; and that even in their own country the great mass are slaves. Consistently with the laws of God, they could not be otherwise; and even slavery among themselves, subject to sacrifice and death as we have seen it, is yet better for them than a state of freedom. We have seen how the free hordes roam like the brutes, making that place home where night overtook them. Suppose such to be cannibals, of which we have proof, it might so happen, that, in one day, one half of their number would be destroyed by themselves. Therefore, as distressing as slavery must be among them, yet it is far preferable to their dejected condition of freedom.

The style of the work before us is always diffuse and declamatory, sometimes elevated, but often cumbrous; still his language bears the impress of classical learning and a cultivated mind; but there is in the work a want of conciseness; it abounds in contradictory positions and a frequent inconclusiveness of deduction, which make it obnoxious to a charge of carelessness. But may we not account for these defects by the urgent solicitude of his readers?

Study III.

Dr. Channing’s sympathies for every appearance of human suffering, for every grade of human imperfection, gave a peculiar phasis, perhaps most amiable to his intellect, religion, and writings. He sought perfection for himself—he was ardent to behold it universal. Heaven must for ever be the home of such a spirit. But the scenes of earth gave agitation and grief. Limited, in his earthly associations, to the habits of the North, the very purity of his heart led him to attack what he deemed the most wicked sin of the South. His politics were formed upon the model of his mind. Religion spread before him her golden wing, and science aided in the elevation of his view.

In support of the first proposition, to wit, “I will show that man cannot be justly held and used as property,” the doctor has advanced seven arguments. He says, page 18—“It is plain, that, if one man may be held as property, then every other man may be so held.” * * * “Now let every reader ask himself this plain question: Could I, can I, be rightfully seized, and made an article of property,” &c. Page 19: “And if this impression be delusion, on what single moral conviction can we rely? * * * The consciousness of indestructible rights is a part of our moral being. The consciousness of our humanity involves the persuasion that we cannot be owned as a tree or brute. As men, we cannot justly be made slaves. Then no man can be rightfully enslaved.”

We know not what notion Dr. Channing may have entertained of “man’s indestructible rights.” But let us ask, what rights has he that may not be destroyed? The right to breath? Suppose, by his own wantonness, carelessness, or wickedness, he is submerged in water, what becomes of his right to breathe, since he can no longer exercise it? Can you name any right that, under the providence of God, may not be destroyed? Freemen have rights, but subject to alteration, and even extinction; slaves have rights, but subject to the same changes. There is no such thing as an “indestructible right” appertaining to any existence, save to the Great Jehovah! He must be an immortal God who can possess an indestructible right. We use the word “right” in Dr. Channing’s sense—just claim, legal title, ownership, the legal power of exclusive possession. You ask, has not man an indestructible right to worship God? We answer, no! Man has no such right to worship God; such right would make him a partner. The worship of God is a duty which man owes; the forbearance of which is forbidden by the moral law, by justice and propriety. Nothing can be forbidden or ordered touching an indestructible right; for such command, if to be obeyed, changes the quality of the right; or rather shows that it was not indestructible.

It is to be lamented that, among the unlearned at the present day, a confused idea of something tantamount to the conscience being a divine monitor within us has taken a deep root among the minds of men; having grown out of the fact that such was the doctrine of some of the fanatical teachers of former days.

LESSON III.

No man has a right to use any item of property in a different manner than his relations with it indicate; or, in other words, as shall be in conformity with the laws of God. Our property is little else than the right of possession and control, under the guidance of the laws by which we are in possession for the time being.

Ye shall be sold, i. e. be exposed to sale, or expose yourselves to sale, as the word הִתְמַכַּרְתֶּםhitmakkartem hith maccartem may be rendered; they were vagrants, and wished to become slaves that they might be provided with the necessaries of life.” Clarke’s Commentary.

Henry says—“I have heard of a wicked man, who, on reading these threatenings, was so enraged that he tore the leaf out of his Bible.”

But Dr. Channing continues—“The highest intelligences recognise their own nature, their own rights, in the humblest human being. By that priceless, immortal spirit which dwells in him, by that likeness of God which he wears, tread him not in the dust, confound him not with the brute.” And he then gravely adds—“We have thus seen that a human being cannot rightfully be held and used as property. No legislation, not that of all countries or worlds, could make him so. Let this be laid down as a first, fundamental truth.”

Page 33. “That some inward principle which teaches a man what he is bound to do to others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what others are bound to do to him!” Suppose a few Africans, on an excursion to capture slaves, find that this “inward principle” teaches them that they are bound to make a slave of Dr. Channing, if they can; does he mean that, therefore, he is bound to make slaves of them?

We say, that the law, rule, or power that decides good or evil, must be from a source far above ourselves; for, if otherwise, the contradictory and confused notions of men must necessarily banish all idea of good and evil from the earth. In fact, the denial of the elevated, the Divine source of such law, is also a denial that God governs; for government without law is a contradiction.

Let us assure the disciples of Dr. Channing that there are thousands of slaves too acute observers of truth to come to such a conclusion; who, although from human frailty they may sometimes seem to suffer an occasional or grievous wrong, can yet give good reason in proof that slavery is their only safety. Let us cast the mind back to a period of five hundred years ago. A Christian ship, intent on new discoveries, lands on the African coast. The petty chieftain there, is and about to sacrifice a number of his slaves, either to appease the manes of his ancestor, to propitiate his gods, or to gratify his appetite by feasting. Presents have been made to the natives; it is thought their friendship is secured; the Christians are invited to the fête, the participants are collected, the victims brought forward, and the club uplifted for the blow. The Christians, struck with surprise, or excited by horror, remonstrate with the chief; to which he sullenly replies: “Yonder my goats, my village, all around my domain; these are my slaves!” meaning that, by the morals and laws that have from time immemorial prevailed there, his rights are absolute; that he feels it as harmless to kill a slave as a goat, or dwell in his village. But the clothing of the Christian is presented, the viands of art are offered, the food of civilization is tasted, the cupidity of the savage is tempted, and the fête celebrated through a novel and more valuable offering. What, these Christians, who have bought these slaves, robbers!

Man cannot be said to be in possession of all things that he, or such theorists, may deem his rights only in a monocratic state. But how will he retain them? For then, so far as he shall have intercourse with others, every thing will come to be decided by the law of might; so that, instead of gaining, he will lose all rights. But suppose him to live without intercourse; what is a naked, abstract right, that yields him nothing above the brute? God never made a man for such a state of life; because it at once includes rebellion to his government; and, therefore, its every movement will be to retrograde.

Dr. Channing’s book before us goes on to specify this debasement as to the intellect; its influence on the domestic relations; how it “produces and gives license to cruelty.” The fact that debasement reaches all these points, we agree to; nay, further, that it reaches to every act and thought. But we refer all these displays of debasement to the result of the degradation, of which slavery is only the moral, the natural consequence. If we find a man debased as to one thing, it is in conformity with the common sense of mankind to expect to find him debased as to another.

He had great power, great wealth, and, it is true, he had great possessions in slaves. The prophet understood his case, and spoke plainly. If his owning thousands of slaves merely had nursed in him a forgetfulness of God, the seer would not have hesitated so to inform him. Great prosperity in the affairs of the world in his case, as in some others of a somewhat later day, so puffed him up that he forgot who he was. The owning of slaves may puff up a silly intellect—doubtless, often does; but the same intellect would be more likely to be puffed up by a command of a more elevated grade, as officers of government, or, even in private life, by the control of superior amounts of wealth; or even by the conceit of possessing a great superiority of intellect.

He who writes on and describes moral influences, must be expected to view them as he has been in the habit of seeing them manifested. We therefore regret exceedingly to see that Dr. Channing has made the assertion that, “to own the persons of others, to hold females in slavery, is necessarily fatal to the purity of a people; that unprotected females, stripped by their degraded condition of woman’s self-respect, should be used to minister to other passions in men than the love of gain, is next to inevitable.”

The family of the slave-owner is taught to regard the negro as a race of man radically inferior, in moral capacity, in mental power, and even in physical ability, to the white man; that, although he is susceptible of improvement in all these things, and even does improve in the state of slavery to the white man, yet that it would require untold generations to elevate him and his race to the present standing of the white races.

“Europe might well open its eyes in wonder. On that continent, with all its aristocracy, the coloured man mixes freely with his fellow-creatures. He sometimes receives the countenance of the rich, and has even found his way into the palaces of the great. In Europe, the doctrine would be thought to be too absurd for refutation, that a coloured man of pure morals and piety, of cultivated intellect and refined manners, was not a fit companion for the best in the land. What must Europe have said, when brought to understand that, in a republic, founded on the principles of human rights and equality, people are placed beyond the laws for treating the African as a man. This Philadelphia doctrine deserves no mercy. What an insult is thrown on human nature, in making it a heinous crime to sit or walk with a human being, whoever it may be? It just occurs to me, that I have forgotten the circumstance which filled to overflowing the cup of abolitionist wickedness in Philadelphia. The great offence was this, that certain young women of anti-slavery faith were seen to walk the streets with coloured young men!”

LESSON VIII.

“Slavery is a strange element to mix up with free institutions. It cannot but endanger them. It is a pattern for every kind of wrong. The slave brings insecurity on the free. Whoever holds one human being in bondage, invites others to plant the foot on his own neck. Thanks to God, not one human being can be wronged with impunity. The liberties of a people ought to tremble, until every man is free. Tremble they will. Their true foundation is sapped by the legalized degradation of a single innocent man to slavery. That foundation is impartial justice, is respect for human nature, is respect for the rights of every human being. I have endeavoured in these remarks to show the hostility between slavery and ‘free institutions.’ If, however, I err; if these institutions cannot stand without slavery for their foundation, then I say, let them fall. Then they ought to be buried in perpetual ruins. Then the name of republicanism ought to become a by-word and reproach among the nations. Then monarchy, limited as it is in England, is incomparably better and happier than our more popular forms. Then, despotism, as it exists in Prussia, where equal laws are in the main administered with impartiality, ought to be preferred. A republican government, bought by the sacrifice of half, or more than half of a people, stripping them of their most sacred rights, by degrading them to a brutal condition, would cost too much. A freedom so tainted with wrong ought to be our abhorrence.”

“To me it seems not only the right, but the duty of the Free States, in case of the annexation of Texas, to say to the Slave-holding States, ‘We regard this act as the dissolution of the Union.’ * * * A pacific division in the first instance seems to me to threaten less contention than a lingering, feverish dissolution of the Union, such as must be expected under this fatal innovation. For one, then, I say, that, earnestly as I deprecate the separation of these States, and though this event would disappoint most cherished hopes for my country, still I could submit to it more readily than to the reception of Texas into the confederacy.” “I do not desire to share the responsibility or to live under the laws of a government adopting such a policy.” * * * “If the South is bent on incorporating Texas with itself, as a new prop to slavery, it would do well to insist on a division of the States. It would, in so doing, consult best its own safety. It should studiously keep itself from communion with the free part of the country. It should suffer no railroad from that section to cross its borders. It should block up intercourse with us by sea and land.” Vol. ii. p. 239.

Page 92. “Were we to visit a slave-country, undoubtedly the most miserable human beings would be found among the free; for among them the passions have a wider sweep, and the power they possess may be used to their own ruin. Liberty is not a necessity of happiness. It is only a means of good. It is a trust that may be abused.” Page 93. “Of all races of men, the African is the mildest and most susceptible of attachment. He loves where the European would hate. He watches the life of a master, whom the North American Indian, in like circumstances, would stab to the heart.”

O most unhappy man! the most unfortunate of all, to have left such a record of intellectual weakness and folly behind! But we will forbear.

LESSON IX.

The doctrine it inculcates is, if a man has two wives, he must either live in the midst of their rivalry and enmity, or exile one or both; either of which is disgrace. The reading may be varied; but let the Hebrew scholar compare the first three words of the original with Exod. xxvi. 3, where they twice occur, and also with the 6th and 17th verses of the same chapter, in each of which they are also found. Let him notice that, in the passage before us, in the word translated sister, the vav, under holem, is omitted; whereas such is not the case in the preceding instances, where the word is correctly translated to express a term of consanguinity; and we think he will abandon the idea that אֲחֹתָהּʾăḥōtāh ahotha, in the passage before us, means sister; and if not, the sentence stands a clear, indisputable, and general condemnation of polygamy.

But we propose to the disciples of Dr. Channing an inquiry: If he could not see how St. Paul in his circumstances could have done more for the subversion of slavery, why did he not take St. Paul for his example, and suffer the matter to rest where St. Paul left it? For he says, vol. iii. page 152—“It becomes the preacher to remember that there is a silent, indirect influence, more sure and powerful than direct assaults on false opinions.” Or was he less careless than St. Paul about stirring up a servile war, and of shaking our social fabric to its foundation? Or did the doctor’s circumstances place him on higher ground than St. Paul? Had “this age of the world” presented him with new light on the true interpretation of the Scriptures? Had the afflatus of the Holy Spirit commissioned him to supersede Paul as an apostle? Are we to expect, through him, a new and improved edition of the gospel? And is this the reason why an argument drawn from the Old Edition now “hardly deserves notice?”

In his concluding note, he says, page 153—“I feel too much about the great subject on which I have written, to be very solicitous about what is said of myself. I feel that I am nothing, that my reputation is nothing, in comparison with the fearful wrong and evil which I have laboured to expose; and I should count myself unworthy the name of a man or a Christian, if the calumnies of the bad, or even the disapprobation of the good, could fasten my thoughts on myself, and turn me aside from a cause which, as I believe, truth, humanity, and God call me to sustain.”

They are convinced that they alone are right. But, “Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain, that thou makest thy ways perfect.” Job xxii. 2, 3.

There are in these volumes several other essays, under different titles, on the same subject; but in most instances, although the language is varied, the same arguments exert their power on the mind of the writer. Aided by the common sympathy of the people among whom he lived, and the conscientious operations of his own mind, his judgment on the decision of the question of right and wrong became unchangeably fixed; while the evidence forced upon him by the only class of facts in relation to the subject which his education and associations in society enabled him to comprehend, became daily more imposing, more exciting in their review, more lucid in their exposing an image of deformity, the most wicked of the offspring of evil. Filled with horror, yet as if allured by an evil charm, his mind seems to have had no power to banish from its sight its horrid vision. Nor is it singular that it should, to some extent, become the one idea—his leading chain of thought. To him, the proofs of his doctrine became a blaze of light, so piercingly brilliant that nothing of a contrary bearing was worthy of belief or consideration.

“Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.” Job xlii. 3.

This word, when used in relation to punishment, is usually associated with the word implying the “eye,” as if the feeling expressed thereby partook more of an animal than a moral sensation. In Gen. xlv. 20, our translators finding our idea of sympathy inapplicable to inanimate objects, expressed it by the word “regard,” meaning care, or concern. Now, since the command forbids this gush of feeling (whether merely animal or not) in the cases cited, is it not evident that the feeling inculcated as proper must be the produce of moral principle, cultivated and sustained by a truthful perception of the laws of God?

But, as if God really intended, contrary to the apparent wishes of some men, to fulfil his word, and establish their condition of never-ending bondage, he has suffered the slave-trade with Africa to be abolished among the Christian nations. The great surplus of slaves in Africa has rendered them of little value there; and these anthropophagi have again returned to their ancient habits, giving proof that their condition of slavery, so far as mortal eye can see, is now for ever past hope. The theological philosopher did once hope that the only commerce which could bring them generally in contact with Christian nations would have a permanent influence on the character of these people. But God, in his providence, has seen proper to order it otherwise. The slave-trade that has been carried on between them and Western Asia, for more than four thousand years, now the only external influence on them as a people, may doubtless extend the standard of Islam, and spread some few corruptions of its religious systems. But neither the religion nor the trade carries to the home of these savages a sufficiency of interest to excite new passions or stimulate into existence new habits or chains of thought.

Barnes on Slavery

This state of being compelled to labour with sweat and toil for subsistence, is the degree of slavery to which sin reduced the whole human family. If we mistake not, the holy books include the idea that sin affects the character of man as a moral poison, producing aberrations of mind in the constant direction of greater sins and an increased departure from a desire to be in obedience to the laws of God. If we mistake not, the doctrine also is prominent that idleness is not only a sin itself, but exceedingly prolific of still greater sins. This mild state of slavery, thus imposed on Adam, was a constant restraint against a lower descent into sin, and can be regarded in no other light than a merciful provision of God in protection of his child, the creation of his hand. If it then be a fact that a given intensity of sin draws upon itself a corresponding condition of slavery, as an operating protection against the final effect of transgression, it will follow that an increased intensity of sin will demand an increased severity of the condition of slavery. Thus, when Cain murdered Abel, God said to him—

“And he said, I am Abraham’s servant. And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants (וַֽעֲבָדִיםwaʿăbādîm va ebadim, and male slaves), and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָ֔חֹתûšĕpāḥōt va shephahoth, and female slaves), and camels and asses.” “And Sarah, my master’s wife, bare a son to my master when she was old: and unto him hath he given all that he hath.”

But again, in case this supposed marriage of Ham with the race of Cain be true, then Ham would be the progenitor of all the race of Cain who should exist after the flood; and such fact would be among the most prominent features of his history. It would, in such case, be in strict conformity with the usages of these early times for his father to have called him by a name indicative of such fact: instead of calling him Ham, he would announce to him a term implying his relationship with the house of Cain. If such relation did not exist, why did he call him Canaan?

But again, the condition of slavery imposed on the descendants of Ham, subjected them to be bought and sold; they became objects of purchase as property, for this quality is inseparable from the condition of the most abject slavery. Now the very name Cain signifies “one purchased.” “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” The word “gotten,” in the original, is the word his mother Eve gave her son for his name, “Cain.” I have purchased, &c., evidently shadowing forth the fact that his race were to be subjects of purchase.

And who shall say that the wicked, disgusting mode of life, the practices deteriorating the physical and mental powers imputed to the Cainites, do not constitute what some may call a philosophical cause of the physical development of the mark of sin? Does not our own observation teach us that a single lifetime, spent in the practice of some degrading sins, leaves upon the person the evidence, the mark, the proof of such practice? We are under no compulsion of evidence or belief to suppose that the mark set upon Cain was the product of a moment; but the gradual result of his wicked practices, as a physical and moral cause.

Thus diversified have been the speculations of men. We present our view, because we believe it better sustained by Scripture and known facts than any we have examined: but we deem it no way important in the justification of the ways of God to man; for, whatever the truth may be, this we know, that the curse of slavery was, if Scripture be true, unalterably uttered against the race of Ham,—in which condition, as a people, they ever have been and still are found: a condition so well adapted to their physical and mental organization, the result of ages spent in bad, degenerating habits, that when held in such relation by the races of Japheth or Shem, the race of Ham is found gradually to emerge from its native brutality into a state of comparative elevation and usefulness in the world; a condition without which they, as a race, have never been found progressing, but ever exhibiting the desire of wandering backward, in search of the life of the vagabond, in the midst of the wilderness of sin;—unless in this author, Dr. Channing, we find an exception; for he more than intimates that he found the negro women of Jamaica rather to excel the white ones of New England. We believe, according to his own taste and judgment, what he said was true; but we also believe his taste was very depraved, and his judgment of no value on this subject; yet we feel less astonishment at the degenerate sons of Seth before the flood, on the account of their admiration of the black daughters of the race of Cain; and we should feel it a subject of curious solicitude, if Dr. Channing’s taste and judgment on this subject were to become the standard among his disciples, whether they will, by their practice, illustrate the habit of these antediluvians!

Study IV.

Mr. Bower was a very learned man, had been educated a Catholic, was professor of rhetoric, history, and philosophy in the universities of Rome, Fermo, and Macerata, and counsellor of the Inquisition at Rome. He commenced a work to prove the pope’s infallibility and supremacy. But he proved to himself the adverse doctrine. He resigned his professorships and places, removed to London, abjured the Catholic religion, and wrote the work quoted. It is a work of great labour and merit, and well worth the attention of the curious in these matters. But it is proper here to remark, that Mr. Sale, in his preface to his translation of the Koran, has made a severe, yet an unexplained attack, on the character of this writer; but whatever may have been the provocation, we have to view him through his book. It is not always possible for a just degree of merit to be awarded those who lived in former times. We cannot always learn the circumstances influencing them, nor do we often throw our minds back into their peculiar position, by which alone can we be able to give a just value to those influences.

The kings were but heads of tribes, too weak to restrain their nobles, as the nobles were their vassals: under such a state of things, each one strove to redress his own wrongs. This led to constant murders, and every kind of crime. Each state was constantly agitated by civil commotions and bloodshed. Great moral changes are advanced by short steps. The church took this evil in hand, and hence the Treuga Dei, a word used in the Latin of that day, a corruption from the Gothic triggua, and now found in the Spanish and Italian “tregua,” and from whence our word truce. The curse of God was pronounced against all offenders, and death followed a discovery of the crime. It was thought to be a Divine suggestion, and hence the name. All consented to yield to it as such, and it was found to have a powerful effect. In 1095, it was warmly sustained in the Council of Clermont, under Urban II., and extended to all the holy-days, and perpetually to clerks, monks, pilgrims, merchants, husbandmen, and women, and to the persons and property of all who would engage in crusades, and against all devastations by fire. It was re-established in 1102, by Paschal II.; in 1139, by Innocent II.; in 1180, by Alexander III.; nor would it be difficult to show that the Treuga Dei, the Truce of God, of Benedict IX., was one of the most important, during the primary steps towards the civilization of Europe; such was the state of society in that age of the world. But we acknowledge that individuals of the Roman church, some of whom obtruded themselves into the priesthood, have been very corrupt men. But have not similar obtrusions happened in every other Christian, Protestant, or worthy association of men? Have we not seen, among the apostles, a Judas, betraying the Saviour of the world? Ananias and Sapphira, attempting to swindle even God himself? Of confidence betrayed among men, need we point to the tragical death of Servetus, which has for ever placed the bloody mark of murder on the face of Calvin?

But, if you call a dog a thief, he feels no shame. Generations of enforced improvement and the grace of God alone can wipe out the stains of an evil heart. Nor can man alter this his destiny. Therefore, in all ages, and among all men, the tares and the wheat have been found in the same field. What presumption, then, if not blasphemy, in opposition to the word of Jehovah, to say, that the looming light of truth never dawned upon this night of time until the advent of Luther or Knox!

