Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons (part 2 of 4)

Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons (part 2 of 4)

It is clear then that the person whom this clause of the law forbids to marry, is some person other than a deceased wife’s sister.

We propose for consideration, as nearly literal as may be, to express the idea conveyed—Thou shalt not take one wife to another, to be enemies, or to be exiles, the shame of thy bed-chamber through life.

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 אֲחֹתָהּ ahotha, in the passage before us, means sister; and if not, the sentence stands a clear, indisputable, and general condemnation of polygamy.

* * * * *

Can Dr. Channing’s disciples point out to us a law allowing polygamy in as direct terms as the following would have done, substituting the word wives for slaves?

“Thy wives which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy wives.” “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy wives”—“and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your wives.” “And ye shall take them as wives for your children after you, and they shall have them for wives”—“they shall be your wives for ever.” Compare Lev. xxv. 44, 46.

Until they can do so, until they shall do so, we shall urge their not doing it as one reason why the Scripture “cannot be used to stock our houses with wives as well as with slaves.”

------------------

LESSON X.

Dr. Channing says, page 101, vol. ii.—

“Slavery, at the age of the apostle, had so penetrated society, was so intimately interwoven with it, and the materials of servile war were so abundant, that a religion, preaching freedom to the slave, would have shaken the social fabric to its foundation, and would have armed against itself the whole power of the state. Paul did not then assail the institution. He satisfied himself with spreading principles which, however slowly, could not but work its destruction. * * * And how, in his circumstances, he could have done more for the subversion of slavery, I do not see.”

May we request the disciples of Dr. Channing to read the chapter on “Slavery,” in Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy, and decide whether the above is borrowed in substance therefrom. And we beg further to inquire, whether it does not place Paul, considering “his circumstances,” in an odious position? What, Paul satisfying himself to not do his duty! What, Paul shrink from assailing an institution because deeply rooted in power and sin! What, Paul, the apostle of God, fearing, hesitating, failing to denounce a great sin, because it was penetrating through and intimately interwoven with society!

Why did he not manifest the same consideration in behalf of other great sins? Would it not be an easier and more rational way to account for his not assailing slavery, by supposing him to have known that it was the providence of God, in mercy, presenting some protection to those too degraded and low to protect themselves? If such supposition describes the true character of the institution of slavery, then the conduct of Paul in regard to it would have been just what it was. Paul lived all his life in the midst of slavery; as a man among men, he had a much better opportunity to know what was truth in the case than Dr. Channing. But as an apostle, Paul was taught of God. Will the disciples of Dr. Channing transfer these considerations from St. Paul to the Almighty, and say that he was afraid to announce his truth, his law, then to the world, lest it should stir up a little war in the Roman Empire? In what position does Dr. Channing place Him, who came to reveal truth, holding death and judgment in his hand!

“Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee: For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them.” John xvii. 7, 8.

“I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts xx. 26, 27.

“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.” Rom. iii. 4.

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?”

Dr. Channing says, vol. ii. p. 104—“The very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed.” Is then the Christian religion a fabrication of men? Was Christ himself an impostor? And could Dr. Channing loan himself to such a consideration?

“Upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. xvi. 18.

------------------

LESSON XI.

The sixth position in the treatise under consideration is, “I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it.” His plan is, page 108—“In the first place, the great principle that man cannot rightfully be held as property, should be admitted by the slaveholder.”

Dr. Channing seems to suppose that his previous arguments are sufficient to produce the proposed admission.

Page 109. “It would be cruelty to strike the fetters from a man, whose first steps would infallibly lead him to a precipice. The slave should not have an owner, but he should have a guardian.”

We take this as an admission that the slave is not a fit subject for freedom. But he says—

Page 110. “But there is but one weighty argument against immediate emancipation; namely, that the slave would not support himself and his children by honest industry.”

Dr. Channing’s plan in short is, that the names, master and slave, shall be exchanged for guardian and ward; but he awards no compensation to the guardian;—that the negro shall be told he is free; yet he should be compelled to work for his own and his family’s support;—that none should be whipped who will toil “from rational and honourable motives.”

Page 112. “In case of being injured by his master in this or in any respect, he should be either set free, or, if unprepared for liberty, should be transmitted to another guardian.”

Dr. Channing proposes “bounties,” “rewards,” “new privileges,” “increased indulgences,” “prizes for good conduct,” &c., as substitutes for the lash. He supposes that the slave may be “elevated and his energies called forth by placing his domestic relations on new ground.” “This is essential; we wish him to labour for his family. Then he must have a family to labour for. Then his wife and children must be truly his own. Then his home must be inviolate. Then the responsibilities of a husband and father must be laid on him. It is argued that he will be fit for freedom as soon as the support of his family shall become his habit and his happiness.”

Page 114. “To carry this and other means of improvement into effect, it is essential that the slave should no longer be bought and sold.”

Page 115. “Legislatures should meet to free the slave. The church should rest not, day nor night, till this stain be wiped away.”

We do not choose to make any remark on his plan of emancipation; we shall merely quote one passage from page 106:

“How slavery shall be removed is a question for the slaveholder, and one which he alone can answer fully. He alone has an intimate knowledge of the character and habits of the slaves.”

In this we fully concur; and we now ask our readers, what does Dr. Channing’s confession of this fact suggest to their minds?

Dr. Channing’s seventh proposition is, “To offer some remarks on abolitionism.” The considerations of this chapter are evidently addressed to the abolitionists, with which we have no wish to interfere. There are, however, in it, some fine sentiments expressed in his usual eloquent style.

The eighth and concluding subject is, “A few reflections on the duties of the times.” These reflections, we are exceedingly sorry to find highly inflammatory; they are addressed alone to the Free States. We shall present a few specimens. They need no comment: there are those to whom pity is more applicable than reproof.

Page 138. “A few words remain to be spoken in relation to the duties of the Free States. These need to feel the responsibilities and dangers of their present position. The country is approaching a crisis on the greatest question which can be proposed to it; a question, not of profit or loss, of tariffs or banks, or any temporary interests; but a question involving the first principles of freedom, morals, and religion.”

Page 139. “There are, however, other duties of the Free States, to which they may prove false, and which they are too willing to forget. They are bound, not in their public, but in their individual capacities, to use every virtuous influence for the abolition of slavery.”

Page 140. “At this moment an immense pressure is driving the North from its true ground. God save it from imbecility, from treachery to freedom and virtue! I have certainly no feelings but those of good-will towards the South; but I speak the universal sentiments of this part of the country, when I say that the tone which the South has often assumed towards the North has been that of a superior, a tone unconsciously borrowed from the habit of command to which it is unhappily accustomed by the form of its society. I must add, that this high bearing of the South has not always been met by a just consciousness of equality, a just self-respect at the North. * * * Here lies the danger. The North will undoubtedly be just to the South. It must also be just to itself. This is not the time for sycophancy, for servility, for compromise of principle, for forgetfulness of our rights. It is the time to manifest the spirit of MEN, a spirit which prizes, more than life, the principles of liberty, of justice, of humanity, of pure morals, of pure religion.”

Page 142. “Let us show that we have principles, compared with which the wealth of the world is as light as air. * * * The Free States, it is to be feared, must pass through a struggle. May they sustain it as becomes their freedom! The present excitement at the South can hardly be expected to pass away without attempts to wrest from them unworthy concessions. The tone in regard to slavery in that part of the country is changed. It is not only more vehement, but more false than formerly: once slavery was acknowledged as an evil; now, it is proclaimed to be a good.”

Page 143. “Certainly, no assertion of the wildest abolitionist could give such a shock to the slaveholder, as this new doctrine is fitted to give to the people of the North. * * * There is a great dread in this part of the country that the Union of the States may be dissolved by conflict about slavery. * * * No one prizes the Union more than myself.”

Page 144. “Still, if the Union can be purchased only by the imposition of chains on the tongue and the press, by prohibition of discussion on the subject involving the most sacred rights and dearest interests of humanity, then union would be bought at too dear a price.”

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.”

------------------

LESSON XII.

The abolition writers and speakers are properly divided into two classes: those who agitate and advocate the subject as a successful means of advancing their own personal and ambitious hopes; sometimes with

“One eye turned to God, condemning moral evil; The other downward, winking at the devil!”

Thus, one seeks office, another distinction or fame. Small considerations often stimulate the conduct of such men.

But we have evidence that another class zealously labour to abolish slavery from the world, because they think its existence a stain on the human character, and that the laws of God make it the duty of every man to “cry aloud and spare not,” until it shall cease.

Our author had no secondary views alluring him on to toil; no new purpose; no new summit to gain. What he thought darkness he hated, because he loved the light; what he thought wicked, to his soul was awful and abhorred, because, even in life, he was ever peering into the confines of heaven. Ardour was cultivated into zeal, and zeal into enthusiasm.

In its eagerness to accomplish its object in behalf of liberty, the mind is often prepared to subvert without reflection—to destroy without care. Hence, even the religious may sometimes “record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” Rom. x.

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.

“Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” Answer thou, Why “leaveth the ostrich her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust? Why forgetteth she that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them?”

“Why is she hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers?” “Why is her labour in vain without fear?”

“Why feedeth the fish upon its fellow, which forgetteth and devoureth its young?”

“Who looketh on the proud and bringeth him low? and treadeth down the wicked in their place? hiding them in the dust, and binding their faces in secret?”

Who hardeneth the heart of Pharaoh? and multiplies signs and wonders before the children of men? Who is he who “hath mercy on whom he will?” Why was Esau hated or Jacob loved before they were born?

Wilt thou say, “Why doth he find fault? for who hath resisted his will.” See Rom. ix. 19.

Or wilt thou rather say, “Behold I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer thee: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.” Job xl. 4.

* * * * *

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.

The following extracts will perhaps sufficiently develop the state to which his mind had arrived on this subject of his study. Vol. vi. p. 38, he says—“My maxim is, Any thing but slavery!”

Page 50. “The history of West India emancipation teaches us that we are holding in bondage one of the best races of the human family. The negro is among the mildest and gentlest of men. He is singularly susceptible of improvement from abroad. His children, it is said, receive more rapidly than ours the elements of knowledge.”

Page 51. “A short residence among the negroes in the West Indies impressed me with their capacity for improvement; on all sides, I heard of their religious tendencies, the noblest of human nature. I saw, too, on the plantation where I resided, a gracefulness and dignity of form and motion rare in my own native New England. And that is the race which has been selected to be trodden down and confounded with the brute.”

If slavery in the West Indies has thus elevated the African tribes above the majority of the people of New England, we will not ask the question, whether the doctor’s disciples propose the experiment on their countrymen. But there is, nevertheless, abundant proof that slavery to the white races does necessarily, and from philosophical causes, have the most direct tendency to elevate the moral, mental, and physical ability of the African; in fact, of any other race of men sunk equally low in degradation and ruin.

If the negro slaves of the West Indies exhibit moral, mental, and physical merit in advance of most of Dr. Channing’s countrymen, who were never in slavery, we beg to know how it is accounted for; what are the causes that have operated to produce it? For we believe no sane man, who knows any thing of the African savage in his native state, whether bond or free, will so much as give a hint that they are as elevated in any respect as are his countrymen, the people of New England. Will the fact then be acknowledged, that slavery, however bad, does yet constitutionally amend and elevate the African savage!

* * * * *

At the moment the foregoing paragraphs were placed on paper, there happened to be present a Northern gentleman, who very justly entertained the most elevated regard for the personal character of Dr. Channing, to whom they were read. His views seemed to be that the extracts from Channing were garbled, and the deductions consequent thereon unjustly severe.

We war not with Dr. Channing, nor his character. He no longer liveth. But his works live, and new editions crowd upon the public attention, as if his disciples were anxious to saturate the whole world with his errors, as well as to make known his many virtues. We do not design to garble; and therefore requote the extract more fully, from vol. vi. pp. 50, 51:

“The history of the West India emancipation teaches us that we are holding in bondage one of the best races of the human family. The negro is among the mildest, gentlest of men. He is singularly susceptible of improvement from abroad. His children, it is said, receive more rapidly than ours the elements of knowledge. How far he can originate improvements, time only can teach. His nature is affectionate, easily touched; and hence he is more open to religious impression than the white man. The European race have manifested more courage, enterprise, invention; but in the dispositions which Christianity particularly honours, how inferior are they to the African! When I cast my eyes over our Southern region, the land of bowie-knives, Lynch-law, and duels, of ‘chivalry, honour,’ and revenge; and when I consider that Christianity is declared to be a spirit of charity, ‘which seeketh not its own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and endureth all things,’ and is declared to be ‘the wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits,’—can I hesitate in deciding to which of the races in that land Christianity is most adapted, in which its noblest disciples are most likely to be reared.”

Pp. 52, 53. “Could the withering influence of slavery be withdrawn, the Southern character, though less consistent, less based on principle, might be more attractive and lofty than that of the North. The South is proud of calling itself Anglo-Saxon. Judging from character, I should say that this name belongs much more to the North, the country of steady, persevering, unconquerable energy. Our Southern brethren remind me more of the Normans. They seem to have in their veins the burning blood of that pirate race.”

“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.

* * * * *

Will the disciples of Dr. Channing account for the curious facts developed by the census of 1850, as follows?—

“A writer in the New York Observer calls attention to some curious facts derived from the census of the United States. These facts show that there is a remarkable prevalence of idiocy and insanity among the free blacks over the whites, and especially over the slaves. In the State of Maine, every fourteenth coloured person is an idiot or a lunatic. And though there is a gradual improvement in the condition of the coloured race as we proceed West and South, yet it is evident that the Free States are the principal abodes of idiocy and lunacy among them.

“In Ohio, there are just ten coloured persons, who are idiots or lunatics, where there is one in Kentucky. And in Louisiana, where a large majority of the population is coloured, and four-fifths of them are slaves, there is but one of these unfortunates to 4309 who are sane. The proportions in other States, according to the census of 1850, are as follow:—In Massachusetts, 1 in 43; Connecticut, 1 in 185; New York, 1 in 257; Pennsylvania, 1 in 256; Maryland, 1 in 1074; Virginia, 1 in 1309; North Carolina, 1 in 1215; South Carolina, 1 in 2440; Ohio, 1 in 105; Kentucky, 1 in 1053. This is certainly a curious calculation, and indicates that diseases of the brain are far more rare among the slaves than among the free of the coloured race.”

------------------

LESSON XIII.

Sympathy probably operates more or less in the mind of each individual of the human family. Traces of it are discovered even in some of the brute creation; but yet we are far from saying that it is merely an animal feeling. But we do say that sympathy often gives a direction to our chains of thought; and that, in some minds, such direction is scarcely to be changed by any subsequent reflection, or even evidence. Some minds seem incapable of appreciating any evidence which does not make more open whatever way sympathy may lead; consequently a full history of its exercise would prove that it has been frequently expended on mistaken facts, imaginary conditions, or fictitious suffering. In such cases, it may produce much evil, and real suffering. It therefore may be of some importance to the sympathizer and to community, that this feeling be under the government of a correct judgment founded on truth.

Among the rude tribes of men, and in the early ages of the world, its action seems to have taken the place of what, in a higher civilization and cultivation of the mind, should be the result of moral principle founded on truth.

But even now, if we look abroad upon the families of men, even to the most intellectual, shall we not find the greater number rather under the government of the former than the latter? One inference surely is, that man, as yet, has not, by far, arrived at the fullest extent of intellectual improvement.

* * * * *

But suppose we say that God punishes sin; or, by the laws of God, sin brings upon itself punishment;—we propose the question, how far, under our relation to our Creator, is it consistent in us to sympathize with such punishment? It may be answered, we are instructed to “remember” to sympathize with those who are under persecution for their faith in Christ; so also, impliedly, with our brethren, neighbours, or those who have done us or our ancestors favours, or those who have given or can give some proof of goodness, when such have fallen, or shall fall into bondage; and, perhaps, with any one giving proof of such amendment as may merit a higher condition. But in all these cases, does not the injunction, “remember,” look to an action resulting from principle, emanating from truth, or the conformity of the person or thing to be “remembered” with the law of God?

In the holy books, the word nearest to a synonyme of our word sympathy, will be found in Deut. vii. 16: “Thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity תָ֥חוֹס thehhos) upon them,” (no sympathy for.)

So, xix. 13: “Thine eye shall not pity (תָח֤וֹס thahhos) him.” So xiii. 8 (the 9th of the Hebrew text): “Neither shall thine eye pity him,” (תָח֤וֹס thahhos.)

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?

The feeling of sympathy, commiseration, or mercy, is inculcated in the latter clause of Lev. xlvi. 26. The circumstances were these:—The descendants of Ham occupied the whole of Palestine, and the most of the adjoining districts. Those of Palestine had become so sunken in idolatry, and the most grievous practices, counteracting any improvement of their race, that God, in his providence, gave them up to be extirpated from the earth, and forbid the Israelites to have any “pity,” any sympathy for them; but to slay them without hesitation. While those of the adjacent tribes, who had, since the days of Noah, been denounced as fit subjects of slavery, on the account of their degradation, brought upon them by similar causes, were again specified to Moses as those whom they were at liberty in peace to purchase, or in war to reduce to perpetual bondage.

But such is the deteriorating effect of sin, even individuals of the Israelites themselves were often falling into that condition. But God made a distinction between the condition of these heathen, and the Israelites that might thus fall into slavery. The slavery of the heathen was perpetual, while that of these improvident Jews was limited to six years, unless such slave preferred to continue in his state of slavery; his kin at all times having the right to redeem him, which right of redemption was also extended to the Jewish slave himself. But no such right was ever extended to the heathen slave, or him of heathen extraction. Under this state of facts, the Jewish master is forbidden to use “rigour” towards his Jewish slave: “But over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour.” This evidently inculcates a feeling of commiseration for such of their countrymen as may have fallen into slavery; and in conformity with such precepts, all nations, at all times, who were advanced in civilization, seem to have ever felt disposed to extend relief when practical. Hence Abraham extended relief to the family of Lot: hence the prophet Obed succeeded to deliver from slavery two hundred thousand of the children of Judah from the hand of the king of Israel, during the days of Ahaz. But in no instance have such acts of mercy been manifested by a people sunk as low in degradation as the African races.

For several centuries, Britain supplied slaves for other parts of the world; but, during the time she did so, she took no steps for the redemption of any; and such has invariably been the case at all times of the world. All races of men, sunk in the lowest depths of degradation, have never failed to be in slavery to one another, and to supply other nations with their own countrymen for slaves; and, perhaps, this may be adduced as an evidence of their having descended to that degree of degradation that makes slavery a mercy to them. Sympathy for them could do them no good; because a relief from slavery could not elevate them,—could do them no good, but an injury. Hence such sympathy is forbidden.

The degradation of the children of Jacob became almost extreme; yet they went not into slavery until it was accompanied by a fact of like nature. Who shall say that slavery and the slave-trade in Britain was not one of the steps, under Divine providence, whereby God brought about the elevated condition of the race of man there? Who will say that the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt was not to them a mercy, and did not bring to them an ameliorated, an elevated condition, necessary to them before the Divine law could fulfil its promise to Abraham? But this was a mere temporary slavery; whereas the slavery pronounced on the races of Ham was through all time, perpetual. During the dark ages of the world, the races of men generally became deteriorated to an extraordinary extent. If our doctrine be true, slavery was a necessary consequence, and continued, until by its amendatory influence on the enslaved, in accordance with the law of God, they became elevated above the level of its useful operation.

But, during these periods, the slave in Africa, little sought after by other races, became of small value to the African master, and was the prey, frequently an article of food, even to the slaves themselves, as well as to his own master; and this state of facts existed until the other races of man had mostly emerged from slavery; when the African slave became an article of commerce, and cannibalism, in consequence, became almost forgotten. Was this no blessing? Was this not a mercy—an improved condition?

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.

“The rod and reproof give wisdom.”

“A servant (עֶבֶד abed, a slave) will not be corrected by words; for though he understand, he will not answer.” Prov. xxix. 15, 19.

* * * * *

In close, may we inquire what benefit has resulted to the slave in the South,—what benefit to poor, bleeding Africa, from the sympathy of the world on the subject of their slavery? What, none! If none—has it done them no evil? And will ye continue to do evil? In your weakness, will ye think to contend against God?

------------------

LESSON XIV.

The abolitionist will probably consent to the truth of the proposition that God governs the universe. It may be that they will also agree that he is abundantly able to do so. But, whatever may be their decision, it is one of the revealed laws of God, that—

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”

It is not to be supposed that man can comprehend God as it may be said he comprehends things within the compass of his own understanding. If so, there would have been no need of revelation. Revelation has given us all the knowledge of God necessary to our welfare and happiness. We have not yet learned that man has become able to go beyond revelation in his knowledge of God.

But suppose some one should take it into his fancy to say and believe that the Sabbath was not a Divine institution, or that “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not steal,” were mere human contrivances, and contrary to the will and laws of their God; now, if the God who has revealed these laws to us is the genuine God, would not the god who should teach these forbidden acts to be lawful be a different god? And although he would exist only in the imagination of those who believed in such a being, yet would it be any the less idolatry to worship him than it would be if a block were set up to represent him? Is it any sufficient excuse, because such worshipper acts from ignorance, or under the influence of a sincere conscience? Is it to be presumed that those who sacrificed their children, and even themselves, to a false god, were not sincere? Did not Paul act with a sincere conscience when he persecuted the Christians?

* * * * *

But can we suppose that the real Jehovah would, in a revelation to man of his will, his law, recognise a thing as property among men, when, at the same time, it was contrary to his will and his law that such thing should be property among men?

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife; neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant (וְעַבְ֑דּוֹ֜ his male slave), or his maid-servant (וֲאֲמָתוֹ֙ his female slave), his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Deut. v. 21, the 18th of the Hebrew text.

Would it not have been just as easy for God to have said, if such was his will, “Thou shalt not have slaves,” as to have said this, as follows? “And also of the heathen shall ye buy slaves, and your children shall inherit them after you, and they shall be your slaves for ever!”

But Dr. Channing, speaking of the various exertions now making in behalf of the abolition of slavery, gives us to understand that the Christian philanthropy and the enlightened goodness, (and, he means, sympathy alone,) now pouring forth in prayers and persuasions from the press, the pulpit, from the lips and hearts of devoted men, cannot fail. “This,” he says, “must triumph.” “It is leagued with God’s omnipotence.” “It is God himself acting in the hearts of his children.” Vol. ii. p. 12. Does Dr. Channing mean the God who revealed the law to Moses? If so, has he changed his mind since that time?

We know that some say that slavery is contrary to their moral sense, contrary to their conscience, that under no circumstances can it be right. But if God has ordained the institution of slavery, not only as a punishment of sin, but as a restraint of some effect against a lower degradation, had not such men better cultivate and improve their “moral sense” and “conscience” into a conformity with the law of God on this subject? They cannot think that, on the account of their much talking, God will change his government to suit their own peculiar views. In our judgment, their views must bring great darkness to the mind, and, we think, distress; for is it not a great distress itself, to be under the government of one we think unjust? We know not but that we owe them, as fellow travellers through this momentary existence, the duty of trying to remove from their minds the cause of such darkness and distress. Shall we counsel together? Will you, indeed, stop for a moment in company with a brother? Will you hear the Bible? Will you, through a child, listen to the voice of God?

* * * * *

All agree that slavery has existed in the world from a very remote age. Wicked men and wicked nations have passed away, but slavery still exists among their descendants. Good men and enlightened nations have gone the way of all that is and has been, but slavery still abides on the earth. Upon the introduction of Christianity, men, who little understood its spirit, suddenly rose up to abolish slavery in cases where the slave became converted to its faith; also to cut loose the believing child from all obligations of obedience to the unbelieving parent, and also the husband or wife from his or her unbelieving spouse. Yet this new doctrine only met the condemnation of Peter and Paul. And even at the present day, we find men ready to give up the religion of Christ, and the gospel itself, rather than their own notions concerning slavery.

“If the religion of Christ allows such a licence” (to hold slaves) “from such precepts as these, the New Testament would be the greatest curse that was ever inflicted on our race.” Barnes on Slavery, p. 310. (He quotes the passage from Dr. Wayland’s Letters, pp. 83, 84, which work we have not seen.)

Such writers may be conscientious, but their writings have only bound the slave in stronger chains. God makes his very enemies build up his throne. Thus the exertions of man are ever feeble when in contradiction to the providence of God. The great adversary has ever been at work to dethrone the Almighty from the minds of men. Abolition doctrines are no new thing in the world. We concede them the age of slavery itself, which we shall doubtless find as old as sin.

Stay thy haste, then, thou who feelest able to teach wisdom to thy Creator: come, listen to the voice of a child; the lessons of a worm; for God is surely able to vindicate his ways before thee!

* * * * *

When Adam was driven out of paradise, he was told—

“Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” “Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.”

The expression, “Thou shalt eat the herb of the field,” we think has a very peculiar significance; for God made “every herb of the field before it grew;” and one of the reasons assigned why the “herb was made before it grew,” we find to be, that “there was not a man to till the ground.” Now, the word to till is translated from the word לַֽעֲבֹֽד la ebod, and means to slave; but in English we use the term not so directly. We use more words to express the same idea; we say to do slave-labour on the ground, instead of to slave the ground, as the expression stands in Hebrew.

The doctrine is, that the herb, on which the fallen sinner is destined to subsist, was not of spontaneous growth; it could only be produced by sweat and toil, even unto sorrow. Sin had made man a slave to his own necessities; he had to slave the ground for his subsistence; and such was the view of David, who, after describing how the brute creation is spontaneously provided for, says—

“He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣ת la ebodath, the slavery) of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth.” Ps. civ. 14.

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—

“Now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. When thou tillest (תַֽעֲבד֙ tha ebod, thou slavest) the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” * * * “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

“Shall not yield unto thee her strength;” either the earth should be less fruitful, or from his own waywardness, it should be less skilfully cultivated by him, or that a profit from his labour should be enjoyed by another; or, perhaps, from the joint operation of them all. Thus an aggravated degree of sin is always attended by an aggravated degree of slavery.

The next final step we discover in the history of slavery appears in Ham, the son of Noah; and he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” “Servant of servants,” עֶ֖בֶד עֲבָדִ֖ים ebed ebadim, slave of slaves. This mode of expression in Hebrew is one of the modes by which they expressed the superlative degree. The meaning is, the most abject slave shall he be to his brethren.

Heretofore slavery has been of less intensity; here we find the ordination of the master, and it is not a little remarkable that he is distinctly blessed!

“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 (וַֽעֲבָדִים va ebadim, and male slaves), and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָ֔חֹת 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.”

And of Isaac it is said—

“Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year a hundred fold: and the Lord blessed him, and the man waxed great, and went forward and grew until he became very great: for he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and great store of servants (וַֽעֲבֻדָּ֥ה va ebuddah, and a large family of slaves): and the Philistines envied him.” We pray that no one in these days will imitate those wicked Philistines!

And of Jacob it is said— “And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid-servants (וּשְׁפָחוֹת vu shephahoth), and female slaves and men-servants (וַ֥עֲבָדִים va ebadim, and male slaves), and camels, and asses.” “And the Lord said unto Jacob, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred; and I will be with thee.”

“He that is despised, and hath a servant (עֶבֶד ebed, a slave), is better than he that honoureth himself, and lacketh bread.” Prov. xii. 9.

“I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be, hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.” Eccl. iii. 14.

------------------

LESSON XV.

We shall, in the course of these studies, with some particularity examine what evidence there may be that Ham took a wife from the race of Cain; and we propose a glance at that subject now. Theological students generally agree that, in Genesis vi. 2, “sons of God” mean those of the race of Seth; and that the “daughters of men” imply the females of the race of Cain. The word “fair,” in our version, applied to these females, does not justly teach us that they were white women, or that they were of a light complexion. It is translated from the Hebrew טֹבֹת tovoth, being in the feminine plural, from טוֹב tov, and merely expresses the idea of what may seem good and excellent to him who speaks or takes notice: it expresses no quality of complexion nor of beauty beyond what may exist in the mind of the beholder; it is usually translated good or excellent. Immediately upon the announcement that these two races thus intermarry, God declares that his spirit shall not always strive with man, and determines to destroy man from the earth. Is it not a plain inference that such intermarriages were displeasing to him? And is it not also a plain inference, these intermarriages were proofs that the “wickedness of man had become great in the earth?” Cain had been driven out a degraded, deteriorated vagabond. Is there any proof that his race had improved?

The fact is well known that all races of animals are capable of being improved or deteriorated. A commixture of a better with a worse sample deteriorates the offspring of the former. Man is no exception to this rule. Our position is, that sin, as a moral poison, operating in one continued strain in the degradation and deterioration of the race of Cain, had at length forced them down to become exceedingly obnoxious to God. Intermarriage with them was the sure ruin of the race of Seth: it subjected them at once to the curses cleaving to the race of Cain. Even after the flood, witness the repugnance to intermarry with the race of Ham often manifested by the descendants of Shem; and that the Israelites were forbidden to do so.

Now, for a moment, let us suppose that Ham did marry and take into the ark a daughter of the race of Cain. If the general intermixture of the Sethites with the Cainites had so deteriorated the Sethites, and reduced them to the moral degradation of the Cainites, that God did not deem them worthy of longer encumbering the earth before the flood, would it be an extraordinary manifestation of his displeasure at the supposed marriage of Ham with one of the cursed race of Cain, to subject the issue of such marriage to a degraded and perpetual bondage?

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?

Some suppose that this question would be answered by saying that the term was applied to the youngest son of Ham; but all the sons of Ham were born after the flood; yet the planting of the vineyard and the drinking of the wine are the first acts of Noah which are mentioned after that deluge; and further, Canaan, the son of Ham, was most certainly not the individual whose ill-behaviour was simultaneous with and followed by the curse of slavery. Have we any proof, or any reason to believe, that Canaan, the son of Ham, was then even born? But in the catalogue of Noah’s sons, even before the planting of the vineyard is mentioned, Ham is called the father of Canaan, even before we are told that he had any sons. Why was he then so called the father of Canaan, unless upon the fact that by his marriage he necessarily was to become the progenitor of the race of Cain in his own then unborn descendants?

Under all the facts that have come down to us, we are not to suppose that there was any Cainite blood in Noah, or in Noah’s wife. Why then did Ham choose to commemorate the race of Cain, by naming his fourth son Cain, a term synonymous with Cainite, or Canaanite? And why did the race of Ham do the same thing through many centuries, using terms differently varied, sometimes interchanging the consonant and vowel sounds, as was common in the language they used? These variations, it is true, when descending into a language so remote as ours, might not be noticed, yet the linguist surely will trace them all back to their root, the original of “Cain.”

God never sanctions a curse without an adequate cause; a cause under the approbation of his law, sufficient to produce the effect the curse announces. The conduct of Ham to his father proved him to possess a degraded, a very debased mind; but that alone could not produce so vital, so interminable a change in the moral and physical condition of his offspring. And where are we to look for such a cause, unless in marriage? And with whom could such an intermarriage be had, except with the cursed race of Cain? The ill-manners of Ham no doubt accelerated the time of the announcement of the curse, but was not the sole cause. The cause must have previously existed; and the effect would necessarily have been produced, even if it had never been announced.

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.

The history of man since the flood is accompanied with a sufficiency of facts by which we are enabled to determine that the descendants of Ham were black, and that the black man of Africa is of that descent.

“And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him would kill him.”

The word “mark” is translated from אוֹת oth; its signification is, a mark by which to distinguish; a memorial or warning; miraculous sign or wonder, consisting either in word or deed, whereby the certainty of any thing future is foretold or known; and hence it partook of the nature of a prophecy. In the present case it was the mark of sin and degradation; it was the token of his condition of slavery, of his being a vagabond on the earth. It distinguished his rank of inferiority and wickedness, proclaiming him to be the man whose greatest punishment was to live and bear his burthens, below all rivalship.

Hence its protective influence. Now, by the common consent of all men, at all times, what has been the mark of sin and degradation? Were we even now, among ourselves, about to describe one of exceedingly wicked and degraded character, should we say that he looked very white? Or should we say that his character was black? And so has been the use of the term since language has been able to send down to distant times the ideas and associations of men.

“Their visage is blacker than a coal.”

“Our skin was black.”

“I am black: astonishment hath taken hold on me.”

“For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.”

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.

But allow the fact to have been that, in the case of Cain, the physical change was instantaneous, God had the power to institute in a moment what should thereafter be produced only by progression or inheritance. God created man; but, thereafter, man was born and became mature through the instrumentality only of physical causes.

“The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not.” Isa. iii. 9. In fact, “The faces of them all gather blackness.” Nahum ii. 10.

But we know that the descendants of Ham were black; nor is it stated that any personal mark was placed upon him, although the name applied to his first-born son, “Cush,” signifies that he was black, giving proof that the colour was inherited; but from whom? Not from his father!

“Can the Ethiopian (כּוּשִׁי Cushi, the Cushite, the black man) change his skin?”

The evidence forced on the mind leads to the conclusion that the descendants of Ham were black, not by the progressive operation of the laws of God on the course of sin which they doubtless practised, but that they were so at birth,—consequently an inheritance from parentage. And a further conclusion also is, that the wife of Ham must have been black, of the race of Cain, inheriting his mark, and that that mark was black.

A further proof that Ham took to wife a daughter of the race of Cain is found in the traces of evidence indicating her person, who she was. Lamech, of the race of Cain, had a daughter, Naamah; her name is given as the last in the genealogy of Cain. Why did the inspired penman think it necessary to send her name down to us? Why was the genealogy of Cain given us, unless to announce some fact important for us to know? If this whole race were to be cut off by the flood, we see nothing in the genealogy teaching any lesson to the descendants of Noah. Why was the particular line from Cain to Naamah selected, unless she was the particular object designed to be pointed out? Hundreds of other genealogies, commencing in Cain and terminating in some one just at the coming of the flood, existed; but not written down nor transmitted, for the obvious reason that such list could be of no benefit to posterity. Are we not, then, led to believe that there was some design in the preservation of the one terminating in Naamah? But this genealogy could only be preserved through the family of Noah; through whom we also have a genealogy of the line from Seth, terminating in Noah’s youngest son. These two stand in a parallel position, at the foot of each separate list. But it is so extremely unusual for ancient genealogies to give the name of a female, who had brothers, that it becomes strong evidence, when such catalogue terminates in the name of such a female, that she personally was the individual on whose account the catalogue was formed. Is not this consideration, and the fact that it could only be preserved by the family of Noah, evidence that they attached sufficient importance to it to make its preservation by them a desirable object?

Inasmuch as Naamah belonged to a race distinct from that of Seth, could the family of Noah have any desire to preserve her lineage from any other cause than that of her having become a member of that family?—in which case the cause of its preservation is obvious, and a thing to have been expected. On any other state of facts, would they have carefully handed down the genealogy, so far as we are informed, of a mere uninteresting woman of the cursed race of Cain, and neglected to have given us the name and genealogy of Noah’s wife, of the more holy race of Seth?

The presumption then being that she did become the wife of one of Noah’s sons, the first inquiry is, to which was she attached? A sufficient answer to this question, for the present moment, will be found in the fact that Ham was doomed to perpetual and bitter slavery, while his brothers were blessed and ordained to be his masters. Now since an amalgamation of the races of Seth and Cain was deemed a most grievous sin before the flood, if Japheth or Shem had either of them taken Naamah to wife, it would be past understanding to find them both highly blessed and made the masters of Ham.

But a more direct evidence that Ham did take to wife Naamah, of the race of Cain, is found in the fact that the descendants of Ham commemorated her name by giving it to persons of their race, as descendants might be expected to do, who wished to keep it in remembrance. The name of her mother also is found in similar use.

These names are varied, often, from the original form, as are a great number of proper names found in use among the ancient nations. These words we shall have hereafter occasion particularly to examine. We shall merely add, that in the marriage of Ham and Naamah we may find a reasonable explanation for the otherwise inexplicable speech of Lamech to his two wives,—since such marriage would have produced, what we find was produced, the ruin and degradation of Ham,—we might say, his moral death, his extinguishment, from the race of Seth. Some commentators deduce the name Naamah from the root “nam,” and consequently make it signify beautiful. We give it quite a different origin, which we shall explain at large elsewhere. It is to be expected that men will differ in opinion as to the historical facts of these early days. Some have made Naamah a pure saint; some, the wife of Noah; some, of her brother, Tubal-Cain; some make her the heathen goddess Venus; others, the mother of evil spirits.

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.

------------------

LESSON I.

In the course of the present study, we propose to notice the doctrine and action of the church as connected with the subject of slavery; and to examine what were the tenets and conduct of those men who claimed to be governed by the immediate teachings of Christ and his apostles.

In this investigation, we must apply to the records of the Catholic Church, although we are aware that, in the minds of some, strong and bitter prejudice may exist against these records; that some will say the canker of corruption had destroyed the very kernel of Christianity in that church.

Bower, a Protestant author, in the preface to his “History of the Popes,” 7 vols. quarto, says—

“We must own the popes to have been, generally speaking, men of extraordinary talents, the ablest politicians we read of in history; statesmen fit to govern the world, and equal to the vast dominion they grasped at; a dominion over the minds as well as the bodies and estates of mankind; a dominion, of all that ever were formed, the most wide and extensive, as knowing no other bounds but those of the earth.” Page 10, vol. i. 3d edition, London, 1750.

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.

History has handed us a few of the acts of him who lived a thousand years ago; by them we judge, as though he lived to-day, acts which prejudice may have distorted, or favour presented to the lens of time. We must look to the condition of things at the time of the act; to the probable effect under such condition, and to the real effect as developed by time.

Pope Benedict IX. ascended the throne in A.D. 1033. He is very unfavourably known to history. During his time there was a very powerful faction raging against him at Rome, by which, at one time, he was driven into exile. He is said to have sold the popedom, because his debaucheries made him an object of contempt, and he wished to be free from restraint; but in 1041, four years before he abandoned the papal chair, he established, at a council in Aquitaine, the Treuga Dei, whence it has been said that, during three days in the week, he permitted any man to commit all sorts of crimes, even murder, free from church censure, &c. By the Treuga Dei, for any wrong done him, no person was permitted to revenge himself, from Wednesday evening to Monday morning: construed, as above, by some, that he might do so during the remaining portion of the week.

The facts were, all Europe was still groping in the ignorance of the darkest ages; yet Christianity had been firmly established as a system of faith. The church had always forbidden a revengeful redress of individual wrongs; and, for such acts, her priests ever threatened excommunication. But these charges had little or no effect during these still semi-idolatrous and barbarous ages.

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?

And may we not find sometimes, among ourselves, lamentable instances of corruption, which, in the blackness of their character, defy the powers of the pen? Instances, where, recreant to every honest, noble, and holy feeling, individuals, hidden, as they think, beneath the robes of righteousness, have carried poverty and distress to the house of the widow, trampling on the rights—may be, the life—of the orphan, and even using the confidence of a brother to betray and rob him?

Nor is it a matter of any exultation to the broken, the wounded mind, that, in all such instances, unless the stink of insignificance shall totally exclude such criminal from the page of history, whatever may be the cloak he may wear, truth will eventually for ever convert it into the burning shirt of Nessus.

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!

In presenting the action and records of the church and early fathers, we have freely adopted the sentiments and facts digested by Bishop England, to whom, we take occasion here to say, we feel as much indebted, as though we had merely changed a particle or deleted what was irrelevant to our subject. Nor do we know of higher honour we can do this great and good man than to lend our feeble mite to extend the knowledge of his research, his purity, and great learning; and if, in the continuation of this his unfinished study, amid the pagan superstitions and bigoted thousands of Islam in benighted Asia, the conflicts of the Cross and the Wand of Woden, during the dark ages of continental Europe, we may be suffered to feel the elevating influence of his life-giving mantle, we shall also surely feel elevated hopes of a high immortality.

But, it may be well here to remark, that we have no sectarian church to sustain; that we belong to no religious order; nor have, as yet, subscribed to any faith formed by man. And while we advocate the cause of religion and truth, yielding ourselves in all humility to the influence of Divine power, we feel as certain of his final notice, as though we had marched through under a thousand banners at the head of the world. We have all confidence in the word of him who hath said that even the sparrow falleth not without his notice.

But, it is said, when disease infuses bile into the organs of sight, the objects of vision have a peculiar tinge: to blend previous, sometimes numerous, impressions into one perception, is a common action of the mind. Thus the present idea is often modified by those that have preceded; and hence we may conclude how often the mind is under the insensible influence of prejudice. Upon these facts she has enthroned her power.

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.

With such views, let us for a moment consider the circumstances attending the early ages of the Roman church; and let us note that, although her priests were but men, whether her records are not as reliable as if some of her peculiarities had been different, or she had been called by a different name. But we shall not quote or pursue these records down to so late a day as the Protestant Reformation. We hope, therefore, that the Protestant will say that the records we quote are, most decidedly, the records of the church.

------------------

LESSON II.

The moral condition of man was peculiar. To a great extent the religious systems of the Old World had been analyzed by the intelligent; they no longer gave confidence to the mind. The sanctity of the temples was dissipated by the mere speculations of philosophy, and the gods of idolatry tottered on their pedestals.

The nations of the earth were brought in subjection, in slavery, to the feet of imperial Rome; and their gods, being presented face to face, lost their divinity by the rivalship of men.

Such was the condition of the moral world when Christianity was introduced to mankind.

The old religions pretended to give safety by bargain of sacrifice, by penance, and payment, but the religion of Jesus Christ taught that salvation and safety were the free gift of God.

The history of man proves the fact that he has ever been disposed to purchase happiness on earth and felicity in heaven by his own acts, or by the merit of his condition; and hence, we always find that a corrupted Christianity for ever borders on the confines of idolatry. Nor is it difficult to show how this easily runs into all the wild extravagancies of human reason, or, rather, human ignorance; while the simplicity of truth tends to a calm submission, and a desire of obedience to the will and laws of the only true God. The one was the religion of the government of men, of show, of political power, and expediency; the other is of heaven, of truth. “My kingdom is not of this world.”

The barbarians of northern Europe and western Asia, while yet only illumined by some faint rays of the Christian light, feeling from habit the want of the external pomp and the governing control of a religious power, in a half-savage, half-heathen state of mind, were disposed to prostrate themselves at the feet of the chief priest of Rome.

In the year 312, under the pontificate of Melchiades, (by the Greeks called Miltiades,) the Emperor Constantine established the Christian church by law. Thus sustained, it became at once the pool in which ambition and crime sought to cleanse their robes. Yet, beneath its waters were priceless pearls. Torn by schism, sometimes by temporal misrule, the church languished,—but lived. For several centuries the future became a mere variation of the past. The ways of God are indeed inscrutable. A flaming meteor in the east now agitated the mind. Like the insects of twilight, thousands marshalled under the crescent light of the prophet. The disciples of Mohammed swept from the earth the churches at Antioch and Alexandria, suddenly made inroads on Europe, conquered Spain, and were in step to overleap the Pyrenees and Alps. Let us step aside, and reconnoitre their host!

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.”

Italy was in consternation; the church trembled, and Constantinople was threatened. Crossing the Pyrenees, A.D. 719, they poured down upon France, met Charles, the father of Pepin, and Eude of Aquitaine, who slew Zama, and compelled his troops to raise the siege of Toulouse; but, recovering confidence, their incursions were frequent and bloody; and the historians of that day announce that, upon one occasion alone, they lost 370,000 men upon the fields of France. But these reverses were the bow of hope to the Peninsula. Alphonsus struck a blow, and in one day retook many towns and released from bondage ten thousand Christian slaves. These exertions were continued with intermitted success; and, like the retiring thunder of the retreating storm, the rage of battle became less terrific and at more distant periods; but the standard of Islam still continued to affrighten the world, alternately flaming its red glare over the Peninsula to the mountains of France and the plains of Italy, and until embattled Europe, excited to Croisade, dispelled its power on the banks of the Jordan.

But, let us return. Aistulphus appears amid this flame of war. His Lombards threaten extermination, and brandish the sword at the very gates of Rome. Pepin had now usurped the throne of the Franks. He demanded the confirmation of the church; and, in return, promised protection to the “Republic of God.” Rome saw the prospect of her ruin, with searching eyes looked for aid, and confirmed Pepin in his secular power; who, in gratitude, drove for a time the Lombards from Italy, and deposited the keys of the conquered cities on the altar of Saint Peter.

The Roman emperors had now long since removed their court to Constantinople. Their power over western Europe vacillated with the strife of the times. Charlemagne now appears kissing the steps of the throne of the church. Again he appears, master of all the nations composing the Western Empire, and of Rome; and, on Christmas-day, in the year 800, Leo III. placed the crown of the Roman emperors on the head of the son of Pepin. But, as yet, the act of crowning by the pope was a mere form.

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.

But the Greeks and Bulgarians, jealous for their native priesthood, demanded by what authority the see of Rome claimed jurisdiction over the Old and New Epirus, Thessaly, and Dardania, the country now called Bulgaria. For more than four centuries there had been occasional jealousies between these two churches; certain articles of faith continued subjects of difference; and the questions of temporal and spiritual precedence made them ever watchful. History records that, as early as 606, Phocas, having ascended the imperial throne, treading upon the dead bodies of the Emperor Mauritius, his children and friends,—Cyriacus, the patriarch, exposed to his view the enormity of his crimes, and most zealously exhorted to repentance. The supremacy of order and dignity was instantly granted to the patriarch of Rome, in the person of Boniface III. But his successors, their historians say, wisely refused, disclaimed the favour of Phocas, but claimed it as a Divine right derived from St. Peter. Thus commenced and was made final the severance of the Greek and Roman churches.

But the loss of spiritual rule in the east was accompanied by an enlargement of temporal power in the west. Upon the death of Hadrian, John, the son of Gundo, succeeded to the papal chair; and, upon the demise of Lewis II., (876,) his uncles, Lewis, king of Germany, and Charles the Bald, king of France, were rivals for the vacant throne. Charles and Hadrian were ever at variance. But, seizing upon the moment, because he was more ready at hand, or more yielding to his wishes, John invoked him instantly at Rome, received him with loudest acclamations, and crowned him emperor, just seventy-five years to a day from the elevation of Charlemagne to the Western Empire.

Upon this occasion, Pope John announced that he had elected him emperor in conformity to the revealed will of God; that his act of crowning him made him such; and that the sceptre, under God, was his free gift. This new doctrine was assented to by Charles, and ever after claimed as one of the powers of the pope of Rome. Thus the church of Rome became wholly separated from the Eastern Empire,—“freely losing its hold on a decayed tree, to graft itself upon a wild and vigorous sapling.” D'Aubigne.

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.

Thus we have seen why and how the brawny shoulders of the idolatrous children of the north elevated to the throne, thus how the Franks established the temporal power, of the popes of Rome; yet, perhaps, little was foreseen how this state of things was destined, in the course of events, to elevate the church of Rome, and the power of its pontiffs, to a supremacy of all temporal government. It could not have been foreseen how the genius of Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII.) should, two hundred years after, carry into full accomplishment, by mere words of peace, “what Marius and Cæsar could not by torrents of blood.”

But corruption, to a greater or less extent, necessarily followed such a connection of church and state. It matters not to whom, nor in what age,—give churches temporal power, and they are liable to be corrupt.

But the church was still a fountain from which the living waters were dispensed to mankind. Instances of personal wickedness may have been more or less common; yet the spirit of truth found it a focal residence, and diffused its light to the world.

The Christian church is not the contrivance of man, whose works pass away, but of God, who upholds what he creates, and who has given his promise for its duration. Its object is to satisfy the religious wants of human nature, in whatever degree that nature may be developed; and its efficacy is no greater for the learned than for the unlearned; for the exalted of the earth, than for the slave.

------------------

LESSON III.

It is said all nature swarms with life. But every animal, in some way, preys upon his fellow. Even we cannot move our foot without becoming the means of destruction to petty animals capable of palpitating for hours, may be days, in the agonies of death. There is no day upon this earth, in which men, and millions of other animals, are not tortured in some way, to the fullest extent of life.

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!

Dive into the dungeon, or the more obscure prison-house of penury. See the aged long for his end, and the young languish in despair; talents and virtue in eternal oblivion: see malice, vengeance, and cruelty at their work, while they propagate every hour; for severity begets its kind, and hate begets hate.

Look where you will, the heart is torn with anguish; the soul is saddened by sorrow. All things seem at war; all one vast abortion. Such is the rugged surface; and the eye sees no golden sands, no precious gems gleaming from beneath the blackened waters of human suffering. These things are so; creation has grown up; and human life can never effect one tremble of the leaf on which it has found its residence.

But the Christian philosopher views these evidences of a great moral catastrophe without madness. He perceives that sin has sunk man into degradation, slavery, and death. He comprehends his own weakness, and trusts in God.

But there is a man, with all these facts before him, who rages. He makes war on the providence, and determines, as if to renovate the work, of the Almighty. Is he a man of a single idea? If not, let him make a better world; and, while he is thus employed, let us resume our subject.

Slavery, either voluntary or involuntary, whether the immediate result of crime or of mental and physical degradation, is equally the consequent of sin. Let us consider how far its existence is sustained by the laws of justice, of religion, and of God.

Our word, God, is pure Saxon, signifying “perfectly good;” “God is good.” “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

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, “What is life without liberty?” said a beggar-woman! He, who thinks life without liberty worth nothing, must die if he have no means to sustain his liberty. Esther entertained no such notion: “For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed and slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bond-men, and bond-women, I had held my tongue.” Esth. vii. 4.

Nor has such ever been the notion of the church. Bergier says, Dict. Theo., Art. Esclava—

“That civil liberty became a benefit, only after the establishment of civil society, when man had the protection of law, and the multiplied facilities for subsistence; that, previous to this, absolute freedom would be an injury to a person destitute of flocks, herds, lands, and servants.”

“The common possession of all things is said to be of the natural law; because the distinction of possessions and slavery were not introduced by nature, but by reason of man, for the benefit of human life; and thus the law of nature is not changed by their introduction, but an addition is made thereto.” St. Thomas Aquinas, 1, 2, q. 94 a 95 ad 2.

And the same father says again, 2, 2 q. 57 a 3 ad 2—“This man is a slave, absolutely speaking, rather a son, not by any natural cause, but by reason of the benefits which are produced; for it is more beneficial to this one to be governed by one who has more wisdom, and the other to be helped by the labour of the former. Hence the state of slavery belongs principally to the law of nations, and to the natural law, only in the second degree, not in the first.”

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.

And St. Augustine preached the same doctrine, as long ago as the year 425. See his book, “Of the City of God,” liber xix. cap. 15. He says—“The condition of slavery is justly regarded as imposed on the sinner. Hence, we never read slave (as one having a master) in Scripture before the just Noe, by this word, punished the sin of his son. Sin, not nature, thus introduced the word.”

And St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, A.D. 390, in his book on “Elias and Fasting” c. 5, says—“There would be no slavery to-day had there not been drunkenness.”

And so, St. John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, A.D. 400, Hom. 29, in Gen.: “Behold brethren born of the same mother! Sin makes one of them a servant, and, taking away his liberty, lays him under subjection.”

The very expression, “Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren,” most distinctly shows the sentence to have been the consequent of sin, and especially so when compared with the blessing bestowed upon the two brothers, in which they are promised the services of him accursed.

Pope Gelesius I., A.D. 491, in his letter to the bishops of the Picene territory, states, “slavery to have been the consequence of sin, and to have been established by human law.”

St. Augustine, lib. xix. cap. 16, “On the City of God,” argues at length to show “that the peace and good order of society, as well as religious duty, demand that the wholesome laws of the state regulating the conduct of slaves should be conscientiously observed.”

“Slavery is regarded by the church * * * not to be incompatible with the natural law, to be the result of sin by Divine dispensation, to have been established by human legislation; and, when the dominion of the slave is justly acquired by the master, to be lawful, not in the sight of the human tribunal only, but also in the eye of Heaven.” Bishop England, page 24.

But again, in the works already quoted, “De Civitate Dei,” St. Augustine says, liber xix. caput 15, that, “although slavery is the consequence of sin, yet that the slavery may not always light upon the sinful individual, any more than sickness, war, famine, or any other chastisement of this sinful world, whereby it may often happen that the less sinful are afflicted, that they may be turned more to the worship of God, and brought into his enjoyment,” and refers to the case of Daniel and his companions, who were slaves in Babylon, and by which captivity Israel was brought to repentance.

In cap. 16, “he presents to view the distinction of bodily employment and labour between the son and the slave; but that each are equally under the master’s care; and as it regards the soul, each deserved a like protection, and that therefore the masters were called patres familias, or fathers of households; and shows that they should consult for the eternal welfare of their slaves as a father for his children; and insists upon the weight and obligation of the master to restrain his slaves from vice, and to preserve discipline with strict firmness, but yet with affection; not by verbal correction alone, but, if requisite, corporeal chastisement, not merely for the punishment of delinquency, but for a salutary monition to others.”

And he proceeds to show “that these things become a public duty, since the peace of the vicinage depends upon the good order of its families, and that the safety of the state depends upon the peace and discipline of all the vicinage.”

This author also shows, from the etymology of the word “servus,” that, according to the law of nations at the time, the conqueror had at his disposal the lives of the captives. If from some cause he forbore to put some of them to death, then such one was servati, or servi, that is, kept from destruction or death, and their lives spared, upon the condition of obedience, and of doing the labours and drudgery of the master.”

And we may again inquire whether, when prisoners taken in war, under circumstances attending their capture by which the captor feels himself entitled to put them to death,—it is not a great good to the captured to have their lives spared them, and they permitted to be slaves? The answer will again turn upon the question, whether life is worth any thing upon these terms? And whatever an individual may say, the world will answer like Esther. Thus far slavery is an institution of mercy and in favour of life.

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

M. De Guignes, who traversed China throughout its whole extent, observing with minuteness and philosophical research every thing in relation to its singular race, does not believe slavery existed there until its population had become overloaded, when, as a partial relief from its miseries, they systematically made slaves of portions of their own race.

He says, that in ancient times, “it is not believed that there were slaves in China, except those who were taken prisoners in war, or condemned to servitude by the laws. Afterwards, in times of famine, parents were frequently reduced to the necessity of selling their children. This practice, originated in the pressure of necessity, has continued to exist, and even become common. * * * A person may also sell himself as a slave when he has no other means of succouring his father; a young woman, who finds herself destitute, may in like manner be purchased with her own consent.

“The prisoners of war are the slaves of the emperor, and generally sent to labour on his land in Tartary. The judges have the power to pass the sentence of slavery on culprits such as are sold at public auction; slaves also who belong to persons whose property is confiscated, are sold to the highest bidder by public outcry.” See work as quoted by Edin. Encyc., Article, “China.”

------------------

LESSON IV.

The titles which divines and canonists have considered to be good and valid for the possession of slaves, are purchase, inheritance, gift, birth, slaves made in war, and sentenced for crime; but, in all cases, the title is vitiated when not sustained by the civil law. Yet the civil law may be repealed, or ameliorated, so that prisoners taken in war or crime may not be subject to death or servitude, in which case the validity of the title follows in the footsteps of the civil law; but these conditions primarily exist, as perpetual as the condition of man. The civil law, by its intervention, merely diverts the action during its rule.

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.

But to show that life is of more value than liberty, we need only observe that even with the loss of liberty there is hope—hope of change, of liberty, and of the means of sustaining it; and such hopes have often been realized. There is no truth in the proposition that liberty is of equal value (or rather superior) to life. The doctrine therefore is, that man, in his natural state, is the master of his own liberty, and may dispose of it as he sees proper in favour of life; that he may be deprived of it by force, in consequence of crime, or from his not being able to sustain it; and in all cases where liberty has become of less value than life, and both cannot be sustained, the one may be properly exchanged for the safety of the other. And upon this principle, in those countries where the parent had the right, by their law, to put to death his own children, he also had the right to sell them into slavery; and further, by natural law, where the parent cannot sustain the life of his child, where civil law gives him no power over its life, he yet, in favour of life, may sell him into slavery.

Natural law recognises the principle that the child, of right, is subject to the condition of the parent; and in these enfeebled conditions of man, for sake of more certainty, the civil law usually acknowledges the maternal line. It acknowledges the paternal line only when the elevated condition forms a presumption of equal certainty.

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.

Besides, the Divine law itself instructed the Israelites to buy slaves of the surrounding nations. See Lev. xxv. 44. Can there be a stronger proof of the purity of a title, than this gives of the title by which the “nations round about” held slaves? The same law which permitted the Israelites to buy slaves of the “heathen round about,” also permitted the “heathen round about” to hold slaves, because it acknowledges their title to be good.

By an inquiry into the history of these “heathen round about,” their religion, civil condition, their manners and customs, as well as the final state to which they arrived, we may form some idea how a good title to hold slaves and to sell them arose among them; and since the laws of God are everlasting, and always applicable to every case where all the circumstances are similar, we may reasonably conclude that the same race, or any other race, then, or at any other period of time, to whom the same descriptions will apply, will also be found attended with the same facts in regard to slavery.

The conclusion therefore is, that from such a people, who have a good right to hold and sell slaves, other people, whose civil laws permit them to do so, may purchase slaves by a good title.

It may not then be wholly an idle labour to compare the history and race of these “heathen round about,” with the history, race, and present condition of those African heathen who have from time immemorial held and sold slaves.

But it being shown that the Divine sanction to hold slaves, did, at one time, exist, it devolves on them, who deny its religious legality, now to prove that the sanction had been withdrawn.

------------------

LESSON V.

WE proceed to prove, by a variety of documents, that the Church of Christ did, at all times during its early ages, consider the existence of slavery and the holding of slaves compatible with a religious profession and the practice of Christian duties.

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.

Upon the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the mind cannot well conceive how the apostles could have avoided, from time to time, meeting together for the purposes of consultation and agreement among themselves as to the particulars of their future course; and that such was the fact, we have in evidence, Acts i. 15–26, where they did thus meet, and elected Matthias to fill the vacancy in their number. Also, Acts ix. 26–31, where Paul was received by them and sent forth as an apostle; but the book in question only gives us the outlines of what they did. Now, there is found among the ancient records of the church what is called “The Canons of the Apostles,” which, if not actually written by them, is still known to be in conformity with their doctrine, as developed in their own writings and the earliest usages of the church.

Among these, the canon lxxxi. is the following:

Servos in clerum provehi sine voluntate dominorum, non permittimus, ad eorum qui possident molestiam, domorum enim eversionem talia efficiunt. Siquando autem, etiam dignus servus visus sit, qui ad gradum eligatur, qualis noster quoque Onesimus visus est, et domini concesserint ac liberaverint, et œdibus emiserint, fiat.

We do not permit slaves to be raised to clerical rank without the will of their masters, to the injury of their owners. For such conduct produces the upturning of houses. But if, at any time, even a slave may be seen worthy to be raised to that degree, as even our Onesimus was, and the masters shall have granted and given freedom, and have sent them forth from their houses, let it be done.

This is the first of a series of similar enactments, and it should be observed that it recognises the principle of the perfect dominion of the master, the injury to his property, and requires the very legal formality by which the slave was liberated and fully emancipated.

The slave had the title, without his owner’s consent, to the common rights of religion and the necessary sacraments. In using these, no injury was done to the property of his owner; but he had no claim to those privileges which would diminish his value to the owner, or would degrade the dignity conferred, and which could not be performed without occupying that time upon which his owner had a claim.

There are eight other books of a remote antiquity, known as “The Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles,” said to be compiled by Pope Clement I., who was a companion of the apostles. It is generally believed that, though Clement might have commenced such a compilation, he did not leave it in the form which it now holds, but, like the Canons of the Apostles, the exhibition of discipline is that of the earliest days.

In book iv. ch. 5, enumerating those whose offerings were to be refused by the bishops as unworthy, we have, among thieves and other sinners,

(Qui) famulos suos dure accipiunt et tractant; id est, verberibus, aut fame afficiunt, aut crudeli servitute premunt.

They who receive and treat their slaves harshly; that is, who whip or famish them, or oppress them with heavy drudgery.

There is no crime in having the slave, but cruelty and oppression are criminal.

In the same book, ch. 11 regards slaves and masters.

De famulis quid amplius dicamus, quam quod servus habeat benevolentiam erga dominum cum timore Dei, quamvis sit impius, quamvis sit improbus, non tamen cum eo religione consentiat. Item dominus servum diligat, et quamvis præstet ei, judicet tamen esse æqualitatem, vel quatenus homo est. Qui autem habet dominum Christianum, salvo dominatu, diligat eum, tum ut dominum, tum ut fidei consortem et ut patrem, non sicut servus ad oculum serviens sed sicut dominum amans, ut qui sciat mercedem famulatûs sui a Deo sibi solvendam esse. Similiter dominus, qui Christianum famulum habet, salvo famulatu, diligat eum tanquam filium, et tanquam fratrem propter fidei communionem.

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.

Ne amaro animo jubeas famulo tuo aut ancillæ eidem Deo confidentibus: ne aliquando gemant adversus te, et irascatur tibi Deus. Et vos servi dominis vestris tanquam Deum repræsentantibus subditi estote cum sedulitate et metu, tanquam Domino, et non tanquam hominibus.

Do not command your man-servant nor your woman-servant having confidence in the same God, in the bitterness of your soul; lest they at any time lament against you, and God be angry with you. And you servants be subject to your masters, the representatives of God, with care and fear, as to the Lord, and not to men.

In the eighth book, ch. 33, is a constitution of SS. Peter and Paul, respecting the days that slaves were to be employed in labour, and those on which they were to rest and to attend to religious duties.

Stephen I., who was the pontiff in 253, endeavoured to preserve discipline, and set forth regulations to remedy evils.

Accusatores vero et accusationes, quas sæculi leges non recipiunt, et antecessores nostri prohibuerunt, et nos submovemus.

We also reject these accusers and charges which the secular laws do not receive, and which our predecessors have prohibited.

Soon after he specifies:

Accusator autem vestrorum nullus sit servus aut libertus.

Let not your accuser be a slave or a freed person.

Thus, in the ancient discipline of the church, as in the secular tribunals, the testimony of slaves was inadmissible.

In the year 305, a provincial council was held at Elvira, in the southern part of Spain. The fifth canon of which is—

Si qua domina furore zeli accensa flagris verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut in tertium diem animam cum cruciatu effundat: eo quod incertum sit, voluntate, an casu occiderit, si voluntate post septem annos; si casu, post quinquennii tempora; acta legitima pænitentia, ad communionem placuit admitti. Quod si infra tempora constituta fuerit infirmata, accipiat communionem.

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.

Spanish ladies, at that period, had not yet so far yielded to the benign influence of the gospel, and so far restrained their violence of temper, as to show due mercy to their female slaves.

It may be well to observe a beneficial change, not only in public opinion, but even in the court, by reason of the influence of the spirit of Christianity; so that the pagan more than once reproved, by his mercy, the professor of a better faith.

Theodoret (l. 9, de Græc. cur. aff.) informs us that Plato established the moral and legal innocence of the master who slew his slave. Ulpian, the Roman jurist (l. 2, de his quæ sunt sui vel alieni jur.) testifies the power which—in imitation of the Greeks—the Roman masters had over the lives of their slaves. The well-known sentence of Pollio upon the unfortunate slave that broke a crystal vase at supper,—that he should be cast as food to fish,—and the interference of Augustus, who was a guest at that supper, give a strong exemplification of the tyranny then in many instances indulged.

Antoninus Pius issued a constitution about the year 150, restraining this power, and forbidding a master to put his own slave to death, except in those cases where he would be permitted to slay the slave of another. The cruelty of the Spaniards to their slaves, in the province of Bœtica, gave occasion to the constitution; and we have a rescript of Antoninus to Ælius Martianus, the proconsul of Bœtica, in the case of the slave of Julius Sabinus, a Spaniard. In this the right of the masters to their slaves is recognised, but the officer is directed to hear their complaints of cruelty, starvation, and oppressive labour; to protect them, and, if the complaints be founded in truth, not to allow their return to the master; and to insist on the observance of the constitution.

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.)

As Christianity made progress, the unnatural severity with which this class of human beings was treated became relaxed, and as the civil law ameliorated their condition, the canon law, by its spiritual efficacy, came in with the aid of religion, to secure that, the followers of the Saviour should give full force to the merciful provisions that were introduced.

The principle which St. Augustine laid down was that observed. The state was to enact the laws regulating this species of property; the church was to plead for morality and to exhort to practise mercy.

About the same time, St. Peter, archbishop of Alexandria, drew up a number of penitential canons, pointing out the manner of receiving, treating, and reconciling the “lapsed,” or those who, through fear of persecution, fell from the profession of the faith. Those canons were held in high repute, and were generally adopted by the eastern bishops.

The sixth of those canons exhibits to us a device of weak Christians, who desired to escape the trials of martyrdom, without being guilty of actual apostasy. A person of this sort procured that one of his slaves should personate him, and in his name should apostatize. The canon prescribes for such a slave, who necessarily was a Christian and a slave of a Christian, but one-third of the time required of a free person, in a mitigated penance, taking into account the influence of fear of the master, which, though it did not excuse, yet it diminished the guilt of the apostasy.

The general council of Nice, in Bythinia, was held in the year 325, when Constantine was emperor. In the first canon of this council, according to the usual Greek and Latin copies, there is a provision for admitting slaves, as well as free persons who have been injured by others, to holy orders. In the Arabic copy, the condition is specially expressed, which is not found in the Greek or Latin, but which had been previously well known and universally established, “that this should not take place unless the slave had been manumitted by his master.”

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.!!!

Osius, bishop of Cordova, whom Pope Sylvester sent as his legate into the east, and who presided in the council of Nice, was present when several bishops assembled in the city of Gangræ, Paphlagonia, to correct those errors. Pope Symmachus declared, in a council held in Rome, about the year 500, that Osius confirmed, by the authority of the pope, the acts of this council. The decrees have been admitted into the body of canon law, and have always been regarded as a rule of conduct in the Catholic church. The third canon:

Si quis docet servum, pietatis prætextu, dominum contemnere, et a ministerio recedere, et non cum benevolentia et omni honore domino suo inservire. Anathema sit.

If any one, under the pretence of piety, teaches a slave to despise his master, and to withdraw from his service, and not to serve his master with good-will and all respect. Let him be anathema.

Let him be anathema is never appended to any decree which does not contain the expression of unchangeable doctrine respecting belief or morality, and indicates that the doctrine has been revealed by God. It is precisely what St. Paul says in Gal. i. 8: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” 9: “As we said before to you, so I say now again: If any man preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received; let him be anathema.” It is therefore manifest, that although this council of Gangræ was a particular one, yet the universal reception of this third canon, with its anathema, and its recognition in the Roman council by Pope Symmachus, gives it the greatest authority and in Labbe it is further entitled as approved by Leo IV., about the year 850, dist. 20, C. de libell.

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.

The great St. Basil was born in 329, and died in 379. His works, called “Canonical,” contain a great number of those which were the rules of discipline, not only for Asia Minor, but for the vast regions in its vicinity. The fortieth canon regards the marriages of female slaves. In this he mentions a discipline which was not general, but was peculiar to the north-eastern provinces of the church, requiring the consent of the master to the validity of the marriage-contract of a female slave: this was not required in other places, as is abundantly testified by several documents.

The forty-second canon treats in like manner of the marriages of children without their parents’ consent, and generally of those of all slaves without the consent of the owner.

------------------

LESSON VI.

It may not be improper now to take a more particular view of the civil world, its condition, and of those wars at the instance of which it had been, and then was, flooded with slaves. As an example, we select the middle of the fifth century:

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.