But he who has schooled his mind in the doctrines of a tranquil devotion, who habituates himself to view all things past, present, and to come, through the medium of cause and effect, as the mere links of one vast chain, reaching from Omnipotence to the present action, may well rise superior to the tumult of passion or the empire of prejudice. And to the utilitarian permit us to say, that prejudice is peculiarly unsuited to the age of moral and physical improvement in which we live. Let no one say, the spirit of improvement has a deep root, and its lofty hopes cannot be subverted; that the most penetrating philosophy cannot prescribe its limits, the most ardent imagination reach its bounds: rather let him reflect that all improvement must for ever follow the footsteps of truth; and that the peculiar province of prejudice is to set us aside from its path.

The object of the Arabian, Saracen, and Moorish warriors was the propagation of their creed. The alternative was proposed to all,—its embrace, or tribute; if rejected, the chance of war. Persia and Syria were quickly subdued. Egypt and Cyprus gave way, A.D. 645. The slave of Jews or Christians seldom rejected freedom in favour of the cross; if so, he was reduced to the level of the vilest brute. The free were either put to death, or, as a great favour, permitted to be slaves. Thus the Christian master and slave were often in a reversed condition under Mohammedan rule. Sicily and the whole northern Africa substituted the crescent for the Cross; and in quick succession Spain was invaded and the throne of Roderick overturned. Toledo yielded to Mousa; and Fleury, lib. xli. part 25, says—“He put the chief men to death, and subjugated all Spain, as far as Saragossa, which he found open. He burned the towns, he had the most powerful citizens crucified, he cut the throats of children and infants, and spread terror on every side.”

Fifty years had scarcely sunk in the past, when the Emperor Basilius expelled Photius from the patriarchal see of his capital. He was charged with having been the tool of the Emperor Michael. He claimed supremacy over the pope of Rome. Hadrian had now ascended the papal chair, 867. Jealous of the bold spirit of Photius, his excommunication was recorded, and Ignatius installed in his see.

Eutropius, the Lombard, informs us of the rich presents made to St. Peter for these favours of the pope, and that the emperor ceded to him the dukedoms, Benevento and Spoleti, together with the sovereignty of Rome itself.

Let us look at man alone; poor and oppressed; tormented by injustice, and stupified to lethargy; writhing under disease, or tortured by his brethren! Recollect his mental pains! The loss of friends, and the poison of ingratitude; the rage of tyranny, and the slow progress of justice; the brave, the high-minded, the honest, consigned to the fate of guilt!

Suppose the laws of Japan permit voluntary slavery, as did those of Moses. (See Exod. xxi. 5; also Lev. xxv. 47.) Suppose an African negro, of the lowest grade, destitute and naked, voluntarily finds himself in that island, where the poor, free inhabitants scarcely sustain life by the most constant toil. The negro finds no employment. He can neither buy, beg, nor steal; starvation is at hand. He applies to sell himself, under the law of the country, a slave for life. Is not slavery, in this case, a good, because life is a greater good than liberty? Liberty is worth nothing in opposition to life. Liberty is worth nothing without available possessions to sustain it. The preservation of life is the highest law. The law of God, therefore, would be contradictory, if it forbid a man to sell himself to sustain his life; and the justice and propriety of such law must be universal and eternal, so far as it can have relation with the condition of man upon this earth.

But a man having the natural right to sell himself proves that he has the same right to buy others. The one follows the other. But, suppose the laws of Japan do not permit voluntary slavery for life, or, rather that they have no law on the subject; but that they have a law, that whosoever proves himself to be so degraded that he cannot, or will not sustain himself, but is found loitering, begging, or stealing, shall be forcibly sold a slave for life,—is not the same good effected as in the other case, although the individual may be too debased to perceive it himself? And is it difficult to perceive, that the same deteriorating causes have produced both cases? The doctrine of the church is that “death, sickness, and a large train of what is called natural evils, are considered to be the consequences of sin. Slavery is an evil, and is also a consequence of sin.” Bishop England, p. 23.

We close this lesson by presenting the condition of slavery among the Chinese, and their laws and customs touching the subject.

But, in all cases of a secondary title, the validity follows the character of the previous holding, as no man can sell, give, or leave by inheritance a better title than that which he has. The question thus runs to the origin of what gives a good title, to wit, the condition that enforces one to be sold, or to sell himself, a slave, in favour of life. True, Blackstone, Montesquieu, and others of less note, contend that no man has a right to sacrifice his liberty; and what is their argument? They make an assumption, where there is no parallel, “that liberty is of equal worth to life;” but before their argument is good, they must show that liberty is of more value than life: for surely a man may barter an equal for an equal. They cry, “God gave all men liberty.” Even that is a fiction. The truth is, God gave no man liberty, only upon conditions.

The Divine law recognises a good title to hold slaves among all people. The Divine grant to hold slaves was not an “especial permit to the Hebrews.” Abimelech gave slaves to Abraham: had his title been bad, Abraham could not have received them. Bethuel and Laban gave slaves to their daughters. None of these were Hebrews, yet they held slaves by a good title; for the very act of acceptance, in all these cases, is proof that the title was good.

It is first in order to present the sermons of St. Paul and St. Peter direct upon this subject. Having heretofore quoted them, we now merely repeat the references, and ask for their perusal: See 1 Cor. vii. 20–24; Eph. vi. 5–9; Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1; 1 Tim. vi. 1–14; Tit. ii. 9–15; Philemon entire, and 1 Pet. ii. 18–25. These scriptures distinctly teach the doctrine of the Christian church. But it remains to see what was the practice that grew up under it.

What further, then, can we say of slaves, than that the servant should have benevolence towards his master, with the fear of God, though he should be impious, though wicked; though he should not even agree with him in religion. In like manner, let the master love his slave, and though he is above him, let him judge him to be his equal at least as a human being. But let him who has a Christian master, having regard to his dominion, love him both as a master, as a companion in the faith, and as a father, not as an eye-servant, but loving his master as one who knows that he will receive the reward of his service to be paid by God. So let the master who has a Christian slave, saving the service, love him as a son and as a brother, on account of the communion of faith.

If any mistress, carried away by great anger, shall have whipped her maid-servant so that she shall within three days die in torture, as it is uncertain whether it may happen by reason of her will or by accident, it is decreed that she may be admitted to communion, having done lawful penance, after seven years, if it happened by her will; if by accident, after five years. But should she get sick within the time prescribed, she may get communion.

Caius (in l. 2, ad Cornel. de sicar.) states that the cause should be proved in presence of judges before the master could pronounce his sentence. Spartianus, the biographer, informs us that the Emperor Adrian, the immediate predecessor of Antoninus, enacted a law forbidding masters to kill their slaves, unless legally convicted. And Ulpian relates that Adrian placed, during five years, in confinement (relegatio) Umbricia, a lady of noble rank, because, for very slight causes, she treated her female slaves most cruelly. But Constantine the Great, about the year 320, enacted that no master should, under penalty due to homicide, put his slave to death, and gave the jurisdiction to the judges but if the slave died casually, after necessary chastisement, the master was not accountable to any legal tribunal. (Const. in 1. i.; C. Theod. de emendat. servorum.)

About this period, also, several of the Gnostic and Manichean errors prevailed extensively in Asia Minor. The fanatics denied the lawfulness of marriage; they forbid meat to be eaten; they condemned the use of wine; they praised extravagantly the monastic institutions, and proclaimed the obligation on all to enter into religious societies; they decried the lawfulness of slavery; they denounced the slaveholders as violating equally the laws of nature and of religion; they offered to aid slaves to desert their owners; gave them exhortations, invitations, asylum, and protection; and in all things assumed to be more holy, more perfect, and more spiritual than other men.!!!

Several councils were held in Africa in the third and fourth centuries, in Carthage, in Milevi, and in Hippo. About the year 422, the first of Pope Celestine I., one was held under Aurelius, archbishop of Carthage, and in which St. Augustine sat as bishop of Hippo and legate of Numidia. A compilation was made of the canons of this and the preceding ones, which was styled the “African Council.” The canon cxvi. of this collection, taken into the body of the canon law, decrees that slaves shall not be admitted as prosecutors, nor shall certain freedmen be so admitted, except to complain for themselves; and for this, as well as for the incapacity of several others there described, the public law is cited, as well as the 7th and 8th councils of Carthage.

Attila, to whom the Romans gave the sobriquet, “Flagellum Dei,” Scourge of God, was driven by Ætius out of Gaul in the year 451; and the following year, pouring his wild hordes down upon Italy, conquered Aquillia, Pavia, Milan, and a great number of small cities, and was in the attitude of marching on Rome. The Emperor Valentinian III., who was a weak prince, panic-struck, shut himself up in Ravenna; and his general, Ætius, who had been so victorious in Gaul, partook of the general fear when invaded at home. The destruction of Rome and its imperial power, the slaughter and slavery of the Roman people, and the extinction of the church appeared probable. Under such a state of things, the emperor and his council prevailed on Leo the pontiff himself, supported by Albienus and Tragelius, men of great experience and talent, to undertake an embassy to the enemy’s camp, then on the banks of the Minzo. This embassy was accompanied by a most grand and numerous retinue—a small army—armed, not with the weapons of war, but with the crosier and crook. Nor did Attila attempt to hide his joy for their arrival. The most profound attention, the most convincing demonstrations of his kindness to them, were studiously displayed by him.

But to return to our subject:—Upon a review of these times, we may notice the distractions of the church by means of the various heresies which imbittered against each other the different professions of the Christian faith. How the followers of Arius, for more than half a century, spread confusion and violence over the entire Christian world:—How, crushed and driven out by Theodosius, thousands took shelter among the pagans, whose movements they stimulated, and whom we now perceive in progress of the gradual overthrow of the Roman Empire:—How, upon the partial or more general successes of these hordes, their Arian confederates, with a fresh memory of their late oppressions and the cruelties inflicted on them, retaliated with unsparing severity and bloodshed upon their Nicene opponents; while, among all these savage invaders, the Arian creed supplanted and succeeded the pagan worship:—How this wild Attila swept the banks of the Danube and the Rhine, carrying death or desolation to the followers of Pharamond, and to the Goths, who had then already established themselves in the strongholds of ancient Gaul and of the more modern Romans. True, his career was checked on the banks of the Rhone, but, like a hunted lion, he rushed towards the Mediterranean, and, recruiting his force in Pannonia, directed his march to Italy; and to-day, after fourteen centuries, it is said that Aquillia still stands the monument of his barbarity. We have this moment noticed the extraordinary manner in which, it is said, by the monition of Leo, his path of ruin was suddenly directed to the ice-bound fortresses of the north. But the captives made on both sides, in these desolating wars, greatly increased the number of slaves of the white race, which otherwise, from operating causes, would have been diminished.

LESSON VII.

In book ii. of the same code, is a rescript to Osius, bishop of Cordova, in which the emperor empowers the bishops to grant the privilege of Roman citizenship to such freedmen as they may judge worthy.

In his book i., on the Sermon of Christ on the Mount, he dwells upon the duty of Christian masters to their slaves. They are not to regard them as mere property, but to treat them as human beings having immortal souls, for which Christ died.

Persons who have not the qualifications of birth or conduct, are everywhere admitted to holy orders; and they who could not procure freedom from their masters are elevated to the rank of the priesthood; as if the lowliness of slavery could rightfully claim this honour: and, as if he who could not procure the approbation of even his master, could procure that of God. There is, therefore, in this a double criminality: for the holy ministry is polluted by the meanness of this fellowship, and so far as regards the rashness of this unlawful usurpation, the rights of the masters are infringed. Wherefore, dearest brethren, let all the priests of your province keep aloof from these: and not only from these, but also, we desire they should abstain from those who are under bond, by origin or any condition, except perchance upon the petition or consent of the persons who have them in their power in any way. For he who is to be aggregated to the divine warfare, ought to be exempt from other obligations: so that he may not by any bond of necessity be drawn away from that camp of the Lord for which his name has been enrolled.

St. Ambrose did not scruple to melt down the communion-plate of the church of Milan to redeem some captives, who otherwise must have continued in slavery. The Arians charged him with sacrilege: in answer to which he wrote his Apology, which has reached this late day, as the rules and reasons of the church in such cases. He says—“Is it not better that the plate should be melted by the bishop to maintain the poor, when they can be maintained by no other means, than that it should become the spoil and plunder of a sacrilegious enemy? Will not the Lord thus expostulate with us, Why did you suffer so many helpless persons to die with hunger, when you had gold to relieve and support them? Why were so many captives carried away and sold without ransom? Why were so many suffered to be slain by the enemy? It would have been better to have preserved the vessels of living men than lifeless metals. To this, what answer can be returned? Should one say, I was afraid that the temple of God should want its ornaments: Christ would answer, My sacraments require no gold, nor do they please me more for being ministered in gold, as they are not to be bought with gold. The ornament of my sacrament is the redemption of captives; and those alone are precious vessels that redeem souls from death.”

It will be readily conceived that the barbarians, in the earlier ages of the Christian church, treated their slaves with cruelty, inconsistent with the spirit of the new religion; and, upon their adoption of the Christian creed, they sometimes ran into an opposite extreme, contrary to the rules of the church. In both cases the church used her authority, and, says Bishop England, upon their embrace of Christianity, “slavery began to assume a variety of mitigated forms among them,” which will, in some degree, be developed as we proceed with the history of canonical legislation on that subject.

“Ne unquam ordinationes præsumat illicitas; ne * * * curæ aut cuilibet conditioni obnoxium notatumque ad sacros ordines permittat accedere.”

Let no one held under servile or colonizing conditions be admitted to church honours, in violation of the statutes of the Apostolic see; unless it be evident that he has been previously absolved therefrom by will or by deed. And if any bishop, being aware of such condition of the person so ordained, shall wilfully transgress by making such unlawful ordination, let him not presume to celebrate mass for the space of a year.

Some of those, when they lose their dwellings and their little fields by invasion, or leave them, being worried by exactions, as they can no longer hold them, seek the grounds of the larger proprietors, and become the colonists of the wealthy. Or, as is usual with those who are driven off by the fear of enemies, and take refuge in the castles, or who, having lost their state of safe freedom, fly to some asylum in despair: so they who can no longer have the place or the dignity derived from their birth, subject themselves to the abject yoke of the sojourner’s lot; reduced to such necessity, that they are stripped not only of their property, but also of their rank; going into exile not only from what belongs to them but from their very selves, and with themselves losing all that they had, they are bereft of any property in things and lose the very right of liberty. * * * A more degrading injury is added to this evil. For they are received as strangers, they become inhabitants bereft of the rights of inhabitants; they who receive them as foreigners and aliens begin to treat them as property, and change into slaves those who, evidently, were free.

Muratori, treating of the Roman slaves and freedmen, acknowledges that he is unable accurately to state the conditions on which they manumitted their slaves. In his treatise, “Sopra i Servi e Liberti Antichi,” he has a passage thus:

This was in all likelihood practised only by merchants or other masters given to making profit, but not by noble houses. As to these the ancient inscriptions exhibit to us that very many who obtained their freedom, yet continued to live and to do service in those same houses, no longer as slaves, but as freed persons, because probably each party found it beneficial. The patrons kept about them persons in whom they had confidence, and who had already been engrafted on their families; the freed persons, grown to honour and making profit could create property for themselves and for their children. I cannot discover whether the Romans had hireling servants, as is now the case. They had then true slaves and sometimes freed persons. This being the case, it is matter of surprise that Pignoria, in treating of the employment of the ancient slaves, should have been so perplexed as not to be able clearly to distinguish slaves from freed persons, and should have attributed to the former many employments which were specially reserved for the latter: and it is more to be wondered at, that marbles which speak of freed persons are referred to by him and explained as treating of slaves.

“The slaves in general are not arranged at their several employments in the household affairs, as is the practice at Rome. Each has his separate habitation, and his own establishment to manage. The master considers him as an agrarian dependant, who is obliged to furnish a certain quantity of grain, cattle, or wearing-apparel. The slave obeys, and the state of servitude extends no further. All domestic affairs are managed by the master’s wife and children. To punish a slave with stripes; to load him with chains, or condemn him to hard labour, is unusual. It is true that slaves are sometimes put to death, not under colour of justice, or of any authority vested in the master; but in a transport of passion, in a fit of rage, as is often the case in a sudden affray but it is also true that this species of homicide passes with impunity. The freedmen are not of much higher consideration than the actual slaves; they obtain no rank in their master’s family, and, if we except the parts of Germany where monarchy is established, they never figure on the stage of public business. In despotic governments they often rise above the men of ingenuous birth, and even eclipse the whole body of the nobles. In other states the subordination of the freedmen is a proof of public liberty.”

At a much earlier period, slaves had become a drug in the Italian market. When, about the year 405, Rhadagasius, the Goth, was leading upwards of three hundred thousand of his barbarians into Italy, the Emperor Honorius ordered the slaves to be armed for the defence of the country, by which arming they generally obtained their freedom; Stilichon, the consul, slew nearly one hundred and fifty thousand of the invaders in the vicinity of Florence, and made prisoners of the remainder, who were sold as slaves at the low price of one piece of gold for each. Jacobs estimates the aureus at eleven shillings. It is supposed to have contained about 70 grains of gold, which will make the price of a slave, at that time, about $2.60. But Wilkins (Leges Saxon.) informs us that, in England, about the year 1000, the price of a slave was £2 16s. 3d. sterling, not quite the value of two horses. But, of these slaves of Stilichon, numbers died within the year, so that Baronius relates (Annals, A.D. 406) that the purchasers had to pay more for their burial than for their bodies; according to the remarks of Orosius, in this state of the market, it was easy for the slave to procure that he should be held at a condition, and thenceforth the number under condition greatly increased, and in process of time became more numerous than those in absolute slavery.

In Judaism, God had established a limited sanctuary for slaves and for certain malefactors, not to encourage crime, but to protect against the fury of passion, and to give some sort of aid to the feeble. Paganism adopted the principle, and the Christian temple and its precincts became, not only by common consent, but by legal enactment, the sanctuary instead of the former. Like every useful institution, this too was occasionally abused.

if any Jew shall bring a slave to be a proselyte to his religion, or make a Jew of a Christian slave, or take as his companion a Christian female slave, or induce a slave born of Christian parents to become a Jew under the influence of a promise of emancipation, he shall lose the title to every such slave. And further, that if any Christian slave shall become a Jew for the sake of being manumitted with condition, and shall continue to be a Jew, the liberty shall be lost and the condition shall not avail him.

We enact this to be observed respecting slaves, who may for any fault fly to the precincts of the church, that, as is found written in ancient constitutions, when the master shall pledge his oath to grant pardon to the culprit, whosoever he may be, he shall go out secure of pardon. But, if the master, unmindful of his oath, shall be convicted of having gone beyond what he had sworn, so that it shall be proved that the servant who had received pardon was afterwards tortured with any punishment for that fault, let that master who was forgetful of his oath be separated from the communion of all. Again, should the servant secured from punishment by the master’s oath, be unwilling to go forth, it shall be lawful for the master, that he should not lose the service of a slave seeking sanctuary by such contumacy, to seize upon such a one unwilling to go out, so that the church should not suffer either trouble or calumny by any means on account of retaining such servant: but let not the master in any way rashly violate the oath that he swore for granting pardon. But, if the master be a gentile, or of any other sect proved without the church, let the person who claims the slave procure Christian persons of good account who shall swear for the servant’s security in the master’s name: because they who dread ecclesiastical discipline for transgression can keep that which is sacred.

The Romans had possession of Britain, and even had not slavery existed there previously, they would have introduced it; but, the Britons needed not this lesson; they had been conversant with it before: we shall see evidence of the long continuance of its practice.

“This prince, Coroticus, though apparently a Christian, was a tyrant, a pirate, and a persecutor. He landed, with a party of his armed followers, many of whom were Christians, at a season of solemn baptism, and set about plundering a district in which St. Patrick had just baptized and confirmed a great number of converts, and on the very day after the holy chrism was seen shining in the foreheads of the white-robed neophytes. Having murdered several persons, these marauders carried off a considerable number of people, whom they went about selling or giving up as slaves to the Scots and the apostate Picts. St. Patrick wrote a letter, which he sent by a holy priest whom he had instructed from his younger days, to those pirates, requesting of them to restore the baptized captives and some part of the booty. The priest and the other ecclesiastics that accompanied him being received by them with scorn and mockery, and the letter not attended to, the saint found himself under the necessity of issuing a circular epistle or declaration against them and their chief Coroticus, in which, announcing himself a bishop and established in Ireland, he proclaims to all those who fear God, that said murderers and robbers are excommunicated and estranged from Christ, and that it is not lawful to show them civility, nor to eat or drink with them, nor to receive their offerings, until, sincerely repenting, they make atonement to God and liberate his servants and the handmaids of Christ. He begs of the faithful, into whose hands the epistle may come, to get it read before the people everywhere, and before Coroticus himself, and to communicate it to his soldiers, in the hope that they and their master may return to God, &c. Among other very affecting expostulations, he observes that the Roman and Gallic Christians are wont to send proper persons with great sums of money to the Franks and other pagans, for the purpose of redeeming Christian captives; while, on the contrary, that monster, Coroticus, made a trade of selling the members of Christ to nations ignorant of God.”

Martin, archbishop of Braga, who presided at the third council of that city, in the year 572, collected, from the councils of the east and the west, the greater portion of the canon law then in force, and made a compendium thereof, which he distributed into eighty-four heads, which formed as many short canons, and thenceforth they were the basis of the discipline in Spain.

A custom had already gained considerable prevalence, which we shall find greatly extended in subsequent ages, of granting to the churches slaves for its service and support. The administrators of the church property were called familia fisci. The church property was in ecclesiastical documents styled the fisc. The fisca regis, or royal fisc, was a different fund or treasury. It sometimes happened that the clergy who were the administrators sought to obtain from the “conditioned slaves” more than they were bound to give, and also, sometimes, others sought to have their service taken from the church. The capitulary viii. of this third council of Toledo was enacted to remedy this latter grievance.

We have learned from the Scripture that every word is confirmed in two or three witnesses. We therefore declare that slaves who are manumitted by their masters shall be admitted to enjoy that honour under three witnesses, who may be able to afford security by their presence to the freedom, and who may be able to secure credit for the acts done in their view.