The terms proposed were readily accepted, and Attila and his army, a tornado fraught with moral and physical ruin to Rome, the church, and the civilized world, silently sank away far behind the Danube.

Nor is it strange that the great success of this embassy should have been attributed to some intervention of miraculous power during the dark ages that followed;—and hence we find that, four hundred years after, in one of Gruter’s copies of “The Historica Miscella,” it is stated that St. Peter and St. Paul stood, visible alone to Attila, on either side of Leo, brandishing a sword, commanding him to accept whatever Leo should offer; and this is quoted as credible history by Barronius, ad ann. 452, no. 47–59, and has been painted by Raffaele, at a much later period. The idea was perhaps poetical, and this piece alone would have immortalized the artist. But it is truly singular that this appearance of Peter and Paul should have gained a place in the Roman Breviary, especially as it is nowhere alluded to by Leo, nor by his secretary, Prosper, who was present at that treaty, nor by any contemporary whatever. The facts attached to Attila, in connection with this treaty, were:—His army was extremely destitute, and a contagious and very mortal disease was raging in his camp; in addition to which, Marcian had gathered a large army, then under march for Italy, to join the imperial forces under Ætius, while, at the same moment, another army, sent by Marcian long before, were then ravaging the country of the Huns themselves: of these facts Attila was well advised. These were the agencies that operated on his mind in favour of peace with Valentinian. To us the idea seems puerile to suppose Jehovah sending Peter and Paul, sword in hand, to frighten his Hunnish majesty from making slaves of the Roman people.

Would it not be more consonant with the general acts of his providence to point Attila to his diseased army; to their consequent want of supplies, and to the threatening danger of his being totally cut off by the two armies of Marcian, saying nothing of the possibility of a restored confidence among the then panic-struck Romans? Besides, it has been well ascertained that, at the time of Leo’s arrival, he had been hesitating whether to march on Rome—or recross the Alps. See Bower, vol. ii. p. 202; also, Jornandez Rer. Goth. c. 41, 49.

But, we acknowledge the intervening influences of the Divine will, in this case, as forcibly as it could be urged, even if attended with all the particulars and extravagancies of the poetic painter’s fancy. We have alluded to this particle of the history of that day, as it stands upon the records, in order that, while we quote, we may not be misunderstood as to our view of the providences of God.

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.

Up to this time in these regions, and, as we shall see, to a much later time, slavery was the result of that mercy in the victor, whereby he spared the life of the conquered enemy. Its condition did not depend on any previous condition of degradation, of freedom or slavery, nor upon the race or colour of the captive,—and the wars, for ages, which had been and were so productive of slavery, were almost exclusively among those who, in common, claimed a Caucasian origin. Instances of African slavery were rare. The Romans derived some few from their African wars, valued mostly by pride, because they were the most rare.

Thus we read in the Life of Nero, by Tacitus:—“Nero never travelled with less than a thousand baggage-wagons; the mules all shod with silver, and the drivers dressed in scarlet; his African slaves adorned with bracelets on their arms, and the horses decorated with the richest trappings.” But these times had passed away. Yet we find in the Life of Alphonso el Casto, that, upon his conquest of Lisbon, 798, he sent seven Moorish slaves as a present to Charlemagne. And also, in Bower’s “Lives of the Popes,” that in 849, “A company of Moors, from Africa, rendezvoused at Tozar, in Sardinia, and thence made an incursion, by the Tiber, on Rome. But they were mostly lost in a storm before landing. Of those who got on shore, some were killed. in battle, some were hanged, and a large number were brought to Rome and reduced to slavery.”

Yet the great mass of slaves were of the same race and colour of their masters; and at this age, a most important fact with the Christian, if they were pagans, was their conversion to Christianity.

For the first three hundred years, we may notice how Christianity had threaded her way amidst the troublous and barbarous paganisms of that age. But, at the time to which we have arrived, Christianity had ruled the civilized world for more than a century. And had Providence seen fit to have attended her future path with peace, human sympathy might have fondly hoped that the mild spirit of her religion would have been poured in ameliorating, purifying streams upon the condition and soul of the slave, and like a dissolving oil on the chains that bound him.

------------------

LESSON VII.

We present a series of records and documents which elucidate the practice and doctrine of the church in regard to slavery, as we find it in that age.

These records are mostly extracts from Bishop England’s Letters, and collated by him with accuracy. Some few, from Bower, Bede, Lingard, and others, will be noticed in their place.

It should be remembered that, in all cases where the contrary is not explicitly announced, the slave is of the same colour and race as the master. At this era of the world, slaves were too common, and their value too little, to warrant the expense of a distant importation. The negro slave, from his exhibiting an extreme variety of the human species, was regarded more as an article of curiosity and pride than usefulness; and therefore was seldom or never found in Europe, except near the royal palaces, or in the trains of emperors.

As early as the days of Polycarp and St. Ignatius, who were disciples of the apostles, Christians had, from motives of mercy, charity, and affection, manumitted many of their slaves in presence of the bishops, and this was more or less extensively practised through the succeeding period. In several churches, it was agreed that if a slave became a Christian, he should be manumitted on receiving baptism. In Rome, the slave was frequently manumitted by the form called vindicta, with the prætor’s rod. Constantine, in the year 317, Sozomen relates, lib. i. c. 9, transferred this authority to the bishops, who were empowered to use the rod in the church, and have the manumission testified in the presence of the congregation. A rescript of that emperor to this effect is found in the Theodosian code, 1. i. c. De his qui in eccl. manumitt. The master, who consented to manumit the slave, presented him to the bishop, in presence of the congregation, and the bishop pronounced him free, and became the guardian of his freedom. The rescript was directed to Protogenas, bishop of Sardica, and was in the consulship of Sabinus and Ruffinus.

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 the consulship of Crispus and Constantine, a grant was given to the clergy of manumitting their own slaves when they pleased, by any form they should think proper. About a century later, St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, informs us (Sermo. de diversis, 50) that this form was established in Africa. “The deacon of Hippo is a poor man: he has nothing to give to any person: but, before he was a clergyman, he, by the fruit of his labour and industry, bought some little servants, and is to-day, by the episcopal act, about to manumit them in your sight.”

This same bishop writes, (Enarrat in Ps. cxxiv.,) “Christ does not wish to make you proud while you walk in this journey, that is, while you are in this life. Has it happened that you have been made a Christian, and you have a man as your master: you have not been made a Christian that you may scorn to serve. When, therefore, by the command of Christ you are the servant of a man, your service is not to him, but to the one that gave you the command to serve. And he says, Hear your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, and in the simplicity of your hearts, not as eye-servants, as if pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God, from your hearts, with a good will. Behold, he did not liberate you from being servants, but he made those who were bad servants to be good servants. Oh, how much do the rich owe to Christ who has thus set order in their houses! So, if there be in his family a faithless slave, and Christ convert him, he does not say to him, Leave your master, because you have now known him who is the true Master! Perhaps this master of yours is impious and unjust, and that you are faithful and just; it is unbecoming that the just and faithful should serve the unjust and the infidel: this is not what he said; but, let him rather serve.” This great doctor of the church continues at considerable length to show how Christ, by his own example, exhorts the servants to fidelity and obedience to their masters in every thing, save what is contrary to God’s service. Subsequently, he passes to the end of time, and the opening of eternity, and shows many good, obedient, and afflicted servants mingled with good masters among the elect, and bad, faithless, and stubborn servants, with cruel masters, cast among the reprobates.

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.

Thus we perceive that, though from the encouragement of manumission and the spirit of Christianity, the number of slaves had been greatly reduced and their situation greatly improved, still the principles were recognised of the moral and religious legality of holding slave property, and of requiring that they should perform a reasonable service.

The instances of voluntary slavery, such as that of St. Paulinus, were not rare. It is related, that having bestowed all that he could raise, to ransom prisoners taken by the barbarians who overran the country; upon the application of a poor widow whose son was held in captivity, he sold himself, to procure the means of her son’s release. His good conduct procured the affection of his master, and subsequently his emancipation. Thus slavery lost some of its degrading character. This, together with the confusion arising from the turbulence accompanying the invasions, caused a relaxation of discipline: to remedy some of the abuses, Pope Leo issued several letters. The following is an extract from the first of them: it has been taken into the body of the canon law. Dist. 5, Admittuntur:—

“Admittuntur passim ad ordinem sacrum, quibus nulla natalium, nulla morum dignitas suffragatur: et qui a dominis suis libertatem consequi minime potuerunt, ad fastigium sacerdotii, tanquam servilis vilitas hunc honorem jure capiat, provehuntur, et probari Deo se posse creditur, qui domino suo necdum probare se potuit. Duplex itaque in hac parte reatus est, quod et sacrum mysterium (ministerium) talis consortii vilitate polluitur, et dominorum, quantum ad illicitæ usurpationis temeritatem pertinet, jura solvuntur. Ab his itaque, fratres carissimi, omnes provinciæ vestræ abstineant sacerdotes: et non tantum ab his, sed ab illis etiam, qui aut originali aut alicui conditioni obligati sunt, volumus temperari: nisi forte corum petitio aut voluntas accesserit, qui aliquid sibi in eos vindicant potestatis. Debet enim esse immunis ab aliis, qui divinæ militiæ fuerit aggregandus; ut a castris Dominicis, quibus nomen ejus adscribitur, nullis necessitatis vinculis abstrahatur.”

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.

Prosper, lib. 2 de vitâ contemplat. c. 3, and many other writers of this century, treat of the relative duties of the Christian master and his Christian slave. The zeal and charity of several holy men led them to make extraordinary sacrifices during this period, to redeem the captives from the barbarians: besides the remarkable instance of Paulinus, we have the ardent and persevering charity of Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, who sold the plate belonging to the church, and used glass for the chalice, that he might be able by every species of economy to procure liberty for the enslaved.

Nor was this a solitary instance. About the year 513, Pope Symmachus called a national council, by which, among other enactments, he established the rule that under no circumstances, could the church property be alienated. See Bower, vol. ii. p. 277.

About the year 535, Cæsarius, primate of Arles, applied to Pope Agapetus for means to relieve the poor Christians in Gaul. But, at that time, the church being quite destitute of money, the pope excused himself, and quoted the decree of Symmachus. The Arians, and some others, hence inculcated the doctrine that the alienation of church property, under any circumstances, was sacrilege. The laws of the empire also forbid such alienation, but with the proviso, “except there was no other means by which the poor could be relieved in time of famine, nor the captives be redeemed from slavery.” Such was the practice among the most pious of the age.

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.”

The saint concludes that though it would be highly criminal for a man to convert the sacred vessels to his own private use, yet it is so far from being a crime, that he looks upon it as an obligation incumbent on him and his brethren to prefer the living temples of God to the unnecessary ornaments of the material edifices. See Ambrose de Offic. lib. ii. cap. 28; and such was the doctrine of St. Austin, see Possid. Vit. Aug. caput 24; of Acacius of Amida, see Socrat. lib. vii. c. 24; of Deigratias of Carthage, see Vict. de Persec. Vandal, lib. i.; of Cyril of Jerusalem, see Theodoret, lib. ii. c. 27; yea all, who have touched on the subject, have subscribed to the doctrine of St. Ambrose. Even the Emperor Justinian, in his law against sacrilege, forbids the church plate, vestments, or any other gifts, to be sold, or pawned; but adds, “except in case of captivity or famine, the lives and souls of men being preferable to any vessels or vestments whatever.” See Codex Just. lib. i. tit. 2. de Sacr. Eccles. leg. 21; also see Bower’s Life of Agapetus, p. 354.

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.

The rules of the Christian church are evidently founded upon the laws of God, as delivered to Moses: “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”

“If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite his man-servant’s tooth, or his maid-servant’s tooth, he shall let him go for his tooth’s sake.” Exod. xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27. And if a man took his female slave to wife, and became displeased with her * * * she should be free. See Deut. xxi. 10–15. But fornication in a female slave was not punished by death, but by stripes. See Lev. xix. 20–23.

Neither the laws of Moses, nor indeed of any civilized people, have ever permitted unusual or cruel punishments to be inflicted on the slave. Civilization, as well as Judaism, seems to have inculcated, “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.” Eccl. xxxiii. 29.

Among heathen nations, their laws were to the effect, that when the slave, sick or wounded, was neglected, or abandoned to his fate by his master; yet, if he recovered, the master should lose his property in such slave, and the slave should be free; and such neglect was often otherwise made punishable. The Roman law sanctioned this doctrine: “Si verberatus fuerit servus non mortifere, negligentia autem perierit, de vulnerato actio erit, non de occiso.” See Lex Aquillia. And so in ancient France, see Fœdere, vol. iii. p. 290: If negligence or bad treatment towards the slave was proved in the master, the slave was declared free.

At this day, in all civilized countries, the civil law forbids unusual and cruel punishment of slaves, and also a wanton and careless negligence of them, either in sickness or health. Thus the law punishes the master for his neglect to govern his slaves, by making him responsible for their bad conduct, and the damage their want of proper government may occasion others.

In the year 494, Pope Gelesius admonished the bishops, at their ordinations, that—

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

That he should never presume to hold unlawful ordinations; that he should not allow to holy orders * * * any person bound to the service of the court, or liable to bond for his condition (slavery) or marked thereto.

In the year 506, a council was held at Agdle, the sixty-second canon of which is—

“Si quis servum proprium sine conscientiâ, judicis occiderit, excommunicatione vel pœnitentia biennii reatum sanguinis emendabit.”

If any one shall put his own servant to death, without the knowledge of the judge, let him make compensation for the guilt of blood by excommunication or two years’ penance.

Another council was held eleven years later. Many of the canons of this synod are transcripts of those of Agdle. The thirty-fourth is:

“Si quis servum proprium sine conscientiâ, judicis occiderit, excommunicatione biennii effusionem sanguinis expiabit.”

If any one shall slay his own servant without the knowledge of the judge, let him expiate the shedding of blood by an excommunication of two years.

This was nearly two hundred years after the law of Constantine forbidding this exercise of power by the master.

The third council of Orleans was held in the year 538.

The thirteenth canon regulates, that if Christian slaves shall be possessed by Jews, and these latter require them to do any thing forbidden by the Christian religion, or if the Jews shall seize upon any of their servants to whip or punish them for those things that have been declared to be excusable or forgiven, and those slaves fly to the church for protection, they are not to be given up, unless there be given and received a just and sufficient sum to warrant their protection.

The canon xxvi. gives a specimen of the early feudalism nearly similar to the subsequent villain service.

“Ut nullus servilibus colonariisque conditionibus obligatus, juxta statuta sedis apostolicæ, ad honores ecclesiasticos admittatur; nisi prius aut testamento, aut per tabulas legitime constiterit absolutum. Quod si quis episcoporum, ejus qui ordinatur conditionem sciens, transgredi per ordinationem inhibitam fortasse voluerit, anni spatio missas facere non præsumat.”

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.

The colonial condition was in its origin different from the mere servile. The mancipium or manu captum was the servus or slave made in war: the colonus, or husbandman, though, at the period at which we are arrived, he frequently was in as abject a condition, yet was so by a different process. St. Augustine, in cap. i. lib. x. De Civitate Dei, tells us, “Coloni dicuntur, qui conditionem debebant genitali solo propter agriculturam sub dominio possessorum.” They are called colonists who owe their condition to their native land, under the dominion of its possessors.

The following history of various modes by which they became servants, is taken from the work De Gubernat. Dei, lib. v., by the good and erudite Salvianus, a priest, who died at Marseilles, about the year 484.

Nonnulli eorum de quibus loquimur, * * * cum domicilia atque agellos suos pervasionibus perdunt, aut fatigati ab exactoribus deserunt, quia tenere non possunt, fundos majorum expetunt, et coloni divitum fiunt. Aut sicut solent hi qui hostium terrore compulsi, ad castella se conferunt, aut qui perdito ingenuæ incolumitatis statu ad asylum aliquod desperatione confugiunt: ita et isti qui habere amplius vel sedem vel dignitatem suorum natalium non queunt, jugo se inquilinæ abjectionis addicunt: in hanc necessitatem redacti, ut exactores non facultatis tantum, set etiam conditionis suæ, atque exultantes non a rebus tantum suis, sed etiam a seipsis, ac perdentes secum omnia sua, et rerum proprietate careant, et jus libertatis amittant. * * * Illud gravius et acerbius, quod additur huic malo servilius malum. Nam suscipiuntur advenæ, fiunt præjudicio habitationis indigenæ, et quos suscipiunt ut extraneos et alienos, incipiunt habere quasi proprios: quos esse constat ingenuos, vertunt in servos.

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.

In this picture of the colonist, we may find the outline of the villain of a later age; and in the several enactments and regulations of succeeding legislators and councils, we shall discover the changes which servitude underwent previous to its total extinction in Europe.

Flodoardin, c. 28, History of the church of Rheims, gives us the will of St. Remi, its bishop, who baptized Clovis, upon his conversion in 496, and who was still living in the year 550. This document grants freedom to some of the colonists belonging to that church and retains others in service.

Du Cange says (Art. Colonus) that though in several instances the condition of the colonists was as abject as that of slaves, yet generally they were in a better position. Erant igitur coloni mediæ conditionis inter ingenuos seu liberos et servos.

------------------

LESSON VIII.

From the fact that the slaves of this era were of the same colour and other physical qualities of their masters; from their great number, and consequently little value, their condition became attended with extremely diverse circumstances; so various were, therefore, the relations between them and the master, that it would now be impossible, perhaps, to give an accurate history of their various castes. These facts should be kept in mind, lest we mistake, and find confusion, where distinction was sufficiently clear and obvious.

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:

Noi non sappiamo se con patti, e con quai patti una vulta si manomettessero que’ Servi, che poi continuavano come Liberti a servire in Casa de’ loro Padroni, con essere alzati a piu onorati impieghi. Sappiamo bensi dal Tit. ne Operis Libertorum, e dall’ altro de bonis Libertorum ne’ Digesti, che moltissimi acquistavano la Liberta con obbligarsi di fare ai Padroni de’ Regaii, o delle Fatture, se erano Artefici, Operas, vel Donum. Questo si praticava verisimilmente dai soli Mercatanti, ed altri Signori dati all’ interarse, ma non gia dalle Nobili Case. Per conto di questo, le antiche Iscrizioni ci fanno vedere, che moltissimi furono coloro, che anche dopo la conseguita Liberta seguitavano a convivere, e servire in quelle medesime Case, non piu come Servi, ma come Liberti, perche probabilmente tornava il conto agli uni e agli altri. I Padroni si servivano di Persone loro confidenti, e gia innestate nella propria Famiglia; ei Liberti cresciuti di onore, e di guadagno poteano cumulare roba per se e per li Figli. Non ho io potuto scoprire se i Romani tenessero Servi Mercenarj come oggidi. O di veri Servi, o di Liberti allora si servivano. Cio posto, maraviglia e, che il Pignoria, in trattando degli Ufizj de’ Servi antichi, imbrogliasse tanto le carte, senza distinguere i Servi dai Liberti, e con attribuir molti impieghi ai primi, che pure erano riserbati agli ultimi. E piu da stupire e, citarsi da lui Marmi, che parlano di Liberti, e pure sono presi da esso, come se parlassero di Servi.

We know not whether they manumitted upon condition, or, if so, upon what conditions they manumitted formerly those servants who continued thenceforth as freed persons, but elevated to more honourable employments, to serve in the houses of their masters. We do indeed know in the Tit. de Operis Libertorum, and in another de bonis Libertorum of the Digests, that very many acquired their liberty with the obligation of giving to their masters presents, or doing work if they were artists, Operas vel donum. 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.

It is clear that even in the days of the Emperor Claudius, to whose reign, A.D. 45, the marble of which he treats refers, and probably long before that period, many of the freedmen of the Roman empire were bound to do certain services for the patrons who had been their masters, and that this obligation descended to their progeny. Hence this would still be a species of servitude.

The barbarians who overran the empire came chiefly from Scythia and Germany, as that vast region was then called which stretches from the Alps to the Northern Ocean. When they settled in the conquered provinces of Gaul and in Italy, they introduced many of their customs as well of government as of policy. Most of their slaves were what the writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries describe as coloni and conditionibus obligati. As Tacitus describes, in xxv. De Moribus Germanorum:

“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 all ages, slaves who belonged to the absolute monarch, sometimes became elevated above the native nobility: witness the case of Joseph in Egypt; of Ebed Melech, who was black, in Judea; of Haman, also a black, an Amalekite; of Mordecai, his successor; of Esther the queen; of Daniel the prophet, and Felix, governor of Judea, a Greek slave to the Roman emperor. But such things can never occur in a republic. To a political misfortune of this kind the prophet alludes—“Servants (slaves) have ruled over us”—than which nothing can be more expressive of the loss of liberty.

In the appendix to the Theodosian code, Const. 5, we read—

Inverecundâ arte defendetur, si hi ad conditionem vel originem reposcuntur, quibus tempore famis, cum in mortem penuria cogerentur, opitulari non potuit dominus aut patronus.

It is forbidden as a shameless trick, that an effort should be made to regain to their condition or original state, those whom the master, or patron could not aid, when, in a period of famine, they were pressed nearly to death by want.

This exhibits the obligation on the patron of the person under condition, and on the master of the slave, to support them, and the destruction of their title by the neglect of their duty.

Muratori observes, that in process of time, the special agreements and particular enactments regarding the conditions, gave such a variety as baffled all attempts at classification and precision.

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 16_s._ 3_d._ 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 the year 541, the fourth council of Orleans was celebrated, in the thirtieth year of King Childebert. The ninth canon:—Ut episcopus, qui de facultate propria ecclesiæ nihil relinquit, de ecclesiæ facultate si quid aliter quam canones eloquuntur obligaverit, vendiderit aut distraxerit, ad ecclesiam revocetur, (ab ecclesia, in other editions.) Sane si de servis ecclesiæ libertos fecit numero competenti, in ingenuitate permaneant, ita ut ab officio ecclesiæ non recedant.

Be it enacted, That a bishop who has left none of his private property to the church shall not dispose of any of the church property, otherwise than as the canons point out. Should he bind or sell or separate any thing otherwise, let it be recalled for the church. But if, indeed, he has made freemen of slaves of the church to a reasonable number, let them continue in their freedom, but with the obligation of not departing from the duty of the church.

The canon xxii. of the same council is—

Ut servis ecclesiæ, vel sacerdotum, prædas et captivitates exercere non liceat; qui iniquum est, ut quorum domini redemptionis præstare solent suffragium, per servorum excessum disciplina ecclesiastica maculetur.

That it be not lawful for the slaves of the church, or of the priests, to go on predatory excursions or to make captives, for it is unjust that when the masters are accustomed to aid in redeeming, the discipline of the church should be disgraced by the misconduct of the slaves.

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.

The xxixth canon was—

Quæcumque mancipia sub specie conjugii ad ecclesiæ septa confugerint, ut per hoc credant posse fieri conjugium, minime eis licentia tribuatur, nec talis conjunctio a clericis defensetur: quia probatum est, ut sine legitimâ traditione conjuncti, pro religionis ordine, statuto tempore ab Ecclesiæ communione suspendantur, ne in sacris locis turpi concubitu misceantur. De quâ re decernimus, ut parentibus aut propriis dominis, prout ratio poscit personarum, acceptâ fide excusati sub separationis promissione reddantur: postmodum tamen parentibus atque dominis libertate concessâ, si eos voluerint propriâ voluntate conjungere.

Let not those slaves who, under pretext of marriage, take refuge within the precincts of the church, imagining that by this they would make a marriage, be allowed to do so, nor let such union be countenanced by the clergy: for it has been regulated that they who form an union, without lawful delivery, should be, for the good order of religion, separated for a fixed period from the communion of the church, so that this vile connection may be prevented in holy places. Wherefore we decree, that such persons, being declared free from the bond of any plighted faith and made to promise a separation, should be restored to their parents or owners, as the case may require; to be, however, subsequently, if the parents or owners should grant leave, married with their own free consent.

As we have seen in some parts of the East at an earlier period, now in this portion of the West, the slaves were made incapable of entering into the marriage-contract without the owner’s consent.

In this same council, canon xxx., provision is made for affording to the Christians, who are held as slaves by the Jews, not only sanctuary of the church, but in the house of any Christian, until a fair price shall be stipulated for and paid to the Jewish owner, if the Christian be unwilling to return to his service. This is a clear recognition of the right of property in slaves.

Canon xxxi. of this council provides, that “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.”

Canon xxxii. provides, that the “descendants of a slave, wherever they may be, even after a long lapse of time, though there should be neglect, if found upon the land or possession upon which their parents were placed, shall be held to the original conditions established by the deceased proprietor for the deceased parents, and the priest of the place shall aid in enforcing the fulfilment, and any persons who shall through avarice interpose obstacles, shall be placed under church censures.”

The doctrine and discipline of the church of the Franks were like that of other churches in the several regions of Christendom at this period.

A fifth council was held at Orleans, in the year 549, the thirty-eighth of King Childebert. The sixth canon of this council relates to the improper ordination of slaves, and also exhibits distinctly the freedmen under condition, classing them in the same category with slaves.

Canon vi. Ut servum, qui libertatem a dominis propriis non acceperit, aut etiam jam libertum, nullus episcoporum absque ejus tantum voluntate, cujus aut servus est, aut eum absolvisse dignoscitur, clericum audeat ordinare. Quod si quisquam fecerit, si qui ordinatus est a domino revocetur, et ille qui est collator ordinis, si sciens fecisse probatur, sex mensibus missas tantum facere non præsumat. Si vero sæcularium servus esse convincitur, ei qui ordinatus est benedictione servatâ, honestum ordini domino suo impendat obsequium. Quod si sæcularis dominus amplius eum voluerit inclinare, ut sacro ordini inferre videatur injuriam, duos servos sicut antiqui canones habent, episcopus qui eum ordinavit domino sæculari restituat; et episcopus eum quem ordinavit ad ecclesiam suam revocandi habeat potestatem.

That no bishop shall dare to ordain as a clergyman, the slave who shall not have received licence from his proper owners, or a person already freed, without the permission of either the person whose servant he is, or of the person who is known to have freed him. And if any one shall do so, let him who is ordained be recalled by his master, and let him who conferred the order, if it be proved that he did so knowing the state of the person, not presume to celebrate mass for six months only. But if it be proved that he is the servant of lay persons, let the person ordained be kept in his rank and do service for his owner in a way becoming his order; but if his lay owner debases him under that grade, so as to do any dishonour to his holy order; let the bishop who ordained him give, as the ancient canons enact, two slaves to his master, and be empowered to take him whom he ordained to his church.

The canon regards manumission, and the protection of those properly liberated from slavery, against the injustice of persons who disregarded the legal absolution from service.

Canon xii. Et quia plurimorum suggestione comperimus, eos qui in ecclesiis juxta patrioticam consuetudinem a servitio fuerint absoluti, pro libito quorumcumque iterum ad servitium revocari, impium esse tractavimus, ut quod in ecclesia Dei consideratione a vinculo servitutis absolvitur, irritum habeatur. Ideo pietatis causâ, communi consilio placuit observandum, ut quæcumque mancipia ab ingenuis dominis servitute laxantur, in eâ libertate maneant, quam tunc a dominis perceperunt. Hujusmodi quoque libertas si a quocumque pulsata fuerit, cum justitiâ ab ecclesiis defendatur, præter eas culpas pro quibus leges collatas servis revocare jusserunt libertates.

And since we have discovered by information from several, that they who, according to the custom of the country, were absolved from slavery in the churches, were again, at the will of some persons, reduced to slavery; we have regarded it to be an impiety; that what has by a judicial decree been absolved from servitude in the church of God, should be set at nought. Wherefore, through motives of piety, it is decreed by common counsel to be henceforth observed, that whatever slaves are freed from servitude by free masters are to remain in that freedom which they then received from the masters; and should this liberty of theirs be assailed by any person, it shall be defended within the limits of justice by the churches, saving where there are crimes for which the laws have enacted that the liberty granted to servants shall be recalled.

It is quite evident, from Exodus xii. 44, that the Israelites, who were themselves slaves in Egypt, also themselves possessed slaves. Also from Nehemiah vii. 67, that the Jews who were slaves in Babylon, yet, upon their liberation, were found to own 7337 slaves; and from the foregoing it appears that the persons then called liberti or freedmen, or the conditionati or persons under condition, and probably, in some instances, coloni or colonists, had slaves, but were not permitted to liberate them, at least without the consent of their own masters, for the canon speaks of only the servants of the ingenui, or those who enjoyed perfect freedom. We see, also, what is evident from many other sources, that persons who had obtained their freedom were for some crimes reduced to servitude, and we shall see, in future times, even freemen are enslaved for various offences.

Again, in the canon xxii. of this council, we find provision which exhibits the caution which was used in regulating the right of sanctuary for slaves. This right was, in Christianity, a concession of the civil power, humanely interposing, in times of imperfect security and violent passion, the protecting arm of the church, to arrest the violence of one party, so as to secure merciful justice for the other, and to make the compositions of peace and equity be substituted for the vengeance or the exactions of power. It was, so far from being an encouragement to crime, one of the best helps towards civilizing the barbarian.

Canon xxii. De servis vero, qui pro qualibet culpâ ad ecclesiæ septa confugerint, id statuimus observandum, ut, sicut in antiquis constitutionibus tenetur scriptum, pro concessâ culpâ datis a domino sacramentis, quisquis ille fuerit, egrediatur de veniâ jam securus. Enimvero si immemor fidei dominus transcendisse convincitur quod juravit, ut is qui veniam acceperat, probetur postmodum pro eâ cum qualicumque supplicio cruciatus, dominus ille, qui immemor fuit datæ fidei, sit ab omnium communione suspensus. Iterum si servus de promissione veniæ datis sacramentis a domino jam securus exire noluerit, ne sub tali contumaciâ requirens locum fugæ domino fortasse disperiat, egredi nolentem a domino eum liceat occupari, ut nullam, quasi pro retentatione servi, quibuslibet modis molestiam aut calumniam patiatur ecclesia: fidem tamen dominus, quam pro concessâ veniâ dedit, nullâ temeritate transcendat. Quod si aut gentilis dominus fuerit, aut alterius sectæ, qui a conventu ecclesiæ probatur extraneus, is qui servum repetit personas requirat bonæ fidei Christianas, ut ipsi in personâ domini servo præbeant sacramenta: quia ipsi possunt servare quod sacrum est, qui pro transgressione ecclesiasticam metuunt disciplinam.

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.

------------------

LESSON IX.

Bishop England has, in his eighth letter, alluded to the state of society in England and Ireland at this early day, for the purpose of elucidating the fact that the doctrines of the church concerning slavery and the civil condition of those regions were materially without difference from the other parts of Europe. Some portions of his letter, although, perhaps, too distant from our subject, are, nevertheless, too interesting to omit.

About the year 462, Niell Naoigialluch, or Neill of the Nine Hostages, ravaged the coast of Britain and Gaul. In this expedition a large number of captives were made. One youth, sixteen years of age, by the name of Cothraige, was sold to Milcho, and was employed by him in tending sheep, in a place called Dalradia—within the present county of Antrim. This Cothraige was St. Patrick, subsequently the apostle of Ireland.

St. Patrick, in his Confessions, states that many of his unfortunate countrymen were carried off and made captives, and dispersed among many nations.

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.

About the year 450, a party of them, among whom were several that professed the Christian religion, made a piratical incursion upon the Irish coast, under the command of Corotic, or Caractacus, or Coroticus.

Lanigan compiles the following account of this incursion from the Eccles. History of Ireland, vol. i. c. iv.

“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.”

The Britons were frequently invaded by the Scots, upon the abandonment of their country by the Romans; and at the period here alluded to, it is supposed by many that the captives taken from Ireland were in several instances given by their possessors to the plundering and victorious Northmen, by the Britons, in exchange for their own captured relatives, whom they desired to release.

About the year 555, Pope Pelagius held, under the protection of King Childebert, the third council of Paris, in which we find a canon, entitled, “De Servis Degeneribus,” concerning “bastard slaves,” as follows: (See Du Cange.)

Canon ix. De degeneribus servis, qui pro sepulchris defunctorum pro qualitate ipsius ministerii deputantur, hoc placuit observari, ut sub quâ ab auctoribus fuerint conditione dimissi, sive heredibus, sive ecclesiis pro defensione fuerint deputati, voluntas defuncti circa eos in omnibus debeat observari. Quod si ecclesia eos de fisci functionibus in omni parte defenderit ecclesiæ tam illi, quam posteri eorum, defensione in omnibus potiantur, et occursum impendant.

It is enacted concerning bastard slaves who are placed to keep the sepulchres, because of the rank of that office, that whether they be placed under the protection of the heirs or of the church for their defence, upon the condition upon which they were discharged by their owners, the will of the deceased should be observed in all things in their regard. But, if the church shall keep them entirely exempt from the services and payments of the fisc, let them and their descendants enjoy the protection of the church for defence, and pay to it their tribute.

The auctores, or authors, in the original sense, were owners or masters; and subsequently, especially in Gaul, it was often taken to mean parents, which probably, from the context, is here its meaning; and, we find a new title and a new class, where the master having committed a crime with his servant, the offspring was his slave; yet, his natural affection caused the parent to grant him a conditioned freedom, to protect which this canon specified the guardian to be either the heir or the church.

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.

The forty-sixth of these canons is—

Si quis obligatus tributo servili, vel aliqua conditione, vel patrocinio cujuslibet domûs, non est ordinandus clericus, nisi probandæ vitæ fuerit et patroni concessus accesserit.

If any one is bound to servile tribute, or by any condition, or by the patronage of any house, he is not to be ordained a clergyman, unless he be of approved life, and the consent of the patron be also given.

This canon is taken into the body of the canon law. Dist. 53.

Canon xlvii. Si quis servum alienum causâ religionis doceat contemnere dominum suum et recedere à servitio ejus, durissimè ab omnibus arguatur.

If any person will teach the servant of another, under pretext of religion, to despise his master and to withdraw from his service, let him be most sharply rebuked by all.

This too is taken into the body of the canon law. (17, q. 4, Si quis.)

In the year 589, the third council of Toledo, in Spain, was celebrated, in the pontificate of Pope Pelagius II. All the bishops of Spain assembled upon the invitation of King Reccared.

The articles of faith form twenty-three heads of various length; after which follow twenty-three capitula, or little chapters or heads of discipline.

The sixth of these is in the following words:

De libertis autem id Dei præcipiunt sacerdotes, ut si qui ab episcopis facti sunt secundum modum quo canones antiqui dant licentiam, sint liberi; et tamen a patrocinio ecclesiæ tam ipsi, quam ab eis progeniti non recedant. Ab aliis quoque libertati traditi, et ecclesiis commendati, patrocinio episcopali regantur: à principe hoc episcopus postulet.

The priests of God decree concerning freedmen, that if any are made by the bishops in the way the ancient canons permit, they shall be considered free; yet so that neither they nor their descendants shall retire from the patronage of the church. Let those freed by others and placed under the protection of the church, be placed under the bishop’s protection. Let the bishop ask this of his prince.

This too is taken into the body of the canon law. (12, q. 2, De libertis.)

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.

Innuente (other copies, jubente) atque consentiente domino piissimo Reccaredo rege, id præcipit sacerdotale consilium, ut clericorum (others, clericos) ex familiâ fisci nullus audeat a principe donatos expetere; sed reddito capitis sui tributo ecclesiæ Dei, cui sunt alligati, usque dum vivent, regulariter administrent.

By the suggestion (or by the command) and with the consent of the most pious lord King Reccared, the council of priests directs that no one shall dare to reclaim from the administrators of the church those clergy given by the prince; but having paid their tribute to the church of God, to which they are bound, let them, as long as they live, administer regularly.

In the same council, the canon xv. is the following:

Si qui ex servis fiscalibus ecclesias forte construxerint easque de suâ paupertate ditaverint, hoc procuret episcopus prece suâ auctoritate regiâ confirmari.

If any of the king’s special servants shall have built churches, and have enriched them by the contributions from their poverty, let the bishop obtain that it be confirmed by the royal authority.

The servi fiscales were the private or patrimonial property of the king.

This also exhibits the principle that the slave was not permitted to contribute, without the consent of his owner, to religious establishments.

A canon of the assembly held in Constantinople, 692:

Canon lxxxv. In duobus vel tribus testibus confirmari omne verbum ex Scriptura accepimus. Servos ergo qui a dominis suis manumittuntur, sub tribus testibus eo frui honore decernimus, qui præsentes libertati vires et firmitatem afferent, et ut iis quæ ipsis testibus facta sunt fides habeatur efficient.

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.

------------------

LESSON X.

As late as the year 577, Britain furnished other nations with slaves, which is sufficiently proved by the following extract from Bede:

Nec silentio prætereunda opinio quæ de beato Gregorio, traditione majorum, ad nos usque perlata est: quâ videlicet ex causâ admonitus, tam sedulam erga salutem nostræ gentis curam gesserit. Dicunt, quia die quâdam cum advenientibus nuper mercatoribus multa venalia in forum fuissent conlata, multique ad emendum confluxissent, et ipsum Gregorium inter alios advenisse, ae vidisse inter alia pueros venales positos, candidi corporis ac venusti vultûs, capillorum quoque formâ egregiâ. Quos cum aspiceret, interrogavit, ut ajunt, de quâ regione vel terrâ essent adlati. Dictumque est quod de Brittaniâ insulâ, cujus incolæ talis essent aspectûs. Rursus interrogavit, utrum iidem insulani, Christiani, an paganis adhuc erroribus essent implicati? Dictumque est, quod essent pagani. At ille intimo ex corde longa trahens suspiria: “Heu, proh dolor!” inquit, “quod tam lucidi vultûs homines tenebrarum auctor possidet, tantaque gratia frontispicii mentem ab internâ gratiâ vacuam gestat!” Rursus ergo interrogavit, quod esset vocabulum gentis illius? Responsum est quod Angli vocarentur. At ille, “Benè,” inquit, “nam et angelicam habent faciem, et tales angelorum in cœlis decet esse coheredes. Quod habet nomen ipsa provincia de quâ isti sunt adlati?” Responsum est quod Deiri vocarentur iidem provinciales. At ille: “Benè,” inquit, “Deiri, de irâ eruti, et ad misericordiam Christi vocati. Rex provinciæ illius, quomodo appellatur?” Responsum est quod Aella diceretur. At ille adludens ad nomen ait: “Alleluia, laudem Dei creatoris illis in partibus oportet cantari.” Accedensque ad Pontificem Romanæ et Apostolicæ sedis, nondum enim erat ipse Pontifex factus, rogavit, ut genti Angliorum in Britanniam aliquos verbi ministros, per quos ad Christum converterentur, mitteret: seipsum paratum esse in hoc opus Domino co-operante perficiendum, si tamen Apostolico Papæ hoc ut fieret placeret. Quod dum perficere non posset; quia etsi pontifex concedere illi quod petierat voluit, non tamen cives Romani ut tam longe ab urbe recederet potuere permittere; mox ut ipse pontificatûs officio functus est, perficit opus diu desideratum: alios quidem prædicatores mittens, sed ipse prædicationem ut fructificaret suis exhortationibus et precibus adjuvans.

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.

Gregory became pope in 590. Soon after his elevation to the pontifical dignity, he sought to purchase some of the British youths, in order to have them trained up to be missionaries to their countrymen.

The holy see had already a considerable patrimony in Gaul, bestowed by the piety of the faithful: we shall see from the following epistle of the pope to the priest Candidus, whom he sent as its administrator, the use which was made of its income.

* * * * *

Lib. v. Epist. x.—GREGORIUS Candido Presbytero eunti ad patrimonium Galliæ.

Pergens auxiliante Domino Deo nostro Jesu Christo ad patrimonium, quod est in Galliis gubernandum, volumus ut dilectio tua ex solidis quos acceperit, vestimenta pauperum, vel pueros Anglos, qui sunt ab annis decem et septem, vel decem et octo, ut in monasteriis dati Deo proficiant, comparet; quatenus solidi Galliarum, qui in terrâ nostrâ expendi non possunt, apud locum proprium utiliter expendantur. Si quid vero de pecuniis redituum, quæ dicuntur ablatæ, recipere potueris, ex his quoque vestimenta pauperum comparare te volumus; vel, sicut præfati sumus, pueros qui in omnipotentis Dei servitio proficiant. Sed quia pagani sunt, qui illic inveniri possunt, volo, ut cum eis presbyter transmittatur, ne quid ægritudinis contingat in viâ, ut quos morituros conspexerit debeat baptizare. Ita igitur tua dilectio faciat, ut hæc diligenter implere festinet.

GREGORY to the Priest Candidus, going to the patrimony of Gaul.

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, (ablatæ,) we also desire that you should therewith buy clothing for the poor, or, as we have before said, youths who may become proficients in the service of God. But as they who dwell in that place are pagans, it is our desire that a priest be sent with them lest they should get sick on the journey, and he ought to baptize those whom he may see in a dying state. So let you, our beloved, do, and be alert in fulfilling what we have desired.

* * * * *

The commission of Pope Gregory to purchase those youths was executed. But, as Lingard observes, (Ant. Anglo-Saxon Chu. c. i.,) “their progress was slow, and his zeal impatient.” The result was that St. Augustine and his companions were sent by the pope, and effected the conversion of the island.

In the same chapter, Lingard describes the Saxons who had settled in England, previous to their conversion, and refers to Will. of Malmesbury (de reg. 1. i., c. 3.)

“The savages of Africa may traffic with the Europeans for the negroes whom they have seized by treachery, or captured in open war; but the most savage conquerors of the Britons sold without scruple, to the merchants of the continent, their countrymen, and even their own children.”

“But their ferocity soon yielded to the exertions of the missionaries, and the harsher features of their origin were insensibly softened under the mild influence of the gospel. In the rage of victory, they learned to respect the rights of humanity. Death or slavery was no longer the fate of the conquered Britons; by their submission, they were incorporated with the victors; and their lives and property were protected by the equity of their Christian conquerors. * * * The humane idea, that by baptism all men become brethren, contributed to meliorate the condition of slavery, and scattered the seeds of that liberality which gradually undermined, and at length abolished, so odious an institution. By the provision of the legislature, the freedom of the child was secured from the avarice of an unnatural parent; and the heaviest punishment was denounced against the man who presumed to sell to a foreign master one of his countrymen, though he were a slave or a malefactor.”

Lingard here refers to the statutes of Ina, quoted in a previous study. But it may be remarked that here is the earliest notice of the African slave-trade, as a branch of European commerce, compared with the ancient slave-trade carried on with Britain.

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

ADMONITIO VI.—Aliter admonendi sunt servi, atque aliter domini. Servi scilicet, ut in se semper humilitatem conditionis aspiciant: domini vero, ut naturæ suæ quâ æqualiter sunt cum servis conditi, memoriam non amittant. Servi admonendi sunt ne dominos despiciant, ne Deum offendant si ordinationi illius superbiendo contradicunt: domini quoque admonendi sunt, quia contra Deum de munere ejus superbiunt, si eos quos per conditionem tenent subditos, æquales sibi per naturæ consortium non agnoscunt. Isti admonendi sunt ut sciant se servos esse dominorum: illi admonendi sunt ut cognoscant se conservos esse servorum. Istis namque dicitur: Servi, obedite dominis carnalibus. Et rursum: Quicumque sunt sub jugo servi, dominos suos omni honore dignos arbitrentur: illis autem dicitur: et vos, domini, eadem facite illis, remittentes minas, scientes quod et illorum et vester dominus est in cœlis.

ADMONITION VI.—Servants are to be admonished in one way, masters in another way: servants indeed, that they should always regard in themselves the lowliness of their condition: masters however, that they lose not the recollection of their nature, by which they are created upon a level with their slaves. Slaves are to be admonished not to despise their masters, lest they offend God, if growing proud they contradict his ordinance: masters too are to be admonished; because they grow proud against God by reason of his gift, if they do not acknowledge as their equals, by the fellowship of nature, those whom by condition they hold as subjects. These are to be admonished that they be mindful that they are the slaves of their masters; those that they recollect that they are the fellow-servants of servants. To these it is said: Servants, obey your masters in the flesh: and again, Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them consider their masters worthy of all honour: but to those it is said: And you, masters, do in like manner to them, laying aside threats, knowing that your and their Master is in heaven.

In his book ii. of Epistles, ep. xxxix., writing to Peter, a subdeacon of Campania, he directs him how to act in the case of a female slave, belonging to a proctor or manager of church property, (defensor,) who was anxious to be allowed to become a sister in a monastery, which was not lawful without the consent of her owner. The pope neither orders the master to manumit her nor to permit her profession, for, though he was employed by the church, the religion to which he belonged did not require of him to give away his property, nor had the head of that church power to deprive him thereof; hence he writes—

Preterea quia Felix defensor puellam nomine Catillam habere dicitur, quæ cum magnis lacrymis, et vehementi desiderio habitum conversionis appetit, sed eam præfatus dominus suus converti minime permittit: proinde volumus, ut experientia tua præfatum Felicem adeat, atque puellæ ejusdem animum sollicite requirat; et si ita esse cognoverit, pretium ejusdem puellæ suæ domino præbeat, et huc eam in monasterio dandam cum personis gravibus, Domino auxiliante, transmittat. Ita vero hæc age, ut non per lentam actionem tuam præfatæ puellæ anima detrimentum aliquod in desiderio suo sustineat.

Moreover, because the proctor Felix is said to have a servant named Catilla, who with many tears and vehement desire wishes to obtain the habit of religion; but her aforesaid master will not by any means permit her making profession: it is then our desire that your experience would call upon the said Felix, and carefully examine the disposition of that young woman, and if you should find it such as is stated, pay to the master her price, and send her hither with discreet persons, to be placed, with God’s help, in a monastery. But do this, so that the soul of the young woman may not suffer any inconvenience in her desire, through your tardiness.

The following is a deed of gift which the same Pope made, to assure the possession of a slave to the bishop of Porto, one of the suburban sees near Rome. It is curious, not merely as exhibiting the fact that the pope and the See of Rome held and transferred slaves at this period, but also as giving a specimen of a legal document of that date and tenor:—

* * * * *

LIB. X. EP. LII.—GREGORIUS, Felici Episcopo Portuensi.

Charitatis vestræ gratiâ provocati, no infructuosi vobis videamur existere, præcipuè cum et minus vos habere servitia noverimus; ideo Joannem juris ecclesiastici famulum, natione Sabinum, ex massâ Flavianâ, annorum plus minus decem et octo, quem nostra voluntate jam diu possidetis, fraternitati vestræ jure directo donamus atque concedimus; ita ut cum habeatis, possideatis, atque juri proprietatique vestra vindicetis atque defendatis, et quidquid de eo facere volueritis, quippe ut dominus, ex hujus donationis jure libero potiamini arbitrio. Contra quam munificentiæ nostræ chartulam nunquam nos successoresque nostros noveris esse venturos. Hanc autem donationem a notario nostro perscriptam legimus, atque subscripsimus, tribuentes etiam non expectatâ professione vestrâ quo volueritis tempore alligandi licentiam legitimâ stipulatione et sponsione interpositâ. Actum Romæ.

Excited by our regard for your charitable person, that we may not appear to be useless to you, especially as we know you are short of servants: we therefore give and grant to you our brother, by our direct right, John, a servant of the church domain, by birth a Sabine, of the Flavian property, now aged about eighteen years, whom by our will you have a good while had in your possession. So that you may have and possess him, and preserve and maintain your right to him and defend him as your property. And that you may, by the free gift of this donation, enjoy the exercise of your will, to do what you may think proper in his regard, as his lord.

Against which paper of our munificence, you may know that neither we nor our successors are ever to come. And we have read this deed of gift, written out by our notary, and we have subscribed the same, not even awaiting your profession, respecting the time you would desire license to register it in the public acts by interposing the lawful process of signature and covenant. Done at Rome, &c.

The massa was generally a portion of land of about twelve acres: and the servants belonging specially thereto are in the documents of this and a later period generally called either servi de (or ex) massa, and when they subsequently became conditioned, or freed to a certain extent, they were called homines de masnada, or other names equivalent thereto.

LIB. V. EP. XXXIV.—GREGORIUS, Athemio Subdiacono.

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.

GREGORY, to the Subdeacon Anthemius:

We cannot express how great is our grief and the affliction of our heart, by reason of what has occurred in a part of Campania; but you may yourself estimate it from the extent of the calamity. Wherefore, we send to your experience, by Stephen, a worthy man, the bearer hereof, money for the aid of those captives who are detained; admonishing you that you ought to be very industrious and exert yourself to discover what freemen are unable to procure their own release, and that you should quickly redeem them. But respecting the slaves, when you shall discover that their masters are so poor as not to have it in their power to release them, you will also not omit to buy them. In like manner you will be careful to redeem the servants of the church who have been lost through your neglect.

You will also be very careful by all means to make a neat brief, which you can bring when you come, containing their names, as also where any one remains, how he is employed, or whence he is. You will be diligent, and so industrious in this transaction, as to give no cause of danger by your neglect, for those who are to be released, nor run the risk of being exceedingly culpable in our view. You will be most particular, above all things, to procure the release of the captives at the lowest possible rate. You will make out the accounts as accurately and as clearly as possible, and send them to us with speed.

The calamity which he bewails was an incursion of the Lombards, who, coming originally from Scandinavia, settled for a while in Pomerania, and about this period ravaged Italy.

------------------

LESSON XI.

At this age of the world, there still existed a feeling of rivalship between the Jew, the pagan, and the Christian; and, in truth, between some of the different sects of the latter, as to which system of religion should prevail. This state of facts often rendered the condition of the slave peculiar.

The Jew and the Christian were in opposition from the very origin of Christianity. The first persecutors of the Christians were the relatives of the first Christians; the death of the Saviour and the martyrdom of Stephen, the imprisonment of Peter, the mission of Saul to Damascus, and a variety of other similar facts, exhibit in strong relief the spirit of hatred which caused not merely separation, but enmity. The destruction of Jerusalem, the captivity of the people who preserved the early records of revelation, and the increase of the Christian religion, even under the swords and the gibbets of its persecutors, only increased and perpetuated this feeling.

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.

It was, therefore, at an early period after the conversion of Constantine, enacted that no one who was not a Christian should hold a Christian slave, upon that principle contained in Lev. xxv. 47, 48. We find in the civil code, lib. i. tit. 10, “Judæus servum Christianum nec comparare debebit, nec largitatis aut alio quocumque titulo consequetur.” A Jew shall not purchase a Christian slave, nor shall he obtain one by title of gift, nor by any other title.

In a subsequent part of the title the penalty is recited, “non solum mancipii damno mulctetur, verùm etiam capitali sententia punietur.” Not only shall he be mulcted by the loss of the slave, but he shall be punished by a capital sentence.

By a decree of Valentinian III., found after the Theodosian code, and entitled, “De diversis ecclesiasticis capitibus,” bearing date 425, Aquileia, vii. of the ides of July, Jews and pagans were prohibited from holding Christian slaves.

Thus by the laws of the empire at this period, no Jew or Gentile could have any property in a Christian slave. This principle was not adopted until a much later period by the Franks and other nations, and this will account for the diversity of legislation and of judgment which the books of the same period exhibit in various regions.

Another clause of the code was more comprehensive: “Græcus, seu paganus, et Judæus, et Samaritanus, et alius hæreticus, id est, non existens orthodoxus, non potest Christianum mancipium habere.” A Greek or pagan, a Jew, a Samaritan, and any heretic, that is, one not orthodox, cannot hold a Christian slave.

The authority of Gregory over Sicily was not merely spiritual. He had a temporal supervision, if not a full sovereignty, over the island.—The document is ep. xxxvii. lib. ii. indict. xi.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS Libertino, Præfecto Siciliæ.

De præsumptione Nasæ Judæi, qui altare nomine B. Heliæ construxerat, et de mancipiis Christianis comparatis.

Ab ipso administrationis exordio, Deus vos in causæ suæ voluit vindicta procedere, et hanc vobis mercedem propitius cum laude servavit. Fertur siquidem quòd Nasas quidam sceleratissimus Judæorum, sub nomine beati Heliæ altare puniendâ temeritate construxerit, multosque illic Christianorum ad adorandum sacrilegâ seductione decepit. Sed et Christiana, ut dicitur, mancipia comparavit, et suis ea obsequiis ac utilitatibus deputavit. Dum igitur severissimè in eum pro tantis facinoribus debuisset ulcisci, gloriosus Justinus medicamento avaritiæ, ut nobis scriptum est, Dei distulit injuriam vindicare. Gloria autem vestra hæc omnia districtâ examinatione perquirat: et si hujusmodi manifestum esse repererit, ita districtissime ac corporaliter in eundem sceleratum festinet vindicare Judæum; quatenus hâc ex causâ et gratiam sibi Dei nomine conciliet, et his se posteris pro suâ mercede imitandum monstret exemplis. Mancipia autem Christiana, quæcumque eum comparasse patuerit, ad libertatem, juxta legum præcepta, sine omni ambiguitate perducite, ne, quod absit, Christiana religio Judais subdita polluatur. Ita ergo omnia districtissimè sub omni festinatione corrigite, ut non solum pro hâc vobis disciplinâ gratias referamus, sed et testimonium de bonitate vestrâ ubi necesse fuerit, præbeamus.

GREGORY to Libertinus, Prefect of Sicily:

Concerning the presumption of Nasas, a Jew, who had erected an altar in the name of the blessed Elias; and concerning the procuring of Christian slaves.

God has willed that from the very beginning of your administration you should proceed to the avenging of his cause; and he has mercifully kept this reward for you with praise. It is indeed said that one Nasas, a very wicked man, of the Jewish people, has, with a rashness deserving punishment, constructed an altar under the name of the blessed Elias, and deceitfully and sacrilegeously seduced many Christians thither for adoration. It is also said that he has procured Christian slaves, and put them to his service and profit. It has also been written to us that the most glorious Justin, when he ought to have most severely punished him for such crimes, has, through the soothing of his avarice, put off the avenging of this injury to God.

Do you, glorious sir, most closely examine into all the premises; and if you shall find the allegations evidently sustained, hasten to proceed most strictly to have bodily justice done upon this wicked Jew, so as to procure for yourself the favour of God in this case, and to exhibit for your reward, to those who will come after us, an example for imitation. But, further, do you carry through, according to the prescriptions of the laws, to their liberty, without any cavilling, every and any Christian slaves that it may be evident he procured, lest, which God forbid, the Christian religion should be degraded by subjection to the Jews.

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.

* * * * *

Canon xxx. of the fourth council of Orleans:

Cùm prioribus canonibus jam fuerit definitum, ut de mancipiis Christianis, quæ apud Judæos sunt, si ad ecclesiam confugerint, et redimi se postulaverint, etiam ad quoscumque Christianos refugerint, et servire Judæis noluerint, taxato et oblato a fidelibus justo pretio, ab eorum dominio liberentur; ideo statuimus, ut tam justa constitutio ab omnibus Catholicis conservetur.

Whereas it has been decreed by former canons, respecting the Christian slaves that are under the Jews, that if they should fly to the church, or even to any Christians, and demand their redemption, and be unwilling to serve the Jews, they should be freed from their owners upon a fair price being assessed by the faithful and tendered for them: we therefore enact that this so just a regulation shall be observed by all Catholics.

At this period, 541, in this province and kingdom, the Jew had a good title to his Christian slave, and could not be deprived of him except by law, or for value tendered.

The first council of Macon was assembled at the request of King Guntram, or Goutran, one of the sons of Clotaire I., to whom the division of Orleans was left upon the death of his father in 561. This assembly was held in 581. The sixteenth canon is—

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.

And although the mode of acting in regard to Christians who have been entangled in the service of the Jews by the invasions for making captives, or by other frauds, has been regulated heretofore not only by canonical enactments, but also by favour of the civil laws; yet because now the complaint of some persons has arisen, that some Jews dwelling in the cities and towns have grown so insolent and bold, that they will not permit the Christians demanding it to be freed even upon the ransom of their service; wherefore, by the authority of God, we enact by this present act of council, that no Christian shall henceforth lawfully continue enslaved to a Jew; but that any Christian shall have the power of redeeming that slave either to freedom or to servitude, upon giving for each good slave the sum of twelve shillings (solidum): because it is improper that they whom Christ redeemed by the shedding of his blood, should continue bound in the chains of persecutors. But if any Jew shall be unwilling to acquiesce in these enacted provisions, it shall be lawful for the slave himself to dwell where he will, with Christians, as long as the Jew shall keep from taking the stipulated money. This also is specially enacted, that if any Jew shall be convicted of having persuaded his Christian slave to the adoption of Jewish error, he shall be deprived of the slave and amerced to make a gift.

It was only at this period that we find any of the laws of the Franks introducing the right of a Christian to refuse service to a Jew. This, however, was not the case in all the territory, for that over which Guntram ruled was but a fourth part of the empire.

The following is ep. xxi. lib. iii. indic. xii.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS Venantio, Episcopo Lunensi:

Quod Judæi non possunt Christiana habere mancipia: sed coloni et originarii pensiones illis præbere debent.

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.

* * * * *

GREGORY to Venantius, Bishop of Luna:

That Jews should not have Christian slaves, but that colonists and those born on their lands should pay them pensions.

We have learned by the report of many persons that Christian slaves are kept in servitude by the Jews dwelling in the city of Luna, which is the more grievous to us as it has been caused by the remissness of you our brother. For it was becoming you, as well by reason of the place you hold, as from your regard for the Christian religion, not to allow the existence of any occasion by which simple souls may be subjected to the Jewish superstition, not only by the force of persuasion, but by a sort of right arising from power. Wherefore we exhort you, our brother, that, according to the regulation of the most pious laws, it should not be permitted to any Jew to keep a Christian slave under his dominion, and that if any such be found under them, the liberty of such should be secured by the process of law and the aid of protection.

And as regards those who are on their lands, though by strict construction of law they may be free, yet, because they have remained a long time in the cultivation of the soil, as bound to the condition of the place, let them remain to till the lands as they have used to do, and pay their pension to the aforesaid men; and let them do all that the laws require of colonists or persons of origin. Let no additional burthen however be laid on them.

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.

It is our wish that you be careful so to give your attention to all these letters as not to be the guilty pastor of a plundered flock, nor that your want of zeal should compel us to reprehend our brother.

* * * * *

The law of the empire in force through Italy and Sicily:

1. Slaves who were Christians could not be held by those who were not Christians.

2. It being unlawful for others than Christians to hold them, these others could have no property in them: the persons so held were entitled to their freedom.

3. The church was the guardian of their right to freedom, and the church acted through the bishop.

4. Consequently it was the duty, as it was the right, of the bishop to vindicate that freedom for those so unjustly detained.

5. The right and duty of the pope was to see that each bishop was careful in his charge, and this part of his charge came as much as any other did under the supervision of his superior and immediate inspector, and it was the duty of that superior to reprehend him for any neglect.

6. The law of each country was to regulate the duty of the master and slave, and if that law made, as in Italy and its environs, the church the proper tribunal for looking to the performance of those duties, any neglect of the church in its discharge would be criminal.

7. Through the greater part of Italy and Sicily, at this period, the pope was the sovereign, and it was only by his paramount influence that the half-civilized Gothic and Lombard chiefs were kept in any order, and their despotism partially restrained.

They were times of anarchy, between which and the present no analogy exists. The Jews and separatists from the church were very numerous, and on their side, as well as on that of their opposers, passion frequently assumed the garb of religion, and the unfortunate slave was played upon by each. The position of the pope was exceedingly difficult, for while he had to restrain the enemies of the church on one side, he had to correct the excesses of its partisans upon the other.

------------------

LESSON XII.

The laws of the empire having declared it unlawful for Jews or pagans to hold Christian slaves, the church took a further step, which, in effect, forbade pagan slaves being sold to Jews, and which, to a considerable extent, suppressed their introduction, by the difficulties with which the following order surrounded the traffic. It is found in lib. v. indic. xiv. epist. xxxi.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Fortunato Episcopo Neopolitano:

Ne mancipia quæ Christianam fidem suscipere volunt, Judæis venundentur: sed pretium à Christiano emptore percipiant.

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.

* * * * *

“GREGORY to Fortunatus, Bishop of Naples:

“That slaves who wish to embrace the Christian faith must not be sold to Jews, but (the owners) may receive a price from a Christian purchaser.

“We have before now written to you, our brother, that their masters should not have leave to sell those who, by the inspiration of God, desire to come from the Jewish superstition to the Christian faith; but that from the moment they shall have manifested this determination they should be, by all means, protected to seek their liberty. But, as we have been led to know some persons, not exactly and accurately giving heed to our will, nor to the enactments of the laws, think that, as regards pagan slaves, this law does not apply, it is fit that you, our brother, should be careful on this head; and if among the slaves of the Jews, not only a Jew, but any of the pagans, should desire to become a Christian, to see that no Jew should have power to sell him under any pretext, or by any ingenious device, after this his intention shall have been made known; but let him who desires to become of the Christian faith have the aid of your defence, by all means, for his liberty.

“And respecting those who are to lose such servants, lest they should consider themselves unreasonably hindered, it is fit that you should carefully follow this rule: that, if it should happen that pagans, whom they bought from foreign places for the purpose of traffic, should within three months, not having been purchased, fly to the church and say that they desire to be Christians, or even make known this intention without the church, let the owners be capable of receiving their price from a Christian purchaser. But if, after the lapse of three months, any one of those servants of this description should speak his will and wish to become a Christian, no one shall thereafter dare to purchase him, nor shall his master under any pretext sell him; but he shall unquestionably be brought to the reward of liberty, because it is sufficiently intelligible that this slave was procured for the purpose of service, and not for that of traffic. Do you, my brother, diligently and closely observe all these things, so that you be not led away by any supplication, nor affected by personal regard.”

* * * * *

The grounds of the law above given may be partially gathered from the following, which is a letter to the bishop of Catania in Sicily. Lib. v. ind. xiv. epist. xxxii.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Leoni Episcopo Catanensi:

De Samaræis qui pagana mancipia emerunt et circumciderunt.

Res ad nos detestabilis, et omnino legibus inimica pervenit, quæ, si vera est, fraternitatem vestram vehementer accusat, eamque de minori solicitudine probat esse culpabilem.

Comperimus autem quod Samaræi degentes Catinæ pagana mancipia emerint, atque ea circumcidere ausu temerario præsumpserint. Atque idcirco necesse est, ut omnimodo zelum in hâc causâ sacerdotalem exercens, cum omni hoc vivacitate ac solicitudine studeas perscrutari: et si ita repereris, mancipia ipsa sine morâ in libertatem modis omnibus vindica, et ecclesiasticam in eis tuitionem impende, nec quidquam dominos eorum de pretio quolibet modo recipere patiaris: qui non solum hoc damno mulctandi, sed etiam aliâ erant pœnâ de legibus feriendi.

* * * * *

“GREGORY to Leo, Bishop of Catania:

“Concerning Samaritans (or Jews) who purchased pagan slaves and circumcised them.

“Accounts have been brought to us of a transaction very detestable and altogether opposed to the laws, and which, if true, shows exceedingly great neglect on the part of you, our brother, and proves you to have been very culpable.

“We have found that some Jews dwelling at Catania have bought pagan slaves, and with rash presumption dared to circumcise them. Wherefore it is necessary that you should exert all your priestly zeal in this case, and give your mind to examine closely into it with energy and care; and, should you find the allegation to be true, that you should by all means, and without delay, secure the liberty of the slaves themselves, and give them the protection of the church; nor should you suffer their masters, on any account, to receive any of the price given for them, for they not only should be fined in this amount, but they are liable also to suffer such other punishment as the laws inflict.”

------------------

LESSON XIII.

In Judea, the creditor could take the children of the debtor, and keep them as his slaves, to labour until the debt was paid; and among the Gentiles this right was not only in existence, but in most cases the child could be subjected to perpetual slavery, and in many instances the debtor himself could thus be reduced to bondage. Improvement had been made in this respect, as will be seen by the following document, found in lib. iii. indic. xii. epist. xliii.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Fantino Defensori:

De Cosma Syro multis debitis obligato.

Lator præsentium, Cosmas Syrus, in negotio quod agebat, debitum se contraxisse perhibuit, quod, et multis aliis et lacrymis ejus attestantibus, verum esse credidimus. Et quia 150 solidos debebat, volui ut creditores illius cum eo aliquid paciscerentur: quoniam et lex habet, ut homo liber pro debito nullatenus teneatur, si res defuerint, quæ possunt eidem debito addici, creditores ergo suos, ut asserit, ad 80 solidos consentire possibile est. Sed quia multum est ut a nil habente homine 80 solidos petant, 60 solidos per notarium tuum tibi transmisimus; ut cum eisdem creditoribus subtiliter loquaris, rationem reddas, quia filium ejus quem tenere dicuntur, secundum leges tenere non possunt. Et si potest fieri, ad aliquod minus quam nos dedimus, condescendant. Et quidquid de eisdem 60 solidis remanserit, ipsi trade, ut cum filio suo exinde vivere valeat. Si autem nil remanet, ad eamdem summam debitum ejus incidere stude, ut possit sibi libere postmodum laborare. Hoc tamen solerter age, ut acceptis solidis ei plenariam munitionem scripto faciant.

* * * * *

“GREGORY, to the Proctor Fantinus:

Of Cosmas, the Syrian, deeply in debt.

“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.”

The law to which the pope refers, and by which the persons of the unfortunate debtor and his family were protected, is found in Novell. 134, c. vii., and was enacted by Justinian I. in 541.

Ne quis creditor filium debitoris pro debito retinere præsumat.

Quia verò et hujuscemodi iniquitatem in diversis locis nostræ reipublicæ cognovimus admitti, quia, creditores filios debitorum præsumunt retinere aut in pignus, aut in servile ministerium, aut in conductionem: hoc modis omnibus prohibemus: et jubemus ut si quis hujusmodi aliquid deliquerit, non solum debito cadat, sed tantam aliam quantitatem adjiciat dandam ei qui retentus est ab eo, aut parentibus ejus, et post hoc etiam corporalibus pœnis ipsum subdi a loci judice; quia personam liberam pro debito præsumpserit retinere aut locare aut pignorare.

“That no creditor should presume to retain for debt the son of the debtor.

“And because we have known that this sort of injustice has been allowed in several places of our commonwealth,—that creditors presume to keep the children of their debtors, either in pledge or in slavish employment, or to hire them out. We by all means forbid all this: and we order that, if any person shall be guilty of any of these things, not only shall he lose the debt, but he shall in addition give an equal sum, to be paid to the person that was held by him, or to the parents of such person; and, beyond this, he shall be subjected to corporal punishment by the local judge, because he presumed to restrain or to hire out, or keep in pledge, a free person.”

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.

The document is found in lib. v. indic. xiv. epist. xii.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Montanæ et Thomæ:

Libertatem dat, et eos cives Romanos efficit.

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.

* * * * *

“GREGORY to Montana and Thomas:

“He emancipates them, and makes them Roman citizens.

“Since our Redeemer, the Maker of every creature, mercifully vouchsafed to take human flesh, that, breaking the chain by which we were held captive, he may, by the grace of his divinity, restore us to our first liberty, it is then salutary that they whom he at first made free by nature, and whom the law of nations subjected to the yoke of slavery, should in the nature in which they were born be restored to liberty by that kindness of their emancipator. And therefore, moved by this consideration, and in respect to piety, we make you, Montana and Thomas, slaves of the holy Roman church, in whose service we are by God’s help engaged, from this day forward free and Roman citizens. And we release to you all your allowance of slavery.