Nor is that notice of the blessed Gregory which has come down to us by the tradition of our ancestors to be silently passed over: for, by reason of the admonition that he then received, he became so industrious for the salvation of our nation. For they say, that on a certain day when merchants had newly arrived, many things were brought into the market, and several persons had come to purchase; Gregory himself came among them, and saw exposed for sale, youths of a fair body and handsome countenance, whose hair was also beautiful. Looking at them, they say, he asked from what part of the world they were brought; he was told from the island of Britain, whose inhabitants were of that complexion. Again he asked whether these islanders were Christians or were immersed in the errors of paganism. It was said, that they were pagans. And he, sighing deeply, said, “Alas! what a pity that the author of darkness should possess men of so bright a countenance, and that so graceful an aspect should have a mind void of grace within!” Again he inquired what was the name of their nation. He was told that they were called Angles. He said, “It is well, for they have angelic faces, and it is fit that such should be the coheirs with Angels in Heaven.” From what province were they brought, was his next inquiry. To which it was answered, The people of their province are called Deiri. “Good again,” said he, “Deiri, (de irâ eruti,) rescued from anger and called to the mercy of Christ.” What is the name of the king of that province? He was told, Aella. And, playing upon the word, he responded, “Alleluia. The praises of God our Creator ought to be chanted in those regions.” And going to the pontiff of the Roman Apostolic See, for he was not yet made pope himself, he besought him to send to Britain, for the nation of the Angles, some ministers of the word, through whom they may be converted to Christ; and stated that he was himself ready, the Lord being his aid, to undertake this work, if the pope should so please. This he was not able to do, for though the pontiff desired to grant his petition, the citizens of Rome would not consent that he should go to so great distance therefrom. As soon, however, as he was placed in the office of pope, he performed his long desired work: he sent other preachers, but he aided by his prayers and exhortations, that he might make their preaching fruitful.

As you are going, with aid of the Lord Jesus Christ, our God, to govern the patrimony which is in Gaul; we desire that out of the shillings you may receive, you, our beloved, should purchase clothing for the poor, or English youths about the age of seventeen or eighteen, that, being placed in monasteries, they may be useful for the service of God; so that the money of Gaul, which ought not to be expended in our land, may be laid out in its own place beneficially. If you can also get any of the money of that income called tolls

In his book, “Pastoralis Curæ,” Of the Pastoral Care, part 3, c. i. Admonit. vi., Pope Gregory says—

Quantus dolor, quantaque sit nostro cordi afflictio de his, quæ in partibus Campaniæ contigerunt, dicere non possumus: sed ex calamitatis magnitudine potes ipse cognoscere. Eâ de re, pro remedio captivorum qui tenti sunt, solidos experientiæ tuæ per horum portitorem Stephanum virum magnificum transmisimus, admonentes ut omnino debeas esse sollicitus, ac strenuè peragas, et liberos homines, quos ad redemptionem suam sufficere non posse cognoscis, tu eos festines redimere. Qui vero servi fuerint, et dominos eorum ita pauperes esse compereris, ut eos redimere non assurgant, et hos quoque comparare non desinas. Pariter etiam et servos ecclesiæ qui tuâ negligentiâ perierunt, curabis redimere. Quo cumque autem redemeris, subtiliter notitiam, quæ nomina eorum, vel quis ubi maneat, sive quid agat, seu unde sit, contineat, facere modis omnibus studebis, quam tecum possis afferre cum veneris. Ita autem in hâc re te studiose exhibere festina, ut ii qui redimendi sunt, nullum te negligente periculum possint incurrere, et tu apud nos postea vehementer incipias esse culpabilis, sed et hoc quam maxime age, ut si fieri potest, captivos ipsos minori possis pretio comparare. Substantiam verò sub omni puritate atque subtilitate describe, et ipsam nobis descriptionem cum celeritate transmitte.

Vol. ii. pp. 20, 21, 22, he says—“Another argument against property (in slaves) is to be found in the essential equality of men.” * * * “Nature indeed pays no heed to birth or condition in bestowing her favours. The noblest spirits sometimes grow up in the obscurest spheres. Thus equal are men;—and among these equals, who can substantiate his claim to make others his property, his tools, the mere instruments of his private interest and gratification?” * * * “Is it sure that the slave, or the slave’s child, may not surpass his master in intellectual energy, or in moral worth? Has nature conferred distinctions, which tell us plainly who shall be owners and who shall be owned? Who of us can unblushingly lift up his head and say that God has written ‘master’ there? Or who can show the word ‘slave’ engraven on his brother’s brow? The equality of nature makes slavery a wrong.”

The pride of the Gentile ridiculed what he denominated superstition: while he smote the believer whom he mocked, he bowed before the idol of paganism. The early heresies of those who professed the Christian name, but separated from Christian unity, sprang generally from the efforts to destroy the mysterious nature of the doctrine of the apostles, and to explain it by the system of some Gentile philosopher, or to modify it by superinducing some Judaic rite or principle. The Jew, the Gentile, and the heretic equally felt elevated by his imagined superiority over the faithful follower of the doctrine of the Galilean. Thus the sword of the persecutor, the scoff of ridicule, and the quibbling of a false philosophy, were all employed against the members of the church; and among those who were by their situation the most exposed to suffering, were the Christian slaves of the enemies of the cross. Even they who belonged to the faithful had peculiar trials, because, frequently, in times of persecution, masters, desirous of obtaining protection, without actually sacrificing to idols, compelled their servants to personate them in perpetrating the crime. They were frequently circumcised, even against their will, by the Jewish owners. They were frequently mutilated by the infidel master. They were also exposed to the continued hardships and enticements of owners who desired to make them proselytes.

Therefore do all this correction most exactly and quickly, that you may not only have our thanks for preserving discipline, but that we may, when opportunity offers, give you proof of our recognition for your goodness.

Et licet quid de Christianis, qui aut captivitatis incursu, aut quibuscumque fraudibus, Judæorum servitio implicantur, debeat observari, non solum canonicis statutis, sed et legum beneficio pridem fuerit constitutum: tamen quia nunc ita quorundam querela exorta est, quosdam Judæos, per civitates aut municipia consistentes, in tantam insolentiam et proterviam prorupisse ut nec reclamantes Christianos liceat vel precio de eorum servitute absolvi. Idcirco præsenti concilio, Deo auctore, sancimus, ut nullus Christianus Judæo deinceps debeat servire; sed datis pro quolibet bono mancipio xii. solidis, ipsum mancipium quicumque Christianus seu ad ingenuitatem, seu ad servitium, licentiam habeat redimendi: quia nefas est, ut quos Christus Dominus sanguinis effusione redemit persecutorum vinculis maneant irretiti. Quod si acquiescere his quæ statuimus quicumque Judæus noluerit, quamdiu ad pecuniam constitutam venire distulerit, liceat mancipio ipsi cum Christianis ubicumque voluerit habitare. Illud etiam specialiter sancientes, quod si qui Judæus Christianum mancipium ad errorem Judaicum convictus fuerit persuasisse, ut ipso mancipio careat, et legandi damnatione plectetur.

Multorum ad nos relatione pervenit, a Judæis in Lunensi civitate degentibus in servitio Christiana detineri mancipia: quæ res nobis tanto visa est asperior, quanto ea fraternitati tuæ patientia operabatur. Oportebat quippe te respectu loci tui, atque Christianæ religionis intuitu, nullam relinquere occasionem, ut superstitioni Judaicæ simplices animæ non, tam suasionibus quam potestatis jure, quodammodo deservirent. Quamobrem hortamur fraternitatem tuam, ut secundum piissimarum legum tramitem, nulli Judæo liceat Christianum mancipium in suo retinere dominio. Sed si qui penes eos inveniuntur, libertas eis tuitionis auxilio ex legum sanctione servetur. Hi vero qui in possessionibus eorum sunt, licet et ipsi ex legum distinctione sint liberi; tamen quia colendis eorum terris diutius adhæserunt, utpote conditionem loci debentes, ad colenda quæ consueverant rura permaneant, pensionesque prædictis viris præbeant: et cuncta quæ de colonis vel originariis jura præcipiunt, peragant, extra quod nihil eis oneris amplius indicatur. Quodsi quisquam de his vel ad alium migrare locum, vel in obsequio suo retinere voluerit, ipse sibi reputet, qui jus colonarium temeritate suâ, jus vero juris dominii sui severitate damnavit. In his ergo omnibus ita te volumus solerter impendi, ut nec direpti gregis pastor reus existas, nec apud nos minor æmulatio fraternitatem tuam reprehensibilem reddat.

But should any one of these desire to migrate to another place; or should he prefer remaining in his obedience, let the consequences be attributed to him who rashly violated the colonial rights, or who injured himself by the severity of his conduct towards his subject.

LESSON XII.

Fraternitati vestræ ante hoc tempus scripsimus, ut hos qui de Judaica superstitione ad Christianam fidem Deo aspirante venire desiderant, dominis eorum nulla esset licentia venundandi: sed ex eo quo voluntatis suæ desiderium prodidissent, defendi in libertatem per omnia debuissent. Sed quia quantum cognovimus, nec voluntatem nostram, nec legum statuta subtili scientes discretione pensare, in paganis servis hâc se non arbitrantur conditione constringi: fraternitatem vestram oportet de his esse solicitam, et si de Judæorum servitio non solum Judæos, sed etiam quisquam paganorum fieri voluerit Christianus, postquam voluntas ejus fuerit patefacta, nec hunc sub quolibet ingenio vel argumento cuipiam Judæorum venundandi facultas sit: sed is qui ad Christianam converti fidem desideret, defensione vestrâ in libertatem modis omnibus vindicetur. Hi vero quos hujusmodi oportet servos amittere, ne forsitan utilitates suas irrationabiliter æstiment impediri, sollicitâ vos hæc convenit consideratione servare: ut si paganos, quos mercimonii causâ de externis finibus emerint, intra tres menses, dum emptor cui vendi debeant non invenitur, fugere ad ecclesiam forte contigerit, et velle se fieri dixerint Christianos, vel etiam extra ecclesiam hanc talem voluntatem prodederint, pretium ibi à Christiano scilicet emptore percipiant. Si autem post præfinitos tres menses quisquam hujusmodi servorum velle suum edixerit, et fieri voluerit Christianus, nec aliquis eum postmodum emere, nec dominus quâlibet occasionis specie audeat venundare, sed ad libertatis proculdubio præmia perducatur: quia hunc non ad vendendum, sed ad serviendum sibi intelligitur comparasse. Hæc igitur omnia fraternitas vestra ita vigilantes observet, quatenus ei nec supplicatio quorumdam valeat, nec persona surripere.

“The bearer hereof, Cosmas the Syrian, has informed us that he contracted many debts in the business in which he was engaged. We believe it to be true; he has testified it with many tears and witnesses. And, as he owes 150 shillings, I wish his creditors would make some composition with him. And as the law regulates that no freeman shall be held for a debt, if there be no goods which can be attached for that debt, he says that his creditors may be induced to accept 80 shillings; but it is extravagant on their part to ask 80 shillings from a man who has nothing. We have sent you 60 shillings by your notary, that you may have a discrete conference with his creditors, and explain matters to them, because they cannot legally hold his son, whom they are said to keep. And if they will come down to any thing less, by your efforts, than the sum that we send, should any thing remain of the 60 shillings, give it to him to help to support himself and his son; should nothing be left, exert yourself to have his debt cancelled by that amount sent, so that henceforth he may be free to exert himself for his own benefit. But be careful, in doing this, to get for him a full receipt and discharge in writing for this money that they get.”

LESSON XIII.

The following document will exhibit in some degree the origin of the principle of escheats to be found in slavery. The slave being freed upon certain conditions, if they were not fulfilled the master of course re-entered upon his rights. The manumitted slave was sometimes allowed, not only freedom, but a certain gift, and often with the condition that, if he had not lawful issue, the gift, and its increase by his industry, should revert to the master or his heir. So, in after times, the lord of the soil, or the monarch, gave portions of land to his vassals upon condition of service, and, upon failure of service or of heirs, his land escheated, or went back to the lord of the soil.

Cum Redemptor noster totius conditor creaturæ ad hoc propitiatus humanam voluerit carnem assumere, ut divinitatis suæ gratia, dirupto quo tenebamur captivi vinculo servitutis, pristinæ nos restitueret libertati: salubriter agitur, si homines quos ab initio natura liberos protulit, et jus gentium jugo substituit servitutis, in eâ naturâ in quâ nati fuerant, manumittentis beneficio, libertati reddantur. Atque ideo pietatis intuitu, et hujus rei consideratione permoti, vos Montanam atque Thomam famulos sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ, cui, Deo adjutore, deservimus, liberos ex hac die, civesque Romanos efficimus, omneque vestrum vobis relaxamus servitutis peculium. Et quia tu, Montana, animum te ad conversionem fateris appulisse monachicam: idcirco duas uncias, quas tibi quondam Gaudiosus presbyter per supremæ suæ voluntatis arbitrium institutionis modo noscitur reliquisse, hac die tibi donamus, atque concedimus omnia scilicet monasterio Sancti Laurentii cui Constantina abbatissa præest, in quo converti Deo miserante festinas, modis omnibus profutura. Si quid vero de rebus suprascripti Gaudiosi te aliquomodo celasse constituerit, id totum ecclesiæ nostræ juri sine dubio mancipetur. Tibi autem, suprascripto Thomæ, quem pro libertatis tuæ cumulo etiam inter notarios volumus militare, quinque uncias, quas præfatus Gaudiosus presbyter per ultimam voluntatem hereditario tibi nomine dereliquit, simul et sponsalia quæ matri tuæ conscripserat, similiter hac die per hujus manumissionis paginam donamus, atque concedimus, eâ sane lege, atque conditione subnexâ, ut si sine filiis legitimis, hoc est, de legitimo susceptis conjugio, te obire contigerit, omnia quæ tibi concessimus, ad jus sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ sine diminutione aliquâ revertantur. Si autem filios de conjugio, sicut diximus, cognitos lege susceperis, eosque superstites reliqueris, earumdem to rerum dominum sine quadam statuimus conditione persistere, et testamentum de his faciendi liberam tibi tribuimus potestatem. Hæc igitur, quæ per hujus manumissionis chartulam statuimus, atque concessimus, nos successoresque nostros, sine aliquâ scitote refragatione servare. Nam justitiæ ac rationis ordo suadet, ut qui sua a successoribus desiderat mandata servari, decessoris sui proculdubio voluntatem et statuta custodiat. Hanc autem manumissionis paginam Paterio notario scribendam dictavimus, et propriâ manu unà cum tribus presbyteris prioribus et tribus diaconis pro plenissimâ firmitate subscripsimus, vobisque tradidimus. Actum in urbe Româ.

Another difficulty arose, in cases of the colonist, by reason of the claims of the several owners where colonists of distinct estates and different owners intermarried. In the case of perfect slaves, the child generally followed the mother, both as regarded condition and property. This was not, however, universally the case. But the owners of colonized lands set up different claims. At length the dispute was settled in the Roman Empire by a law of Justinian, in 539, Novell. clxii. cap. iii., and confirmed by a decision in a case brought up by the church-wardens of Apamea, in Phrygia, in 541, on the kalends of March, by dividing equally the progeny between the estates to which the parents belonged, giving the preference, in all cases of uneven number, to that estate to which the mother was attached. Nov. clvii. tit. xxxix.

Cap. I. Sancimus igitur, ut prædiorum domini de cætero rusticos suos, prout voluerint, conservent: neque quisquam eos qui jam conjuncti sunt possit secundum consuetudinem prius obtinentem divellere, aut compellere ut terram ad ipsos pertinentem colant, abstrahereve a parentibus filios prætextu conditionis colonariæ. Sed et si quid hujusmodi forte jam factum est, corrigi hoc simul, et restitui efficies, sive filios abstrahi contigerit, sive etiam mulieres, nempe vel a parentibus, vel contubernii consortibus: eo, qui reliquo deinceps tempore hujusmodi aliquid facere præsumpserit, etiam de ipso prædio in periculum vocando. Quare libera sunto contubernia metu, qui dudum ipsis immittitur, et parentes habento ex hac jussione filios suos: nequeuntibus prædiorum dominis subtilibus contendere rationibus, et vel nuptias contrahentes vel filios abstrahere. Qui enim tale quid facere præsumpserit, etiam de ipso prædio in periculum veniet, cui eos vindicare rusticos attentat.

“Wherefore, let marriages of servants be exempt from that fear which has hitherto hung over them: and from the issue of this order, let the parents have their children. It shall not be competent for the lords of the estates to strive by any subtle arguments either to take away those who contract marriage, or their children. For he who shall presume to do any such thing shall incur the risk of losing that estate for which he attempts to claim those colonists.

“You, experienced sir, are well aware that Peter, whom we made a proctor, is a native of the estate of our church territory which is called Vitelas. And as our desire is to act towards him with such favour as is compatible with avoiding any injury to the church, we command you by this precept, that you should strictly warn him not to presume, under any pretext or excuse, to have his children joined in wedlock anywhere but on that estate to which they may be bound by law or by condition. In which matter it is quite necessary that you, experienced sir, be very careful, and instil into them a fear to prevent any of them from going on any account beyond the estate to which they are subject by origin. For if any one of them shall presume, as we believe he will not, to go thence, let him be assured that he shall never have our consent either to dwell or to associate himself without the estate on which he was born, but that the land of any such person shall be more heavily charged (superscribi). And know you, that if, by your negligence, any of them shall attempt to do any of those things which we prohibit, you will incur no small danger.”

Tanta nobis subinde mala, quæ aguntur in istâ provinciâ, nunciantur, ut peccatis facientibus, quod avertat omnipotens Deus, celeriter eam perituram credamus. Præsentium namque portitor veniens lacrymabiliter quæstus est, ante plurimos annos ab homine nescio quo de possessione Messanensis ecclesiæ de fontibus se susceptum, et violenter diversis suasionibus puellæ ipsius junctum, ex quâ juvenculos filios jam habere se asseruit, et quam nunc violenter huic disjunctam abstulisse dicitur, atque cuidam alii venumdedisse. Quod si verum est, quam sit inauditum atque crudele malum, tua bone dilectio perspicit. Ideoque admonemus, ut hoc tantum nefas sub ea vivacite, quam te in causis piis habere certissime scimus, requiras atque discutias. Et si ita, ut supradictus portitor insinuavit, esse cognoveris, non solum quod male factum est, ad statum pristinum revocare curabis; sed et vindictam, quæ Deum possit placare, exhibere modis omnibus festinabis. Episcopum vero, qui homines suos talia agentes corrigere negligit atque emendare, vehementer aggredere, proponens, quia si denuo talis ad nos de quoquam qui ad eum pertinet quærela pervenerit, non in eum qui excesserit, sed in ipsum canonice vindicta procedet.

Ecclesiasticis utilitatibus desudantes ecclesiasticâ dignum est remuneratione gaudere, ut qui se voluntariis obsequiorum necessitatibus spontè subjiciunt, dignè nostris provisionibus consolentur. Quia igitur te Theodorum, virum eloquentissimum, consiliarium nostrum, mancipiorum cognovimus ministerio destitutum, ideo puerum nomine Acosimum, natione Siculum, juri dominioque tuo dari tradique præcipimus. Quem quoniam traditum ex nostrâ voluntate jam possides, hujus te necesse fuit scripti pro futuri temporis testimonio ac robore largitatis auctoritate fulciri: quatenus, Domino protegente, securè eum semper et sine ullius retractionis suspicione, quippe ut dominus, valeas possidere. Neque enim quemquam fore credimus, qui tam parvam largitatem pro tuâ tibi devotione concessam desideret, vel tentet ullo modo revocare: cùm uno eodemque tempore, et verecundum sit a decessoribus benè gesta resolvere, et verecundum sit docere ceteros in suâ quandoque resolutoriam proferre largitate sententiam.

Filius noster Fortunatus abbas monasterii sancti Severini, quod in hâc urbe Romanâ situm est, latores præsentium, monachos suos, illic pro recolligendis mancipiis juris sui monasterii quæ illic latitare dicuntur dirigens, petiit ut experientiæ tuæ ei debeant adesse solatia. Eâ propter præsenti tibi auctoritate præcipimus, ut eis in omnibus salvâ ratione concurrere ac opitulari festines: quatenus te illic coràm posito, atque in hâc causâ ferente solatia, salubriter hæc citiùs valeant quæ sibi injuncta sunt ad effectum, Deo auctore, perducere.

Filius noster vir magnificus Occilianus, tribunus Hydruntinæ civitatis, ad nos veniens, puerum unum, Petrum nomine, artis pistoriæ, ex jure germani nostri, ad eum noscitur perduxisse. Quem nunc fugâ lapsum ad partes illas reverti cognovimus. Experientia ergo tua, antequam ad Hydruntinam civitatem valeat is ipse contingere, sub quâ valueris celeritate, vel ad episcopum Hydruntinæ civitatis, vel ad prædictum tribunum, si vel alium quem in loco tuo te habere cognoscis, scripta dirigas, ut uxorem vel filios prædicti mancipii sub omni habere debeant cautelâ atque de ipso sollicitudinem gerere, ut preveniens valeat detineri, et mox, cum rebus suis omnibus quæ ad eum pertinent navi impositis, per fidelem personam huc modis omnibus destinari. Experientia itaque tua cum omni hoc studeat efficaciâ solertiâque perficere, ne de neglectu vel morâ nostros quod non optamus animos offendas.

The word parochiæ, which is translated “hospital,” is more properly ptochia in some of the ancient MSS., which is a sort of Latinized imitation of πτωχία—a house for feeding the poor. Gregory had a large establishment of this description in Rome, attended by pious monks, for whose service those barbarians were purchased. Procopius informs us, lib. ii. de Bello Vandanco, cap. 13, who these Barbary slaves were. “When the Vandals had conquered the Moors of Africa, they were annoyed by the incursions of some of the barbarians of the southern part of Numidia. In order to prevent this, they seized upon them, their wives and children, and transported them to the island of Sardinia: kept prisoners and slaves for some time here, they escaped to the vicinity of Cagliari, and, forming a body of 3000 men, they regained a sort of freedom. Gregory made various efforts to convert them. They who were kept in thraldom were frequently purchased, as in this instance, by the Italians and others.”