“And because you, Montana, have declared that it was your wish to enter into the monastic state, we give and grant to you this day two ounces, which it is well known were formerly left as a legacy to you for inheritance by the priest Gaudiosus, to be by all means available to the monastery of St. Lawrence, over which Constantina is superioress, and into which you desire anxiously by God’s mercy to be admitted. But should it appear that you have concealed any of the effects of the said Gaudiosus, the entire thereof doubtless is by right for the service of our church.

“But to you, the said Thomas, whom, in addition to the bestowal of freedom, we desire to be enrolled in service among our notaries, we likewise this day give and grant, by this charter of manumission, five ounces which the same Gaudiosus the priest left to you by name in his last will, and the portion which he assigned for your mother, but upon this ground and condition well attached, that, should you die without issue by lawful marriage, all those goods which we have granted to you shall come back, without any diminution, under the dominion of the holy Roman church; but should you leave behind you children lawfully recognised from your marriage, we give to you full power to hold the same effects as their owner, and without any condition, and to make free disposition of the same by will.

“Know you, therefore, that what we have thus, by this charter of manumission, enacted and granted to you, bind, without any gainsay, ourselves and our successors for its observance. For the order of justice and of reason requires that he who desires his own commands to be observed by his successors, should also doubtless observe the will and the statutes of his predecessor.

“We have dictated this writing of manumission to be copied by our notary Paterius, and have for its most perfect stability subscribed it with our hand, and with those of three of the more dignified priests and three deacons, and delivered them to you.

“Done in the city of Rome, &c.”

* * * * *

One of the subjects which at all times caused slavery to be surrounded with great difficulties was the result of marriage. The liability to separation of those married was a more galling affliction in the Christian law, where the Saviour made marriage indissoluble, and it often happened that an avaricious or capricious owner cared as little for the marriage bond as he did for the natural tie of affection. Hence, as Christianity became the religion of the state, or of the great body of the people, it was imperatively demanded that some restraint should be placed upon that absolute power which the owners sometimes abused, of wantonly making these separations. On the other hand, the association of the sexes made marriage desirable: it was ordained by God to be the general state of the bulk of mankind, and even the self-interest or the avarice of the master calculated upon its results. Then again the slave dreaded separation, not only because of the violence committed on the most sacred affections, but also because, though the husband and wife should be separated by impassable barriers, yet the bond of their union subsisted, and could be severed by death alone.

This was a strong temptation to both master and slave to prefer concubinage to wedlock.

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.

The following law concerning marriages and the separation of married persons from each other, and of children from their parents, is of the same date.

NOVELL. CLVII. De Rusticis qui in alienis prædiis nuptias contrahunt. Tit. xl.

Imp. Justin. August. Lazaro Comiti Orientis.

Præfatio. Ex his quæ diverso modo ad nos relata sunt, didicimus in Mesopotamiâ et Osdroenâ provinciis quidquam delinqui, nostris plane temporibus indignum: consuetudinem etiam apud ipsos esse, ut qui ex diversis originem trahant prædiis, nuptias inter se contrahant. Inde sane conari dominos, de facto jam contractas nuptias dissolvere, aut procreatos filios a parentibus abstrahere, exindeque totum ilium locum misere affligi, dum et rusticani viri et mulieres ex unâ parte distrahantur, et proles his adimitur, qui in lucem produxerunt, et solâ nostrâ opus esse providentiâ.

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.

Epilogus. Quæ igitur nobis placuerunt, et per sacram hanc pragmaticam declarantur fornam, eam providentiam habeto magnificentia tua, tibique obtemperans cohors, et qui pro tempore eundem magistratum geret; ut ad effectum deducantur conserventurque, trium librarum auri pœna imminenti ei, qui ullo unquam tempore hæc transgredi attentaverit. Dat. Kal. Maii, Constantinop. D.N. Justin. PP. Aug. Bisil. V.C. Cons.

* * * * *

“Of country persons who contract marriage on divers estates. The Emperor JUSTINIAN AUGUSTUS, to Lazarus the Count of the East.

“Preamble. We have learned by relation in various ways, that a delinquency quite unworthy of our times is allowed in the provinces of Mesopotamia and of Osdroene. They have a custom of having marriage contracted between those born on different estates: whence the masters endeavour to dissolve marriages actually contracted, or to take away from the parents the children who are their issue; upon which account that entire place is miserably afflicted, while country people, husbands and wives, are drawn away from each other, and the children whom they brought into light are taken away from them; and that there needs for the regulation only our provision.

“Chapter I. Wherefore, we enact, that otherwise the masters of the aforesaid keep their colonists as they will; but, it shall not be allowed, by virtue of any custom heretofore introduced and in existence, to put away from each other those who were married, or to force them to cultivate the land belonging to themselves, or to take away children from their parents, under the colour of colonial condition. And you will be careful that if any thing of this sort has haply been already done, the same be corrected and restitution made, whether it be that children were taken away from their parents or women from their consorts of marriage. And for any who shall in future presume to act in this way, it shall be at the hazard of losing the estate itself.

“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.

“Epilogue. That therefore which has been good in our view, and is declared by this sacred pragmatic form, let your magnificence provide to have carried into execution, and the cohort which obeys you, as also he who for the time being shall hold the same magisterial office. To the end, then, that this edict may produce its effect and continue in force, let him who may at any time violate its enactments be liable to a penalty of three pounds of gold.

“Given at Constantinople, on the kalends of May, our most pious lord Justinian being Augustus, and the most renowned Basil being consul.”

To rectify this, it became a principle, where an estate was large and the colonists numerous, to confine the choice of the servants within the bounds of the property; and thus marriage had its full sanctity, and families remained without separation.

We have an instance of the exercise of this right, by Pope St. Gregory, in a document found in lib. x. indic. v. epist. 28.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Romano Defensori.

De filiis Petri defensoris extra massam in qua nati sunt non jungendis.

Petrus quem defensorem fecimus, quia de massa juris ecclesiæ nostræ, quæ Vitelas dicitur, oriundus sit, experientiæ tuæ bene est cognitum. Et ideo quia circa eum benigni debemus existere, ut tamen ecclesiæ utilitas non lædatur: hac tibi præeptione mandamus, ut eum districte debeas admonere, ne filios suos quolibet ingenio vel excusatione foris alicubi in conjugio sociare præsumat, sed in eâ massâ, cui lege et conditione ligati sunt, socientur. In quâ re etiam et tuam omnino necesse est experientiam esse sollicitam, atque eos terrere, ut qualibet occasione de possessione cui oriundo subjecti sunt exire non debeant. Nam si quis eorum exinde, quod non credimus, exire præsumpserit; certum illi est quia noster consensus nunquam illi aderit, ut foris de massâ in quâ nati sunt, aut habitare aut debeant sociari, sed et superscribi terram eorum. Atque tunc sciatis vos non leve periculum sustinere, si vobis negligentibus quisquam ipsorum quidquam de iis quæ prohibemus facere qualibet sorte tentaverit.

* * * * *

“GREGORY to the Proctor Romanus.

“Of not marrying the children of Peter the Proctor, without the limits of the estate upon which they were born.

“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.”

* * * * *

Many of the restrictions on marriage that are found in subsequent ages, under the feudal system, had their origin in this principle, because indeed the vassal, in feudal times, was but a slave under a more loose dominion in a mitigated form.

The following document shows that, in the west, the separation of married persons was very uncommon, (quam sit inauditum atque crudele, unheard of and cruel.) It is found in lib. iii. indic. iii. ep. xii.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Maximiano Episcopo Syracusano.

De uxore cujusdam ablatâ et alteri venumdatâ.

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.

* * * * *

“GREGORY to Maximian, Bishop of Syracuse.

“Concerning the wife of some one that was taken away and sold to another.

“We are told of so many bad things done in that province, that we are led to believe, which may God forbid, the place must soon be destroyed.

“Now, the bearer of these presents complained to us in a pitiable manner, that many years ago, some man whom I know not, belonging to the church of Messina stood as his sponsor at baptism, and prevailed upon him by extreme urgency to marry his servant, by whom, he says, he has now young children, and whom now this man has violently taken away and sold to another. If this be true, you, our beloved, will see plainly how unheard of and how cruel is the evil. We therefore admonish you to look into and to sift so great a crime, with that earnestness which we assuredly know you have in matters of piety: and should you come to know that the fact is as the aforesaid bearer has stated, you will be careful not only to bring back to its former state that which was badly done, but you will quickly, by all means, have that punishment inflicted which may appease God. Give a severe lecture to the bishop that neglected to correct or to amend his people who do such things; setting before him that if a like complaint comes to us again of any one who belongs to him, canonical process for punishment shall issue, not against the one that shall have done wrong, but against himself.”

------------------

LESSON XIV.

The form of a deed of gift found in lib. ii. indic. xi. epist. 18:

GREGORIUS, Theodoro Consiliario.

Acosimum puerum dat per epistolam.

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.

* * * * *

“GREGORY, to Theodore the Counsellor.

“He, by letter, gives him the boy Acosimus.

“It is fit that they who labour for the benefit of the church should enjoy a reward from the church, that they who voluntarily and of their own accord have undertaken burthensome duties should be worthily assisted by our provision. Because, therefore, we have known that you, Theodore, our counsellor, a most eloquent man, were not well provided with the service of slaves, we have ordered that a boy, by name Acosimus, of the Sicilian nation, should be given up and delivered to your right and dominion. And as you already have him in your possession by delivery, upon our will, it was necessary to fortify you with the authority of this writing as a testimony to the future and for protection of the gift: so that by God’s protection you may have power to possess him as his lord and master, always securely for ever and without any question being raised of his being in any way taken back. Nor indeed do we believe that there is any one who would desire or would attempt in any way to revoke so small a bounty given to you for your devotion, since it would be shameful to undo the good deeds of our predecessors, as it would to teach others that each could from time to time make the revocation of his own gift.”

* * * * *

The next document is found in lib. x. indic. v. epist. 40:

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Bonito Defensori.

De mancipio Fortunati Abbatis.

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.

* * * * *

“GREGORY, to the Proctor Bonitus.

“Concerning the slave of the Abbot Fortunatus.

“Our son Fortunatus, the abbot of the monastery of St. Severinus which is in the city of Rome, directing his monks, the bearers of these presents to your neighbourhood, to gather slaves belonging to the rights of his monastery, who are said to be there in concealment, begged that he should have your aid for that object. Wherefore, we command you, by this present order, that you would be alert in giving them all reasonable concurrence and aid; so that you being present there and comforting them in this business, they may, with God’s aid, be able in a wholesome manner the sooner to perform the duty which has been laid upon them.”

* * * * *

The pope did not consider it unbecoming in the monastery of St. Severinus to hold slaves, nor irreligious for the abbot to send monks to bring back runaways, nor criminal for the monks to go looking for them, nor offensive to God, on his own part, to give letters to his officer and overseers to aid by all reasonable means to discover and to capture them.

The following document enters into details for the recovery of a runaway slave. It is found in lib. vii. ind. ii. epist. 107.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS Sergio Defensori.

De Petro puero fugâ lapso.

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.

* * * * *

“GREGORY, to the Proctor Sergius.

“Concerning Peter, a servant who fled away.

“Our son Occilianus, a highly respectable man, a tribune of the city of Otranto, brought with him to our cousin, as is known, when he was coming to us, a boy named Peter, a baker, who belonged to that cousin. We have now learned that he has run away, and returned to your country. Let then it be your care, experienced sir, before he shall be able to get back to Otranto, to direct, as quickly as you can, a writing to the bishop of Otranto, or to the foresaid tribune himself, or to any one else whom you know, that you can depute, to have a good care of the wife or children of the said slave, and to be very careful respecting himself, that as soon as he shall arrive he may be detained, and sent with every thing that pertains to him, by all means hither, embarking them on board a ship under care of some faithful person.

“You, experienced sir, will therefore exert yourself to do this with all attention and effect, so as not to displease us by a delay or neglect, which we should not desire.”

* * * * *

The following is taken from lib. viii. indic. iii. epist. 4.

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Fantino Defensori.

De mancipiis Romani spectabilis viri.

Mancipia juris Romani spectabilis memoriæ viri, qui in domo suâ guæ Neapoli sita est monasterium ordinari constituit, habitare in Siciliâ perhibentur. Et quia monasterium ipsum juxta voluntatem ejus, Deo auctore, noscitur ordinatum, experientia tua præsentium portitoribus, qui ad recolligenda mancipia ipsa illuc directi sunt, omni studio solatiari festinet, et recollectis eis, possessiones illi ubi laborare debeant, te solatiante, conducant. Et quidquid eorum labore accesserit, reservato unde ipsi possint subsistere, reliqua ad prædictum monasterium, experientiæ tuæ curâ, annis singulis, auxiliante Domino, transmittantur.

* * * * *

“GREGORY, to the Proctor Fantinus.

“Concerning the slaves of the honourable man Romanus.

“The slaves of the man of honourable memory, Romanus, who directed that his house in Naples should be formed into a monastery, are said to dwell in Sicily. And as it is known that, with God’s help, the monastery has been established according to the regulations of his will; you, experienced sir, will without delay use your best efforts to aid the bearers of these presents, who are sent thither, to collect those slaves: and when they shall be collected, let them hire lands under your countenance, where they may labour; keeping them out of their produce of labour, whatever may be necessary for their support; let the remainder, under the care of you, experienced sir, be sent, with God’s help, every year to the foresaid monastery.”

* * * * *

GREGORIUS, Vitali Defensori Sardiniæ.

De Barbaricinis mancipiis comparandis.

Bonifacium præsentium portitorem, notarium scilicet nostrum, nos experientia tua illuc transmisisse cognoscat, ut in utilitatem parochiæ Barbaricina debeat mancipia comparare. Et ideo experientia tua omnino et studio sesolliciteque concurrat, ut bono pretio, et talia debeat comparare, quæ inministerio parochiæ utilia valeant inveniri, atque emptis eis huc Deo protegente is ipse celerius possit remeare. Ita ergo te in hac re exhibere festina, ut te quasi servientium amatorem, quorum usibus emuntur, ostendas, et nobis ipsi te de tuâ valeant sollicitudine commendare.

* * * * *

“GREGORY, to Vitalis, Proctor of Sardinia.

“Of buying Barbary slaves.

“Know, experienced sir, that Boniface, our notary, the bearer of these presents, has been sent by us to your place to purchase some Barbary slaves for the use of the hospital. And therefore, you will be careful to concur diligently and attentively with him, that he may buy them at a good rate, and such as would be found useful for the service of the hospital. And that having bought them, he may, under the protection of God, very speedily return hither. Do you then be prompt to show yourself in this business so as to exhibit your affection for those who serve the hospital, and for whose use the purchase is made, and that they may have it in their power to commend you to us for your zeal in their regard.”

* * * * *

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.”

This is the first instance on record of the purchase of negro slaves by the church, and occurred about the year 600. At that time, white slaves cost less than the expense of importation from Africa.

In his sixth book, ep. 21, Gregory commands the priest Candidus, who was his agent in Gaul, to purchase four of the brothers of one Dominic, who complained to him that they were redeemed from their captors by Jews in Narbonne, and held by them in slavery.

The seventh book, ep. 22, to John, the bishop of Syracuse, is a very curious document. It recites the case of one Felix, who was a slave born of Christian parents, and given in his youth as a present to a Jew by a Christian owner: he served illegally during nineteen years the Jew who was disqualified from holding a Christian slave; but Maximinian the former bishop of Syracuse, learning the facts, had, as in duty bound, Felix discharged from this service and made free. Five years subsequently, a son of the Jew became, or pretended to become, a Christian, and being thus qualified to hold a Christian slave, claimed Felix as his property. Felix appealed to the pope, and the letter to the bishop of Syracuse is a decision in favour of his freedom, containing also an order to the bishop to protect him and defend his liberty.

------------------

LESSON XV.

We have heretofore, in our fifth lesson, noticed the doctrine of the church, that the civil power had the prerogative of making laws in regard to slavery; although, at that time, paganism may be said to have governed the world. And while we travel rapidly through the seventh century, finding the Roman Empire, the mistress of the world, now tottering to decay; the Lombards firmly established in Italy; the Franks in Gaul; the Goths in Spain; the Suevi in Portugal; and all Germany filled by various hordes, governed by their petty chieftains, just now showing some symptoms of civilization, and Christianity in the ascendant; yet we find this doctrine of the church unchanged.

The church may now be considered strong; and although the civil power is regarded as the legitimate legislative authority, yet, in no instance, are the laws found to run counter to the doctrines of the church on this subject.

In the precept of King Clotaire II. for endowing the abbey of Corbey, after the grant of the parcels of land therein recited, he adds, “unà cum terris, domibus, mancipiis, ædificiis, vineis, silvis, pratis, pascuis, farinariis, et cunctis appenditiis,” &c.—Together with the lands, houses, slaves, buildings, vineyards, woods, meadows, pastures, granaries, and all appendages.

And the abbey not only possessed the slaves as property, but by the same precept had civil jurisdiction over all its territory and all persons and things thereon, to the exclusion of all other judges.

The fourth council of Toledo, in 633, in its fifty-ninth canon, by the authority of King Sisenand and his nobles in Spain, restored to liberty any slaves whom the Jews should circumcise, and in the sixty-sixth canon, by the same authority, Jews were thenceforth rendered incapable of holding Christian slaves. The seventieth and the seventy-first canons regulated the process regarding the freed persons and colonists of the church, and the latter affixed a penalty of reduction to slavery for neglect of formal observances useful to preserve the evidence of title for the colonist. The seventy-second canon places the freed persons, whether wholly manumitted or only conditioned, when settled under patronage of the church, under the protection of the clergy.

The seventy-fourth allows the church to manumit worthy slaves belonging to herself, so that they may be ordained priests or deacons, but still keeps the property they may acquire, as belonging to the church which manumitted them, and restricts them even in their capacity as witnesses in several instances; and should they violate this condition, declares them suspended.

In the year 650, which was the sixth of King Clovis II., a council was held at Chalons. The canon begins with the announcement—

Pietatis est maximæ et religionis intuitus, ut captivitatis vinculum omnino à Christianis redimatur. Unde sancta synodus noscitur censuisse, ut nullus mancipium extra fines vel terminos qui ad regnum domini Clodovei regis pertinent, penitus, debeat venumdare; ne, quod absit, per tale commercium aut captivitatis vinculo, vel, quod pejus est, Judaicâ servitute mancipia Christiana teneantur implicita.

“It is a work of the greatest piety, and the intent of religion, that the bond of captivity should be entirely redeemed from Christians. Whence it is known to be the opinion of the holy synod, that no one ought, at all, to sell a slave beyond the dominions of our lord Clovis the king; lest, which God forbid, Christian slaves should be kept entangled in the chains of captivity, or what is worse, under Jewish bondage.”

In the tenth council of Toledo, celebrated in the year 656, in the reign of Receswind, king of the Goths, the seventh chapter is a bitter complaint of the practice, which still prevailed among Christians, of selling Christian slaves to the Jews, to the subversion of their faith or their grievous oppression.

In the year 666, a council was held in Merida, in Spain. The eighteenth canon of which allows that, of the slaves belonging to the church, some may be ordained minor clerks, who shall serve the priests as their masters with due fidelity, receiving only food and raiment.

The twentieth chapter complains of many irregularities in the mode of making freedmen for the service of the church, regulates the mode of making them, and provides for the preservation of the evidence of their obligation and the security of their service.

The twenty-first regulates the extent to which a bishop shall be allowed to grant gifts to his friends, the slaves, the freedmen, or 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.

The third council of Saragossa was celebrated in the year 691, in the reign of Egica, king of the Goths.

In Toledo, it had been enacted, that any freedman of the church, who did not comply with certain regulations, should lose his freedom and be reduced to slavery. One of the conditions was, that any person pretending to have been manumitted, or claiming as the descendant of a freedman, should, upon the death of the bishop, exhibit his papers to the successor of the deceased, within a year, or, upon his neglect, should be declared a slave. The object of this was to discern those who were partially free from the perfect slave, and to cause the former to preserve their muniments.

The fathers of Saragossa, however, discovered that some of the bishops, studying their own gain, had been too rigid in enforcing this law, and thereby reduced several negligent or ignorant persons to bondage; in order then to do justice, they enacted in their fourth chapter, that the year within which the documents should be exhibited should not commence to run until after the new bishop, subsequently to his institution, should have given sufficient notice to those claiming to be put in partial service, to produce their papers.

The sixteenth council of Toledo was held in the year 693. The fifth chapter of the acts, determining when a priest may hold two churches, has the following passage:

Ut ecclesia, quæ usque ad decem habuerit mancipia, super se habeat sacerdotem, quæ vero minus decem mancipia habuerit aliis conjungatur ecclesiis.

“That the church which shall have as many as ten slaves shall have one priest over it, but that one which shall have less than ten slaves shall be united to other churches.”

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 laws of Ina, king of the West Saxons, about the year 692, were made for the regulation of religion:

Servus, si quid operis patrârit die Dominico ex præcepto domini sui, liber esto, dominus triginta solidos dependito. Verum si id operis injussu domini sui aggressus fuerit, verberibus cæditor, aut saltem virgarum metum precio redimito. Liber, si die hoc operetur injussu domini sui, aut servituti addicitor, aut sexaginta solidos dependito. Sacerdos, si in hanc partem deliquerit, pœna in duplum augeator.

“If a slave shall do any work on the Lord’s day, by order of his master, let him become free, and let the master pay thirty shillings, (another copy adds, ‘ad witam,’ as a fine.) But, if he went to this work without his master’s command, let him be cut with whips, (another copy has ‘corium perdat,’ let him lose his skin,) or at least, let him redeem the fear of the scourge by a price. A freeman, if on this day he shall work without the order of his lord, let him be reduced to slavery, or pay sixty shillings. Should a priest be delinquent in this respect, his penalty shall be increased to double.”

In the eighth, the division of the weregild for the killing of a stranger:

Wallus censum pendens annuum, 120 solidorum æstimatur, filius ejus 100. Servus, alias 60, alias 50, solidis valere putatur. Wallus virgarum metum 12 solidis redimito. Wallus quinque terræ hydas possidens 600 solidis æstimandus est.

“A stranger paying a yearly rent is to be rated at 120 shillings, his son at 100. A slave at either 50 or 60, is a fair estimation. Let a stranger redeem his fear of whipping for 12 shillings. A stranger being in possession of five hydes of land is to be valued at 600 shillings.”

The seventeenth council of Toledo was celebrated in 694, in the reign of Egica. It was enacted—

Si quis servum proprium sine conscientiâ judicis occiderit, excommunicatione biennii sanguinis se mundabit.

“If any one shall put his own slave to death, without the knowledge of the judge, he shall cleanse himself the blood by an excommunication of two years.”

In the council of Berghamstead, near Canterbury, held in 697, under Withred, king of Kent, at which Gebmund, bishop of Rochester, was present, and where a sort of parliament also assembled and gave a civil sanction to the temporal enactments and penalties of the canons, several regulations were made concerning slaves. The Saxon MS. is the adoption of the canons into the common law of Canterbury, anti is entitled “The Judgments of Withred.”

The ninth canon in this collection is the following:

Si quis servum suum ad altare manumiserit, liber esto, et habilis sit ad gaudendum hereditate et wirigildo, et fas sit ei ubi volet sine limite versari.

“If any person shall manumit his servant at the altar, let him be free, and capable of enjoying inheritance and weregild, and let it be lawful for him to dwell where he pleases without limit.”

The tenth canon is:

Si in vesperâ præcedente diem solis postquam sol occubuit, aut in vesperâ præcedente diem lunæ post occasum solis, servus ex mandato domini sui opus aliquod servile egerit, dominus factum octoginta solidis luito.

“If on the evening preceding Sunday, after the sun has set, or on the evening preceding Monday, after the setting of the sun, a slave shall do any servile work by command of his master, let the master compensate the deed by eighty shillings.”

The eleventh:

Si servus hisce diebus itineraverit, domino pendat sex solidos, aut flagello cædatur.

“If a servant shall have journeyed on these days, let him pay six shillings to his master, or be cut with a whip.”

The thirteenth:

Si paganus uxore nesciâ diabolo quid obtulerit, omnibus fortunis suis plectatur et collistrigio. Sin et ambo pariter itidem fecerint, omnium bonorum suorum amissione ipsa etiam luat et collistrigio.

“If a villain, without the knowledge of his wife, shall have offered any thing to the devil, let him be punished by the loss of all his fortune and by the pillory. And if both did so together, let her also lose all her goods and be punished by the pillory.”

The English villain was the colonist of the European continent, and in the Speculum Saxonicum, lib. i. art. 3, his imperfect liberty is compared with the freeman. Also in Du Cange, Paganus, Pagenses, &c.

The fourteenth:

Si servus diabolo offerat, sex dependat solidos, aut flagro vapulet.

“If a slave offers to the devil, let him pay six shillings, or be whipped.”

The fifteenth:

Si quis servo carnem in jejunio dederit comedendam, servus liber exeat.

“If any one shall give his slave flesh-meat to eat on a fast-day, let the slave go out free.”

The sixteenth:

Si servus ex sponte suâ eam ederit, aut sex solidis aut flagello.

“If the slave shall eat it of his own motion, let the penalty be either six shillings or a whipping.”

After regulating the mode of declaration of swearing and of compurgation, for the king, the bishop, the abbot, the priest, the deacon, the cleric, the stranger, and the king’s thane, the twenty-first canon enacts—

Paganus cum quatuor compurgatoribus, capite suo ad altare inclinato, semet eximat.

“Let the villain deliver himself with four compurgators, with his head bowed down to the altar.”

The twenty-third:

Si quis Dei mancipium in conventu suo accusaverit, dominus ejus eum simplici suo juramento purgabit, si eucharistiam susceperit. Ad eucharistiam autem si nusquam venerit, habeat in juramento fidejussorem bonum, vel solvat, vel se tradat flagellandum.

“If any person shall accuse a slave of God in his convent, his lord shall purge him with a simple oath, if he shall have received the eucharist. But if he has never come to the eucharist, let him in his oath have a good surety to answer, or let him pay or give himself up to be whipped.”

The slave of God was one belonging to a monastery, of whom there appear to have been a good number in England, at that period, as well as on the continent. The previous canon had legislated for the bishop’s dependants as distinguished from the slave of the monastery.

The twenty-fourth canon is:

Si servus viri popularis servum viri ecclesiastici accusaverit, vel servus ecclesiastici servum viri popularis, dominus ejus singulari suo juramento eum expurgabit.

“If the slave of a lay person shall accuse the slave of a clergyman, or if the slave of a clergyman shall accuse the slave of a layman, let his master purge him by his single oath.”

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

Si quis eum occiderit, domino ejus dimidium pendito.

“If any one shall slay him, let him pay to his master one-half.”

In Germany, however, as yet, in most places paganism prevailed, and human sacrifices were offered. St. Boniface had been sent by the Holy See to endeavour to reclaim to religion and to civilization the nations or tribes that composed this undefined extent of territory. We find in a letter of Pope Gregory III., written in answer to his request for special instructions, about the year 735, the following paragraph:

Hæc quoque inter alia crimina agi in partibus illis dixisti, quod quidam ex fidelibus ad immolandum paganis sua venumdent mancipia. Quod ut magnopere corrigere debeas, frater, commonemus, nec sinas fieri ultra: scelus est enim et impietas. Eis ergo qui hæc perpetraverunt, similem homicidæ indices pœnitentiam.

“You have said that, among other crimes, this was done in those parts, that some of the faithful sold their slaves to pagans to be immolated. Which you should use all your power to correct, nor allow it to be done any more: for it is wickedness and impiety. Impose then upon its perpetrators the same penance as for homicide.”

------------------

LESSON XVI.

Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, governed the English church from 670 to 690, when he died. The following extracts are from his canonical regulations:

VII. Græci et Romani dant servis suis vestimenta, et laborant excepto Dominico die. Græcorum monachi servos non habent, Romani habent.

“The Greeks and Romans give clothing to their slaves, and they work except on the Lord’s day. The Greek monks have not slaves, the Romans have.”

XVII. Ingenuus cum ingenuâ conjungi debet.

“A free man should be married to a free woman.”

LXV. Qui per jussionem domini sui occiderit hominem, dies xl. jejunet.

“He who, by the command of his master, shall kill a man, shall fast forty days.”

The seventy-first prohibits the intermarriages of those slaves whose owners will prevent their living together.

The seventy-fourth regulates, that if a free pregnant-woman be sold into slavery, the child that she bears shall be free; all subsequently born shall be slaves.

LXXIX. Pater filium necessitate coactus in servitium sine voluntate filii tradat.

“A father, compelled by necessity, may deliver his son into slavery without the will of that son.”

LXXXIX. Episcopus et abbas hominem sceleratum servum possunt habere, si precium redimendi non habet.

“A bishop or an abbot can hold a criminal in slavery, if he have not the price of his redemption.”

CXVII. Servo pecuniam per laborem comparatam nulli licet auferre.

“It is not lawful for any one to take away from a slave the money made by labour.”

In the council of Verberie, held in a palace of King Pepin, the sixth canon made regulations in the case of marriage between free persons and slaves. The following are its provisions:

1. If any free person contracted marriage with a slave, being at the time ignorant of the state of bondage of that party, the marriage was invalid.

2. If a person under bond should have a semblance of freedom by reason of condition, and the free person be ignorant of the bondage, and this bond person should be brought into servitude, the marriage was declared originally void.

3. An exception was made where the bond person, by reason of want, should, with the consent of the free party, sell himself or herself into perfect slavery with the consent of the free party; then the marriage was to stand good, because the free party had consented to the enslavement, and profited of its gains.

The seventh canon would seem to show that a slave could hold property in slaves:

Si servus suam ancillam concubinam habuerit, si ita placet, potest illâ dimissâ comparem suam ancillam domini sui accipere: sed melius est suam ancillam tenere.

“If a man-servant shall have his own female slave as a concubine, he shall have power, if he wishes, leaving her, to marry his equal, the female servant of his master: but it is better that he should keep his own servant in wedlock.”

The eighth canon provided, in the case of a freedman who, subsequently to his liberation, committed sin with the female slave of his former master, that the master should have power, whether the freedman would or not, to compel him to marry that female slave; and should this man leave her, and attempt a marriage with another woman, this latter must be separated from him.

The thirteenth declares that when a freeman, knowing that the woman whom he is about to marry is a slave, or, not having known it until after marriage, voluntarily upon the discovery consents to the marriage, it is thenceforth indissoluble.

The nineteenth declares that the separation of married parties, by the sale of one who is a slave, does not affect the marriage. They must be admonished, if they cannot be reunited, to remain continent.

The twentieth provides for the case of a male slave freed by letter, (chartellarius,) who, having for his wife taken a slave with the lawful consent of her master, and leaving her, takes another as his wife. The latter contract is void, and the parties must separate.

Another assembly was held by King Pepin, in Compeigne, forty-eight miles north-east of Paris, where he had a country-seat. At this assembly also the prelates held a council in 757, and made eighteen canons. The fourth makes provision for the case of a man’s giving his free step-daughter in wedlock to a freeman or to a slave. The fifth declares void the marriage between a free person and a slave, where the former was ignorant of the condition of the latter. The sixth regards a case of a complicated description, where a freeman got a civil benefice from his lord, and takes his own vassal with him, and dies upon the benefice, leaving after him the vassal. Another freeman becomes invested with the benefice, and, anxious to induce the vassal to remain, gives him a female serf attached to the soil as his wife. Having lived with her for a time, the vassal leaves her, and returns to the lord’s family, to which he owed his services, and there he contracts a marriage with one of the same allegiance. His first contract was invalid, the second was the marriage.

In the year 772, a council was held in Bavaria, at a place called Dingolvinga, the present city of Ingolstadt, in the reign of Tassilo, duke of Bavaria. The tenth canon of this council decides that a noble woman, who had contracted marriage with a slave, not being aware of his condition, is at liberty to leave him, the contract being void, and she is to be considered free and not to be reduced to slavery. By noble we are here to understand free, as distinguished from ignoble, that is, a slave.

We have then sixteen amendments of the national law.

The first regulates, by the authority of the prince and consent of the whole assembly, that henceforth no slave, whether fugitive or other, should be sold beyond the limits of the territory, under penalty of the payment of his weregild.

In the second, among other things, it is enacted that if a slave should be killed in the commission of house-breaking, his owner is to receive no compensation; and should the felon who is killed in man-stealing, when he could not be taken, whether it be a freeman or a slave that he is carrying off, no weregild shall be paid by the slayer, but he shall be bound to prove his case before a court.

The seventh regards the trial by ordeal of slaves freed by the duke’s hand.

The eighth establishes and guards the freedom, not only of themselves, but of their posterity, of those freed in the church, unless when they may be reduced to slavery from inability to pay for damages which they had committed.

The ninth contains, among other enactments, those which explain the tenth canon of the council. After specifying different weregilds for freed persons, it says—

Si ancilla libera dimissa fuerit per chartam aut in ecclesiâ, et post hæc servo nupserit, ecclesiæ ancilla permanebit.

“Should a female slave be emancipated by deed or in the church, and afterwards marry a slave, she shall be a slave to the church.”

It then continues, respecting a woman originally free, and the nobilis of canon x.:

Si autem libera Bajoaria servo ecclesiæ nupserit, et servile opus ancilla contradixerit, abscedat.

“But if a free Bavarian female shall have married a servant of the church, and the maid will not submit to servile work, she may depart.”

Si autem ibi filios et filias generaverit, ipsi servi et ancillæ permaneant, potestatem exinde (exeundi) non habeant.

“But if she shall have there borne sons and daughters, they shall continue slaves, and not have power of going forth.”

Her freedom was not, however, immediately destroyed, for the law proceeds—

Illa autem mater eorum, quando exire voluerit, ante annos iii, liberam habeat potestatem.

“But she, their mother, when she may desire to go forth before three years, shall have free power therefor.”

In this case the marriage subsisted, but the free woman could separate, without however the marriage-bond being rent. If she remained beyond the time of three years, she lost her freedom; and it shows us that, probably, previous to this amendment, any free woman who married a slave, thereby lost her own freedom; and that the tenth canon, showing the marriage of which it treated to be invalid, showed that the woman should not lose her liberty. The concluding provision of the ninth law is as follows:

Si autem iii annos induraverit opus ancillæ, et parentes ejus non exadomaverunt eam ut libera fuisset, nec ante comitem, ducem, nec ante regem, nec in publico mallo, transactis tribus kalendis Martis, (Martu,) post hæc ancilla permaneat in perpetuum, et quicumque ex ea nati fuerint servi et ancillæ sunt.

“But if she shall have continued three years doing the work of a slave, and her relations have not brought her out so that she should be free, either before the count, or the duke, or the king, or in the public high court, (mall,) when the kalends of March shall have thrice passed, after this she shall remain perpetually a slave, and they who shall be born of her, male and female, shall be slaves.”

In 774, Pope Adrian I. delivered to Charlemagne a digest of canon law, then in force, in which we find—

“The third of Gangræ, condemning as guilty of heresy those who taught that religion sanctioned the slave in despising his master; the thirtieth in the African collection, which showed that the power of manumission in the church was derived from the civil authority; the one hundred and second of the same, which declared slaves and freed persons disqualified to prosecute, except in certain cases and for injuries done to themselves.”

In a capitulary of Charlemagne, published in such a synod and general assembly in 779, in the month of March, in the eleventh year of his reign, at Duren, on the Roer, (Villa Duria,) between Cologne and Aix-la-Chapelle, there being assembled episcopis, abbatibus, virisque illustribus, comitibus, unà cum piissimo domino nostro,—“the bishops, abbots, and the illustrious men, the counts, together with our most pious lord,”—we find the following chapter:

XX. De mancipiis quæ venduntur, ut in præsentiâ episcopi vel comitis sit, aut in præsentiâ archdiaconi, aut centenarii, aut in præsentiâ vicedomini, aut judicis comitis, aut ante bene nota testimonia. Et foras marcham nemo mancipium vendat. Qui fecerit, tantis vicibus bannos solvet, quanta mancipia vendidit. Et si non habet precium vivadio, pro servo semetipsum donet comiti, usquèdum ipsos bannos solvat.

“Concerning slaves that are sold, let it be in presence of the bishop, or of the count, or in presence of the archdeacon, or of the judge of the hundred, or in presence of the lord’s deputy, or of the judge of the county, or of well known witnesses. And let no one sell a slave beyond the boundary. Whosoever shall do so shall pay as many fines as he sold slaves. And if he has not the money, let him deliver himself to the count in pledge as a slave until he shall pay the fines.”

In a capitulary of Pope Adrian I., containing the summary of the chief part of the canon law then in force, as collected from the ancient councils and other sources, delivered to Ingilram, bishop of Metz, or, as it was then called, Divodurum, or oppidum Mediomatricorum, on the 19th of September, xiii. kalendas Octobris, indic. ix. 785, the sixteenth chapter, describing those who cannot be witnesses against priests, mentions not merely slaves, but quorum vitæ libertas nescitur, those who are not known to be free; and in the notes of Anthony Augustus, bishop of Tarragona, on this capitulary, he refers for this and another passage, viles personae, persons of vile condition, which is the appellation of slaves, to decrees of the earliest of popes, viz., Anacletus, A.D. 91, and Clement his immediate successor; Evaristus, who was the next, and died A.D., 109; Pius, who died A.D. 157; Calistus, in 222; Fabian, 250; and several others. In chapter xxi. among incompetent witnesses, are recited, nullus servus, nullus libertus—no slave, no freedman. The notes of the same author inform us that this portion of the chapter is the copy of an extract from the first council of Nice, and that it is also substantially found in a passage from Pope Pontianus, who died in 235, as well as in several of the early African and Spanish councils, which he quotes.

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.

In 794 a council was held at Frankfort on the Maine, at which the bishops of a large portion of Europe assisted; the twenty-third canon of which is the following:

De servis alienis, ut a nemine recipiantur, neque ab episcopis sacrentur sine licentiâ dominorum.

“Of servants belonging to others: they shall be received by no one, nor admitted to orders by bishops, without their masters’ license.”

In the year 697, at another assembly held at Aix-la-Chapelle, the capitulary for the pacification and government of Saxony was enacted by Charlemagne. The eighth chapter is—

Si quis hominem diabolo sacrificaverit, et hostiam in more paganorum dæmonibus obtulerit, morte moriatur.

“If any person shall sacrifice a man to the devil, and offer him as a victim to devils after the fashion of pagans, he shall be put to death.”

An explanation of this will be found where Pope Gregory III. answers St. Boniface, who informed him that unfortunate slaves were bought to be thus immolated.

XI. Si quis filiam domini sui rapuerit, morte moriatur.

“If any one shall do violence to his master’s daughter, he shall be put to death.”

XII. Si quis dominum suum vel dominam suam interfecerit, simili modo puniatur.

“If any one shall kill his master or his mistress, he shall be punished in like manner.”

XIV. De minoribus capitulis consenserunt omnes, ad unamquamque ecclesiam curtem et duas mansas terræ pagenses ad ecclesiam recurrentes condonent: et inter centum viginti homines nobiles et ingenuos, similiter et litos, servum et ancillam eidem ecclesiæ tribuant.

“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.”

In this newly settled ecclesiastical province the provision made for the support of religion consisted of land and slaves.

------------------

LESSON XVII.

Upon the ascension of Charlemagne to the imperial throne, the Roman Empire may date its extinction. But, in the reign of the Franks, in their succession to the throne of the western empire, we fail to find any change of doctrine on the subject of slavery. But the Lombards had long disturbed Italy: Charlemagne succeeded in reducing them to better order, and, in the year 801, amended their laws. One chapter assimilated to that of France and of Germany:

VI. De Aldionibus publicis ad jus publicum pertinentibus.

Aldiones vel Aldianes eâ lege vivant in Italiâ, in servitute dominorum suorum, quâ fiscalini vel liddi vivunt in Franciâ.

“Of the public Aldions, belonging to the public estate.

“The Aldions, or Aldians, shall in Italy exist upon the same principle in the service of their masters that the fiscals and lids do exist in France.”

The Aldions were bond-men or bond-women, whose persons were not at the disposal of their masters, nor did they pass with the land as colonists did, but their masters or patrons had certain claims upon stated services from them. They were generally either freed persons or the descendants of those who had been manumitted upon the condition of performing stipulated services; and if they failed to perform these, they were liable to be reduced to slavery. The lidus or liddus or litus of the Saxon was so called from being spared in the conquest, and left on the land, with the obligation of paying the master, who owned it and himself, a certain portion of its produce, and doing him other fixed services. Thus neither of them was an absolute slave whose person and property were at the owner’s disposal. The slave was manumitted, but this latter description of servants were generally released by deed or charter: hence, when so freed, they were called chartulani, chartellani, or “chartered.” The transition from slavery to this latter kind of servitude was, at the commencement of the ninth century, greatly on the increase.

VIII. De servis fugacibus.

Ubique intra Italiam, sive regius, sive ecclesiasticus, vel cujuslibet alterius hominis servus fugitivus inventus fuerit à domino suo sine ullâ annorum præscriptione vindicetur, eâ tamen ratione, si dominus Francus sive Alemannus, aut alterius cujuslibet nationis sit. Si vero Longobardus aut Romanus fuerit, eâ lege servos suos vel adquirat vel admittat, quæ antiquitùs inter eos constitutus est.

“Concerning runaway slaves.

“Wheresoever within the bounds of Italy, either the runaway slave of the king or of the church or of any other man shall be found by his master, he shall be restored without any bar of prescription of years; yet upon the provision that the master be a Frank or a German or of any other nation, (foreign.) But if he be a Lombard or a Roman, he shall acquire or receive his slaves by that law which has been established from ancient times among them.”

Here is evidence of the prevalent usage of the church holding property in slaves, just as commonly as did the king or any other person.

In the year 805, Charlemagne published a capitulary at Thionville, in the department of Moselle, France, (Theodonis villa.) In the chap. xi. we read—

De servis propriis vel ancillis.

De propriis servis et ancillis, ut non suprà modum in monasteria sumantur, ne deserentur villæ.

“Concerning their own male or female slaves.

“Let not an excessive number of their own male or female slaves be taken into the monasteries, lest the farms be deserted.”

This capitulary regards principally the regulation of monasteries.

St. Pachomius, who was born in Upper Egypt, in 292, and who was the first that drew up a regular monastic rule, would never admit a slave into a monastery. Tillemont, vii. p. 180.

In the year 813, a council was held at Chalons, the portions of whose enactments in any way affecting property or civil rights were confirmed by Charlemagne and made a portion of the law of the empire.

Many of the churches, especially in the country, were curtailed in their income and reduced to difficulties, because the bishops and abbots had large estates within their parishes, and many servants occupied in their cultivation, and the prelates prevented these servants paying tithes to the parish clergy, claiming for themselves an exemption from the obligation. The canon xix. is the following:

Questi sunt præterea quidam fratres, quod essent quidam episcopi et abbates, qui decimas non sinerent dari ecclesiis ubi illi coloni missas audiunt. Proinde decrevit sacer ille conventus, ut episcopi et abbates de agris et vineis, quæ ad suum vel fratrum stipendium habent, decimas ad ecclesias deferri faciant: familiæ vero ibi dent decimas suas, ubi infantes eorum baptizantur, et ubi per totum anni circulum missas audiunt.

“Moreover some brethren have complained, that there were some bishops and abbots who would not permit tithes to be given to those churches where colonists hear mass. Wherefore that holy assembly decreed, that, for those fields and vineyards which they have for their own support or that of their brethren, the bishops and abbots should cause the tithe to be paid to the churches. And let the servants pay their tithes to the church where their infants are baptized, and where during the year they hear mass.”

In this we have additional evidence of the fact that large bodies of land, and numerous servants attached to them, were held by bishops and abbots, not only for themselves, but for their churches and their monasteries. The canon xxx. is the following:

Dictum nobis est quod quidam legitima servorum matrimonia potestivâ quâdam præsumptione dirimant, non attendentes illud evangelicum: Quod Deus conjunxit, homo non separet. Unde nobis visum est, ut conjugia servorum non dirimantur, etiam si diversos dominos habeant: sed in uno conjugio permanentes dominis suis serviant. Et hoc in illis observandum est, ubi legalis conjunctio fuit, et per voluntatem dominorum.

“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.”

In the year 816, a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle, in which a large portion of the canon law then in force regarding the clergy was imbodied into one hundred and forty-five chapters. After the session of the council, the emperor published a capitulary containing thirty chapters; the sixth of which complains of the continued indiscretion of bishops in ordaining servants, contrary to the canons, and forbids such ordinations except upon the master’s giving full liberty to the slave. If a servant shall impose upon a bishop by false witnesses or documents of freedom, and thus procure ordination, he shall be deposed and taken back by his owner. If the descendant of a slave who came from abroad shall have been educated and ordained, where there was no knowledge of his condition, should his owner subsequently discover him and prove his property, if this owner grants him liberty, he may keep his clerical rank; but if the master asserts his right and carries him away, though the slave does not lose his character of order, he loses his rank, and cannot officiate. Should masters give servants freedom that they may be capable of ordination, it shall be in the master’s discretion to give or to withhold the property necessary to enable the person to get orders.

The archbishops are to have in each province the emperor’s authority in the original, to authorize their ordaining the servants of the church, and the suffragan bishops are to have copies of this original, and when such servant is to be ordained, this authority must be read for the people from the pulpit or at the corner of the altar. The like form was to be observed when any of the laity desired to have any servant of the church promoted to orders, or when the like promotion was petitioned for by the prior of a chapter or of a monastery. Lotharius, the emperor, published a capitulary in Rome, in 842.

In the third chapter of the first part, we find the following expression:

In electione autem Romani pontificis nullus, sive liber sive servus, præsumat aliquod impedimentum facere.

“Let no one, whether freeman or slave, presume to create any impediment in the election of the Roman pontiff.”

Which leads us to suspect that some slaves possessed considerable power or influence.

In the second chapter, fines are imposed for creating riots in any church. And the chapter concludes in the following words:

Et qui non habet unde ad ecclesiam persolvat, tradat se in servitio eidem ecclesiæ, usque dam totum debitum persolvat.

“And let him who has not the means of paying the church, give himself in servitude to that same church until he pays the whole debt.”

By the tenth chapter he restrained the power of manumission.

Quod per xxx annos servus liber fieri non possit, si pater illius servus, aut mater ancilla fuit. Similiter de Aldionibus præcipimus.

“That a slave whose father or whose mother was a slave cannot become free before thirty years of age. We order that the same shall be the case respecting Aldions.”

In the twelfth he states that these are but a continuance of the laws of his grandfather Charles and of his father Louis. And in tit. i. 12 of Ulpian, reference is made to a variety of enactments of the ancient Roman law, that a slave manumitted under the age of thirty could not be a Roman citizen except by a special grant of a court.

The thirteenth declares that free women who unite with their own slaves are in the royal power, and are given up, together with their children, to slavery among the Lombards.

The fourteenth enacts that a free woman who shall unite herself to the male slave of another, and remain so for a year and a day, shall, together with her children, become enslaved to her husband’s owner.

The fifteenth regulates that if the free husband of a free woman shall, for crime or debt, bring himself into servitude to another, and she not consent to remain with him, the children are free; but if she die, and another free woman, knowing his condition, marries him, the children of this latter shall be slaves.

A number of chapters are also on these records showing the insufficiency of servile testimony. Others provide against the oppression of poor freemen, so that they shall not be easily compelled to sell themselves into slavery.

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.

At this period of time, the piratical wars of the Northmen, who were perpetually making inroads on the rest of Europe, kept the whole of Christendom in commotion, and marked perhaps the darkest period of the dark ages.

------------------

LESSON XVIII.

UNCONNECTED FACTS.

In 1030, Peter, bishop of Girona, in Spain, came to Rome, and begged leave of the pope (John XIX.) to wear the pall twelve days in the year, promising to redeem thirty slaves then in captivity among the Saracens, provided his holiness granted him this request. It was readily granted. See Bower, vol. v. p. 153.

Shortly after the 30th October, 1051, Pope Leo IX., having visited Vercelli and Augsburg, returned to Rome, and held a council soon after Easter, in which he excommunicated Gregory, bishop of Vercelli, for committing adultery with a widow betrothed to his uncle. The bishop was absent when this sentence was given, but he flew to Rome as soon as he heard of it; and upon his promising to perform the penance that his holiness imposed upon him, he was absolved from the excommunication, and restored to the functions of his office. On that occasion the canons issued by other councils against the incontinence of the clergy were confirmed, and “some new ones were added, and, in order to check more effectually the scandalous irregularity of the Roman clergy in particular, it was decreed, at the request of the pope, that all women who should for the future prostitute themselves to the priests within the walls of Rome should be condemned to serve as slaves in the Lateran palace.” See Herman, ad an. 1051; also Bower, idem, p. 183.

By one of Constantine’s laws, they who ravished virgins or stole them, even with their consent, against the will of their parents, (with the view to make slaves of them or not,) were burned alive. Cod. Theodos. 1. ix. tit. 29, leg. 1. The severity of this law was somewhat mitigated by Constantius, but he still made it a capital offence. Ibid. leg. 2. It was upon this law, Pope Hadrian II. applied to the emperor for redress against Eleutherius, who had carried off his daughter Stephania by force, and married her, although she was betrothed to another. See Bower, idem, p. 11. We have a remarkable letter, written by Gregory VII., in January, 1080, in answer to one he had received from Vratislaus, duke of Bohemia, desiring leave to have Divine service performed in the Sclavonian tongue, that is, in the language of the country. That letter the pope answered in the following words:

“As you desire us to allow Divine service to be performed among you in the Sclavonian tongue, know that by no means can I grant your request, it being manifest to all, who will but reflect, that it has pleased the Almighty that the Scripture should be withheld from some, and not understood by all, lest it should fall into contempt, or lead the unlearned into error. And it must not be alleged that all were allowed, in the primitive times, to read the Scriptures, it being well known that in those early times the church connived at many things, which the holy fathers disapproved and corrected when the Christian religion was firmly established. He cannot therefore grant, but absolutely forbid, by the authority of Almighty God and his blessed apostle Peter, what you ask, and command you to oppose to the utmost of your power all who require it.” Greg. l. vii. ep. ii.; also Bower, idem, p. 279.

On the subject of the above letter, it should be remembered none spoke the Sclavonic at that day except the Sclavonians themselves; that the great mass of that people were slaves, either to some few individuals of their own nation, or to the other European nations, by whom they had been captured, or to whom they had been sold. They were a nation of slaves, and hence the Romans called their language Servian, from servus, a slave. There is still extant among the ancient German archives some account of the physical and moral appearance of this people, representing them as robust, filthy, faithless, and extremely wicked. They called themselves sclava or sclavas, &c., which word, in their language, implied an elevated distinction, and was in common use as a suffix to individual names, indicating that the person was highly elevated among his countrymen, as in this case, Vrati-Slaus—indicating the fact that Vrati was famous, elevated, a man of high and honourable distinction. Such men often held immense numbers of their less elevated countrymen in bondage. From the form and meaning of this suffix, some modern scholars have erroneously supposed it to have come from the Latin, laus. We may form some idea of the feelings of Pope Gregory VII., upon this application, by imagining what would have been the feelings of a Virginia legislature, fifty years ago, had some free African, then there, petitioned to have the laws published in Eboe, for the benefit of the slaves. In the above letter, the meaning of the assertion, “in those early times the church connived at many things which the holy fathers disapproved,” &c., at this late day is very liable to be misconceived. He does not allude to any thing said or done by Jesus Christ or his apostles, but to the action of his predecessors in the pontificate on this very subject. About the year 860, Pope Nicholas I. granted this very privilege to the Sclavonians in Moravia; and about ten years after, the same was renewed by Hadrian II., upon the request of St. Cyril, the apostle of the Moravians. See the Life of Cyril, (Latin,) page 22. And John VIII., in the year 882, confirmed the same, at the request of Sfento Pulcher, prince of Moravia, calling it the license granted by Pope Nicholas, “of saying the canonical hours and celebrating mass in their native language.”

“The Sclavonian language we justly commend,” says the pope in his letter to the prince, “and order the praise and the works of Christ our Lord to be celebrated in that tongue, being directed by Divine authority to praise the Lord, not in three only, but in all languages, agreeably to what we find in holy writ—‘Praise ye the Lord, all ye nations, and bless him, all ye people.’ The apostles announced the wonderful works of God in all languages,” &c., “and he who made the three chief languages, the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Latin, created all the rest for his praise and glory.” See Johan. ep. 247.

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.

“Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering, said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I may dig about it, and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.” Luke xiii. 7.

------------------

LESSON XIX.

Our English word war is of Saxon origin, (Sax. waer,) and from whence has also been derived many of the corresponding terms in the present European languages. Its primary sense implies the action of a competent power in accomplishing something. But, like many other words, its use has degenerated into various shades of meaning. The corresponding Greek term, palemos, from pallo, or its cognate, ballo, seems originally to have been illustrative of offensive and coercive action, and hence implies all the agitative and repulsive movement illustrated by our present word battle: whereas the Hebrew term, laham, cognate with Ham, on whose descendants the curse of slavery was pronounced by Noah, involves the idea of destruction, as a thing burned, consumed, devoured, and destroyed; hence the Hebrews would say, the sword devoured, that is, eats up, &c.; yet their term gerav, or kerab, boldly implied offensive and opposing force; hence, to advance upon, or, to approach unto, in which sense it was often used, as well as to imply conflict and war. We wish to illustrate the fact that, when the mind of a Hebrew was in exercise with the complex idea which we express by the term war, the conception embraced a larger portion of the simple elements which enter into the complex ideas of destruction, annihilation, and death, than is now found associated in the mind of the more highly cultivated descendants of the Caucasian races. In the idea war, with him, the leading sentiment was the extinction of those against whom the war was waged. Their doctrine, that God governed the world; that the Hebrews were his chosen people; that no war was justifiable unless authorized by Jehovah; that the object of war was to destroy from the earth those who were too wicked to live, or to place in subjection and servitude, those who manifested a less degree of stubbornness, but whose sins made them a nauseant, a nuisance, in the world; that God always governed a war in such a manner as rendered it a punishment for sins. Hence the law of Deut. xx. 13, 14, before quoted. Hence the wars of the Israelites are named as “the wars of the Lord,” Numb. xxi. 14. Hence, we find in Ex. xvii. 16, “The Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation,” and in the preceding verse, that “Moses built an altar and called it Jehovah-nissi.” The word nissi means the flag, standard, or banner of an army, indicating the centre of command, or the location and movement of the commander, and is sometimes used in the sense of example, or model of action, and by figure is also used to mean the commander or leader himself. And Joshua said unto them, “Fear not nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the Lord do to all your enemies whom ye fight.” Josh. x. 25. “He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.” 2 Sam. xxii. 35. Also the same, Ps. xviii. 34. “With good advice make war.” Prov. xxiv. 6. Ps. xviii. 37: “I have pursued mine enemies and overtaken them; neither did I turn again until they were consumed.” 38. “I have wounded them that they were not able to rise. They are fallen under my feet.” 39. “For thou hast girded me with strength unto the battle. Thou hast subdued under me those that rose up against me.” 40. “Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies; that I might destroy them that hate me.” 41. “They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not.” 42. “Then did I beat them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets.” 43. “Thou hast delivered me from the strivings of the people: and thou hast made me the head of the heathen: a people whom I have not known shall serve me,” (abedini, shall be slaves to me.) 44. “As soon as they shall hear of me, they shall obey me: the strangers shall submit themselves unto me.”

“O God the Lord, the strength of my salvation, thou hast covered my head in the day of battle.” cxiv. 7.

“Blessed be the Lord God of my strength, which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight.” cxliv. 1.

So the prophets: “A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth, for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations; he will plead with all flesh: he will give them that are wicked to the sword.” Jer. xxv. 31.

“And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thy arrows to fall out of thy right hand.

“Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and unto the beasts of the field, to be devoured. Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.” Ezek. xxxix. 3–5.

“At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amos, saying, Go, and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot: and he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

“And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;

“So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.” Isa. xx. 2, 3, 4.

And again, “The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Wo worth the day!

“For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day: it shall be the time of the heathen.

“And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations shall be broken down.

“Ethiopia (Cush) and Libya (Put) and Lydia (Ludim) and all the mingled (ereb, mixed-blooded) people, and Chub, (the Arabians read Nub, Nubia,) and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

“Thus saith the Lord: They also that behold Egypt (Mitsraim) shall fall; and the pride of her power shall come down: from the tower of Syene shall they fall in it by the sword, saith the Lord God.

“And they shall be desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted.

“And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I have set a fire in Egypt, (Mitsraim,) and when all her helpers shall be destroyed.

“In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless (betahh, confident of one’s own security, thoughtless, unconcerned, trusting in themselves) Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them: as in the day of Egypt, (Mitsraim:) for lo it cometh!

“Thus saith the Lord God, I will make the multitude of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

“He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.

“And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers. I the Lord have spoken it.

“Thus saith the Lord God: I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph: and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt.

“And I will make Pathros (a Coptic word signifying south land, &c.) desolate, and will set a fire in Zoan, (both Isoan and Isaan; it means a wanderer, &c. and was the name of a city at the mouth of the Nile,) and will execute judgments in No.

“And I will pour my fury on Sin, the strength of Egypt; and I will cut off the multitude of No.

“And I will set fire in Egypt: Sin shall have great pain, and No shall be rent asunder, and Noph shall have distresses daily.

“The young men of Aven and Pi-beseth shall fall by the sword: and these cities shall go into captivity.

“At Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: a cloud shall cover her, and her daughters shall go into captivity. Thus will I execute judgments in Egypt, (Mithraim, the same as Misraim, the son of Ham:) and they shall know that I am the Lord.” Ezek. xxx. 1–19.

And so Zeph. ii. 12: “Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword.” We shall take occasion to notice this passage elsewhere. And Joel iii. 8: “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Zephaniah iii. 8–10 may be said to develop the ultimate providence of God touching this matter:

“Therefore, wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

“For then I 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.

“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.

When a people or nation give evidence that they are insensible to all rules of right, either divine or human, it necessarily follows that their hand will be found against every man, and every man’s hand against them. The subjugation of such a people, so regardless of all law, can only end in their being put to death, or, in the more merciful provision of the divine law, by reducing them to a state of absolute slavery.

The experience of mankind proves that such heathen, so reduced to a state of bondage, have always given evidence that their moral and even physical condition has been ameliorated by it, and in proportion to the scrupulous particularity by which they to whom they were enslaved successfully compelled and forced them to walk in the paths of rectitude.

Ever since the world has been peopled by nations, none have ever hesitated to make war a protection to themselves against those who thus had become a nuisance in it. To such men, either individually or collectively, reason, justice, law are without effect or influence: nothing short of absolute compulsive force can avail them beneficially. And, indeed, it is upon this principle that civilized communities do essentially, in their prisons and by other mode of restraint, enslave, for life or a term of years, those who have proved themselves too reckless to be otherwise continued among them.

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.

In 1375, “the Florentines, entering into an alliance with the Visconti of Milan, broke unexpectedly into the territory of the Church, made themselves masters of several cities, demolished the strongholds, drove everywhere out the officers of the pope, and setting up a standard, with the word ‘Libertas’ in capital letters, encouraged the people to shake off the yoke and resume their liberty: at their instigation, Bologna, Perugia, and most of the chief cities in the pope’s dominions openly revolted, and, joining the Florentines, either imprisoned, or barbarously murdered those whom the pope had set over them. Gregory (XI.) was no sooner informed of that general revolt, and the unheard of barbarities committed by the Florentines, and those who had joined them, than he wrote to the people and magistrates of Florence, exhorting them to withdraw their troops forthwith out of the dominions of the Church, to forbear all further hostilities, to satisfy those whom they had injured, and revoke the many decrees they had issued absolutely inconsistent with the ecclesiastical immunity as established by the canons. As they paid no regard to the pope’s exhortations, he summoned the magistrates to appear in person, and the people by their representatives, at the tribunal of the apostolic see, by the last day of March, 1376, to answer for their conduct. The Florentines, far from complying with that summons, insulted the pope’s messengers in the grossest manner, and, continuing their hostilities, laid waste the greater part of the patrimony, destroying all before them with fire and sword.

“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.)

Again, in 1508 was concluded the famous treaty or league of Cambray, against the republic of Venice: that state had been long aspiring at the government of all Italy. The contracting parties were the pope, the emperor, the king of France, and the king of Spain; and it was agreed that they should enter the state of Venice on all sides; that each of them should recover what that republic had taken from them; that they should therein assist one another: and that it should not be lawful for any of the confederates to enter into an agreement with the republic but by common consent. The duke of Ferrara, the marquis of Mantua, and whoever else had any claims upon the Venetians, were to be admitted into this treaty. The Venetians had some suspicion of what was contriving against them at Cambray, but they had no certain knowledge of it, till the pope informed them of the whole. For Julius II., (then pope,) no less apprehensive of the emperor’s power in Italy than the French king’s, acquainted the Venetian ambassador at Rome, before he signed the treaty, with all the articles it contained, represented to him the danger that his republic was threatened with, and offered not to confirm the league, but to start difficulties and raise obstacles against it, provided they only restored to him the cities of Rimini and Faenza. This demand appeared to be very reasonable to the pope, but it was rejected by a great majority of the senate, when communicated to them by their ambassador; and the pope thereupon confirmed the league by a bull, dated at Rome, the 22d of March, 1508. The Venetians, hearing of the mighty preparations that were carrying on all over Christendom against them, began to repent their not having complied with the pope’s request and by that means broken the confederacy. They therefore renewed their negotiations with his holiness, and offered to restore to him the city of Faenza. But Julius, instead of accepting their offer, published, by way of monitory, a thundering bull against the republic, summoning them to restore, in the term of twenty-four days, all the places they had usurped, belonging to the apostolic see, as well as the profits they had reaped from them since the time they first usurped them. If they obeyed not this summons, within the limited time, not only the city of Venice, but all places within their dominions, were, ipso facto, to incur a general interdict; nay, all places that should receive or harbour a Venetian. They were, besides, declared guilty of high treason, worthy to be treated as enemies to the Christian name, and all were empowered “to seize on their effects, wherever found, and to enslave their persons.” (See Guicand, et Onuphrius in vita Julii II., et Raymund ad ann. 1509, and Bower, vol. vii. p. 379.)

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.

We ask permission to introduce a case on the North American soil, of somewhat later date. We allude to an act, or law, passed by the “United English Colonies, at New Haven,” in the year 1646, and approved and adopted by a general court or convention of the inhabitants of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield, in the year 1650. We copy from the “Code of 1650,” as published by Andrus, and with him retain the orthography of that day:

“This courte having duly weighed the joint determination and agreement of the commissioners of the United English Colonyes, at New Haven, of anno 1646, in reference to the indians, and judging it to bee both according to rules of prudence and righteousness, doe fully assent thereunto, and order that it bee recorded amongst the acts of this courte, and attended in future practice, as occasions present and require; the said conclusion is as follows:

“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.”

------------------

LESSON XX.

Under the term war, mankind have from time immemorial included those acts which the more enlightened nations of modern days have designated by the name of piracy, a word derived from the Greek peirao. The primary sense is to dare, to attempt, &c., as, to rush, and drive forward, &c.; used in a bad sense, as to attempt a thing contrary to good morals and contrary to law, and now mostly applied to acts of violence on the high seas, &c.; the same acts on land being called robbery, &c. These acts of violence have generally been founded on the desire of plunder, and in all ages have been recognised as good cause of war against those nations or tribes who upheld and practised them. Such piratical war has ever been considered contrary to the laws of God and repugnant to civilized life; and it may be with the strictest truth asserted that those nations and tribes of people whom God devoted to destruction, and also those of whom he permitted the Jews to make slaves, were distinguished for such predatory excursions. The first account we have of any such predatory war is found in Genesis. True, it is said, they had been subject to Chedorlaomer twelve years, and rebelled, but the manner in which he and his allies carried on the war leaves sufficient evidence of its character, even if they had not disturbed Lot and his household; and it may be well here remarked, that the original parties to this war were of the black races; in fact, progenitors of the very people who were denominated by Moses as the heathen round about.

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.

Up to the time of Charlemagne, the Northmen were excited to war, not alone by their love of liberty and a desire to extend their possessions, but also by their hatred to the Christians and their religion; and in the countries further north, this prejudice existed until a much later day. But we have only time to give an example of the character of their inroads on the peace and prosperity of Europe. Scotland had been early engaged in these conflicts. In June, 793, the Northumbrians were alarmed by a large armament on their coast. These barbarians were permitted to land without opposition. The plunder of the churches exceeded their expectations, and their route was marked by the mangled carcasses of the nuns, the monks, and the priests, whom they had massacred. Historians have scarcely condescended to notice the misfortunes of other churches than that of Lindesferne, which became a prey to these barbarians: their impiety polluted the altars; their rapacity was rewarded by its gold and silver ornaments. The monks endeavoured, by concealment, to elude their cruelty; the greater number were discovered and slaughtered. If the lives of the children were spared, they were sold into slavery. (See Lingard.) In 800, these Northmen made an irruption on the German coast, and carried off plunder and captives. They shortly visited France: a large party entered the Loire, and fixed permanent quarters in the island of Hero, and made their incursions thence. The French writers describe them as now pushing in upon their northern coasts, carrying off captives into slavery and loading their vessels with booty. In 841 they entered the Seine, sacked and burned the monastery of St. Ouen, of Jumieges, spared Fontenelle for a ransom, where the monks of St. Denys paid them twenty-six pounds of silver for sixty-eight captives. For nineteen days they ravaged both banks of the river. In 843, they again entered the Loire, took Nantes, when the city was filled by the inhabitants of the neighbouring country, celebrating the festival of St. John, who retired with the bishop and clergy to the cathedral. The gates were soon burst open, and a general slaughter ensued: loaded with booty and captives, they retired to their ships. In 844, they sailed up the Garonne, pillaged Toulouse, made an attempt on Gallicia in Spain, but were repelled by the Saracens. In 845, Ragner Lodbroy, one of their sea-kings, entered the Seine with twenty-six ships, and spread consternation through the land, leaving, in their rear, Christians hanging on trees, stakes, and even in their houses. They entered Paris, when Charles the Bald, by the advice of his lords, paid them seven thousand pounds of silver, and they swore by their gods to never re-enter his kingdom except by his invitation. They ravaged the seacoast on their return homeward, and were wrecked on the shores of Northumbria, where Ragner and the survivors recommenced to plunder. They were attacked by Aella, and Ragner slain. But a formidable fleet, under the command of Ragner’s sons, was soon on the coast of the East Angles, and marked their advances to Northumbria in lines of blood and ruin. Aella fell into their hands, and was put to death with untold torture. This incursion of Ragner is noticed by Voltaire, who says that Charles the Bald paid him fourteen thousand marks in gold to retire from France, and adds, in his “General History of Europe,” such payments to the Northmen only induced them to continue these piratical incursions. That these wars were most strictly piratical, not undertaken for the good of mankind, but for plunder alone, we beg here to introduce some proof from the early writers.