The thirteenth council of Toledo was held in the year 683, in the reign of Ervigius, the successor of Wamba. There was an old law of the Goths, found in lib. v. tit. vii., and repeated in other forms in lib. x. and xi., regulating that no freedman should do an injury or an unkindness to his master, and authorizing the master who had suffered, to bring such offender back again to his state of slavery. And in lib. xvii. the freedman, and his progeny for ever, were prohibited from contracting marriage with the family of their patron or behaving with insolence to them. King Ervigius was reminded by many of his nobles that former kings, in derogation of this law, had given employments about the palace to slaves and to freedmen, and even sustained them in giving offence to their masters, had even sometimes ordered them so to do, and protected them; for this the nobles sought redress. The king called upon the council to unite with him in putting a stop to this indignity. And in the sixth canon we have the detail of the evils set forth, and also the enactment, in concurrence with the king, that thenceforward it shall be unlawful to give any employment whatever about the palace, or in the concerns of the crown, to any slave or freedman.

In the tenth chapter of the acts of the same council, not only was excommunication pronounced against all who should be guilty of high treason against Egica, the king of the Gothic nation, but the bishops and clergy united with the nobles (palatii senioribus) and the popular representatives in condemning traitors and their progeny to perpetual slavery, (fisci viribus sub perpetuâ servitute maneant religati.)

The twenty-seventh regulated the punishment of the person who permitted a thievish slave to escape, and, respecting the slave himself, concluded thus:

One of these assemblies, in which Charlemagne published a capitulary, was held at Aix-la-Chapèlle (Aquisgranum) in 789, in which eighty-two chapters were enacted. No. xxiii. is founded upon canon iv. of the council of Chalcedon, and upon an enactment of Leo the Great. It prohibited all attempts to induce a slave to embrace either the clerical or monastical state without the will and license of the master. No. xlv. prohibits, among others, slaves from being competent witnesses, or freedmen against their patrons: founded upon the ninety-sixth canon of the African councils. No. lvii. referring to the third canon of the council of Gangræ, prohibits bishops ordaining slaves without the master’s license.

“All agreed concerning the smaller congregations, that the colonists frequenting each church should bestow upon it one dwelling, with proper out-offices, and two manses (24 acres) of land; and that they should give to the same church one male slave and one female slave between one hundred and twenty noble and free men, and counting also the conditioned servants.”

“It has been stated to us that some persons, by a sort of magisterial presumption, dissolve the lawful marriages of slaves; not regarding that evangelical maxim, What God hath put together, let man not separate. Whence it appears to us, that the wedlock of slaves may not be dissolved, even though they have different masters; but let them serve their masters, remaining in one wedlock. And this is to be observed with regard to those where there has been a lawful union, and with the will of the owners.”

About the year 860, Pope Nicholas I. sent to the newly converted Christians of Bulgaria answers to several inquiries which they made for the regulation of their conduct. The ninety-seventh regards slaves who accuse their masters to the prince or to the court: and the pope refers them to the obligation of the master as given in chapter vi. of the epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians, (not to use threatenings towards their servants,) and then asks, how much more strongly does the spirit of this maxim of kindness and affection bear upon the servant, and teach him to be of an humble and forgiving disposition, such as that chapter enjoins; referring also to the direction of our Saviour, Luke vi. 37, and the injunction of the apostle, 1 Thess. v. 15, for their direction.

The same privilege was granted by the Greek church to the Russians, who speak the Sclavonian language; and they perform, to this day, as well as the Moravians, Divine service in their native language. The pope, however, ordered the gospel to be first read in Latin, and afterwards, for the sake of those who understood not that language, in the Sclavonian. (See Bower, idem, p. 37.) It is not relevant to our subject to inquire what facts presented themselves to the mind of Gregory VII., whereby he apprehended that the Scripture might “fall into contempt,” or they “lead the unlearned into error.” But we have seen, in our own day, a wide deviation from the instruction of St. Paul, in a version of the New Testament in Romaic, or modern Greek, evidently translated from our English version, instead of from the ancient Greek; wherein Paul is made to say, 1 Tim. i. 10, anthropokleptas, which indicates the stealing of a free man—instead of what Paul did say, andrapodistais, which indicates the stealing of a slave. It is true, King James’s translators substituted “men-stealers,” without any further allusion that the men who were to be the things stolen were slaves. It does not appear to have occurred to them that a free man could be stolen, since in no sense could he be property. In said version are other errors of equal magnitude; and we have it from good authority that the Greek patriarch, after an examination of said version, most strictly forbad his people to read it, and, also, to introduce it among them. If such errors were incident to the Sclavonic, Gregory VII. had at least some ground for his apprehensions. But the Sclavonians were of the same colour and physical formation of the northern tribes to whom they were in bondage. There was no physical or moral degradation consequent to an amalgamation with them; and such connection did happen to a very great extent, and at this day has very nearly extinguished all caste between them. But in the days of Gregory VII., and long since, the politer nations of the south of Europe regarded those of the north, whether free or in servitude, as but a mere grade, if at all, above barbarians; and this pope seems to have been disposed to have fed them with “milk,” and not with “strong meat.” Heb. v. 12. We may perceive how the south estimated the north at those early times, by an incident related by D'Aubigne, vol. i. p. 96. Reuchlin, a native of Pforzheim, had made himself a distinguished scholar for any age. In 1498, he found his way to Rome, when Argyropylos, a celebrated Greek professor, was lecturing on the elevated standing in literature to which the Greeks had formerly arrived, &c. Reuchlin, highly delighted with the lecture, visited the professor, and addressed him in Greek. Argyropylos, perceiving him to be a German, says, “Whence come you, and do you understand Greek?” Reuchlin replies, “I am a German, and am not quite ignorant of your language.” He took up Thucydides and read; when Argyropylos said, in grief, tears, and astonishment, “Alas, alas, Greece cast out and fugitive, is gone to hide herself beyond the Alps!” But the funeral fire of Greece and Rome illumed the extreme north, and by its light the savage freeman and his more savage slave were taught their religion, civilization, and science. “It was thus,” says D'Aubigne, “that the sons of barbarous Germany and those of ancient Greece met together in the palaces of Rome; thus it was that the east and the west gave each other the right hand of fellowship in this rendezvous of the world, and that the former poured into the hands of the latter those intellectual treasures which it had carried off in its escape from the barbarism of the Turks. God, when his plans require it, brings together in an instant, by some unlooked-for catastrophe, those who seemed for ever removed from each other.” This improved condition of the northern nations was foreseen, perhaps already felt, by Innocent IV., in 1254, when he permitted Divine service to be performed in the Sclavonic language, which is noticed by Bower, vol. vi. p. 254. At the close of his remarks on Pope Innocent IV., he says—“We have a great number of letters written by this pope on different occasions, and a decree allowing the Sclavonians to perform Divine service in their mother tongue, contrary to a decree of Gregory VII.” We beg to notice Pope Gregory IX.; for, “by this pope was confirmed the religious order of St. Mary de Mercede, as it is called, an order instituted to make gatherings all over the Christian world for the redemption of Christians taken and kept in slavery by the infidels.” Bower, idem, p. 236. This order was instituted by James, king of Arragon, about the year 1223, and was confirmed by Gregory on the 17th of January, 1230. The general of this order resides constantly at Barcelona, where it was instituted by the king of Arragon, under the direction of Raimund de Pennefort, then canon of that city. See Oldoinus in notis ad Ciacon. Bullarium in Greg. IX. constit. 9. About the year 1312, charges of the most wicked and gross nature were had against the Knights Templars. Their chief persecutor was King Philip, who suspected them to have encouraged an insurrection during his war in Flanders. Through his influence the whole order were arrested, not only in France, but in all Christendom. Pope Clement V. took charge of their prosecution. But it appearing that thousands of them had and were ready to defend the Christian religion at the expense of their lives, and that many of their order were then in slavery among the Saracens, from which they might redeem themselves by repudiating Jesus Christ and his religion, yet they preferred rather to live and die in chains than to purchase freedom at so high a price, their judges considered these facts to overbalance the evidence against them. But through Philip’s influence the order was suppressed. See Bower, vol. vi. p. 39. By the laws of Moses, when the Hebrews found it necessary to make war and subdue their enemies in battle, they were directed to put all the men to death, and to make slaves of the women and children. See Deuteronomy xx. 13, 14. The milder treatment of the women and children was in mercy, predicated on the presumption of their being more tractable and less unalterably sunk in sin. We perceive the same state of facts when the Lord commanded the Hebrews to put the Canaanites to death. “Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them: neither shalt thou make marriages with them,” &c. Deut. vii. 2, 3. Whereas the adjoining and kindred tribes were only devoted to slavery. “Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids.” Lev. xxv. 44. It is, and ever has been, the universal rule to destroy from the earth, whenever sin has sunk its votary so low in the depths of crime that there is no longer even hope of reform. Whereas, for a less degree of depravity, mercy intercedes for the reformation of the victim, by placing him someway in surveillance, either for life or for a term of years. On the same principle is founded the distinction of punishment between homicide attended with premeditated malice, and that which is not so attended.

LESSON XIX.

“From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed (Putsi, the daughters of Put; the word means dispersed, because they were scattered and lost as to name) shall bring mine offering.” They were evidently the most deteriorated of all the descendants of Ham.

In the year 1437, the Christian right or duty of declaring, or rather of making war against infidels, was proposed to the church for the pope’s decision and counsel. Duarte, king of Portugal, was importuned by his brother Ferdinand, to make war on the Moors with a view to the conquest of Tangier. Duarte entertained scruples about his moral and Christian right to do so; and therefore proposed the subject to the theologians and to the pope. Eugenius IV., who then filled the papal chair, decided that there were but two cases in which an offensive war could be justifiably undertaken against unbelievers, &c.: 1st. “When they were in possession of territory which had belonged to Christians, and which the latter sought to recover. 2d. When, by piracy or war, or any other means, they injured or insulted the true believers.” In all other cases, proceeded his holiness, hostilities are unjust. The elements, earth, air, fire, and water, were created for all; and to deprive any creature, without just cause, of these necessary things, was a violation of natural right. See Lardner, Hist. Portugal, vol. iii. p. 204. We proceed to instances wherein the records show the church to have declared offensive war.

“Gregory, therefore, provoked beyond all measure, issued the most terrible bull against them that had ever yet been issued by any pope. For, by that bull, the magistrates were all excommunicated; the whole people and every place and person under their jurisdiction were laid under an interdict. All traffic, commerce, and intercourse with any of that state, in any place whatever, were forbidden on pain of excommunication. Their subjects were absolved from their allegiance; all their rights, privileges, and immunities were declared forfeited; their estates, real and personal, in what part soever of the world, were given away, and declared to be the property of the first who should seize them, prima occupantis; all were allowed, and even exhorted and encouraged, to seize their persons, wherever found, as well as their estates, and reduce them to slavery. Their magistrates were declared intestable, and their sons and grandsons incapable of succeeding to their paternal estates, or to any inheritance whatever; their descendants, to the third generation, were excluded from all honours, dignities, and preferments, both civil and ecclesiastic. All princes, prelates, governors of cities, and magistrates were forbidden, on pain of excommunication, to harbour any Florentine, or suffer any in the places under their jurisdiction in any other state or condition than that of a slave.” This bull is dated in the palace of Avignon, in some copies the 30th of March, and in some the 20th of April, in the sixth year of Gregory’s pontificate, that is, in 1376, (apud Raynald. ad hunt ann. num. i. et seq., et Bzovium, num. xv.) Walsingham writes, that upon the publication of this bull the Florentine traders who had settled in England, delivered up all their effects to the king, and themselves with them, for his slaves. One of the authors of Gregory’s life (auctor primæ vit. Gregor.) tells us, that in all other countries, especially at Avignon, they abandoned their effects, and returned, being no where else safe, to their own country. (See Bower, vol. vii. p. 23.)

In 1538 was published the bull of excommunication against Henry VIII. It had been drawn up in 1535, on the occasion of the execution of Cardinal Fisher, bishop of Rochester; had been submitted to the judgment of the cardinals, and approved by most of them in a full consistory. However, the pope, flattering himself that an accommodation with England might still be brought about, delayed the publication of it till then, when, finding an agreement with the king quite desperate, he published it with the usual solemnity, and caused it to be set up on the doors of all the chief churches of Rome. By that bull the king was deprived of his kingdom, his subjects were not only absolved from their oaths of allegiance, but commanded to take arms against him and drive him from the throne; the whole kingdom was laid under interdict; all treaties of friendship or commerce with him and his subjects were declared null, his kingdom was granted to any who should invade it, and all were allowed “to seize the effects of such of his subjects as adhered to him, and enslave their persons.” See Burnet’s Hist. of the Reform. 1. 3. Pallavicino, 1. 4. Saudeos de Schis. b. i., and Bower, vol. vii. p. 447.

“The commissioners seriously considering the many willful wrongs and hostile practices of the indians against the English, together with their interteining, protecting, and rescuing of offenders, as late our experience sheweth, which if suffered, the peace of the colonyes cannot bee secured: It is therefore concluded, that in such case the magistrates of any of the jurisdictions, may, at the charge of the plaintiff, send some convenient strength, and according to the nature and value of the offence and damage, seize and bring away any of that plantation of indians that shall intertein, protect, or rescue the offender, though hee should bee in another jurisdiction, when through distance of place, commission or direction cannott be had, after notice and due warning given them, as actors, or at least accessary to the injurye and damage done to the English: onely women and children to be sparingly seized, unless known to bee someway guilty: and because it will bee chargeable keeping indians in prison, and if they should escape, they are like to prove more insolent and dangerous after, it was thought fitt, that uppon such seizure, the delinquent, or satisfaction bee again demanded of the sagamore, or plantation of indians guilty or accessary, as before; and if it bee denyed, that then the magistrate of this jurisdiction, deliver up the indian seized by the partye or partyes indammaged, either to serve or to bee shipped out and exchanged for neagers, as the case will justly beare; and though the commissioners foresee that said severe, though just proceeding may provoke the indians to an unjust seizing of some of ours, yet they could not at present find no better means to preserve the peace of the colonyes; all the aforementioned outrages and insolensies tending to an open warr; onely they thought fitt, that before any such seizure bee made in any plantation of indians, the ensuing declaration bee published, and a copye given to the particular sagamores.”

The second instance of this kind of warfare we find carried on by the sons of Jacob against the Hivites. True, they professed to be actuated by a spirit of revenge for the dishonour of Dinah. They put all the adult males to death, made slaves of the women and children, and possessed themselves of all the wealth of Shechem, for which they were reprimanded by Jacob. Their conduct upon this occasion was in conformity to the usages of the heathen tribes who knew not God, and, if persisted in, must have ultimately just as necessarily been fraught with their own destruction and extinction from the earth. And this was no doubt one of the many crimes that gave proof of their deep degradation, and which finally sunk them in slavery. The heathen tribes in all ages have ever been characterized by this kind of warfare, however truly and often the more civilized portions of the world may have been obnoxious to similar charges. The doctrine is, that where such predatory war essentially exists against a people, they, finding no other efficient remedy, are authorized by the laws of God to make war a remedy, to repel force by force, to destroy and kill until they overcome, and, as the case may be, to subjugate and govern or reduce to slavery. And the laws of modern civilized nations regulating the conduct of belligerants are merely an amelioration; but give evidence that such belligerants are already elevated above those grades of human life which look to subjugation and slavery as the only termination of war. But the condition of man, in this higher state of mental and religious improvement, is none the less governed by the laws of Divine power, influencing and adapted to his improved state. Corollary: When the time shall come, that all men shall live in strict conformity to the laws of God, war shall cease from the earth, and slavery be no more known; and at that time the Lord will “turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord,” to serve him with one consent. “Then from beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, (phut) shall bring mine offering.” Zeph. iii. 9, 10.

We have heretofore alluded to the idolatrous barbarians of the north of Europe and to their inroads upon the more civilized regions of the south. It may be well to take some further notice of these people, to mark the influence of their predatory wars on the morals of those times, and of the influences of the church in counteracting and ameliorating their effect on the character and condition of the Christian world. Their religion was cast upon the model of their savage appetite: easily excited by the love of conquest and plunder, their minds were still further inflamed by their bards, who promised them, after death, daily combats of immortal fury, with glittering weapons and fiery steeds, in the immediate presence of their supreme god, Oden. The wounds of these conflicts were to be daily washed away by the waters of life. Congregated in the great hall of their deity, seated upon the skulls of those they had slain in battle, they spent each night in celebrating in song the victories they had won, refreshing themselves with strong drink out of the skulls on which they rested, while they feasted on the choicest morsels of the victims they had sacrificed to their gods. Constantine, having succeeded to the throne of the Roman Empire, transferred his court to Constantinople. This, a notable step in the downfall of Rome, was followed by his dividing his dominions between three sons and two nephews. The imperial power thus partitioned away, the northern nations, who had been subjected to her rule, no longer regarded Rome as a sovereign power over them: at once the German tribes, among whom were the Franks, overran Gaul: the Picts and Saxons broke into Britain, and the Sarmatians into Hungary. The spirit of war was let loose. As early as the time of the Christian era, scattered from the Caucasus to the north-eastern Pacific, were numerous tribes whom the all-conquering arm of Rome had never reached. Cradled amidst precipitous mountains, savage and wild scenery, howling tempests or eternal snows, the form of their minds and the character of their religion associated with the region of their birth.

Europe has given some of them the appellation, Vandals, Sueves, Alans, Sclavas, Goths, Huns, Tartars, and Veneti. Restless as the elements of their native clime, their leaders ever showed themselves striving for dominion and thirsty for power. Pushing westward, one upon the other, they became somewhat amalgamated in the north of Europe, under the general term of Scandinavians, yet receiving new cognomens or retaining their old as fancy or knowledge of them suggested; yet, in the middle and south of Europe, they were as commonly known by the appellation of Northmen. The most of these people were emphatically warlike and savage. The world possessed no one power sufficiently strong to restrain them. Italy was overrun and Rome itself was captured by the Goths, under Alaric—then by the Herulians, under Odoacer. They in turn were subdued by Theodoric the Ostrogoth—then by the Lombards from Brandenburg, who established a more permanent government. But they, in turn, yielded to the power of the Franks, under Charlemagne, who entered Rome in triumph, and was crowned Emperor of the West, as elsewhere noted by us.

The sacrifice of the Lamb is substituted for the victim of war in the woods of Woden; while the proud flashes of the crescent of Islam became dim before the continued ray of the Star of Bethlehem.

Out of the hundreds of instances preserved by our ancient writers, one may be sufficient. In the charter by which Harold of Buckenhole gives his manor of Spaulding to the abbey of Croyland, he enumerates among its appendages Colgrin, his bailiff, Harding, his smith, Lefstan, his carpenter, Elstan, his fisherman, Osmund, his miller, and nine others, who probably were his husbandmen; and these with their wives and children. Wherever slaves have been numerous, and of the same race as the master, this variety in their condition has always followed. See the statement of Muratori concerning the Roman slaves; also the laws of Charlemagne concerning those of the Lombards and Goths. These records are proof that slavery, accompanied with such facts, is always in the act of wearing out.

The Moors, according to King Hiempsal’s History of Africa, as related by Sallust, are descended from an admixture of Medes, Persians, and Armenians with the Libyans and Gætulians, the original occupants of the country. His statement is, that Hercules led a large army of the people to conquer new and unknown countries; that after his death in Spain, it became a heterogeneous mass, made up of a great number of nations, among whom were many ambitious chiefs, each one aspiring to rule; that a portion of this mass, mostly of Japhanese descent, passed over to Africa and seized on the shores of the Mediterranean; that their ships, being hauled ashore, were used for shelter; that the Persians among them passed on to the interior, and mingled with the Gætulians, and in after times were known as Numidians,—whereas those who remained upon the coast intermarried with Libyans, and in course of time, by a corruption of their language, Medi, in the barbarous dialect of Libya, became Mauri—now Moor.

It has been heretofore remarked that the great mass of the African tribes are slaves in their own country,—that slavery there subjects them to death at the will of the master, to sacrifice in the worship of their gods, and to all the evils of cannibalism; and yet it has been seen that even such slavery is a more protected state than would be a state of freedom with their religion, and other moral and physical qualities. History points not to the time when their present condition did not exist, nor to the time when their removal, in a state of slavery, to the pagan nations of Asia commenced. Upon the adoption of Mohammedanism there, we find the black tribes of Africa succeeding to them in a state of slavery; and we also find, and history will support the assertion, that in some proportion as the slavery of these tribes was adopted by Christian nations, it was diminished among the Mohammedans; and also, that as the slave-trade with Africa was abolished by the Christians, it was increased there; and also, that in the proportion it has been extended among both or either of these creeds of religion abroad, it has been invariably ameliorated at home. The causes of this state of facts seem to have been these:—The African slave-owner found his bargain with the Christian trader more profitable than with the Mohammedan. He received more value, and in materials more desired by him: the labour of the slave was of more value in America than Asia; and the transportation to the place of destination was attended with less cruelty and hardship by sea than by land. The slave of the African owner was increased in value beyond any native use to which he could be applied, by reason of both or either trade: hence the slave in his native land became of greater interest and concern. The native owner ceased to kill for food the slave whose exportation would produce him a much greater quantity. His passions were curbed by the loss their indulgence occasioned. The sacrifice was stayed by a less expensive, but, in his estimation, a more valuable offering.

The object of our present inquiry is, whether the slavery of the African tribes to the followers of Mohammed is at all recognised or alluded to by the inspired writers. The fact exists, nor can it be contested, although the condition of the African slave is far more degraded among the Asiatics and Arabians than among the Christians, but that even there it is far more elevated than in his native land. “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.” Gen. ix. 26. The prophet Daniel was a captive the greater portion of his life, in the very region of country, and among the ancestors of the Mohammedans of the present day, and, of all the prophets, the most to have been expected to have been endowed with prophetic gifts in relation to that country and its future condition. It is proper also to remark that although there is in many instances among the Mohammedans of the present day a mixture of Japhanese descent, yet their main stock is well known to be Shemitic. It should also be noticed that the Shemites have at all times more frequently amalgamated with the descendants of Ham than those of Japhet, consequently more liable to moral and physical deterioration; and here, indeed, we find a reason why it was announced that Japhet should possess the tents of Shem.

“Although Mohammedism did not first spring up in the Macedonian empire, yet it now spread from Arabia to Syria, and occupied locally, as well as authoritatively, the ancient dominion of the he-goat.” (Scott.) It has been remarked, however, by Mr. Foster, (Mohammedism Unveiled,) that the part of Arabia which included the native country of Mohammed, composed an integral province both of the empire of Alexander and of the Ptolemean kingdom of Egypt. Ptolemy had Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Cælo-syria, and Palestine. The sovereignties of Egypt and Syria, before called the king of the south and the king of the north, disappeared when they were absorbed in the Roman empire, and the new power, or the Saracen and Turkish empires, that succeeded, are now brought to view. But let it be observed, that the Saracens became masters of Egypt, the original territory of the king of the south, and the Turks possessed Syria, or the kingdom of the north, and still retain it. “The king of the south shall push at him.” The power of Rome was overthrown in the east by the Saracens. This was the first wo of the revelation, which was to pass away after three hundred years. The Turks then came, a whirlwind of northern barbarians, and achieved a lasting conquest, in a day, of the Asiatic provinces of the Roman empire. The line of march was along the north of Palestine, and the Turkish monarch entered only to pass through and overflow: “he entered into the glorious land;” for, as Gibbon has stated it, the most interesting conquest of the Seljukian Turks was that of Jerusalem, which soon became the theatre of nations. “But Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon escaped out of his hand.” Even when all the regions round owned the Turkish sway, these retained their detached and separate character, and even received tribute from the pilgrims as they passed to the shrines of Mecca and Medina. Thus they have escaped and maintained their independence of the Porte. A race of monarchs arose to stretch out their hand upon the countries. Othman, Amurath, Bajazet, and Mohammed conquered nation after nation, and finally fixed the seat of their empire at Constantinople. The land of Egypt “did not escape;” it was indeed the last to yield; but, though its forces had vanquished both Christians and Turks, it was at length subdued by Selim I. in 1517, and came into possession of the Ottomans. (Cox, on Daniel.) And it may be here remarked, as a fact of well-known history, that the countries known as Libya and Ethiopia have, at all ages of the world, supplied this country with slaves, whoever may have borne rule, and still continue to do the same. Thousands from the interior of Africa are yearly transplanted from the slavery of their native land into those countries now under Mohammedan rule. And it may be well here for the Christian philanthropist to notice, that so far as the slave-trade with Africa has ceased with Christian nations, to the same extent it has substantially increased with Mohammedan countries.

The world never has, nor will it ever witness a case where the moral, intellectual, and physical superior has been in slavery, as a fixed state, to an inferior race or grade of human life. The law giving superior rule and government to the moral, intellectual, and physical superior is as unchangeable as the law of gravitation. No seeming exception can be imagined which does not lend proof of the existence of such law. The human intellect can make no distinction between the establisher of such law and the author and establisher of all other laws which we perceive to be established and in operation, and which we attribute to God. No one has ever yet denied that obedience to the laws of God effects and produces mental and physical benefits to the obedient, or that their disregard and contempt are necessarily followed by a deterioration of the condition of the disobedient; nor can any one deny that the neglect of obedience to the laws of God, which, in its product, yields to the disobedient mental and physical deterioration, or any one of them, is sin,—and in proportion to its magnitude, so will be its consequent degradation. To be degraded is sin, because the law is improve. No one will pretend that the relation of master and slave is not often attended with sin on the part of the master, on the account of his disobedience to the law of God in his government of his slave; or on the part of the slave, on the account of his disobedience to the same law in his conduct towards his master. Therefore, such master is not as much benefited, not the slave as much improved by the relation, as would otherwise be the case. It is therefore incumbent on the master to search out and exclude all such abuses from the intercourse and reciprocal duties between him and his slave. Placed upon him is the responsible charge of governing both himself and his slave. The responsibility of the master in this respect is of the same order as that of a guardian and that of a parent.

That every mind will see and comprehend these truths, where prejudice and education are in contradiction, is not to be expected. The influences of a false philosophy on the mind, like stains of crime on the character, are often of difficult removal. Some forbearance towards those who honestly entertain opposing ideas on this subject, can never disgrace the Christian character,—and we think it particularly the duty of the men of the South, towards the men, women, and children of the Northern States, especially of the unlearned classes. For even among ourselves of the South, we sometimes hear the announcement of doctrines that declare all the most rabid fanatic at the North need claim, on the subject of immediate abolition. We refer to and quote from Walker’s Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, at the June term, 1818, page 42: “Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature.” This false and suicidal assertion, most unnecessarily and irrelevantly introduced, still stands on the records of the Supreme Court of that State, and is an epitaph of the incapacity and stupidity of him who wrote it and engraved it on this monument of Southern heedlessness. We were at first surprised at the silence of the reporter, but, at that day, any criticism by that officer would have been contempt. Yet we may infer that the ingenious and talented gentleman contrived to express his most expunging reprobation, by wholly omitting all allusion to the point in his syllabus of the case.

Study V.

More rich, more wise; but who infers from hence

It is a matter of no importance to our argument what was the first condition of Adam. But allow it to be as querist has stated: We answer, the Bible was given to man for his moral government; not to teach him geology, chemistry, or other sciences. Such matters were left for him to attain by progressive improvement. A minute history of the brute creation, or any portion of it, from the earliest dawn of animal life up to the time of revelation, other than the announcement of their creation and subjection to him, was irrelevant. But man was the very head and governor of the whole animal race. Now, who is to say that the degeneration of the ruler will not produce a change of conduct in the ruled? Who is to say that the poisoned moral feeling of him in command, breaking forth in acts of violence on all around, will not produce a corresponding effect on the animate objects under him? Witness the effect, we need not say on children, but on domestic animals, of the rash, cruel, and crazy treatment of a wicked and inconsistent man?

And do we forget that the great Creator of animal life brought forth his works and sustains each thing by the unchangeable exercise of his laws? Laws which are found to have a direct tendency to progressive improvement? Will rational beings expect God to change their actions to suit their disregard of them? Will fire cease to burn because we may choose to thrust in the hand? And what if, even in all this, we shall discover his wisdom and goodness by making what we may call punishment for the breach of the law, a pulling back from deeper misery, a powerful stimulus for a change of direction from a downward to an upward movement in the path of progressive improvement? Do we find no satisfaction in this view of the constitution of nature, of the wisdom of God?

True, the Scripture asserts that all men are equal in the sight of God, just as a father feels an equal parental regard for all his children. The philosophic mind cannot well conceive otherwise than that God feels an equal regard for all parts of his creation; for “The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his work.” But this view reaches not the physical fact; for the father hesitates not to place a guardian over his wayward child, or disinherit the utterly worthless. So God “turneth man to destruction; and sayeth, Return, ye children of men.” And how gladly would the parent provide the fatted calf for the worthless son upon his return to honour and virtue! So there is more joy in heaven over the return of one sinner than over ninety-nine who have not gone astray.

The idea that intellect and mental development can be independent of physical organization is an absurdity. A suppressed or incomplete organization must arrest a further enlargement of the mental faculties. These faculties may be improved, brought into action, or even their action to some extent suppressed, by government and culture. Such indeed are the guides to progressive improvement. Explanation:—Man has no organization by which he could build a honey-comb like a bee. Will any culture applied to him teach him? Man has no organization by which he can closely examine spiritual existences: his ideas about them are therefore variant and confused. Who will arrange their study into a science? Man has no organization by which he can fully comprehend God. Will he ever do so in his present state?

He asserts that the lower we descend in the scale of animal organization and mental development, the more active and all-pervading over the conduct of the animal is instinct! But, nevertheless, holds that “instinct is in such animals an unconscious intelligence.” We much admire why he did not think proper to cast off from the ancients the charge of a puerile idolatry, on the account of their worship of bulls, calves, alligators, snakes, beetles, and bugs, for they must have entertained a somewhat similar notion. But the doctor goes further, and says, that as the lower grades of the animal world have this quality, in which “the Divine energy seems to act with most unimpeded power,” so the holiest of men has it also, but consciously and willingly, and it then becomes his ruling principle, “Divine counsellor, his never-failing help, a light to his feet, and a lantern to his path.” (Page 513.) It is quite evident that the doctor’s instinct is the same with the “unerring conscience,” “the innate principle of light,” “the moral sense,” “the spiritual power,” “the Divine reason,” “the internal teaching,” “the perfect light of nature,” and “the Divine afflatus” of the theologico-abolition speakers and writers of the present day, which, they say, is the gift of God to every man. This strange error of some of these writers we have already had occasion to notice. But it is to be regretted, for the good credit of religious profession, that they did not acknowledge from whom they borrowed the idea; or, will they at this late day, excuse themselves, and frankly acknowledge they took it, not from Dr. Hancock, or any other modern, but as a deduction from the practices of ancient idolatry?

Do they forget that organization itself is innate, and that different organizations must direct the way through different paths? But these philosophers still persist that there is no such disparity among the human race whereby the inferiority of one man shall necessarily place him in subjection to another. This doctrine is perhaps confuted by practice better than by argument. Counsellor Quibble saw his client Stultus in the stocks, on which he cries out, “It is contrary to law. The court has no such power. They cannot do it.” Nevertheless, Stultus is still in the stocks! But what would it avail, even if all men were born equals? Could they all stand in the same footsteps, do the same things, think the same thoughts, and be resolved into a unit? Who does not perceive the contrary?—but that from their birth they must stand in different footsteps, walk in different paths, think different things, and, in the journey of life, arrive at different degrees of wealth, honour, knowledge, and power?

The idea that the souls of men are unequal in a future state of existence seems to be consonant with the faith of most of the Christian churches. “And his lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that he hath; and cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. xxv. 21, 29, 30.

Justice, as a general term, means all moral duty. One of its rules is, that we should “love our neighbours as ourselves.” Some men have construed this to include each individual of the human family. Such construction we deem to be error. The word “neighbour,” as here used, includes those virtues which render one good man acceptable to another and to God. “And who is my neighbour?” “And Jesus answered and said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him, and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee.” Luke x. 30–36.

LESSON VI.

The rules of Christianity are always coadjuvant to those of justice. The least deviation from justice begins to mark the unchristian character. “Just balances, just weights, a just epha and a just hin shall ye have.” Lev. xix. 36. “But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have; that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Deut. xxv. 15. “Ye shall have a just balance and a just epha, and a just bath.” Ezek. xlv. 10.

The Creator of things may be deemed able to impose such relations between the things created as he may judge suitable to effect the object had in their creation. Such relations we call law; because, as we notice things, they are the rules by which they act or are acted upon. So far as human reason has been able to examine, such laws are as unchangeable as the Deity who imposed them. To such certainty and unchangeableness we give the name of truth, and hence we say God is truth, having reference to the unchangeableness of his nature and of his laws.

LESSON VIII.

The doctrine of the golden rule seems to be often misunderstood. We quote from the great Selden: “Guided by justice and mercy, do unto all men as you would have them do to you, were your circumstances and theirs reversed. If the prisoner should ask the judge whether he would be content to be hanged were he in his case, he would answer, No! Then says the prisoner, Do as you would be done to. Neither of them must do as private men; but the judge must do by him as they have publicly agreed: that is, both judge and prisoner have consented to the law, that if either of them steal, he shall be hanged.” Selden.

LESSON IX.

Examples of the second position are found in the ready and quick adaptation of ourselves to the condition in which we are placed: even our senses, from constant repetition and familiarity, often cease to loathe that which was obnoxious. The mind to which the starry firmament is first unfolded will be filled with astonishment and wonder; but the familiarity of a constant gaze does not even excite an emotion.

The child can never comprehend the laws of astronomy till he has first learned mathematics. The savage must first be made to comprehend the necessity that individual wants must be supplied by individual labour, and all the consequent attendants of such a state of things, before the possibility can exist that he will comprehend the higher moral duties. Because, without that, he remains passive under such teachings; and in such case, the more familiar such lessons are made to him the less they affect him. Instances are not wanting where such a state of facts exists in circles of society where it would seem they should be the least expected! and from whence the great truth is deducible, that mental and physical idleness is a most deadly poison to good morals and intellectual improvement, and the conduct of such men is always found searching the way back to a deteriorated condition.

The lowness of individual condition, in relation to our fellow men, or to human society generally, is not incompatible with the humility of the Christian in the performance of our duty to man or God, because the Christian is not required to display intellectual powers which he does not possess, nor possessions not his own. If he has but one talent, its occupation alone is required,—the desire to bestow one mite marks his character. It is therefore a very great error which some of the abolitionists seem to suppose, that, because a man is a slave, he is thereby prevented from being a Christian or hindered from the worship of God. On the contrary, so essential is humility to the Christian character, that Jesus Christ, in a lesson to his disciples, says, “Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant,” δοῦλος, doulos, slave; a figure, a sentence, which the Divine Being could never have pronounced, if slavery was inconsistent with his doctrine, either as to the condition of the slave or that of the master. With great similarity of figure and sameness of the humility in the worshipper of God, David addresses Jehovah: “O Lord, truly I am thy servant,” (עַ֫בְדֶךָʿabdekā abedeka, thy slave,) “I am thy servant (עַ֫בְדָךָʿabdākā abedeka, thy slave) and the son of thy hand-maid,” בֶּן־אֲתֶ֑ךָben-ʾătekā amatheka, thy female slave,) “thou hast loosed my bonds.” Compare with John viii. 36, also 1 Cor. vii. 22.

How feeble then shall prove the man, swelled with the pride of his own supposed holiness, who shall attempt to straighten, alter, and make better this highway to heaven! “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things!” Rom. xi. 34–36. On every step of this footway to heaven, made for poor sinners to walk in, for the slave as well as for the crowned head, are engraven, in letters of the light of God himself, directions for the poor traveller, so that “the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.” Isa. xxxv. 8. And let us now read some of these records, and see how they comport with the doctrine of universal equality as involved in the labours before us:

But let us view it in connection with man in an unchristianized state, under the control of the appetites, passions, and influences of an unredeemed world; and it may be we shall behold with wonder the operation of that redemption by which his felicity is made steadfast.

It was not till our Saviour had sealed the charter of our hope, that our condition, with a full view of its desolation, was proclaimed to a fallen world. A knowledge of the disease and the remedy has in mercy kept pace with each other. If we learn that the “creature was made subject to vanity,” we also learn that he was made so in hope.

And finally he hears as it were a trumpet sounding from the very gates of heaven, and looking, he beholds Peter standing there; he hears a still small voice, the voice of Jesus Christ, saying, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Matt. xvi. 18, 19. And then Peter, raising his arm in the direction of the Gentile nations, says to the slaves: “Be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward: for this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to God. For even hereunto were ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously; who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep gone astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”

What degree of moral likeness will gradually be produced by a near contemplation of unveiled perfection is reserved for eternity to disclose. But the time will at length come when to every sincere Christian and true disciple, dazzled by the refulgence that will break upon his astonished sight, Jesus Christ will address the language of affection, as he did to Martha: “Said I not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe thou shouldst see the glory of God?” John xi. 40.

The mere philosopher, who views the mutilated structure of the moral world, sees no renovating principle to reorganize its scattered fragments. He mourns with unavailing sorrow over the ruins of his race, and chills with horror at the prospect of his own decay. But the Christian sees a fairer earth and a more radiant heaven. And should the poor slave, forgetful of this high destiny of his Christian character, and of his ultimate home, feeling, like Hagar, the slave of Sarah, the hand of his mistress dealing hardly by him, and, like her, attempt a remedy by flight; like her, he will hear the voice of God, saying, “Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hand.” Gen. xvi. 9.

Therefore, be ye not deceived, for “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Pet. ii. 1.

And these people, in a state of pupilage, are thus referred to by Zephaniah: “I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord.”

Study VI

The boy, intending to appropriate to himself, takes a pin. If there is naught that checks him, petty thefts push him on to deeper crimes, that end in death. The young gentleman drinks the social glass, nor thinks harm to himself; he feels strong, he fears nothing: but habit becomes excess; his physical appearance becomes sickly; his mind obtuse, his pleasures gross; his condition is changed; he is evidently tending downwards to the grave. And such are the course and progress of every other sin; for, whatever has a tendency to injure the character, health, mind, and body, is sin.

LESSON II.

“Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness delivereth from death.”

LESSON III.

So, the Mohammedan belief is that a man who has some good qualities may die; but, on the account of his wickedness, he will be sent to hell, and there tormented until his skin is black; but that if he shall ever be taken thence, by the mercy of God, he will be immersed in the river of life, and his skin become whiter than pearls; see Pocock, notis in part. Moris, p. 289 and 292; but that the faces of the wicked will ever remain black. See Yalkut Shemuni, part ii. fol. 86; also Sale, Prelim. Disc. p. 104, 105.

And from the same source we have the Hebrew word שׁוֹלָלšôlāl sholal, a captive, a thing captured, &c., because the captive is in an extreme condition; and thus שוּלšûl shūl is made to mean a hem or skirt, from its cognate and Arabic root, the extreme of something tending downwards. Thus شَلَلshala shaal, to be loose, to hang down. From these considerations, the word was often used to mean a prisoner, a captive. Thus, Job xii. 19: “He leadeth princes away spoiled,” שׁוֹלָ֑לšôlāl sholal, captive, reduced to the lowest extremity, &c.

“For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire; nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest.” Heb. xii. 18.

It is true that in Solomon’s Song, i. 16, “Behold, thou art fair, my beloved,”—ii. 10, “My beloved spake and said unto me, Rise up my love, my fair one, and come away,”—iv. 1, “Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes,”—iv. 7, “Thou art fair, my love; there is no spot in thee,” and also v. 9, “O thou fairest among women,” the word יָפַהyāpa yapha, in grammatical form, is used in the original, and that the term is applied to a black woman. But this whole song is written in hyperbole. In the description of Solomon’s person, it says, v. 11, “His head is as the most fine gold;” in the original, “His head is the most fine gold.” 14: “His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. 15: His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.”

Thy head is as Mount Carmel,

In the passage quoted, the word servant, in all cases, is translated from ebed, and means slave. There was no master placed over Adam,—it is not certain there was over Cain,—but here the master is named and blessed; and the slave is named, and his slavery pronounced to be of the most abject kind. If we mistake not, it is an article of the Christian creed of most churches, that Adam was the federal head and representative of his race; that the covenant was made, not only with Adam, but also with his posterity; that the guilt of his sin was imputed to them; that each and every one of his posterity are depraved through his sin; that this, their original sin, is properly sin, and deserves God’s wrath and curse. If so, can we say less in the case of Cain? or that a new relation did intervene in the case of Ham?

Thus, Muppim and Huppim, in Genesis, are changed into Shupham and Hupham in Numbers, and into Shephupham and Huram in Chronicles. See Gen. xlvi. 21, Num. xxvi. 39, and 1 Chron. viii. 5. The Kenites, Kennizites, and Canaanites of Gen. xv. 19; the Kenaz, xxxvi. 11 and 42; the Kenite and Kenites of Num. xxiv. 21; the Kenites of 1 Sam. xxvii. 10, xv. 5, 6; Judges iv. 11–17; and the city called “Cain,” הַקּ֭יִןhaqqyin ha Kain, Josh. xv. 57, also Kinah, קִינָ֥הqînâ idem 22,—are all legitimately derived and descended from the name given to the first-born of mankind. Doubtless a critical search would find many more; but in all these instances the derivative is used for and by the descendants of Ham. But no instance is found where any such derivative is in use by the unmixed posterity of Shem or Japheth. We surely need not point in the direction of the cause of these facts.

When this latter country came to be conquered by Joshua, he found a city by the name of “Naamah,” situated in that portion which was given to the tribe of Judah. See Josh. xv. 41. But we shall directly see that there must have also been another city by the name of “Naamah,” situated probably in the region originally occupied by Cush. The book of Job is supposed to have been written as early as the days of Abraham. One of the men named in it is Zophar the “Naamathite.” See Job ii. 11; also xi. 1.; also xlii. 9. He was an inhabitant of “Naamah,” at a much more ancient period than the time of Joshua. Job is represented as of the land of “Uz,” far distant from the land of Canaan, in the eastern parts of Arabia. His intimate friends and acquaintances cannot be expected to have been of so distant a country as was the land of Judea. The evidence is then that there must have been a city in the land of Cush by the same name. But in Gen. x. 7, one of the sons of Cush is called Raamah: we think those who will examine the subject will find this term a mere alteration or adulteration of Naamah, as there are many others, a tedious explanation of which might not be excused at our hand. Suffice it then to say that among the Cushites at a very early period one whole tribe were called “Naamathites,” distinct from the Naamathites that lived in the city of Naamah conquered by Joshua. Another variation of this word will be found in the word “Hamathites,” Gen. xvi. 18. This word is used, differently varied, in Num. xiii. 21, xxvi. 40; Judges iii. 3; 1 Kings x. 65, xiv. 21–31; 2 Kings v. 1–27; 2 Sam. viii. 9; 1 Chron. viii. 4, 7; 2 Chron. viii. 3, xii. 13; Isa. x. 9, also xi. 11, also xvii. 10; Ezek. xlvii. 16, 20, also xlviii. 1, and perhaps many other places; and in all cases in reference to individuals, the people and country of the Canaanites, and no doubt in memory of their great female progenitor, Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, of the race of Cain.

In these highly excited and poetic effusions of the prophet, we are to notice the chain of thought and mode of expression by which he reaches the object in view. This chapter commences with the information that Damascus shall cease to be a city; that Aroer shall be forsaken, and Ephraim be without a fortress to protect her; and finally that Jacob shall be made thin, like a few scattering grapes found by the gleaner, or a few berries of the olive left in the top of the bough, and the house of Jacob become desolate. In the passage under consideration the causes of this condition of Jacob are announced. If our view of the word “Naamah” be correct, in the masculine plural, as here used, it will be quite analogous to Ethiopians. But we have no one word of its meaning; perhaps the idea will be more correctly expressed by Naamathites. Evidently the idea intended to be conveyed by the prophet by the word נַ֥עֲמָנִ֔יםnaʿămānîm Naamanim, is, a people whose cultivation would be abortive as to them and injurious to the cultivator; that is, a people with whom intermarriage will produce nothing but injury and destruction to the house of Jacob.

LESSON IX.

And if we take a view of the filiations of languages, even as they are now found, such changes cannot be deemed unusual, especially if we take into consideration the inevitable variation words are found to undergo in their progress through different countries and ages of time; and more especially, if we notice the precise manner in which lingual variations are found to operate.