Adam of Bremen, who, about the year 1080, wrote his work entitled, “De Situ Danae et Reliquarum, Septentrionalium,” says of the city of “Lunden,” in the island Schönen—“It is a city in which there is much gold, which is procured by those incursions on the barbarous nations on the shores of the Baltic Sea, which are tolerated and encouraged by the king of Denmark on account of the tribute he draws from them.” In proof that Voltaire’s estimate of the influence of such payments to these northern pirates was just, we advert to their inroads on Ethelred. Soon after he ascended the throne, he was invaded by Sweyn, by some called Sitric, and Olave, and paid them sixteen thousand pounds. Ten years after, he was forced to pay these Northmen thirty thousand pounds, and then, at the expiration of only four years, forty thousand pounds more; each time the Northmen swearing by their gods to never trouble the country again. Yet, twelve years after the last payment, the crown and throne were transferred to Canute. We have an anonymous Latin author, a contemporary of Canute, who informs us to what use these pirate lords applied the vast sums thus procured. The book is entitled, “Emmæ Anglorum Reginæ Encomium,”—The Encomium of Emma, the Queen of England. She was the wife of Canute. Page 166, the author, describing the Danish ships, says—“On the stern of the ships, lions of molten gold were to be seen: on the mast-heads were either birds, whose turning showed the change of the wind, or dragons of various forms, which threatened to breathe out fire. There were to be seen human figures looking like life, glittering with gold and silver; dolphins of precious metals, and centaurs that brought to mind the ancient fables. But how shall I describe the sides of the ships, which swelled out with gold and silver ornaments! But the royal ship exceeded all the rest as far as the king in appearance exceeded the common soldiers or people.” This author, in the second book, describing the landing of the Danes, repeats and says—“The ships were so splendid that they seemed a flame of fire, and blinded the eyes of the beholders; the gold flamed on the sides, and silver-work was mingled with it. Who could look upon the lions of gold? Who on the human figures of electrum, (a mixture of gold and silver,) their faces of pure gold? Who on the dragons, gleaming with brilliant gold? Who could look on the carved oxen, that threatened death with their golden horns? Who could look on all these things and not fear a king possessed of so great power?” Jacobs’s “Inquiry into the Precious Metals” attributes the accumulation of gold and silver, of which we have seen a specimen among these northern barbarians, to the piracies of these people. Helmodus, in his Sclavonic Chronicles, (Chronican Sclavicum,) lib. iii., says the people of Denmark abounded in all riches, the wealthy being clothed in all sorts of scarlet, in purple and fine linen, (nunc non salum scarlatica vario grisio, sed purpurea et bysso induntur;) and he further adds, “that this wealth is drawn from the herring-fishery at the island of Schönen, whither traders of all nations resorting, bring with them gold, silver, and other commodities, for purchasing fish.” The fact was, that island became a place of great resort by these pirates for supplies. But we return to sketch these piracies:—In about the year 846, an immense body of Scandinavians ascended the Elbe with six hundred vessels under their king Roric. Hamburg was burned; they then poured down upon Saxony; but, having met with a defeat, and just then learning the fate of Ragner, sent messengers to Louis, king of Germany, sued for peace, and were permitted to retire from the country upon their giving up their plunder and releasing their captives. After leaving the Elbe, Roric went to the Rhine and the Scheldt, destroyed all the monasteries as far as Ghent, and the Emperor Lothaire, unable to subdue him, received him as his vassal and gave him a large territory. In 850, Godfrey, another chieftain, repulsed in an attack on England, sailed up the Seine, and, after some successes, obtained from King Charles a permanent location and territory about Beauvais. In 856, nearly all the coast of France, and to the interior as far as Orleans, was overrun. The churches were plundered, and captives carried away and enslaved. In Flanders, all the chief men and prelates were either slain or in slavery. These pirates circumnavigated Spain, amalgamated with the Moors of Africa; some entered the Gulf of Lyons, and committed depredations in Provence and Italy. All notions of peace, of justice, were wasting away, and the laws of the monarchs and the canons of the councils began to exhibit the ruins of morality. In 861, the Seine is again infested, and Paris terrified. In 883, they poured themselves on both sides of the Rhine, as high as Coblentz, where the Emperor Charles made a treaty with Godfrey and gave him the duchy of Friesland. France was so much overrun by the pagans, that thousands of Christians, to escape death or bondage, publicly renounced their religion and embraced the pagan rites; and not long after, Rollo, the grandfather of William the Conqueror, at the head of his Scandinavian bands, took possession and held the dukedom of Normandy, and forced Charles the Simple to bestow him Gisla his daughter in marriage. In England, Alfred, placing himself at the head of his faithful followers, subdued the Danes, who had overrun his kingdom; and many of them, embracing the Christian religion, were adopted as subjects of the realm. In 893, a fleet of three hundred and thirty sail rendezvoused at Boulogne, under the command of Hastings, for the avowed purpose of conquering for himself a kingdom in Britain. Three years he contended against Alfred, who eventually subdued him, but restored to him all the captives upon his promise to leave the island for ever.

Nor did Ireland escape the ravages of the Northmen. In 783, they landed in the extreme north of the island, and burned the town and abbey of Dere Columb-kill, the Londonderry of more modern times. Here the Hydaher-teagh, the chiefs of the oak habitations, (the O'Dougherty’s of a latter day,) secured the record of their name in the “Book of Howth.” But here the Tuatha De Danaan, the Darnii of Ptolemy, washed out even the history of their race in the blood of battle.

In 790, the Danes made a general assault upon this devoted island: in 797, wasted the island of Ragulin, devastated Holm Patrick, and carried away captives, among whom was the sister of St. Findan, and, shortly after, the saint himself. In 802, they burned the monastery of Hy: in 807, destroyed Roscommon, ravaged the country, and made captives and slaves. In 812, they again burned Londonderry and its abbey; massacred the students and the clergy; nor did they relax their attacks upon the north of the island until, twenty years after, they were driven from the place by Neil Calne, with most incredible slaughter. But yet the whole island was infested by these northern marauders.

In 812, the Irish made a more determined resistance, and the Northmen, after three defeats, escaped from the island. But, in 817, Turgesius, with a large force, overran a large portion of the island, and a large portion of the clergy, monks, and nuns were massacred, and many of the inhabitants taken into captivity.

In 837, two large additional fleets arrived; one entered the Boyne, and the other the Liffy. The masses which they poured upon the country spread in all directions, committing every kind of excess.

In 848, Olchobair McKinde, king of Munster, uniting his troops with those of Dorcan, king of Leinster, was encouraged by a succession of victories over the pagans; yet the archbishop of Armagh and seven hundred of his countrymen were made captive, and sent by Turgesius to Limerick as slaves. But Melseachlin, king of Ireland, defeated Turgesius and put him to death. The Irish now arose on every side and drove the barbarians from the country. But yet, in 850, Dublin was invaded by a band of Northmen, whom the Irish denominated Fin-gal, or white strangers, and by another body, called Dubh-gal, or black strangers, who took possession of Leinster and Ulster, and ravaged the country. In 853, a sea-king, named Amlave, Auliffe, or Olave, from Norway, with two brothers, Sitric and Ivor, with large additional forces, arrived, and was acknowledged chief of all the Northmen in the islands. He took possession of Dublin, Limerick, and Waterford, which he enlarged and improved, as if their possession was to be perpetual. But war not only raged between them and the Irish, but the Irish and Danes were in perpetual conflict, different parties of Danes with one another, and discord and strife were constant among the Irish themselves. Carnage and bloodshed, captivity and slavery everywhere covered the island.

In 860, Melseachlin, the king, defeated Auliffe with great slaughter; but, recovering strength, he plundered and burned Armagh, and took a large number of captives, who were sent away for slaves. In 884, Kildare was plundered, and more than 300 sent away for slaves. In 892, Armagh was again captured, and 800 captives sent to the ships. But, in quick succession, Carrol, with Leinster forces, and Aloal Finia, with the men of Bregh, defeated the Danes and retook Dublin, while in other parts of the island the Northmen suffered great reverses; but in 914 we find them again returned and in possession of Dublin and Waterford, but quickly put to the sword by the Irish. Another division succeeded to plunder Cork, Lismore, and Aghadoe; and, in 916, were again in Dublin, ravaged Leinster, and killed Olioll, the king. In 919, they were attacked near Dublin by Niell Glunndubh, king of Ireland. Their resistance was desperate, under the command of the chiefs Ivor and Sitric: here fell the Irish monarch, the choice nobility, and the flower of the army. Donough revenged the death of the king, his father, and the barbarians were again signally defeated; but we find them, in 921, under the command of Godfrey, their king, in possession of Dublin, marching to and plundering Armagh, and, for the first time, sparing the churches and the officiating clergy. A predatory war, without decisive encounters, was continued for more than twenty years, when they suffered two severe defeats from Cougall II, in which their king, Blacar, and the most of his army were slain. In——but the mind sickens, tires at these recitals; a whole army is swept away, and, as if the ocean poured twice its numbers on shore, whole centuries gave no relief. In short, we have a continuation of these scenes of piratical war, until the power and spirit of this restless race of the Northmen were broken at Clontarf, near Dublin, on the 23d of April, 1014, where they suffered an irrecoverable defeat from the Irish, under the command of Brian Boroimhe.

Ireland did well to rejoice in the perfect overthrow of these ruthless invaders; but here fell Brian, whom ninety winters had only nerved for the conflict. Here fell his son Morogh, and his grandson Turlogh, personifications of the rage of battle; here fell a numerous, almost the entire, nobility; here fell Ireland’s valiant warriors in unnumbered heaps. The voice of Ireland is yet sometimes heard, but it is the voice of a broken heart; of complaint, of weakness, of weeping, and sadness. In a review of these times and those that followed, the providence of God may be traced by its final development. Where no mercy was, it is infused by hope of gain; and the savage and the captured slave are led to an equal elevation in the service of the altar of the God Jehovah.

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.

------------------

LESSON XXI.

The condition of the slave, throughout the whole of Europe, was attended with some circumstances of great similarity.

The slaves were generally of the same nation, tribe, and people, who formed a constituent portion of the free population of the country where they were, and always of the same colour and race. Even the Sclavonians, on the continent, formed no exception in the more northern parts of Europe. In short, slavery, as it existed in Europe, was only in a very few instances in the south marked by any radical distinction of race: consequently, the condition of the slave could never be as permanent and fixed as it ever must be where strong distinctions of race mark the boundaries between bondage and freedom—although often far more cruel.

The disgrace of the free, from an amalgamation with the slaves, did not proceed from any consideration as to race, but merely from the condition of the slave—more pointed, but somewhat analogous to the disgrace among the more elevated and wealthy, arising from an intermarriage with the ignorant, degraded, or poor. Influenced by such a state of facts, the particulars of his condition were liable to constant change, as affected by accident, the good or ill conduct of the individual slave, the sense of justice, partiality, fancy, or the wants and condition of the master; nor needed it the talent of deep prophecy to have foretold that such a state of slavery must ultimately eventuate in freedom from bondage.

A description of the slaves of Britain will give a general view of those of the continent, for which we refer to Dr. Lingard.

The classes whose manners have been heretofore described constituted the Anglo-Saxon nation. They alone were possessed of liberty, or power, or property. But they formed but a small part of the population, of which not less than two-thirds existed in a state of slavery.

All the first adventurers were freemen; but in the course of their conquests, made a great number of slaves. The posterity of these men inherited the lot of their fathers, and their number was continually increased by freeborn Saxons, who had been reduced to the same condition by debt, or made captives in war, or deprived of liberty in punishment of their crimes, or had voluntarily surrendered it to escape the horrors of want.

The ceremony of the degradation and enslavement of a freeman was performed before a competent number of witnesses. “The unhappy man laid on the ground his sword and his lance, the symbols of the free, took up the bill and the goad, the implements of slavery, and falling on his knees, placed his head, in token of submission, under the hands of his master.”

All slaves were not, however, numbered in the same class. In the more ancient laws we find the esne distinguished from the theow; and read of female slaves of the first, the second, and third rank. In later enactments we meet with borders, cocksets, parddings, and other barbarous denominations, of which, were it easy, it would be useless to investigate the meaning. The most numerous class consisted of those who lived on the land of their lord, near to his mansion, called in Saxon his tune—in Latin, his villa. From the latter word they were by the Normans denominated villeins, while the collection of cottages in which they dwelt acquired the name of village. Their respective services were originally allotted to them according to the pleasure of their proprietor. Some tilled his lands, others exercised for him the trades to which they had been educated. In return, they received certain portions of land, with other perquisites, for the support of themselves and their families.

But all were alike deprived of the privileges of freemen. They were forbidden to carry arms. Their persons, families, and goods of every description were the property of their lord. He could dispose of them as he pleased, either by gift or sale: he could annex them to the soil, or remove them from it: he could transfer them with it to a new proprietor, or leave them by will to his heirs.

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.

------------------

LESSON XXII.

All historians agree that the Sclavonians, who at an early age made their appearance on the north-eastern borders of Europe, came, a countless multitude, pouring down upon those countries from the middle regions of Asia.

The precise place from which they originated, the causes of such emigration, and the successive impulses that pushed them westward, have now, for centuries, been buried beneath the rubbish of the emigrants themselves and the general ignorance that overspread the events of that age.

But there are some facts that assign to them a place among the Hindoo tribes. Brezowski, speaking the Sclavonic of his day, in his travels eastward, was enabled to understand the language of the country as far east as Cochin-China; and scholars of the present day find numerous Indian roots in this language. A similarity of religious rites is to be noticed between the ancient Sclavonians and the Hindoos. They burned their dead, and wives ascended the funeral piles of their husbands. Their principal gods were Bog, and Seva, his wife. They worshipped good spirits called Belbog, and bad spirits called Czarnebog.

These hordes overspread the countries from the Black Sea to the Icy Ocean; and, in their turn, were forced westward by similar hordes of Wends, Veneti, Antes, Goths, and Huns. Thus attacked and pushed in the rear, they poured themselves upon the inhabitants of the more western regions, who, more warlike, and with superior arms, put them to death by thousands, until the earth was covered with the slain. Thus fleeing from death, they met it in front, until the nations then occupying the north and east of Europe, satiated and sickened by their slaughter, seized upon their persons as slaves, and converted them into beasts of burden. Their numbers exceeding every possible use, the captors exported them to adjoining countries as an article of traffic; and the Venetians, being then a commercial people, enriched themselves by this traffic for many years. All continental Europe was thus filled by this race, from the Adriatic to the Northern Ocean. Thus their national appellation became through Europe the significant term for a man in bondage; and although in their own language their name signified fame and distinction, yet in all the world besides, it has superseded the Hebrew, the Greek, and Roman terms, to signify the condition of man in servitude. Thus the Dutch and Belgians say slaaf; Germans, sclave; Danes, slave and sclave; Swedes, slaf; French, esclave; the Celtic French, &c., sclaff; Italians, schiavo; Spanish, esclavo; Portuguese, escravo; Gaelic, slabhadh; and the English, slave.

Nor was this signification inappropriate to their native condition. For these countless hordes were the absolute property of their leaders or kings, who were hereditary among them,—as was, also, their condition of bondage.

The Romans called their language Servian, from the Roman word servus, a bond-man; and from the same cause, also, a district of country low down on the Danube, Servia, which name it retains to this day. This country belongs to Turkey, from whence they took the name serf. This term has been borrowed from thence, by the Sclavonic Russians, to signify a man in bondage. The whole number of their descendants is now estimated at 100,000,000; and notwithstanding their amalgamation has identified them with the nations with whom they were thus intermingled, yet a thousand years have not ended their condition of bondage in Russia, and 40,000,000 are accounted only as an approximation to the number that still remain in servitude in the north of Europe and Asia.

“The unquestionable evidence of language,” says the author of the Decline and Fall, “attests the descent of the Bulgarians from the original stock of the Sclavonian, or more properly Slavonian, race; and the kindred bands of Servians, Bosnians, Rascians, Croatians, Walachians, followed either the standard or example of the leading tribes, from the Euxine to the Adriatic, in the state of captives, or subjects, or allies, or enemies; in the Greek empire, they overspread the land: and the national appellation of the SLAVES has been degraded by chance or malice from the signification of glory to that of servitude. Chalcocondyles, a competent judge, affirms the identity of the language of the Dalmatians, Bosnians, Servians, Bulgarians, Poles, (De Rebus Turcitis, 1. x. p. 283,) and elsewhere of the Bohemians, (1. ii. p. 38.) The same author has marked the separate idiom of the Hungarians.

See the work of John Christopher de Jordan, De Originibus Sclavicis, Vindobonæ, 1745, in four parts. Jordan subscribes to the well-known and probable derivation from slava, laus, gloria, a word of familiar use in the different dialects and parts of speech, and which forms the termination of the most illustrious names. De Originibus Sclavicis, part i. p. 40, part iv. p. 101, 102.

This conversion of a national into an appellative name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the oriental France, where the princes and bishops were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian (exclaims Jordan) but of Sorabian race. From thence the word was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even to the style of the last Byzantines. (See the Greek and Latin Glossaries of Ducange; also Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. iv. p. 38.)

The Moors, with whom the early Christians in the south of Europe had so many and frequent contentions, at this day differ from all the other African races, in their physical and mental development;—in person, black, with the straight hair of the Arab, whom they exceed in stature and intellect.

The Arabs are admitted to be an amalgamation of the descendants of Shem, of Canaan, and Misrain. Into the particulars of their admixture, it will be as useless to inquire as it would be into the paternity of the goats on their mountains.

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.

To the foregoing, digested from Hiempsal, as given by Sallust, we may add:—To this amalgamation was also adjoined, from time to time, large parties of adventurers from the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and from almost every part of Europe, which were all absorbed by the native masses; and between the years 850 and 860, large masses of the Scandinavian hordes were also absorbed into this general amalgam of the races of man.

The instances of slavery, and the laws and customs of the church regulating it, as presented in this study, with few exceptions, have pointed to the case where the white races have been enslaved or have enslaved one another; where no strongly marked physical impediment has branded amalgamation with deterioration and moral disgust; nor is it thought necessary to present an argument to prove that, under such a state of facts, the condition of Europe at the present moment is in strict conformity with the result produced by the unchangeable laws of God touching the subject.

God always smiles upon the strong desire of moral and physical improvement. Had Europe remained under deteriorating influences which determined her moral and physical condition two thousand years ago, her condition as to slavery could not have changed. Nor is it seen that she is yet in so highly favoured a condition as to call upon her the providence of God, charging her with the pupilage of the backslidden nations of the earth.

------------------

LESSON XXIII.

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.

Dan. viii. 9: “And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great towards the south, and towards the east, and towards the pleasant land. 10. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. 11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 12. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground, and it practised and prospered. 23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and holy people. 25. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”

Dan. xi. 40: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him, and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships, and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.”

Of the language used by this prophet, it is proper to remark that there are many variations from the more ancient Hebrew, both as to form of expression and the particular words used, among which Arabicisms and Aramacisms are quite common. Faber supposes that this remarkable vision relates to the history of Mohammedanism: no previous theory has been satisfactory to the Christian world, and it is now generally believed that he has suggested a correct interpretation. We may therefore be allowed to follow him in considering it as descriptive of the rise and progress of that religion.

Mohammed was born at Mecca. His education was contracted, and his younger days devoted to commercial and warlike pursuits. By his marriage with the widow of an opulent merchant, he rose to distinction in his native city. For several years he frequently retired into the cave of Hera and cherished his enthusiastic sentiments, till, at the age of forty, he stated that he had held communication with the angel Gabriel, and was appointed a prophet and apostle of God. In 612, he publicly announced to his relations and friends that he had ascended through seven heavens to the very throne of Deity, under the guidance of Gabriel, and had received the salutations of patriarchs, prophets, and angels. This monstrous statement, however, did not succeed, except with a very few; and on the death of his uncle Abn Taleb, who had been his powerful protector, he was compelled, in 622, to seek security by flight to Medina. This henceforth became the epoch of Mohammedan chronology; his power was more consolidated, and his influence extended by a large accession of deluded, but determined followers. He very soon professed to have received instructions from the angel Gabriel to propagate his religion by the sword; and power made him a persecutor. In seven years he became the sovereign of Mecca, and this led to the subjugation of all Arabia, which was followed by that of Syria. In less than a century from the period of its rise in the barren wilds of Arabia, the Mohammedan religion extended over the greater part of Asia and Africa, and threatened to seat itself in the heart of Europe.

The unity of God was the leading article of Mohammed’s creed. When addressing the Jews, he professed highly to honour Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, and admitted, for the sake of conciliating Christians, that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, and will be the judge of all. This compromising policy is seen in the Koran.

Mohammedan morals enforce many principles of justice and benevolence, and inculcate a degree of self-denial, but, at the same time, permit the indulgence of some of the strongest passions of our nature. The representations given of paradise are adapted to gratify the sensuality of men,—and of hell, to awaken their fears of disobeying the Koran or the prophet. “Eastern Christendom,” says Mr. Foster, “at once the parent and the prey of hydra-headed heresy, demanded and deserved precisely the inflictions which the rod of a conquering heresiarch could bestow. The king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, well expresses the character of Mohammed and his religion.” “Mohammed,” says Gibbon, “with the sword in one hand, and the Koran in the other, erected his throne on the ruins of Christianity and of Rome. The genius of the Arabian prophet, the manners of his nation, and the spirit of his religion involve the causes of the decline and fall of the Eastern empire, and our eyes are curiously intent on one of the most memorable revolutions which impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe.”

His first efforts were directed against the Jews, who refused to receive Mohammed’s effusions as the revelations of heaven, and, in consequence, suffered the loss of their possessions and lives.

“When Christian churches,” says Scott, “were converted into mosques, the ‘daily sacrifice’ might be said to be taken away,” (viii. 11, 12,) and the numbers of nominal Christians who were thus led to apostatize, and of real Christians and ministers who perished by the sword of this warlike, persecuting power, fulfilled the prediction that he cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped on them. It is said that “a host was given him against the daily sacrifice,” (or worship of the Christian church, corresponding with the Jewish sanctuary,) “by reason of transgression.” A rival priesthood subverted the priesthood of a degenerate church. The imams of Mohammed assumed the place of the apostate teachers of Christianity. The event here predicted was to occur in the latter part of the Grecian empire, (ver. 23,) “when the transgressors are come to the full.”

History relates that the remains of the Eastern empire and the power of the Greek church were overthrown by Mohammedans. Their chief endeavoured to diffuse his doctrine, but found that it could not prevail by “its own power,” or the inherent moral strength of the system: it was requisite to support his pretensions by “craft” and “policy.” Mohammed sanctioned as much of the inspired Scriptures as he thought might tend to obviate the prejudices of the Jews, and incorporated as much of his own system with the errors of the Eastern church as might tend to conciliate Greek Christians.

“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.

“And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps,”—a form of speech as clearly indicating the condition of slavery as though ever so broadly asserted. The Hebrew word here translated “at his steps,” בְּמִצְעָדָיו in his footsteps, &c., i. e. attached or subjected to his interests as slaves, is cognate with the Arabic word مِصعادٌ metsuad, and means the chains by which the feet of captive slaves are bound, and in Hebrew form this word is used in Isa. iii. 20, צְעָדוֹת֙ tseadoth. The whole passage is strictly an Arabicism, and is to be construed, with reference to that language, chain for the legs. Of this passage, Adam Clark says, “Unconquered Arabs all sought their friendship, and many of them are tributary to the present time.” Some commentators seem to understand this passage to mean only that Libyans and Ethiopians would be in courteous attendance, &c. If so, the Hebrew would have read, as in Judg. iv. 10, רֶגּל regel. “And he went up with ten thousand men at his feet.” This passage, foretelling the slavery of the Ethiopians to the Mohammedans, may well be compared with Isa. xlv. 14, announcing the slavery of the same people to those of the true religion. “Thus saith the Lord, the labour of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee, in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee; they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God” beside.

------------------

LESSON XXIV.

In reflection upon the leading ideas that present themselves in the review of the subjects of this study, we may notice that slavery has been introduced to the world as a mercy in favour of life. That, in its operation, its general tendency is to place the weak, deteriorated, and degraded under the control and government of a wisdom superior to their own; from whence the intellectual, moral, and physical improvement of the enslaved, to some extent, is a consequence as certain as that cause produces its effect.

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.

The want of a less affectionate regard in the master towards the slave is supplied and secured to the safety of the slave by the increased watchfulness of the master over the slave from the consideration that the slave is his property. For where affection cannot be supposed sufficiently strong to stimulate a calm and wise action, interest steps in to produce the effect.

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.

If in the course of these Studies we shall not have shown that slavery as it exists in the world is commanded by “reason” and the laws of “nature,” we shall have laboured in vain; and even now an array of battle is formed, and our enemy has chosen human “reason” for the “bolt of Jove,” as wrought from strands of Northern colds, Southern heats, and Eastern winds; in their centre, bound by cloudy fears and avenging fires; for their ægis, “the laws of nature” supply Minerva’s shield, upon which fanaticism has already inscribed its government over thirty States, far exceeding in purity, they think, that of the God of Israel. And we have come up to the war!—armed neither with the rod of Hermes nor the arrows of Latona’s son; but with a word from him of Bethlehem: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.”

------------------------------------

Study V.

------------------

LESSON I.

The inquirer after truth has two sources by which he can arrive at some knowledge of the will of God:—1st. By faith and revelation; 2d. By the observance of the facts uniformly developed in the material and moral world. The accuracy of his knowledge will be coincident with the accuracy of the mental perceptions and the extent of the research of the inquirer.

In the Bible he will find the declarations of God himself: some of them are express, and some of them implied.

In the second place, he may discover the will of God from the arrangement of his works as manifested in the visible world. Some call this the light of nature; others the laws of nature. But what do they mean other than the light and laws of God? Are not the laws of gravitation as much the laws of God as they would be if set down in the decalogue, although not as important to man in his primary lessons of moral duty?

Let us view the forest as planted by the hand of God: we see some trees made to push their tall boughs far above the rest; while others, of inferior stem and height, seem to require the partial shade and protection of their more lofty neighbours; others, of still inferior and dwarfish growth, receive and require the full and fostering influence of the whole grove, that their existence may be protected and their organs fully developed for use.

Let us view the tribes of ocean, earth, and air: we behold a regular gradation of power and rule, from man down to the atom.

Whether with reason or with instinct blest, All enjoy that power that suits them best: Order is Heaven’s first law; and this confess’d, Some are, and must be, greater than the rest— More rich, more wise; but who infers from hence That such are happier, shocks all common sense. Heaven to mankind impartial we confess, If all are equal in their happiness; But mutual wants this happiness increase. All nature’s difference, keeps all nature’s peace: Condition, circumstance, is not the thing; Bliss is the same, in subject, or in king! POPE’S Essay.

------------------

LESSON II.

They who study even only such portion of the works of God as can, seemingly, to some extent be examined by the human mind, never fail to discover a singular affinity between all things, the creation of his hand. This, to us, would be proof, independent of inspiration, that one Creator made the whole world and all things therein.

So great is the affinity between the vegetable and animal kingdoms, that it is to this day a doubt where the one terminates or where the other begins. Naturalists all agree that they both spring from “slightly developed forms, perhaps varied, yet closely connected;” true, “starting away in different directions of life,” but ever preserving, it may be an obscure, yet a strict analogy to each other.

These analogies are sufficiently obvious to prove that one power, one and the same general law, has brought them both into existence. Thus the devout worshipper of God may, in some sense, view the vegetable inhabitants of the earth as his brethren.

The animal kingdom may be considered as divisible into five groups. The vertebreta, annulosa, (the articulata of Cuvier,) the radiata, the acrita, (in part the radiata of Cuvier,) and the molusca.

Each one of these groups will be found divisible into five classes. Let us take, for example, the vertebreta, and it is readily divided into the mammalia, reptilia, pisces, amphibia, and aves.

So each one of these classes is divisible into five orders. Let us take, for example, the mammalia; and it is readily divided into the cheirotheria, (animals with more or less perfect hands,) feræ, cetacea, glires, and ungulata.

So each one of these orders is divisible into five genera. Let us take, for example, the cheirotheria, and it is readily divided into the bimana or homo, the quadrumana or simiadæ, the natatorials or vespertilionidæ, the suctorials or lemuridæ, the rasorials or cebidæ.

So each one of these genera is divided in five species. Let us take, for example, the bimana or homo, and it is readily divided into the Caucasian or Indo-European, the Mongolian, the Malayan, the Indian or aboriginal American, and the Negro or African.

Thus we behold man in his relation to the animal world: true, far in advance as to his physical and mental development; yet the natural philosopher finds traces of all his mental powers among the inferior animals, as does the comparative anatomist those of his physical structure.

Does he feel degraded by the fact that God has been pleased to order this relation of brotherhood with the lower orders of creation? Or will he for ever suffer his pride to hedge up the way of progress by the impassable darkness of his own ignorance.

The uniformity of these penta-legal ramifications, which reach down from man through all the orders and groups of the animal world, gives evidence of a preconceived design—of an arrangement by Almighty power—of a God whose thought is law!—while the analogy of animal formation, the traces of affinity in the mental qualities found in all, in proportion as those qualities are more or less developed, and the apparent adaptation of each one to the condition in which it is found, demonstrate the unity of the law which governs their physical being.

These analogies, found to exist between all the individuals of the animal world, and particularly striking and more and more obvious as we proceed from a particular group to its genera and species, have led some philosophers to suppose that the more perfectly developed species have been progressively produced by some instance of an improved development, as an offshoot from the genera, and so on back to its original form of animal life, in obedience to the laws of the great First Cause. But we wish to disturb no man’s philosophy. We deem it of little importance to us what method God pursued in the creation of our species; whether we were spoken instantly into life, as was the light, or whether ages were spent in reproducing improved developments from the earlier forms of animal life.

In either case we see nothing contradictory to the inspired writings of Moses. Man is as much the creation of God through one means as another. The wisdom and power required are the same; for his existence alone demonstrates him to be the work of a God. The fact of the existence of these analogies is alone what we propose to notice. And we offer them merely as indications of a course of study that may lead to some important results in elucidation of the mental and physical relations between the different varieties of man.

In further illustration, let us for a moment look at the bovine species, from the genus ruminantia, from the order ungulata, and we find the ox, the bison, the buffalo, the elk, and the goat.

Like the five species of homo, we find the bovine species divided into a great number of families or varieties, of which we need take no further notice. Does any one fail to perceive the analogy between these species of the bos? Are they more obscure, more aberrant than are the relations between the species of man? Examine the high physical development of the most intellectual Caucasian; trace down the line to the diminutive and ill-formed cannibal savage of Africa, the habits and mental development of whom would seem rather allied to the lower orders of animals than to the Caucasian! How will it comport with the general laws manifested by the condition of the animal world and of the obvious inferiority and influence of one over another, in proportion to their apparent superiority in physical and mental development, to place the lowest grade of the African in equal power or in control of the Caucasian brother? Is there any manifestation of the Creator of an arrangement like this, even through the eternity of his own work?

On the contrary, through the whole animal race, we find power and control lodged everywhere in proportion as we find an advance towards perfection in the development bestowed.

In conformity to this law, God gave Adam “dominion” over every living thing that moved upon earth.

It is known to most men, that, under certain circumstances, the race of any animal will improve: so also, under adverse, they degenerate. We see these facts daily in the breeds of domestic animals. We see these changes even in the families of all the species of man. Nor is it a matter of the least importance to our inquiry, whether these species of the race have been produced by an upward movement from the lowest, or a downward degenerating movement from the most elevated. It is sufficient that they exist from some cause; for an individual having been, say an equal, but now degenerate, falls under the influence and control of his superior. And in conformity to this law, it was announced to Eve, the helpmate of Adam, that “he shall rule over thee.”

But if these particles of inspiration had never been proclaimed, man would have discovered this law from its constant operation, not only on the family of man, but on every branch of the animal world.

We can spend but little time with such infidel principles as lead some men to say, “Down with your Bible that teaches slavery.” “If the religion of Jesus Christ allows slavery, the New Testament is the greatest curse that could be inflicted on man.” “Down with your God who upholds slavery; he shall be no God of mine.” “Jesus Christ was himself a negro!” Our hearts bleed when we see such evidence of a destroyed intellect. The maniac in his ravings excites our extreme sorrow. We feel no harshness. He has sunk far below resentment. Can we administer to such mental deformity any relief? Will it be absurd to ask him to deduce from nature, as it is found to operate, that the various grades of subjection spread through the animal world exist in conformity to the natural law?

But, says the querist, “Your remarks have a tendency towards the conclusion,—upon the supposition that Adam was created with a perfect, or rather with a very high order of physical organization and mental development,—that the facts of the greater or less degeneration of the people of the world, since his fall, now exhibited by the different species of man upon the earth, had their origin in his transgression. Now, by parity of argument, we may conclude, if such high physical elevation was the original condition of Adam, that each genus of the brute creation also was originally created on a proportional scale. If so, their degeneration is quite as visible as that of man. Yet we have no account that they committed sin and ‘fell.’”

We do not say that such was the original condition of the first man. We say, the creation of the animal world was upon principles compatible with progressive improvement; and that as far as these principles are not obeyed, but changed or reversed by the practice of the animal world, that the effect is to remain stationary, or to retrograde and deteriorate.

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?

The idea that the brute creation were injured in condition by the fall of man is put forth by St. Paul, in Rom. viii. 9–22, where the word “creature” is translated from the Greek term that implies the whole animal or the whole created world. But no answer to querist is necessary. The fact is sufficient that animals, under habits ill-adapted to their organization, do degenerate.

------------------

LESSON III.

However insensible individuals themselves may be of the fact, some men, and those of quite different character, find it unpleasant to submit themselves to the great Author of animal life. For they, in substance, make a continual inquiry, How is it to be reconciled that a Being so perfectly good should have admitted into the midst of his works, as a constant attendant of all his sentient creations, so large an admixture of what we call evil?

We might continue the inquiry by adding, Why, in a mere drop of water, do we find the animalculæ manifesting all the agonies and repeating the outrages upon one another strikingly visible among the larger animal developments of the great ocean and of the land? Why such an admixture of pain and misery among men? Why the male of all animals making destructive war on their kind? Why exterminating wars among men? And why the numberless, nameless evils everywhere spread through the world?

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?