From the proximity of the Israelite tribes to those of Ham; from their co-habitation of Palestine itself, it was natural to expect among the low and vulgar, as well as among those whose morals hung loosely about them, that such intermixture should take place. “Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant, (עֶבֶדeved ebed, a slave,) an Egyptian, (מִצְרִ֖יmiṣrî Mitsri, a Misraimite, a descendant of the second son of Ham,) whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant, (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave) to wife.” 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. Proving the wisdom and truth of the saying of Solomon, “He that delicately bringeth up his servant (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave) from a child, shall have him become his son at length.” Prov. xxix. 21.

Indeed, the race of Benjamin had become deeply intermixed with the descendants of Ham; and this fact well accounts why they did, upon an occasion, behave like as the Sodomites to Lot; and why the other tribes of Israel so readily joined in league to utterly destroy and annihilate this tribe, and did put to death fifty thousand warriors in one day, and every man, woman, and child of the whole tribe, except a few hundred men, who hid in the rock Rimmon. See Judges xix. xx.

Thus in Arabic, فَاَطسfaṭs phats, and its variations, put down, abiit, peregrinatus fuit in terra, &c. In Coptic, Ⲫⲏⲧ fet phet has the same meaning; but in the hieroglyphical writings of the Copts, found in Egypt, the idea scattered is represented by an arrow. But an arrow is called phet, because it is shot away, scattered. And the country or people of the Phutites is represented by a bow, segment of a globe, nine arrows, and an undulating surface. Those who have made researches in such matters say, the phonetic power of this is nephaiat. It will be perceived to be quite analogous to the Heemanti prefixed to the root. The people who have been compelled to be exceedingly scattered.

LESSON XII.

But in Judges i. 16, we find that the family of the race of Ishmael out of which Moses took his wife are denominated Kenites. We think that we have abundantly proved that they were black. From this connection of Moses, the Israelites seem to have felt some regard for that race. Now it appears that some of that descent were afterwards residing in the cities of Amalek; for we find in 1 Samuel xv. 6, that “Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed.” How should it be a fact, since they were black, that he could not distinguish them from the Amalekites, unless the Amalekites were black also?

In short, the whole body of this extraordinary poem points to the region of the Ammonites for her native place of abode. Now, since Solomon had an Ammonitess by the name of Naamah for a wife, and since he selected her son to succeed him on the throne, it seems at least quite probable she was the person it commemorates; and that fact will make quite intelligible the allusion to her having been elevated from a servile condition. But, nevertheless, if it shall be thought not sufficiently proved that she was the mother of Rehoboam, yet she surely was of some one of the Canaanitish or Hamitic tribes, and was as surely black; and so far is in direct proof that the descendants of Ham generally were black also.

LESSON XIV.

“And it came to pass when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him; and it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen; and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt, the Lubims, the Sukkims, and the Ethiopians; and he took the fenced cities, which pertain to Judah, and came to Jerusalem.” 2 Chron. xii. 1–10. “And the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt, the Lubims, the Sukkims, and the Ethiopians.” The Hebrew construction of the latter clause of this is thus: מִמִּצְרַיִם לוּבִ֥ים סֻכִּיִּ֖ים וְכוּשִַׁים׃mimmiṣrayim lûbîm sukkiyyîm wĕkûšiaym Mim-mits-raim, Lubim, Sukkiyyim ve Cushim. We suggest a slight error in the translation of these words. The prefix מm mem preceding Mitsraim, we read a preposition, out of, from, &c., influencing and governing the two following words also; as, from Egypt, from Lybia, from Succoth. It will be noticed that Cushim is preceded by the prefix וv vav. Grammarians have written much upon this particle: we cannot enter into an argument on Hebrew grammar, but, with all the learning that has been expended on this particle, the Hebrew scholar must find the fact to be, that it is sometimes used to designate a result; and we take occasion here to say that, in our opinion, Professor Gibbs has given a more definite and philosophical description of the Hebrew use of this particle, than any lexicographer of modern research.

Suppose an ancient Hebrew physician wished to teach that certain diseases were incurable, that they ended in death, might he not have said, מִשַׁחֶפֶת קַדַּחַת אָנוּשׁ וְמוּה׃mišaḥepet qaddaḥat ʾānûš wĕmû mish shahhepheth kaddahhath anish vemuth,—from consumption, burning fever, the mortal sickness, termination is death? Or, allow our Hebrew not to be so classical, could he not have expressed the idea after this form? “The army was without number, from Egypt, from Lybia, from the Nomads, all Ethiopians.” And we here suggest the query, whether this is not the true reading? We do not propose that this prefixed וְw vav has the power of an adjective or a verb, although it might require the one or the other to give the idea in English. What we say is, that it is the sign of the thing which is the result of the preceding nouns. If it had been used here as a connective particle, then the two preceding nouns would also have had it for a prefix. Such was the Hebrew idiom. It would then have read, “And the people were,” &c., from Egypt, and from Lybia, and from the Nomads, and from Ethiopia, as the translator seems to have supposed. But, as it is, it determines them all to have been Ethiopians. This will be in strict conformity with the description of the army at the time of Asa. The invading army, at that time, was denominated Ethiopian, although it is evident that many of the Hamitic tribes composed it.

We shall close our evidence on this point with a single quotation from Judg. iii. 8 and 10. The children of Israel intermarried with the Canaanites: the writer says, “Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chusan rishathaim,” the wicked Ethiopians. Whereas it is as well known as any other fact of biblical history, that these “wicked Ethiopians” were none other than the Philistines and other aboriginal tribes of the land of Canaan.

LESSON XV.

But the word חַלְּלֵיḥallĕlê is here used in the construct state, showing that the idea imposed by this word was brought about by the following term, חַדְבִי֖ḥadbiy, which the Septuagint translates rhomphaias, which properly means the Thracian spear; but חַרְבּיḥarby means any weapon, a goad harpoon as well as a sword. The fact is, neither of these words were the usual Hebrew or Greek term to mean a sword. The Greeks would have called a sword μάχαιρα, and the Hebrews חֲנִיתḥănît or דֹחַמdōḥam or כִּדוֹןkidôn, or perhaps שׂכהśkh; and Dr. Lee has given Ἅρπη as the Greek translation of חַרְבִ֖יḥarbî, which means a sickle, a goad for driving elephants, &c. It was a thing to inflict wounds by which to enforce subjection, and the idea is that the Ethiopians are covered by wounds by their being reduced by it, or that they shall be. When Jeremiah announced captivity and slavery to the Egyptians and the adjacent tribes, he used this word as the instrument of its execution. Thus Jer. xlvi. 14: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish in Migdol, and publish in Noph, and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee, for the sword חֶ֖רֶבḥereb shall devour round about thee.” 16: “Arise and let us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity, from the oppressing sword,” חֶ֖רֶבḥereb. Many such instances might be cited, showing the fact that, in poetic strain, this was the instrument usually named, as in the hand of him subjecting others to bondage; and much in the same manner, even at this day, we use the term “whip,” in the hand of the master, in reference to the enforcement of his authority over his slave.

The fact is, the verb of existence, called the verb “to be,” and the verb substantive, in Hebrew, as in all other languages, is often not expressed, but understood. This circumstance is well explained in Gessenius’ Hebrew Grammar, revised by Rodiger, and translated by Conant, p. 225, thus, “When a personal pronoun is the subject of a sentence, like a noun in the same position, it does not require for its union with the predicate a distinct word for the copula, when this consists simply in the verb ‘to be,’ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הָֽרֹאֶ֔הʾānōkî hārōʾe ‘I (am) the seer,’ 1 Sam. ix. 19.” And again: “The pronoun of the third person frequently serves to convert the subject and predicate, and is then a sort of substitute for the copula of the verb to be, e. g. Gen. xli. 26: ‘The seven good cows, שֶׁ֤בַע שָׁנִים֙ הֵ֔נָּהšebaʿ šānîm hēnnâ seven years (are) they.’” To say in English, “The seven good cows, seven years they,” would be thought too elliptical; but we do not perceive how the expression converts “they” into the verb “to be.”

Here we find the word in question, if a pronoun. The feminine of the third person is הִי֖אhiyʾ, and plural נָהnâ, and yet הֵֽפָּהhēppâ is used in Canticles in a condition evidently feminine; and yet in Zeph. ii. 12, it is said it must be in the second person plural. But can any one believe that these words, thus arranged in the declination of this pronoun, could ever have had a common origin? The fact is, no original language was ever formed from rules; the rules are merely its description after it is formed. Language, in the infancy of its formation, resents restraint and all laws, except such as apply to its incipient state. Suppose a soldier for life should persist in calling his infant son soldier, either playfully or mournfully; the child would associate the term “soldier” with his individuality, and say soldier am sleepy, &c. In case the soldier’s family was isolated from the rest of the world, in the land of Nod, or elsewhere, then the family of languages would be quite apt to have a new term as a personal pronoun.

The arrangement of the language to us clearly indicates that sense. Besides, we must take into consideration the peculiar meaning of the words חַלְלֵיḥallê and חַרְבִּ֖יḥarbî— that the prophet is writing in a highly figurative and poetic strain; and we would also compare what this prophet says to the Ethiopians with what the other prophets have said of the same people. כּוּשִׁיםkûšîm is here applicable to all the tribes of Ham, as in Amos ix. 7: “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me? O children of Israel, saith the Lord.” It may be well here to notice also that the word “Ethiopian” is of Greek origin, and associates with the idea blackness, like that of Ham. Thus, Αιθιοπς, Aithiops, sun-burnt, swarthy as Ethiopians; αιθος, warmth, heat, fire, ardent, blazing like fire, blackened by fire, black, dark; αιθοπς, burning fiery, blazing, burned, darkened by fire, dark-coloured, consuming, destroying. Donnegan p. 34. But Isaiah speaks of the descendants of Ham perhaps in a more figurative language, and in a more elevated and poetical strain:

It may be we have occupied too much time, in remarks too obscure and indistinct for biblical criticism, upon this passage of Zephaniah; and it may be that, in the judgment of some, we have thus made ourselves obnoxious to the satire of the reverend and witty commentator upon the words:

Much might be said in favour of the position that in these cases the parents-in-law on the husband’s side were of pure Shemitic blood, and the reverse as to the daughters-in-law. Now as this peculiar term is nowhere else used in the holy books, are we not to suppose that this peculiar state of facts is nowhere else thus described? In Gen. xviii., when the father-in-law of Moses is named, this term is not used, but the more usual one; and the reason is because the position of the parties is changed. Had the father or mother of Moses been spoken of as the parent-in-law of Zippora, then we may presume this peculiar term would have been used and expressed the fact as to the distinction of races; that he would have been called חֲמִ֖יהָḥămîhā, and she her חֲמוֹתָהḥămôtâ. And we now present the inquiry, how came the name of Ham to be thus compounded and used to express this particular position of relationship and distinction of race, unless from the fact that he had placed his parents in a similar position, liable to have been called by these peculiar terms?

“There shall no evil happen unto him that feareth the Lord, but in temptation even again he will deliver him. A wise man hateth not the law; but he that is a hypocrite therein is as a ship in the storm. A man of understanding trusteth in the law; and the law is faithful unto him as an oracle. Prepare what to say, and so thou shalt be heard; and bind up instruction, and then make answer.” “Why doth one day excel another, where as all the light of every day in the year is of the sun? By the knowledge of the Lord they were distinguished: and he altered seasons and feasts. Some of them hath he made high days, and hallowed them, and some of them hath he made ordinary days. And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth. In much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and made their ways diverse. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned them out of their places. As the clay is in the potter’s hand, to fashion it at his pleasure, so is man in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best. Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is the godly against the sinner, and the sinner against the godly. So look upon all the works of the Most High; and there are two and two, one against another. I awaked up last of all, as one that gathereth after the grape-gatherers; by the blessing of God I profited, and filled my wine-press, like a gatherer of grapes. Consider that I laboured not for myself only, but for all them that seek learning. Hear me, O ye great men of the people, and hearken with your ears, ye rulers of the congregation.” “In all thy works keep to thyself the pre-eminence; leave not a stain on thy honour. At the time when thou shalt end thy days, and finish thy life, distribute thine inheritance. Fodder, a wand and burdens, are for the ass; and bread, correction, and work, for a servant. If thou set thy servant to labour, thou shalt find rest, but if thou let him go idle, he shall seek liberty. A yoke and a collar to bow the neck, so are tortures and torments for an evil servant. Send him to labour, that he be not idle; for idleness teacheth much evil. Set him to work, as is fit for him; if he be not obedient, put on more fetters. But be not excessive toward any, and without discretion do nothing. If thou have a servant, let him be unto thee as thyself, because thou hast bought him with a price. If thou have a servant, entreat him as a brother: for thou hast need of him as thine own soul: if thou entreat him evil, and he run from thee, which way wilt thou go to seek him.”

The doctrine is, that man is not exempt from the general law, that governs the animal world; that among all the animated races upon this earth, certain causes produce deterioration; and that it may take a longer course of time for the restoration of a degenerate race, under the controlling influences of opposite causes, than even that occupied in a downward direction. “Quickly is the descent made to hell; but to recover from the fall, and regain our former standing, is a labour, a task indeed.” Virgil. In short, that sin has a tendency forcing downward to moral and physical ruin; to deteriorate the mental powers, to rot, to blast, as with a mildew, all animal perfections; to fill life with disease and pain, and its hours with misery and wo, and that it never willingly ceases its iron hold until it can shake hands with death. That God, in mercy, by the wisdom of his providence, has contrived as it were a shield, sheltering poor fallen man from the action of such portion of this deadly poison as would have destroyed every hope of intercession, and for ever excluded from our view, perhaps, even the advent of a Saviour. When the patient is dead, the physician is not called. The law which produced the deluge and destruction of the antediluvian world was a law established from all eternity, meet for just such a case as the moral and physical condition of man then was. For the sake of ten, Sodom would not have been destroyed; but it was less than ten for whom the Ark was provided; and we are to remember that quick upon the promise that all flesh were not again to be cast off, the lowest grade of slavery was promulgated, and its subjects ordered into the protection of the master; and may we not hence infer that slavery is intended, to some extent, as a preventive, as a shield against sin? And do we not notice that this shield is more or less weighty, more or less heavy to be borne, as the safety of the individual bearing it may require; and that it is so cunningly contrived, that its weight and burden are diminished in proportion as the danger abates?

In close, we may everywhere notice that some among the family of man have become so poisoned with sin, so destroyed, that they are no longer safe guardians to themselves, even under the general interdict, that animal wants enslave us all. That for such God provides, as the general safety may seem to require. That, in the history of man, some races have become so deteriorated by a continued action in opposition to the laws of God, that he has seen fit to care for them, by placing them under the control of others; or by placing them, in mercy, under the guidance of a less deteriorated race, whom, no doubt, he holds responsible for the good he intends them. And may we be permitted of the humble Christian to inquire, if this position presents any thing contrary to the general law of benevolence of the Deity,—contrary to the welfare of man on earth, or his hopes of heaven? Will you reject the doctrine, saying the biblical proofs are too scattered, too deeply buried under the dust of time? or, because a prophet has not appeared, or one arisen from the dead? The geologist, from a few fragments of bone, now dug from the deep bowels of the earth, is able to set up the osseous frame, to clothe with muscle and sinew, and give character to the animals of ancient time. And shall it not be recollected by you, who are striving to make your descendants the very princes of intellect and talent, that similar researches may be made in the moral history of man?

Study VII.

But, however that may be, a great proportion of us know no language but our own, and take on trust what any Magnus Apollo may choose to assume concerning others. The assertions of one man, unaccompanied by evidence, may excite little or no attention; but we have seen the substance of this assertion put forth by the abolition clergy in various small publications, no doubt having great weight in their immediate vicinage.

“Down with your Bible!—down with your political parties!—down with your God that sanctions slavery! The God of Moses Stuart, the Andover God, the God of William H. Rogers, which is worshipped in the Winter-street Church, is a monster, composed of oppression, fraud, injustice, pollution, and every crime, in the shape of slavery. To such a God I am an atheist.”

The condition of man, from the most exalted instance of mental power, down to the most abject degradation of the African savage, is for ever marked and located by the fact, whether the guides to truth in their influence on him and his race have been universal, or only occasional; whether their influence has been obeyed only at distant periods, or at all times rejected. It is the law of God, man shall not progress to greatness only under the guidance of truth; under the guidance of falsehood, man degenerates to insignificance, crime, slavery, or to inglorious death.

The frequency of the use of this word in the copies of the ancient Greek Testament, as left us in the evangelical writings of the apostles; the varied manner in which they have applied the term, in figurative illustration, in comparison, in the most simple explanations, as well as in the expression of the primitive idea which they intended to convey by it, would seem to be sufficient proof that whatever such primitive idea may have been, yet that it surely was in exact conformity to the common and received opinion of its signification among those who wrote in and used the Greek language. This is very clear, since it is often used and addressed to the Greeks themselves, insomuch that no temerity has ever yet asserted that this word is of different import when found in the writings of the apostles than when found in the Greek authors generally.

There is no instance in which Homer has used the word incompatible with such an association. The most affecting, we may say afflicting, circumstance in which he has introduced the word is the parting of Hector and Andromache; when Hector, anticipating his own death, and the probability of her being made a slave to the Greeks, emphatically laments her being compelled to carry water for her master, as if that was a particular employment in which the doulos was engaged.

“Ex his præterea intelligitur ea verba, quæ ὄνοματα πεποιήμενα a Græcis vocantur, sic dicta quia a ‘nomine’ vel ‘sono’ formentur, ‘propriam’ eam significationem quæ soni, unde facta sunt, naturam referat. Quorum verborum numerus ingens revera in linguis est, et longe major quam vulgo credi solet. Sed, ut ad propositum redeamus, ex iis quæ supra dicta sunt, clare apparet, simplicissimas origines non posse repeti nisi ab ejusmodi verbis, quibus actiones ipsæ significentur; adeoque a verbis sic proprie dictis.

Our object is here to present the Greek scholar, who may not have reflected on the subject, such suggestions as will lead him to perceive that δοῦλος, doulos, is an original Greek word, not borrowed; and although he may not agree with us in the derivation of the term, yet that he may readily satisfy himself what is the true derivation. It is true, Scheidius, in his “Animadversiones ad analogiam linguæ Græcæ,” has criticized the views of Lennepius, and has devoted near thirty pages to that which is our quotation from him; and we did fancy, upon its examination, that he had rather established than weakened the argument of Lennepius: in fact we did propose to quote him as authority; but to the most of us long quotations, in a language to us unknown, are quite objectionable. We therefore refer to his work, pp. 246 to 275, apud Paddenburg et filium, 1790, “Traiecti ad Rhenum.” It has been said by some of those who contend that δοῦλος, when found in the Greek Testament, does not mean slave, that the Greek, like all other languages of modern date, is a compilation from the more ancient ones; and since the Greeks at an early day had no slaves, it is evident, it is good proof that the more ancient tribes, from whom they and their language descended, had none; and in all such early periods of the world men never had words in their language to express things which did not exist among them, of which they could have no idea.

There are two modes by which an idea expressed in one language is explained in another. Where both languages contain words of synonymous meaning, then the expressing the idea through the medium of the words in another language, is properly what we mean by “translation.” But in many instances, the second language contains no word or words which are synonymes of the term by which the idea is expressed in the language which we wish to translate. In that case we can accomplish the object only by transferring the term expressing the idea from the one language to the other. Example:—When the French exhibited to the natives here a padlock, the natives associated the thing with their idea of the tortoise, from the fancied mechanical resemblance, and with them the name of the one became the name of the other also. But when we exhibited to them a steamboat, they found their language destitute of any word to express their idea of the thing exhibited; consequently, they transferred into their own language the word steamboat, to express the new idea.

Idem.——οὕτω καὶ τῶν πόλεων ταις ὑπερεχούσαις λυσιτελεῖν λεῖν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀφανισθῆναι μᾶλλον ἤ δούλας ὀφθῆναι γενομένας.

LESSON VI.

Ὥστε φημὶ, αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῇ δουλοπρεπεῖ διατριβῇ, ἣν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ παρεσκεύακεν, οὐ διαμενεῖν.

Chap. 5. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τῶν βαρβάρων τινὲς ἱππέων, διὰ τοῦ πεδίου ἐλαύνοντες, ᾧτινι ἐντυγχάνοιεν Ἕλληνι ἢ δούλω ἢ ἐλευθέρῳ, πάντας ἔκτεινον. ׳ “After this, some of the barbarian horse, scouring the plains, killed all the Greeks they met with, both freemen and slaves.” Spelman.

Ἄργος δὲ ἀνδρῶν ἐχηρώθε οὕτω ὥστε οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτῶν ἔσχον πάντα τὰ πρήγματα ἄρχοντές τε καὶ διέποντες, ἐς ὃ ἐπήβησαν οἱ τῶν ἀπολομένων παῖδες, ἔπειτα σφεας οὗτοι ἀνακτώμενοι ὀπίσω ἐς ἑωυτοὺς τὸ Ἄργος ἐζέβαλον· ἐζωθεύμενοι δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι μάχη ἔσχον Τίρυνθα. τέως μὲν δή σφι ἦν ἄρθμια ἐς ἀλλήλους, ἔπειτα δὲ ἐς τοὺς δούλους ἦλθε ἀνὴρ μάντις Κλέανδρος, γένος ἐὼν Φιγαλεὺς ἀπ’ Ἀρκαδίης· οὗτος τοὺς δούλους ἀνέγνωσε ἐπιθέσθαι τοῖσι δεσπότῃσι.

LESSON IX.

While we cast reflection back upon the incidents of this parable, let us suppose the owner of slaves also to employ hired labourers: if from famine or other cause he finds himself unable to supply them all with bread, which would he turn away, his slaves, or hired men? or, if they refused to go, which would he feel disposed to put on small allowance?

LESSON X.

“But which of you, having a servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave) ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shall eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant (δούλῳ, slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants (δοῦλοι, slaves): we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke xvii. 7–10.

It was unnecessary to inform us that man possesses higher mental endowments than the brute. But the main object of the author in the foregoing paragraph is his deduction; that, because we can operate on man by an appeal to his consciousness of right and wrong, therefore any other mode of governing him is wrong. This consequent we fail to perceive. We also fail in the perception that his postulate is universally true: which we think should have been proved before he can claim assent to the deduction. If this our view be correct, we beg the reverend author to reflect how far he may have made himself obnoxious to the charge of sophistry!

Xenophon uses this word also in the 14th section of the 8th book, to mean slaves, and in the same passage with δοῦλος, the adjective sense existing in the presumed unwillingness in the slaves to seek freedom, on the account of their happiness being probably better secured in a state of slavery to Cyrus than it would be in a state of freedom. We give it entire:

“Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad labores ullos liberales excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat: studiosèque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel potu carerent. Permittebat enim servis, quoties equitibus feras in campos adigerent, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent; ingenuorum verò nemini. Quando item faciundum erat iter, ad aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Quum prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent, ne furcilla sive fames acrior eos affligeret. Quo fiebat ut, non aliter ac optimates, etiam hi Cyrum patrem appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio mancipia manerent.”

But we think it a singular argument that, because andrapodismos means the making or selling a slave, andrapodistais means the exact same thing. The truth is, the essential idea conveyed by this word is slave, slavery, &c. If I wish to say “stealing a slave,” I use one form of it; if “selling a slave,” another, and so on; but the stealing a freeman with the view to make him a slave was not expressed by this word, or any form of it. The Greeks used the term anthropokleptais, but the legal reduction of a man to slavery was quite a different matter. St. Paul’s animadversion comprehended the idea of slavery and stealing,—what? a freeman, or a slave? Had it been a freeman that occupied the objective case, it is presumable that his language would have had some analogy to that used in the Septuagint, Deut. xxiv. 7.

The instances of the use of this word are so frequent that we know not whether more of them should not be given; but may we not presume that those who read the language have some knowledge of the matter? and we therefore ask them to relieve us from that burden. We think it no hazard to maintain the fact that ἀνδραποδίζω, its cognates and derivatives, both nouns and adjectives, are never used in the Greek language unassociated with the idea of slavery. If so, then it follows that the idea stealing, as it existed in the mind of St. Paul, was not associated with the idea “man,” but “slave,” and that he used the term ἀνδραποδισταῖς, andrapodistais, to express the idea “slave-stealers.”

Paul, in the passage before us, enumerates a class of the breaches of the law which came within the view of Timothy, which breaches of the law he pronounces to be “contrary to sound doctrine,” and “to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust,” having previously notified him “that the law was good if a man use it lawfully.” Now, one of the plain and well-known laws on the subject of slavery was, “Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are around about you; of them shall you buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bond-men for ever.”

And, finally, to Timothy: “Let as many servants (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren; but rather do them service, (δουλευέτωσαν, do them slave-labour,) because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Tim. vi. 1–14.

LESSON XIV.

“Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage (δεδουλωμένοι, dedoulomenoi, a state of slavery) under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, (δοῦλος, doulos, slave,) but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service (ἐδουλεύσατε, edouleusate, did slave yourselves) unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” (δουλεύειν, douleuein, to be in slavery.) Gal. iv. 1–9.

In these lessons of Paul we not only find the Greek use of the word “doulos,” but we find also the doctrine that slavery is the quotient of sin. It is true he often uses the word figuratively to illustrate the devotion and obedience of the humble followers of Jesus Christ; but in him who spurns obedience to the laws of God, and rejects the faith of the gospel, the character is fixed and permanent, as is the course of conduct that gives it.

There are several instances where the word is used figuratively, as a submissive epithet, as an example of which we cite Acts iv. 29: “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants (δούλοις, doulois, slaves) that with all boldness they may speak thy word.” “And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, (δουλώσουσιν, doulosousin, should enslave them,) and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage (δουλεύσωσι, douleusosi, to whom they shall be enslaved) will I judge, said God.” Acts vii. 6, 7. “Not now as a servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave,) but above a servant, (δοῦλον, doulon, slave,) a brother beloved,” &c. Philem. 16. “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave) depart in peace.” Luke ii. 29.

Here servants is translated from ὑπηρέται, huperetai, and signifies a subordinate. In English it sometimes requires attendants, assistants, inferior officers, &c., but never associates with the idea of slavery.

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers (μισθώσασθαι ἐργάτας, misthosasthai ergatas, to hire labourers) into his vineyard.” “They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us,” (ἐμισθώσατο, emisthosato, hath hired.) “So when the evening was come, the Lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, call the labourers and give them their hire,” μισθὸν, misthon, wages, &c. “And when they had received it, they murmured against the good man of the house.” Matt. xx. 1, 7, 8, 11. “And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants (μίσθιοι, misthioi, hired persons) of my father’s have bread,” &c. Luke xv. 17. “But he that is a hireling, (μισθωτὸς, misthotos, a person hired,) and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf, &c. and the wolf catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. The hireling (μισθωτὸς, misthotos, a person hired) fleeth because he is a hireling (μισθωτὸς, misthotos, a person hired,) and careth not for the sheep.” John x. 12, 13. “For the labourer is worthy of his hire,” τοῦ μισθοῦ hire, wages, payment, &c. Luke x. 7. “Behold, the hire (ὁ μισθὸς, payment for being hired) of the labourers (τῶν ἐργατῶν, ton ergaton, the labourers, not slaves) who have reaped down your fields.” James v. 4.

Study VIII.

But to our subject:—We sometimes find the philologist yield his sceptre and borrow his definitions from a bad translation. And we often find the translator sacrificing his original upon the altar of his own imperfections. Now, it is not uncommon that a word in one language may be in such peculiar use, that, consistently with the constitution of some other language, it cannot be translated therein by any one single term and even if so, not always by the same word. Should all the different terms and words that might thus be legitimately used in translation, be collected together, and put down as the descriptive meaning of some foreign or ancient term, our lexicons would, of necessity, contain some portions of error. For example, suppose we take the Arabic word عَبْدࣨʿabd abed, which means absolutely a slave in that language: we all know that an Arabian, speaking or writing to one far his superior, would someway call himself by this term. He uses it to express great devotedness, honesty, and integrity of intentions to the one addressed. If we were composing an Arabic lexicon, what would the scholar have good reason to say, if we should put as the definition of this word,—honesty, integrity of intention, &c.? This Arabic word is the same as in Hebrew, and the word is used in both languages with great similarity: also in Chaldee, Syriac, and other Shemitic dialects.

But we will desist from increasing this catalogue of definitions, for fear of being charged with slander on the Hebrew lexicons. Must not that be a very strange language in which one little word of only three letters has so many varied and adverse meanings? Yet, in all sobriety, we might double the number. If each and every Hebrew word were like this, thus loaded with lexicographical learning, we beg to know who would undertake and what would be the use of its study; for surely, from the same page, there might be a very great number of adverse and contradictory translations, all equally correct. But, if such catalogue is not legitimate, to what cause are we to look for its existence? to some abiding influence, secret but persevering, in the minds of the lexicographers for the last thousand years? Or shall we rather confine our views to the casualities of hurried translations and bad readings, to the facility of the copyist in book-making, instead of the laborious study of the investigator?

But we will close this portion of our remarks by stating that the lexicographers might, in the manner here pointed out, (which they have pursued to great extent,) have still increased their catalogue of significations to the word ebed.

LESSON III.

סֵבֶלsēbel sebel is sometimes translated labour, but it more often means something consequent to labour, as the burthen of labour is consequent to the labour: it is sometimes used to mean the produce of labour, and hence the Syrian Ephraimitish word סִבֹּלֶהsibbōle siboleth, which is said to mean an ear of corn, because an ear of corn was the produce of labour. Hence, it is sometimes used to mean prolific and fruitful, because the produce of labour is prolific and fruitful; and because to sustain a burthen, as of labour, carries with it the idea of physical ability and strength, it is used in the sense of bearing up, to elevate, to deliver from, &c. A few instances of its use will suffice. Exod. i. 11: “To afflict them with their burthens,” בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑םbĕsiblōtām. Ps. lxxxi. 7: “I delivered מִסֶּ֣בֶלmissebel thee.” cxliv. 14: “That our oxen may be strong to labour,” מְֽסֻבָּ֫לִיםmĕsubbālîm. The Hebrews had thus several ways by which they could express the idea labour accompanied with different adjective qualities. So the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed may express the idea labour; but when so, it is always slave-labour, the labour peculiar to, or performed by a slave as in Isa. xix. 9: “They that work עֹֽבְדֵ֥יʿōbĕdê in fine flax.” The meaning is, they that labour or slave themselves in fine flax. The working in fine flax was slave-labour. If it were good English for us to say, they that slave in fine flax, it would be exactly what the prophet did say in this passage. So in Exod. xx. 9: “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.” Here labour is translated from ebed תַּ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֮taʿăbōd, as a verb “do” is from וְעָשִ֣֭יתָwĕʿāšîtā and “work” from מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָmĕlaʾbtĕkā. The literal meaning of this is—Six days shalt thou slave and labour all thy work;—or, more plainly—Six days shalt thou slave thyself (i.e. do slave labour) and וְעָשִ֣֭יתָwĕʿāšîtā labour, or make all thy מְלַאבְתְ֥ךָmĕlaʾbtĕkā particular, accustomed, professional or usual work or labour. This command is addressed to all mankind, and the propriety of it, as here explained, will be seen in the succeeding verse. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do תַֽעֲשֶׂ֣הtaʿăśe any work כָל־מְלָאכָ֜ה֡kol-mĕlāʾkāh thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkā, ebeddeka, slave.)” So, then, if this particular word had not been used, we could not have said that the command applied to slaves.

LESSON IV.

If our proposition is correct, that the word ebed is never used in Hebrew expression unassociated with the idea of slavery, then this passage from Numbers should read: “From thirty years old and upwards, even to fifty years old, every one that comes to slave in the slavery of the slave labour, and in the slavery of the burdens of the tabernacle of the congregation.” We agree that the passage is somewhat difficult to render into English but because we may find some difficulty in making good English, we are not to translate from other words of different meaning from the ones used. The holy penmen said what they meant, and surely meant what they said: there was no double dealing in the spirit of Jehovah, who dictated to them. But that translators should have, in some few instances, mistaken or confounded the use of one word, is not to be thought strange. Taking into view the volume of the holy books, it is truly wonderful that greater errors were not committed. And we take occasion here to remark, that, of all the ideas, qualities, and actions, given in definition of the word ebed, unassociated with the idea of slavery, upon examination of the language, we shall find graphic symbols representing their phonetic signs, distinct from the idea of slavery, as we have these already examined.

To show more clearly that the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed is never used in Hebrew expression unassociated with the idea of slavery, we now propose to examine that word as used by the Hebrew writers in the holy books. Our words SERVANT, servitude, service, &c. are all derived from the Roman word SERVUS, which meant a SLAVE; and our word servant, when first introduced into our language, as absolutely meant a slave as now does that term itself, and even now fully retains that meaning, where the English language and slavery coexist. The oriental scholar (and let him be invited to examine) will perceive that the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed was common to all the Shemitic tribes, and almost with the same phonetic particulars; but as their figures representing the same phonetic power were quite dissimilar, we think it a proof, almost demonstration, that the word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed was used as a phonetic symbol by them long before any of those languages were written. This circumstance shows the extreme antiquity of the word; and if we succeed to establish the fact, that this word meant nothing but what is now meant by the word slave, we shall also have established the extreme antiquity of the thing itself. A word means nothing, until it is by some means agreed what it shall represent, what idea, or association of ideas it shall excite in the mind. Hence, it not unfrequently occurs that a thing may be better described by paraphrasis than by the expression of a single term. In Gen. xii. 5: “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran.” The latter clause of this sentence is from this Hebrew expression, וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְֹחָרָ֑ןwĕʾet-hannepeš ʾăšer-ʿāśû bĕōḥārān, which is correctly translated in the Andover lexicon, “The souls they had acquired in Haran.” Every one knows that the things here meant are slaves. But, when the scholar comes to examine the power of the language of this Hebrew paraphrasis, he will discover three incident attendants. הַנֶּפֶשׁhannepeš hannephesh, translated souls, also carries with it the idea a living soul, to have life, the life itself, the living principle, and is so translated in many places. A slave, therefore, must have life: when dead, the condition ceases. In the same way, the sentence expresses the idea of acquiring property by purchase, or any other way in which property may be acquired so as to be property. The three incidents then are life, a capacity of being acquired, and, when so acquired, property. All this could not have been expressed by the single term עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, only as it is made the representative of this complex idea: and God has no doubt caused this passage to be on record at this early period, that these incidents should finally come to the knowledge of all men. A somewhat similar expression is used in Rev. xviii. 13. Every one knows that Babylon had been a great slave-market. St. John, after naming the various articles of her merchandise, adds και των σωματων, και την ψυχην, kai ton sōmatōn, kai tēn psuchēn, which is translated, “slaves and souls of men:” σωματων does not mean slaves, but a dead body, and is so used by Homer, Xenophon, and by the New Testament itself; but, when united with και την ψυχην, means slaves alone. The phrase “souls of men,” therefore, in the translation, is surplusage. But the xii. 16 of Genesis is more particular in giving the different kinds of property and their appropriate names. “And he had sheep and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants (עֲבָדִיםʿăbādîm abadim), and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels.” The word men-servants is translated from the plural of עֶבֶדʿebed ebed. Here we find the conventional term expressing the complex idea, previously expressed by the phrase “ souls gotten,” persons in life, subject to be purchased, and when purchased, property, as were sheep and oxen, and he-asses and she-asses, and camels. In Gen. xvii. 9–13, we begin to find the law influencing the conduct of Abraham in the management of this property: “And God said unto Abram, thou shalt,” &c. 12: “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised,” &c.: “He that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed.” 13: “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.” And let it here be remembered that God recognises the possession of this property, by giving directions with his own voice concerning its government. And in Gen. xx. 14, we have some account of the origin of Abraham’s title to some portion of this property: “And Abimelech took sheep and oxen and men-servants (עבדיםʿbdym ebedim, the plural of ebed), and gave them to Abraham.” xxiv. 35: “And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants and maid-servants, and camels and asses.” Here the plural of ebed is also used. Such is the title by which he possessed this property, described as given to him by the Lord. But God had promised that he would bless Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1: “The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God.” 2: “And I will make my covenant between me and thee.” 7: “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant.” 10: “This is my covenant.” (This covenant extends from the beginning of the 10th to the end of the 14th verse.) One part of this covenant was, that these ebeds, translated men-servants, whether born in his house or bought with his money of any stranger, should be circumcised. Wherefore, the possession of these ebeds as property became agreeable to the terms of the covenant, a part of the covenant itself—a covenant first proposed and promulgated by the great Jehovah; as he styles himself in the covenant, the Almighty God! Gen. xxvi. 2: “And the Lord appeared unto him (Isaac), and said, Go not down into Egypt: dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee.” 4: “And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and I will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” 13: “And the man (Isaac) waxed great, and went forward and grew until he became very great.” 14: “For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants (עֲבֻדָּֽהʿăbuddâ abuddah, slaves, a plural formation of ebed), and the Philistines envied him.”!!!

LESSON VI.

Gen. xxvii. 29: “Let people serve thee (יַֽעַבְדּ֣וּךָyaʿabdûkā be slaves to thee), be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee; cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.” Let us notice the conformity of this passage with Gen. xxv. 23: “And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve (יַֽעֲבֹ֥דyaʿăbōd be a slave to) the younger.” Gen. xxx. 43: “And the man (Jacob) increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid-servants, and men-servants (וַֽעֲבָדִ֔יםwaʿăbādîm the plural of ebed), and camels and asses.” Exod. xx. 1, 2, 9, 10, 17: “And God spake all these words, saying,” 2: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (עֲבָדִֽי֑םʿăbādiym out of slavery): 5: “Thou shalt not bow down (תִשְׁתַּ֥חֲוֶה֣tištaḥăweh worship them) thyself to them, nor serve (תָֽעָבְדֵ֑םtāʿobdēm be a slave to them) them.” 9: “Six days shalt thou labour (תּֽ֥עֲבֹ֔ד֘tʿăbōd slave thyself, or do SLAVE-LABOUR) and do (oso, labour or do work) all thy work,” (וְעָשִׂי֣תָwĕʿāśiytā all thy accustomed labours.) This command embraces all classes, the slave as well as the most elevated. All men, by the fall of Adam, had become subject to slave-labour. 10: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant (עַבְדְּךָʿabdĕkā thy slave), this commandment we are directed not to covet any thing that is our neighbour’s, including his man-servant and maid-servant. Here the same word עַבְד֤וֹʿabdô is also used. Exod. xxi. 1: “Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.” 2: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant (עֶ֣בֶדʿebed ebed), (יַֽעֲבֹ֑דyaʿăbōd shall slave himself),” 5: “And if the servant (הָעֶבֶדhāʿebed ha ebed, slave) shall plainly say, I love,” &c. Exod. xxi. 7: “She shall not go out as the men-servants do.” (הָֽעֲבָדִֽיםhāʿăbādîm the plural is here used.) 20: “If a man smite his servant עַבְדּוֹʿabdô or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished: for he is his money.” 26: “If a man smite the eye of his servant,” עַבְדּ֛וֹʿabdô. 27: “ If he smite out his man-servant’s tooth,” עַבְדּ֛וֹʿabdô. 32 “If the ox shall push the man-servant עֶבֶדʿebed or maid-servant, he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”

Deut. v. 14: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā, nor thy maid-servant, that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.” 15: “And remember that thou wast a servant (עֶ֣בֶ֥דʿebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 21 (18th of Hebrew text): “Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant וְעַבְדֵֹוwĕʿabdōēw, or his maid-servant.” Deut. xii. 12: “And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants (וְעַבְדֵיכֶםwĕʿabdêkem a plural form of ebed), thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant,” וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā. Deut. xv. 12: “If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve וַעֲבָֽדְךָ֖waʿăbādĕkā thee six years.” 15: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (עֶ֣בֶדʿebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 17: “And he shall be thy servant (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed) for ever.” Deut. xvi. 11: “And thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you.” 12: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed) in Egypt.” 14: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָ֣wĕʿabdĕkā, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow.” Deut. xx. 10: “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.” 11: “And it shall be if it make thee an answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people found therein shall be tributaries (לָמַ֖סlāmas lamas, afflicted, cast down, to pay tribute, &c.), and they shall serve (וַֽעֲבָדֽוּךָwaʿăbādûkā be thy slaves) thee.” Deut. xxiii. 9–17 contains certain laws to be observed in time of war with their enemies, &c., one of which is, that a slave escaped to them from the enemy should not be restored, &c. Deut. xxiii. 16 (15th of the English text): “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave.) xxiv. 18: “But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave.) wast a bond-man,” עֶבֶדʿebed Gen. ix. 25: “And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants (ebed-ebedim) shall he be unto his brethren.” 26: “And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed.) Many more instances of a similar use of this word might be selected from the holy books; some of which we hope to notice in the progress of our study. Such, then, was the Hebrew use of the word, to mean slave, a person purchased or otherwise acquired, and the unquestionable property of the master. Such then being the condition of the ebed, slave, it is evident that he could not be contented and happy, in case he had ambition to gratify, with hopes and prospects before him adverse from those of his master; his whole earthly felicities are bound up in his master’s welfare and prosperity; like an individual of an army, he feels that the elevation, the brilliancy of the commander is reflected upon him; and with a Christian spirit, he obeys his master in all things, “not with eye-service, but with singleness of heart, fearing God.” See Col. iii. 22. In such a state of mind, the slave finds no unhappiness in his condition, but joy and gladness; and with the slave of Abraham, he implores Jehovah: “O Lord God of my master Abraham! I pray thee send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master Abraham: Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and truth.” Gen. xxiv. 12 and 27. Expressive of a character of perfect devotedness, humility, and obedience. The term ebed might well be borrowed to express the earnest devotion of a worshipper of Jehovah, 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 (δουλοι, 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, lie 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.

Deut. v. 14: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā, nor thy maid-servant, that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.” 15: “And remember that thou wast a servant (עֶ֣בֶ֥דʿebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 21 (18th of Hebrew text): “Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant וְעַבְדֵֹוwĕʿabdōēw, or his maid-servant.” Deut. xii. 12: “And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants (וְעַבְדֵיכֶםwĕʿabdêkem a plural form of ebed), thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant,” וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā. Deut. xv. 12: “If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve וַעֲבָֽדְךָ֖waʿăbādĕkā thee six years.” 15: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (עֶ֣בֶדʿebed ebed) in the land of Egypt.” 17: “And he shall be thy servant (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed) for ever.” Deut. xvi. 11: “And thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָwĕʿabdĕkā, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you.” 12: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed) in Egypt.” 14: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant וְעַבְדְּךָ֣wĕʿabdĕkā, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow.” Deut. xx. 10: “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.” 11: “And it shall be if it make thee an answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people found therein shall be tributaries (לָמַ֖סlāmas lamas, afflicted, cast down, to pay tribute, &c.), and they shall serve (וַֽעֲבָדֽוּךָwaʿăbādûkā be thy slaves) thee.” Deut. xxiii. 9–17 contains certain laws to be observed in time of war with their enemies, &c., one of which is, that a slave escaped to them from the enemy should not be restored, &c. Deut. xxiii. 16 (15th of the English text): “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave.) xxiv. 18: “But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave.) wast a bond-man,” עֶבֶדʿebed Gen. ix. 25: “And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants (ebed-ebedim) shall he be unto his brethren.” 26: “And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant,” (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed.) Many more instances of a similar use of this word might be selected from the holy books; some of which we hope to notice in the progress of our study. Such, then, was the Hebrew use of the word, to mean slave, a person purchased or otherwise acquired, and the unquestionable property of the master. Such then being the condition of the ebed, slave, it is evident that he could not be contented and happy, in case he had ambition to gratify, with hopes and prospects before him adverse from those of his master; his whole earthly felicities are bound up in his master’s welfare and prosperity; like an individual of an army, he feels that the elevation, the brilliancy of the commander is reflected upon him; and with a Christian spirit, he obeys his master in all things, “not with eye-service, but with singleness of heart, fearing God.” See Col. iii. 22. In such a state of mind, the slave finds no unhappiness in his condition, but joy and gladness; and with the slave of Abraham, he implores Jehovah: “O Lord God of my master Abraham! I pray thee send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master Abraham: Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and truth.” Gen. xxiv. 12 and 27. Expressive of a character of perfect devotedness, humility, and obedience. The term ebed might well be borrowed to express the earnest devotion of a worshipper of Jehovah, 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 (δουλοι, 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, lie 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.

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, unwritten 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 מָלַךְmālak 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, שָלַטšālaṭ 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 אָמַרʾāmar 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 מִהְעֲבֶדmihʿăbed 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 עֲבִידַ֣תʿăbîdat is translated work. So in v. 8, עֲבִ֥ידְתָּאʿăbîdĕttāʾ work, vi. 7, עֲבוׄדַ֭תʿăbwdat 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: תַעַׄבדֹוּןtaʿabdōûn “Ye shall do.” 12: יִתְעֲבֵ֖דyitʿăbēd “Let it be done with speed.” 13: עֲבַֽדוּʿăbadû “So they did speedily.”

21: יִתְעֲבֵ֖דyitʿăbēd “It be done speedily.” 23: יִתְעֲבֵדyitʿăbēd “Let it be diligently done.” 26: עָבֵדʿābēd “Will not do.” מִתְעֲבֵ֖דmitʿăbēd “Let judgment be executed speedily.” These instances of the use of 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 אָסְפַּ֖רְנָאʾosparnāʾ 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 עֲבַ֑֗דוּʿăbadû. If this word is the correct reading, the 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 פתח כאתנחptḥ kʾtnḥ, 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 עבדוֹעבדו in some copies.

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,” עַבְדָּ֛י֯ךְיךʿabdāykĕyk. v. 11: “We are the servants,” עַבְדוֹהִיʿabdôhî, having relevance to their devotedness to God. vi. 16 commences with the word יַֽעֲבַ֣דוּyaʿăbadû, 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 עֲבָדִ֣יםʿăbādîm, yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” וּבְעַבְדֻתֵ֔נוּûbĕʿabdutēnû. 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 הָּעֶ֣בֶדhāʿebed, the Ammonite heard of it”—“And Tobiah the servant הָעֶ֣בֶדhāʿebed, 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 (כֹֽ֠בְשִׁיםkōbĕšîm kovshim) sons and our daughters to be servants (לַֽעֲבָדִֹםlaʿăbādiōm slaves), and some of our daughters are brought into bondage (נִכְבָּשׁוֹתnikbāšôt subjections, not necessarily slavery) already,” (כָּבַשkābaš 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, (עַבְדּ֔וֹʿabdô male slave,) and every man his maid-servant שִׁפְחָת֛וֹšipḥātô, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve (עֲבָד־ʿăbād- 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 (עַבְדּ֔וֹʿabdô male slave), and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none serve themselves (עֲבָד־ʿăbād- slave themselves), of them any more, then they obeyed and let them go. But afterwards they turned and caused the servants (הָ֥עֲבָדִיםhāʿăbādîm 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 (עֲבָדִ֖יםʿăbādîm 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 (וַֽעֳבָ֖דְךָwaʿŏbādĕkā 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, (עַבְדּוֹʿabdô ebeddo, slave,) and every man his hand-maid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection (וַתִּכְבְּשׁ֣וּwattikbĕšû) to be unto you for servants (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖יםlaʿăbādîm 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 כָּבַשׁkābaš 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 man-servants (עַבְדֵיהֶ֤םʿabdêhem male slaves), and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty score.” We 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 (עבדʿbd), that its certainty and definiteness must place the inquiry beyond doubt. But as in this instance the word כָּבַשׁkābaš kavash has been translated bondage, it may be well to give a few examples of its use in the holy books, that all may see and know that its meaning is totally distinct from that of slavery. Gen. i. 28: “Multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it,” וְכִבְשֻׁהָwĕkibšuhā. Num. xxxii. 22: “And the land be subdued וְנִכְבְשָׁ֥הwĕnikbĕšâ before the Lord.” 29: “And the land shall be subdued וְנִכְבְּשָׁהwĕnikbĕšâ before you.” Josh. xviii. 1: “And the land was subdued נִכְבְּשָׁ֖הnikbĕšâ before them.” 2 Sam. viii. 1: “Which he subdued,” כִּבֵשׁkibēš. ‎2 Chron. ix. 18: “With a footstool,” וְכֶבֶשׁwĕkebeš because a footstool was in the place of subjection. Zech. ix. 15: “And subdue וְכָ֥בְשׁוּwĕkābĕšû with sling-stones.” Micah vii. 19: “He will subdue יִכְ֖בּוֹשׁyikbôš our iniquities.” The foregoing examples, we trust, are sufficient to disabuse the mind of the idea of any synonyme of meaning of these two words.

WE propose to examine the Hebrew use of the word ebed in the 5th and 15th of the second chapter of Genesis: “In that day the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till לַֽעֲבֹ֖דlaʿăbōd the ground.” To till is here translated from this word ebed, with the affix of the preposition לl. This is the first instance in which the word is used in the holy book; and it may seem extremely strange that the writers of these books found its use necessary in their description of events even before the creation of man. It is not our business to draw out theological doctrine unconnected with the subject of our present inquiry; but we suppose it will not be disputed that the great Jehovah as well knew, before he created the heavens and the earth, and man upon the earth, all and every particular of what would happen, as at any subsequent time: with him, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. We may behold the birth, maturity, and death of some animalcula, in a day or in an hour. But, with him the succession of generations, of the animal life of a thousand years, pass in instantaneous and present view. Time appertains alone to mortals. He saw the most ultimate condition of man; and the earth and the herb were made to suit it. But from the manner of the expression of the text, may we not conclude that the herb, although made, would not grow until man was created, and in the condition to till (לַ֥עֲבֹ֖דlaʿăbōd to slave) the ground? The support of the animal world, independent of man, is spontaneously presented before them: not so with man in his fallen state. “He sendeth the springs into the valley, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. By them shall the fowls of heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches. He watereth the hills from his chambers; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣תlaʿăbōdat for the slavery) of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth,” Ps. civ. 10–14. The second instance in which this word is used is in Gen. ii. 15: “And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it, and to keep it.” To dress it is translated from this word לְעָבְדָ֖הּlĕʿobdāh. There is certainly much obscurity in the use of the word in this instance. Professor Stuart, of Andover, supposes that it inculcates the doctrine that labour was imposed on man in the paradisiacal state; consequently, that labour was no part of the curse which followed the apostacy. (See his Chreestomathy, page 105.) This view excludes the idea that the word, as here used, is associated with the idea of slavery, and that, if, in the interchange of language, although the idea of labour may predominate, nevertheless, it must be slave labour. Our mind does not yield its assent to his position. We had associated with our idea of this paradise the most perfect heaven, the dwelling-place of Jehovah!! and that the generations of man, when guided and governed by Divine mercy in such a manner that we could be happy therein, that it would yet become our ultimate home,—(“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God,” Rev. ii. 7,)—and that the humble worshipper of Jehovah while in a state of progressive preparedness, would therefore cry out with the Psalmist, “Unto thee I lift mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants (עֲבָדִ֠יםʿăbādîm male slaves) look unto the hand of their master; and as the eyes of a maiden (שִׁפְחָה֮šipḥāh shiphhah, female slave) unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God until he have mercy upon us.” Ps. cxxiii. 1, 2. If then the paradise of old was the type of the paradise eternal, it would seem that the labour of the ebed was excluded therefrom: “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage (δουλείας, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. viii. 21. And for this very good reason, that slavery, the consequent of sin, could never find entrance there: regeneration is therefore indispensable.

“And a garden was planted eastward in Eden.” Garden is translated from גַןgan gan. The word is derived from גַנּןgann ganan. The word means, to protect, protection, a thing protected. The idea expressed by it is not confined to a single walled area; but the two words are often used together, as if it was intended to convey the idea of the fact that the protection extended to the whole of Eden. And it may be well conceived that innocency was its protection. Here cunning art never wove its web for the entanglement of its victim. Here no crocodile tears enticed sympathy within the reach of harm. Here no vile wretch ever betrayed a brother’s confidence. Here the lion and the lamb might have couched together, and the infant have played with the tiger’s paw. We are aware that some modern scholars consider the description of the garden of Eden by Moses a mere picture of the mind. Rosenmaeler says that it is on a par with Virgil’s description of the Elysian fields. This class of philosophers consider the whole as a fiction: but man had his commencement somewhere, and it is a fact that four large rivers, answering to the outlines of the general description of Moses, do flow from fountain-heads not more than thirty or forty miles apart, in the central and most elevated region of Armenia. These streams meander through the same countries described by him, and exhibit the same mineral productions: nor would it be any thing remarkable, if investigation should yet prove that they were all indebted to one and the same source. Let us consider then, whether it was not a fact that the garden of Eden was not confined to a little plat of ground, but included a whole district of country, embracing the visible sources of the rivers named: a district of country, from the mildness of its climate, fruitfulness, and other causes of pleasure and delight, exceedingly well adapted to the early residence of man. We have therefore no well founded reason to believe that the account given by Moses of the garden of Eden was a fiction, independent of Divine authority. But his account must be understood so as to be consistent with itself, and with the facts now existing of which it speaks. We are not under the necessity of supposing that the felicity of our first parents was confined to the locality named: a paradise was to them anywhere. It was their innocence, not the location, that made it so; and thus they were driven out of paradise, perhaps, without a change of location. The use of the word ebed עבדעבד, in ii. 15 of Genesis, might then well be of the same foreshadowing import as in the first instance of its use, even before the creation of man. For, who must not conclude, when man was first placed in paradise, that God did not as clearly see his apostasy then, as now? By his wisdom, power, and mercy, all nature was ready-prepared for the change, and poor fallen man, without change of habitation, found that habitation no longer heaven, and commenced his first act of slavery by the vain attempt to hide himself from God and his own contempt. And here, let us remark, we find the true commencement of slavery. “And Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δουλος, slave) of sin.” John viii. 34. Force, disease, ruin, and death were now introduced to man. For, “A. servant (עָ֑בֶדʿābed slave) will not be corrected by words.” Prov. xxix. 19. God had mercifully contrived that he should be forced to action. “He that tilleth (עֹבֵ֣דʿōbēd slaveth) of bread; but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.” Prov. xxviii. 19. When God made “every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew,” foreseeing the apostasy of man—its poisonous effect upon his moral and physical condition—its direct influence to produce immediate ruin and death, he also provided, ordained, and decreed a relation, a law between man and his mental and physical wants, which must cleave unto him, upon his apostasy, and be of the utmost value and efficacy in alleviating, removing, and preventing the final evils incident to his poisoned condition. This relation, law, institution, was the ebeduth, the institution of slavery, as expressed in Ezra ix. 8, 9: “And give us a little reviving in our bondage (עֲבדתנוּʿăbdtnû ebeduthenu, slavery). For we were bond-men (עֲבָדִ֣יםʿăbādîm abedim, slaves), and yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” עבדתנוּʿbdtnû. So in 2 Chron. xii. 8: “Nevertheless, ye shall be his servants (לעבדיםlʿbdym le-obedim, his slaves), that they may know my service (עֲב֣וֹדָתִ֔יʿăbôdātî slavery), and the service (וַֽעְבוֹדַ֖תwaʿbôdat and the slavery) of the kingdoms of the countries.” So in Esther vii. 4: “For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bond-men (וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת לַֽעֲבָדִ֨יםwĕlišpāḥôt laʿăbādîm) and bond-women, I had held my tongue.”

“And a garden was planted eastward in Eden.” Garden is translated from גַןgan gan. The word is derived from גַנּןgann ganan. The word means, to protect, protection, a thing protected. The idea expressed by it is not confined to a single walled area; but the two words are often used together, as if it was intended to convey the idea of the fact that the protection extended to the whole of Eden. And it may be well conceived that innocency was its protection. Here cunning art never wove its web for the entanglement of its victim. Here no crocodile tears enticed sympathy within the reach of harm. Here no vile wretch ever betrayed a brother’s confidence. Here the lion and the lamb might have couched together, and the infant have played with the tiger’s paw. We are aware that some modern scholars consider the description of the garden of Eden by Moses a mere picture of the mind. Rosenmaeler says that it is on a par with Virgil’s description of the Elysian fields. This class of philosophers consider the whole as a fiction: but man had his commencement somewhere, and it is a fact that four large rivers, answering to the outlines of the general description of Moses, do flow from fountain-heads not more than thirty or forty miles apart, in the central and most elevated region of Armenia. These streams meander through the same countries described by him, and exhibit the same mineral productions: nor would it be any thing remarkable, if investigation should yet prove that they were all indebted to one and the same source. Let us consider then, whether it was not a fact that the garden of Eden was not confined to a little plat of ground, but included a whole district of country, embracing the visible sources of the rivers named: a district of country, from the mildness of its climate, fruitfulness, and other causes of pleasure and delight, exceedingly well adapted to the early residence of man. We have therefore no well founded reason to believe that the account given by Moses of the garden of Eden was a fiction, independent of Divine authority. But his account must be understood so as to be consistent with itself, and with the facts now existing of which it speaks. We are not under the necessity of supposing that the felicity of our first parents was confined to the locality named: a paradise was to them anywhere. It was their innocence, not the location, that made it so; and thus they were driven out of paradise, perhaps, without a change of location. The use of the word ebed עבדעבד, in ii. 15 of Genesis, might then well be of the same foreshadowing import as in the first instance of its use, even before the creation of man. For, who must not conclude, when man was first placed in paradise, that God did not as clearly see his apostasy then, as now? By his wisdom, power, and mercy, all nature was ready-prepared for the change, and poor fallen man, without change of habitation, found that habitation no longer heaven, and commenced his first act of slavery by the vain attempt to hide himself from God and his own contempt. And here, let us remark, we find the true commencement of slavery. “And Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δουλος, slave) of sin.” John viii. 34. Force, disease, ruin, and death were now introduced to man. For, “A. servant (עָ֑בֶדʿābed slave) will not be corrected by words.” Prov. xxix. 19. God had mercifully contrived that he should be forced to action. “He that tilleth (עֹבֵ֣דʿōbēd slaveth) of bread; but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.” Prov. xxviii. 19. When God made “every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew,” foreseeing the apostasy of man—its poisonous effect upon his moral and physical condition—its direct influence to produce immediate ruin and death, he also provided, ordained, and decreed a relation, a law between man and his mental and physical wants, which must cleave unto him, upon his apostasy, and be of the utmost value and efficacy in alleviating, removing, and preventing the final evils incident to his poisoned condition. This relation, law, institution, was the ebeduth, the institution of slavery, as expressed in Ezra ix. 8, 9: “And give us a little reviving in our bondage (עֲבדתנוּʿăbdtnû ebeduthenu, slavery). For we were bond-men (עֲבָדִ֣יםʿăbādîm abedim, slaves), and yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage,” עבדתנוּʿbdtnû. So in 2 Chron. xii. 8: “Nevertheless, ye shall be his servants (לעבדיםlʿbdym le-obedim, his slaves), that they may know my service (עֲב֣וֹדָתִ֔יʿăbôdātî slavery), and the service (וַֽעְבוֹדַ֖תwaʿbôdat and the slavery) of the kingdoms of the countries.” So in Esther vii. 4: “For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bond-men (וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת לַֽעֲבָדִ֨יםwĕlišpāḥôt laʿăbādîm) and bond-women, I had held my tongue.”

LESSON X.

LESSON XI.

Before closing this subject we offer a few more examples of the Hebrew use of this word. “Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants (עֲבָדִ֔יםʿăbādîm slaves) now-a-days that break away every man from his master.” 1 Sam. xxv. 10. Nabal pretended in his drunkenness, that he might be a runaway slave. 1 Kings ii. 29, 40: “And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants (עֲבָדִיםʿăbādîmebedim, slaves) of Shimei ran away unto Achish, son of Maachah king of Gath; and they told Shimei, saying, Behold thy servants (עַבְדֶּךָʿabdekā slaves) be in Gath. And Shimei arose and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants (עֲבָדָיוʿăbādāyw slaves), and Shimei went and brought his servants (עֲבָדָ֖יוʿăbādāyw slaves) from Gath.” 1 Kings ix. 20, 21, and 22: “And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebuzites, which were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon these did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service (עָבֶדʿābed obed, slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bond-men,” (עָבֶדʿābed ebed, slaves.) 2 Chron. viii. 9: “But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no servants (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖יםlaʿăbādîm la ebedim, no slaves) for his work, (לִמְלַאכְתּ֑וֹlimlaʾktô his works, labours.) But they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and captains of his chariots and horsemen.” 2 Kings iv. 1: “Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant, my husband, is dead, and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord, and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bond-men,” (לַֽעֲבָדִ֖יםlaʿăbādîm la ebedim, for slaves.) In 1 Chron. xxvii. 26, this word is used in a sense quite analogous to slave-labour, thus: “And over them that did the work (meleketh, i.e. the particular work or labour) of the field for tillage (לַעֲבֹדַתlaʿăbōdat slave-labour) of the ground, was Ezra, the son of Chelub.” Job i. 2, 3: “And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five thousand yoke of oxen, and five hundred she-asses, and a very great household.” The word “household” is here translated from וַֽעֲבֻדָּהwaʿăbuddâ a body of slaves, i. e. a large family of slaves. Job iii. 19: “The small and the great are there, and the servant (וְעֶבֶדwĕʿebed ve ebed, master.” Job xxxi. 13: “If I did despise (מִשְׁפַּטַmišpaṭa misjudge) the cause of my man-servant,” (עַֽבְדִּיʿabdî my slave.) Job xxxix. 9: “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee?” (עָבְדֶךָʿābdekā be a slave to thee.) Ps. cxvi. 16: “O Lord, truly I am thy servant (עַבְדֶךָʿabdekā obedeka, slave); I am thy servant (עַבְדֶּךָʿabdekā slave), and the son of thy hand-maid (אֲמָתֶ֑ךָʾămātekā amatheka, female slave): thou hast loosed my bonds.” It is a little remarkable how similar is this sentiment of David to one expressed by St. Paul. Prov. xii. 9: “He that is despised and hath a servant (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave) is better than he that honoureth himself and lacketh bread.” Prov. xvii. 2: “A wise servant (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave), shall rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren.” Prov. xxx. 21, 22, 23: “For three things is the earth disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear: For a servant (עֶבֶדʿebed ebed, slave) when he reigneth (יִמְ֑לוֹךְyimlôk imlok), and a fool when he is filled with meat. For an odious woman when she is married, and a hand-maid (וְשִׁפְחָהwĕšipḥâ female slave) that is heir to her mistress.” Eccl. ii. 7. “I got me (קָנִ֨יתִיqānîtî kanithi, I purchased) servants (עֲבָדִ֣יםʿăbādîm male slaves) and maidens (וּשְׁפָח֔וֹתûšĕpāḥôt female slaves), and had servants born in my house.” Eccl. vii. 21: “Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken, lest thou hear thy servant (עַבְדְךָʿabdĕkā slave) curse thee.” Jer. ii. 14: “Is Israel a servant (הָעֶבֶדhāʿebed slave)? is he a home-born slave? why is he spoiled?” In the latter part of this quotation, the word עבדʿbd ebed is not expressed in Hebrew, but understood, as is often the case in English: yet King James’s translators did not hesitate to supply it in English with the word slave, giving indisputable proof of what they understood the word ebed to mean, and also, that they used the English word servant as a synonyme of the word slave. The omission to express the word עֻבֶדʿubed ebed in Hebrew, in this instance, has the effect to make the idea conveyed by the prophet more emphatic; and hence the translators seem to have felt the necessity of using the most forcible synonyme, in order that they might truly and beyond doubt convey the full import of the prophet’s meaning. Mal. i. 6: “A son honoureth his father, and a servant (וְעֶ֣בֶדwĕʿebed slave) his master.” This passage is a connecting link in a chain of reasoning, and the prophet continues thus: “If then I be a father, where is my honour? If I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?” As though they were astonished at the accusation! And this is the answer—7: “Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar.” A figure, to show that they had become wholly disobedient, and held in disregard the law of God. By their disobedience, they were degenerating from the condition of the son to that of the ebed. Instead of being influenced by love, they were about to be operated upon by fear, and hence the prophet continues, ii. 1: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings, yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.” He would curse them with the hateful curse of Cain. And we beg to notice this scriptural glancing at the doctrine that a course of sin does produce some change upon the physical man,—some change of countenance, which is continued, degenerating and deteriorating the succeeding generations,—and ask, is not such a doctrine alluded to in Ezek. xviii. 2, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” And, again, in Ps. lviii. 2, 3: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent.” Again, in Jer. vii. 19: “Do they provoke me to anger? saith the Lord. Do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?” And, in Isa. iii. 9: “The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and they declare their sin as Sodom. They hide it not. Wo unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.” Jer. xiii. 22: “If thou say in thy heart, wherefore have these things come upon me? for the greatness of thine iniquities are thy skirts discovered and thy heels made bare.” And ii. 22: “For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” We will not enter into the examination of this doctrine at present, but hasten to close our view of the Hebrew use of the word עבדʿbd ebed. In Joel iii. 2 (ii. 29th of the English text) is this remarkable passage: “And also upon the servants (הָֽעֲבָדִ֖יםhāʿăbādîm ha ebedim, the male slaves) and upon the hand-maids (הַשְּׁפָח֑וֹתhaššĕpāḥôt hashshephahoth, the female slaves) in those days will I pour out my Spirit.” This passage was translated at Jerusalem by St. Peter, into Greek. See Acts ii. 18: “And on my servants, and on my hand-maids (δουλους και επι τας δουλας), will I pour out in those days my Spirit,”—using those Greek words that most unconditionally mean a slave, and showing as effectually as language can show, and proving as distinctly as language can prove, that St. Peter well understood these words of Joel to mean male and female slaves. He translates the passage, referring to it, and quoting it. There can have been no mistake. Besides, the passage is rendered definite by its particularity; for the preceding sentence avers that his Spirit should be poured out “upon all flesh,” and goes on to particularize, “your sons” and “daughters,” “your old men,” “your young men,” and then in this passage includes the slaves, thus explaining whom he means by “all flesh.” It was on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples of Jesus Christ “were all with one accord in one place, and suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting; and there appeared upon them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” Acts ii. 1, 2, 3.

LESSON XII.

Present,