These men seem desirous that the works of God should have been on a different footing, or that every thing should have been at once perfect to the extent of his power. Would they then desire to be his equal too? But, at least as to man, the mind incapable of error, the body of suffering! It is possible that under such a dispensation, our mental enjoyments would have been on a par with a mathematical axiom, and our bodies have about as much sympathy for the things around them as has a lump of gold. And how do they know that the rocks, minerals, and trees, yea, the starry inhabitants of the firmament, are not the exact manifestations of what would have been creations of that order? We will not stop here to inquire how far the complaints of these men operate to their own mental and physical injury.

It is a great popular error to suppose all of our own species to be born equals. It involves the proposition that each one also possesses the same faculties and powers, and to the same extent. Even every well-informed nursery-maid is furnished with a good refutation. The grades of physical development are proofs of grades of mind.

Through the whole animal world, as with man, mental action takes place, providing for the sustenance and security of life; and the amount of mental power each one possesses is ever in proportion to the development of the nervous system and animal structure. Upon this earth, the highest grade of such development is found among the Caucasian species of man. Physiologists assert that the African exhibits, in maturity, the imperfect brain &c. of a Caucasian fœtus some considerable time before its birth: so the Malay and Indian, the same at a period nearer birth; while the Mongolian, that of the infant lately born. See Lloyd’s Popular Physiology. The beard, among men the attribute of a full maturity, largest in the Caucasian, is scarcely found among the lower grades of the African.

Colour is also found darkest where the development is the least perfect, and the most distant from the Caucasian; and hence a philosopher of great learning makes the question pertinent, “May not colour then depend on development also? Development being arrested at so immature a stage in the case of the negro, the skin may take on the colour as an unavoidable consequence of its imperfect organization.” The different species and all the varieties of man are nothing but a short history of their different grades of organization and development. One fraction, by a long and more or less strict observance of the laws of nature, becomes, after many generations, quite improved in its organization. From an opposite course, another fraction has degenerated and sunk into degradation. It is now a well-known fact that Caucasian parents too nearly related exhibit offspring of the Mongolian type. So, a particular tribe of Arabs, now on the banks of the Jordan, from an in-and-in propagation have become scarcely to be distinguished from Negroes. This is only an instance, but is important when we notice the deteriorating influence such intercourse has among domestic animals. In short, every breach of the laws tending to the path of progressive improvement must have a deteriorating effect on the offspring. There was truth in the ancient adage, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

Every private habit and circumstance in life that enervates or deranges the physical system, or disturbs the balance of the mind, stamps its impress on the descendant. The moral and physical condition of the progeny, with slight exceptions the result of an elevating and upward movement, or a downward and deteriorating one, (as the case may be,) is the necessary result of the moral and physical condition of the parentage: and this influence is doubtless felt back for many generations.

But does God make man wicked? does he predestine to evil? These queries may seem pertinent to some, because we are in the habit of considering each individual by itself; whereas each individual is only a link in the chain of phenomena, which owe their existence to laws productive of good, and even of progressive improvement, but of necessity, in their breach, admit these evils, because such breach is sin. Our moral faculties are permitted to range in a wide field; but evil is the result of a disruption of the rules of action. It is the flaming sword elevated to guard our good, showing us the awful truth, the mere bad habit in the parent may become a constitutional inherent quality in the off spring.

We do not suppose these influences always very perceptibly immediate. Many generations are doubtless often required in the full development of an upward movement to a higher order of moral perception; and so in the opposite. Yet we cannot forbear to notice how often the immediate descendant is quite apt to prove its parentage.

Will the theologian object—“You contradict the Scripture. You make five species of man. Whereas they are all the descendants of Noah.” Have we not shown ample ground and time for their formation from his stock? Besides, we expect hereafter to prove by Scripture that Ham took a wife from the degenerate race of Cain; which, if so, would alone place his descendants in the attitude of inferiority and subjection.

No! but we advertise the theologian that we shall take the Scripture for our platform. We believe it, and hope to even hold him close to it.

But we now ask for the reflection of all, does not the degenerate man, degraded in constitution below the possibility of his emerging from the depth to which he has sunk, by any self-renovating power, still lingering about his reduced condition, require the aid of one of superior nature, of superior organization and mental development, to act as his adviser, protector, and master? Would not such a provision be a merciful one?

And may we not also inquire, whether the superior endowments here required do not also require to be exercised in bearing rule over the wayward energies of those more degenerate, as a necessary element in the school to a higher advance? And shall we not perceive that such a relation must produce a vast amount of improvement and happiness to both?

Children and inferior persons often show themselves, upon the slightest temptation, false and cruel,—often the inheritance of parental imperfection. Absolute command, sustained by physical force, has alone been found sufficient to eradicate these old, and to found new habits of truthfulness and humanity.

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 mercy of God shines upon the world in floods of celestial light; for Christianity, in its passports to heaven, judges all men by their own acts. Therefore, the most degraded nature, upon a sight of its deformity, may feel an unchangeable regret, and inherit its portion.

Here Christianity itself points the way to progressive improvement, and commands children to obey their parents, wives their husbands, and servants their masters.

The grace of God is as openly manifested in the welfare of the child or slave, when produced through the interposition of the parent or master, as if the interposition had been more immediate.

------------------

LESSON IV.

Intellect is not found to exist only in connection with a corresponding physical organization. In the family of man, if that which may appear a good organization is accompanied by an inferior intellect, we may suspect our nice accuracy of discernment, rather than a discrepancy in the operation of the general law; so also where we may seem to perceive a good intellect, but which produces inferior or unworthy results. We do not always notice the small steps of degeneration. Often the first notice we take is of the fact of a changed condition, as proved by the results: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

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?

Are, then, the actions of the child, and of those persons whose mental development has been arrested at a very early stage, (as has been supposed the case with the lower orders of animals, and of those animals themselves,) the result of some faculty or mental power different from mind? The result of instinct? And what is instinct but mind in the early dawn of its development? Are not such actions as the chick breaking its shell, the young-born infant receiving its natural food, the necessary consequents of the state of their infantile organization, which the earliest development of mind could prompt and enable them to put forth; and will it be deemed beyond the reach of reason, to prove that with the difference of maturity in organization and development, the same general connection of mind and organization is found, through the entire of life as well as infancy?

Philosophers have, with indefatigable labour, endeavoured to enlighten the world on the subject of instinct. Can we be pardoned if we suggest that their theories on this subject signally prove they were but men? Des Cartes says—“Brutes are machines without sensation or ideas; that their actions are the result of external force, as the sound of an organ is the result of the air being forced through the pipes.” This is his “instinct.” If this be true, then it follows that every action in the material world is instinct. Then the thunder utters its voice, the earth quakes, and the telegraph works by “instinct.” Yet, his theory has found an advocate in that very classical Latin poem, “Anti Lucretius,” by Cardinal Polignac.

Dr. Reid sustains the mechanical nature of brutes, but classifies their actions into those of habit and those of instinct.

Dr. Darwin says that instinct is mental, and that the actions of brutes result from faculties, the same in nature as those of man, but extremely limited. Smellie takes the same view. Yet Darwin asserts that instinct is the reason; and Smellie, that reason is the result of instinct. Cudworth says that instinct is an intermediate power, taking rank between mind and matter, yet often vibrating from one to the other. Buffon contends that brutes possess an intellectual principle, by which they distinguish between pleasure and pain, and desire the one and repel the other. This is his instinct.

Reimar divides instinct into three classes: mechanical, such as the pulsation of the heart; representative, such as result from an imperfect kind of memory, and, so far as it is memory, in common with mankind; and spontaneous, the same as Buffon’s. Cuvier says that instinct consists of ideas that do not result from sensation, but flow directly from the brain! Dupont says that there is no such distinct faculty as instinct. His views are analogous to Darwin and Smellie.

Pope, Stahl, and others say, “It is the divinity that stirs within us.”

“And reason raise o’er instinct as you can, In this ’tis God directs, in that ’tis man.”

Cullen, Hoffman, and others say that instinct is the “vis medicatrix naturæ.” Dr. John Mason Good says that “instinct is the law of the living principle,” that “instinctive actions are the actions of the living principle.” If so, instinct is as applicable to vegetables as to animals.

Dr. Hancock, in his work on the Physical and Moral Relations of Instinct, has evidently enlarged on the doctrine of Pope and Stahl. He says instinct is the “impulse,” “the inspiration of the Holy Spirit;” and, in his own words, “which we can only regard as an emanation of Divine wisdom.”

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?

Since we have ventured an opinion on the subject of instinct, we trust forgiveness for the introduction of that of others.

Our desire is to present such considerations as lead to the conclusion that men are born into the world with different physical and mental aptitudes: in short, that their corporeal and intellectual organizations are not of equal power; or, if some prefer the term, that their instincts are not of equal extent and activity.

For substantially, upon a contrary hypothesis, are founded all those beautiful arguments in favour of the entire equality of man. Some whole systems of political justice are founded upon the proposition that there is no innate principle; and one class of philosophers argue that, as there is no innate principle, therefore all men are ushered into the world under the circumstance of perfect equality; consequently, all the inequality afterwards found is the result of usurpation and injustice.

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?

Men organized into some form of government cannot be equal; because the very thing, government, proves the contrary: among perfect equals, government is an impossibility. If laws were prescribed, they could never be executed until some of these equals shall have greater power than those who infringe them. Man is never found so holy as to punish himself for his own impulses. Thus the idea of government among equals is a silly fiction.

Men without government cannot be equal, because the strong will have power over the weak.

The inequality of men is the progenitor of all civil compact. One man is strong, another weak; one wise, another foolish: one virtuous, another vicious: each one yielding himself to a place in the compact, all acquire additional protection, especially so long as all shall adhere to the terms of the compact. But the compact itself is the result of the proposition that the majority shall have more power than the minority, because they are supposed to have more animal force, and that they hold the evidence of a more lofty mental development. Here has sprung forth the doctrine that the good of the greater part is the good of the whole: hence, under this system, an opposing fraction is often sacrificed to the ruling power. We must here remark that this doctrine was changed at an early day into, “The good of the ruling power is the good of the whole.”

Although not a part of our study, we may turn aside here to remark that, from this monad in the composition of the doctrines of government, did emanate the idea of all those strange sacrifices that now deform the pages of ancient idolatry. In its aid the idol divinity vouched its influence, and the daughter of Ham yielded her new-born to the flaming embraces of her god. Even now the ancient sources of the Ganges still pour down their holy waters, are still drinking in an excessive population from the arms of the Hindoo mother. Nor is this idea only an ancient thought; it is not half a century since it was broached in one of the European parliaments to so hedge around the institution of marriage with thorny impediments, that none excessively poor could legally propagate. But to our minds these things strangely show forth the facts that prove “men are not equal.”

But even the lowest grades yield their obedience, and are protected from greater evils. Even though they may have been so low as to have not been able to take any part in the formation of the compact, yet they are as certainly benefited as the most elevated.

Such has been the condition of the race through all time, while falsehood has often mingled in her ingredients, adding misery to the degradation of man;—for it is truly observable that falsehood has for ever led to deeper degradation, to an increased departure from the laws of civil rule. So far as human intellect has threaded its way along the path of truth and through the mazes of human depravity, so far has man improved his condition by increasing his knowledge and power,—while a reversed condition has ever attended a retrograde movement. May not the conclusion then be had, such is the ordinance of God! But equality among men is a chimera, not possible to be reduced to practice, nor desirable if it could be. They never were so, nor was it intended they ever should be. Cain and Abel were not equal: God told Cain that if he behaved well, he should have rule over Abel; but if he did not, he should suffer the consequences of sin. “Who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour?” Rom. ix. 20, 21. “Who hath made thee to differ one from another?” 1 Cor. iv. 7. “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 older shall serve (יַֽעֲבֹ֥ד ya avod, be a slave to) the younger.” Gen. xxv. 23. See also Rom. ix. 12. Can the inequality of man be more strongly inculcated? And St. Paul seems to suggest that such inequality will exist hereafter. “There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for as one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.” 1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

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.

Some politicians say, government is founded on opinion. Be it so; yet opinion is predicated upon the very incidents of men’s conduct, which, when analyzed, are found to prove their inequality. So also, when, by the aid of the compact formed, one individual holds a part of the community in subjection, such extended rule is dependent on the same principles as the elementary case. The truth is, human society never recedes far from elementary influences, notwithstanding all the artificials in government that ever have or ever can be brought into use. The conditions to govern and to be in subjection necessarily imply superiority and inferiority: change these relative qualities, and the condition of the parties is changed also. But, upon the organization of society, in all countries and at all times, we find inequality in the conditions of men, growing out of their social state; distinctions between them, affecting their personal considerations, and often disposing of them for life. Thus, in one country a man is born a monarch, in another a priest of the Lord, a prince, a peer, a noble, a commoner, a freeman, a serf, a slave. This arrangement of the conditions of social and civil life, from long habit, may well be said to become constitutional, and necessary to the happiness of that society, although thereby one may seem forced to be a tinker and another a tailor. Hence we infer, inequality among men is the necessary result of the rules of civil life.

------------------

LESSON V.

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.

Who has given a better definition of the word neighbour? And how shall we esteem him, who, instead of loving such an one as himself, shall treat him with ingratitude, fraud, and cruelty? “God is angry with the wicked every day.” Ps. vii. 2. If to “love our neighbour as ourselves” implies that we should love all men equally alike, it also necessarily will imply a subversion of order, and consequently lead to acts of injustice, because all men are not equal. “For if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Tim. v. 8.

It would be ungrateful and unjust to not save a parent from death in preference to a stranger—the life of him on whom the life and happiness of thousands depended, in preference to an obscure individual.

One man may be of more value to me, and to the public, than another, because he is further removed from being a mere animal. He has more knowledge, more power, and does dispense more happiness to his fellow-man.

A very evil man and a good one may be in the vicinity or elsewhere; but to regard them equally alike is a contradiction of Christian duty. When we love our neighbour as ourselves, we love the man, his acts, his character; but when we are taught to love our enemies, the mind reaches him as a creature of God, our erring fellow-mortal, our brother steeped in sin—and we look upon him with pity, forgiveness; and yet hate his qualities and conduct. The cases are quite dissimilar. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John ii. 15.

------------------

LESSON VI.

Virtue is always an appellant to justice. It is manifested by the acts of an intelligent being of correct and benevolent motives, contributing to the general good. Consequently an act, however benevolent may have been the motive of the actor, cannot be a virtuous act if it have an evil tendency. Ignorance can never be virtue: so, no man can be virtuous who acts from a wicked motive, however beneficial may be the result. The motive must be pure, and the effect good, before the act or the actor is virtuous. A man, may be virtuous, but in so low a degree as to not merit the appellation: we must compare what he does, with what he has the power of doing. The widow’s mite may be an example.

We submit the inquiry—Is not the deduction clear, that men are not equal—neither physically, religiously, mentally, or morally? Can they then be so politically? Will not the proposition be correct, that political equality can never exist with an inequality in these previous terms?

Raynal has said, we think correctly, “that equality will always be an unintelligible fiction, so long as the capacities of men are unequal, and their claims have neither guarantee nor sanction by which they can be enforced.” “On a dit que nous avions tous les mêmes droits. J'ignore ce que c'est que les mêmes droits, où il y a inégalitè de talens ou de force, et nulle garantie, nulle sanction.” Raynal, Revolution d'Amerique, p. 34.

------------------

LESSON VII.

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.

“Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne; mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” Ps. lxxxix. 14.

“As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just.”

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on those things.” Phil. iv. 8.

But justice, as an act emanating from the rules of right, is wholly dependent on the law: with the abolition of all law, justice or its opposite would cease to exist.

We are aware there are a class who say that Christians have nothing to do with the law of God; that they believe in Christ, and are excused from obedience to the law; that they are not under the law, but the gospel; that the law to them is of none effect; that the laws of God as revealed to Moses have been repealed;—or rather they seem to have but a confused idea of what they do believe touching the matter, while they fashion a theory of Divine providence to suit their own fancies, and substantially, by their own hands, fashion Jehovah into an idol, although not of wood or stone, yet as much in conformity to their own notions; perhaps but little thinking that their notions may have arisen from pride or ignorance. We cannot promise any benefit by addressing such. He who dares take the character of Jehovah into keeping, selecting from among the manifestations of his providence, and decide this law to be repealed, or this only in force, would seem to be as far beyond the reach of human reason as his position is beyond the bounds of moral sense.

But let us, who claim not so high prerogative, who are able only to notice some faint emanations of the Divine mind, as He has seen fit to reveal himself to our feeble perceptions,—who have been taught by the exercise of faith to perceive them in the holy books of his record of what is past, and the present display of his power and rule in the government of the world,—take counsel together, and examine and compare the teachings they may give of the unchangeableness of, and our relation with, the laws of God.

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.

With the idea of the changeability of his laws, of necessity must be associated the idea of the changeability of God himself. The wickedness of such argument is announced in its tendency to the dethronement of Jehovah. It was the very argument used by the serpent in Eden.

The conclusion is, it is inconsistent with the Deity that his laws should be repealed; the same circumstance, under which his law has been noticed to manifest itself, reappearing, and it is again developed. They are the laws of eternity. They are the voice of God. The doctrine of the gospel is bold and plain upon this subject.

“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” Rom. vii. 12.

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for the law is the knowledge of sin.” “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. iii. 19, 20, 31.

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John iii. 4.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach so to do, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. v. 17, 19.

------------------

LESSON VIII.

Another of the rules of Christian justice which will be found applicable to our subject, is, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matt. vii. 12.

The remarks made upon the first rule are in some measure applicable to this.

The desire of something to be done must be founded on good reason and conformable to justice. Folly ever marks an unreasonable desire; and that desire is always unjust which merely reaches to the taking from another without the corresponding desire to reciprocate. Such desires are changed instantly into the action of the mind called “coveting,” and are most strictly forbidden, for this good reason, that very action of the mind is a mental theft; and the moral wickedness in the individual “coveting” is the same as though he were practically a thief. But, further, the desire must be predicated upon a presumable condition: for, by the rule, it would be unjust to desire that which it would not be possible to have done to us; so it would be to desire any other impossibility. Suppose A. should desire that you would make him rich, does it follow that he must make you rich when he has no ability to do so? The case is not founded upon a presumable condition, nor, on good reason, upon a desire to reciprocate, consequently unjust.

But suppose A. feels anxious for your warm regard for his prosperity in his lawful understandings, here the desire reaches to nothing unjust, to no disorder in society, or beyond your power, and clearly within his power to reciprocate; he is then bound by the rule to feel a warm desire for your prosperity in all your lawful undertakings. And who does not perceive that if one desires your good wishes, he must of necessity feel good wishes for you. Whether the desire imply merely a mental or physical action, similar examples will illustrate. The rule is truly a golden one, and, so far as acted upon, binds society together in peace and good-will.

It is quite analogous to the twenty-fourth maxim of Confucius, which reads thus: “Do unto another as thou would be dealt with thyself; thou only needest this law alone: it is the foundation and principle of all the rest.” And is in spirit with the fifty-third maxim of the same philosopher: “Acknowledge the benefits by the return of other benefits; but never revenge injuries.” We trust the rule is none the less sacred because it was revealed to man at an early period.

Let us illustrate the correctness of these views by the inconsistency of those opposite. Others say that if we were in slavery we should wish to be made free, therefore we are bound by this rule to set free all who are in slavery now.

If this be true, in order that the whole circle of action may be consistent, there must be another link added to the chain; hence we find that the advocates of this interpretation say, also, “that same inward principle which teaches a man what he is bound to do for others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what others are bound to do to him.” Channing, vol. ii. p. 33. This proposition inevitably follows the preceding; for who is he that can say among men that that is a good rule which is not reciprocal.

This imaginary rule would perhaps be less obnoxious in case of universal equality. For, in that case, we may suppose an universal equality of desire, without which one wishes one thing and another its opposite. But so long as God rules, universal equality can only happen in case of universal perfection, in which case neither sin nor slavery can exist, and in which case the argument will not be wanted. But the rule as left by Jesus Christ was made for man in his fallen state.

But again, if the interpretation of our opponents be true, then the proposition may be resolved into this state:—A. is as much bound by the desire of B. as by his own, and the whole world is fully bound by both. But the whole world individually desire adversely to each other, yet each desire is to be harmoniously gratified. Let each one make out the examples; we think they will find them extremely ridiculous in the result. The doctrine involves plainly the most gross contradictions, and is therefore a naked nullity.

Again, if it be the law of God, that because we desire a thing, therefore we are bound to give that thing to another, it implies that the desire was the manifestation of God’s will; in short, that the desire was a portion of his revealed law; consequently, whatever any man desires is a portion of inspiration. Hence Channing says, (page as above,) “his conscience, in revealing the moral law, does not reveal a law for himself only, but speaks as a universal legislator.” Now it follows, that, as each man desires an opposite, therefore there are as many opposite systems of the laws of God as there are individuals who desire them; in other words, it would be making God’s law just what each one desired it to be. Thus making the law of God a perfect nullity.

But again, if the interpretation of the golden rule, as employed by them who use it to inculcate immediate emancipation, be true, then it contradicts the spirit of the command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife; nor his man-servant, (וְעַבְדּ֤וֹ ve abeddo, male slave,) nor his maid-servant, (וַֽאֲמָתוֹ֙ va amatho, female slave,) nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Exod. xx. 17. Here the word “covet” is used to mean a strong desire without the wish or ability to reciprocate; therefore without good reason—consequently unjust. It is the same exercise of the mind that leads a man to acts of theft that is here forbidden: an exercise of the mind that leads to many disorders in society, and hence this command. The command does not extend to him who desires his neighbour’s house, man-servant, maid-servant, ox, or ass, upon the condition that the desire is founded upon good reason. The neighbour having the will and power to part with, and he who desires the power and will to reciprocate, these qualifications bring the desire within the purview of the golden rule, and remove all tendency to disorders in society. To buy and sell with the view to reciprocate gain, has a very strong tendency to bind society together in peace and good-will.

In the lesson of the golden rule, the Saviour gave a check to impetuous and improper desires,—to the wicked and improper hankering after the substance or condition of others,—by bringing to view the propriety of performing themselves such acts as they demanded of others: that they should prove themselves worthy of the solicited favour by a reciprocity of feeling and action.

This we think evident from what precedes: “If then ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father that is in heaven give good things unto them that ask him.”

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.

“If the wickedest wretches among yourselves, the most peevish, weak, and ill-natured of you all, will readily give good gifts to their children when they cry for them, how much rather will the great God, infinite in goodness, bestow blessings on his children who endeavour to resemble him in his perfections, and for that ask his grace and other spiritual and heavenly blessings;” but God grants these blessings alone upon this condition, that, “animated by his goodness, you study to express your gratitude for it by your integrity and kindness to your fellow-creatures, treating them in every instance as you would think it reasonable to be treated by them, if you were in their circumstances, and they in yours; for this is, in effect, a summary and abstract of all the human and social virtues recommended in the moral precepts of the law and the prophets, and it was one of the greatest ends of both to bring men to this equitable and amiable temper.” Doddridge.

Such are the comments of these men upon this subject.

But permit us to remark that the word man-servant, in the command just quoted, is translated from the Hebrew עֶבֶד ebed, and means what we mean by the word slave. And let it be remembered that, in the decalogue, in one of the original laws of God the Father, delivered to Moses from Sinai, the slave is classed with the ox, the ass, in short, with all other property, as an article of possession; and that we are commanded not to have a desire to change the possession unjustly. And that, by a fair interpretation of the golden rule issued by the living lips of Jesus Christ, if we reasonably and justly desire to change the possession, we must honestly reciprocate the full value thereof.

Let the candid world, the truth-searching philosopher, and the humble Christian examine, and say whether these conclusions are not founded on reason, justice, and the laws of God.

------------------

LESSON IX.

We suppose all Christians will agree that God is a Spirit eternal and infinite, unchangeable and unaccountable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, most wise, most true, most holy, and most good, without beginning or without end. Such from eternity were his qualities, and such to eternity they will remain.

In contemplation of these characteristics of Jehovah, we are led to deduce that God must originally and essentially within himself be eternally happy. “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Isa. xlvi. 10. If it is proper to say that God has desires, then it must be his desire that his “counsel shall stand,” because it is inconsistent with happiness to be unable to gratify desire or fail in counsel; besides, it would prove some deficiency of power. Before God created some other being or thing, he existed alone. Can it be said he had wants? For what purpose then did he create other things? What object had he in view? The object must have been worthy of calling forth his action. What other object could have been worthy of his action than himself? Because his work must in all its parts reflect his power, his every quality, we must therefore conclude God is the sole and ultimate end of every thing he does. If all the labours of Deity were not solely for himself, then of the greatness and rectitude of many of his providences and acts, perhaps none could ever be comprehended or even perceived by mortals. For God legislates not merely for a city, a tribe or nation, but for the universe: not for an hour, a day or a thousand years, but for eternity. “I know that whatsoever God doeth it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it; and God doeth it, that men shall fear before him.” Eccl. iii. 14.

If God himself is the ultimate end of all things, then that moral philosopher, a poor, ignorant man, a worm of but momentary existence, mistakes, who teaches in substance that true religion, that is, worship of God, consists in an advantageous, successful, and well-directed selfishness in favour of himself; for, upon that principle the vilest enemy may take shelter under the cloak of his adversary,—but will he be the more worthy? If God is the supreme object of creation, then this righteous selfishness must be in extreme opposition to God. There are important deductions emanating from these reflections, which we are unwilling to deprive others the pleasure of drawing out for themselves. The use God makes of his creations proves the end for which he made them. We might rest here; but we have heard some say that God’s object in creation was the happiness of all his sentient creatures. If so, then they all would be happy; which is not the fact. Human misery is the first object we behold everywhere. True, man can never have a very competent idea of God. His powers of thought are too low; his associations too trivial. But if the object God had in creation was the development of his own glory, then there can be no greater conformity unto God than there is knowledge of his character. Hence, where we see, hear, and learn the most of God, we become the most pure and holy. Holiness depends on a knowledge of God. The reason is obvious: a holy man is a more perfect exhibition of the Divine character. If so, then the happiness of man depends upon his perception of God. Therefore man can never be happy only in proportion as he is holy. But if the glory of God is the ultimate end of creation, and if the happiness of his rational creatures depends upon their perception of him, then the ultimate end secures in the highest possible degree their happiness.

The great cause of human misery will be found to proceed from the unquenchable desire in the unregenerate man to rebel against God—to set up a government of his own, more wise than he conceives the government of God to be; in fact, he does not perceive his government, for he has no perception of him.

We might deduce an argument in proof that a perception of God is happiness to man, from the formation of his mental powers. To whom does it not give deep distress to behold what we call talent and virtue hid in obscurity and bowed down beneath oppression and want? To whom does it not give great delight to perceive a lucid manifestation of these qualities? The great object in the individual creation of man is his improvement; his advance towards an approximation of being able to see God as he is. The business of angels and saints in heaven is to intensely seek after a more full knowledge of God.

If the happiness of man is thus dependent upon his perception of the greatness and power of God, then we may conclude that a continued manifestation of it is essential to him in producing before his mind an increasing brilliancy of view of the great Jehovah.

The order and gradation in the power bestowed on the different objects his hand has made, displaying his foresight in the work of creation, from the seraph down to the veriest mite, would seem an arrangement that might furnish the mind of man or an angel with never-ending study, with a never-ending employment to find out God.

If the wide and permanent diversity of character and condition in the present world, and in that which is to come,—if the relations we find between man and man,—if the great sacrifice for sin and the redemption wrought therefrom,—if the eternal wrath of Jehovah against the incorrigible sinner, all in combination manifest the greatest display of the power and perfections of God;—in short, if the providences of God collectively, as we see them manifested in the world, are the true developments of his character, then it will follow that they all, in combination, terminate in the greatest good, and, in their external consequences, subserve to the greatest extent of happiness to which the human mind, in the pursuit of its only legitimate employment, is now or ever will be susceptible.

The first deduction is that sin must always be accompanied with misery, but that holiness is as surely accompanied with happiness, no matter what may be the physical condition. It may not be improper here to advert to one of the characteristics of our intellectual constitution, which is this: whatever is presented to the mind calling on its energy and our physical action can never be approached by us with any tolerable degree of perfectedness unless by constant and long-continued repetitions; whence we say, “practice makes perfect.” Whereas, whatever is presented wherein we are wholly passive, repetition and familiarity are in constant action to diminish, weaken, and wash out the impressions first made. Examples in proof of the first position are found in the necessary and long-continued exertions before we become adepts in the arts and practices of civilized life. In the African savage, often, many generations of constant exertion in the same direction are required before that race is found to have attained such a state of perfectibility in these things as is required to sustain a position in civilized life; and it is to this they owe their state of pupilage among the civilized races.

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.

This characteristic of the human intellect gives strong proof of the power and wisdom of God. For through its means, all in civilized and Christian life and practice, from the king upon the throne down to the slave, are rendered equally happy and contented with their condition. Therefore he is not a correct philosopher who measures the happiness of a lower grade in life by his own feelings.

------------------

LESSON X.

From consideration of our previous lesson, we should make the deduction that Christianity is incompatible with savage life. The Christian can no longer be a savage, notwithstanding the habits of civilization may be yet too weakly established to guaranty against lapses to former habits. The habits of the savage must be changed so as to approximate civilized life before Christianity can be successfully taught him. Hence one error into which the missionary and the teacher of the Negro sometimes fall. They confine their labours to instructions concerning the more abstruse doctrines of Christianity; but the savage has no capability to comprehend them: his mind has never been prepared for their reception.

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 animal propensities require to be forced into habits contributive to the relations and duties of civilized and Christian life. The mind must be made to comprehend what our relative duties are, both experimentally and habitually, and also the impossibility of their being dispensed with, before it will be able to perceive the laws which bind our action to their performance. And it may be here remarked, that a perception of these laws sufficiently strong to influence the conduct of a man will at least place him in the position of Agrippa before Paul. The history of man does not point to an instance where an individual has regenerated himself from the depth of human degradation, except under the pupilage and control of a superior wisdom.

Upon this state of facts was founded the necessity of a Saviour for the children of men.

------------------

LESSON XI.

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,” (עַ֫בְדֶךָ abedeka, thy slave,) “I am thy servant (עַ֫בְדָךָ abedeka, thy slave) and the son of thy hand-maid,” בֶּן־אֲתֶ֑ךָ amatheka, thy female slave,) “thou hast loosed my bonds.” Compare with John viii. 36, also 1 Cor. vii. 22.

------------------

LESSON XII.

The institutions of slavery and Christianity can never be antagonistic. Slavery enforces obedience in the inferior to a superior power, for the reciprocal benefit of both. Any deviation from the law of God pertinent to the case, to some extent lessens the benefit and diminishes what should have been the quotient of the general good. Slavery is therefore, however rude in its obedience or commands, an attempt at civilized life; and we may therefore judge of the amount of its abuses by its greater or less success in the cultivation of those virtues incident to that condition. True, this result is scarcely perceptible where the most elevated are still deeply degraded, as is for ever the case in all those regions where the light of Christianity has never been diffused. And it is from these facts we find the providence of God to be that slavery, in such regions, is always seeking abroad for a more enlightened master.

------------------

LESSON XIII.

The path of the Christian is described as strait and narrow; in it there are no broad provisions for licentiousness, immorality, crime, or sin of any kind, nor, at suitable distances, are there private apartments prepared, wherein cunning expediency may change her apparel; nor will the poor traveller be perplexed with ambiguous directions, whereby any thing is to be performed contrary to the plain understanding of the law. But each step therein must be in conformity to the directions of him who made, knows, and governs all.

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:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.

“But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

“Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

“For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

“Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” Rom. xiii. 1–8.

------------------

LESSON XIV.

Before we close our present Study, let us survey for a moment the position of the truly Christian character. Let us see and examine a position, whether filled by lord, subject, or slave, that seems so surrounded with hope, so particularly the focus of all the irradiations of heaven, that the distinctions and miseries of human life, even wrongs done us, are blotted out by the brilliancy of their illumination.

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.

The uncertainty and vanity of human pursuits have for ever been a subject of remark.

And, if we examine the motives of human conduct and see the fallacious objects of human hope, we always perceive the constant attendance of pain, misery, and woe.

As the visions of early life are relinquished, we transfer to the future that confidence which has been for ever betrayed by the past, and as these illusions are successively dispelled, new objects continue to fill the imagination, till the very moment when all our prospects are involved in the darkness of the tomb. Nor think ye that the miseries that flow from ambition, avarice, voluptuousness, and open crime, are the only ones that attend us. Each refinement of life is accompanied with its own peculiar symptom. Besides, there are sufferings that no foresight can foresee, which no excellence can elude.

The imperfection of a master, or of him placed in power, may bring to his slave or other dependant unutterable wo!

The lassitude of sickness, the agony of its pain, the distresses, the imperfections of our friends, their alienation from us, and our final separation from the objects of our tenderest regard, would transform paradise itself into a wilderness of wo, did not the light of God keep it for ever illumined.

Even could we escape from all the external causes of wo, yet the waters of bitterness would continue to flow from the never-ceasing sources of sorrow that lie deep in our own bosoms buried.

We are therefore constrained, forced to conclude, that the balance of our moral constitution has been destroyed; and by the derangement of a system once harmoniously attuned, our principles of action, no longer in unison, are thrown into perpetual collision: maintaining no longer their original or their relative strength, they lead us into perpetual error, and by their conflicts produce a moral discord incompatible with the happiness of man. “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.” “Because the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage (δουλειαςδουλειας, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. viii. 20.

Had we been made acquainted merely with the fall of man and its effect upon his moral constitution, we should have still been bewildered in the perplexities of our condition. A consciousness of guilt would have filled our minds with apprehension, and the fear of the Divine displeasure would have mingled its bitterness with every gratification, would have seized upon every hope. Like Cain, we should have cried out, “Our punishment is greater than we can bear,” and solicited the black mark of slavery as an antidote to threatened and instant death.

But the mercy of God, which always tempers even the natural events to the delicate sensibilities of our physical perceptions, concealed from our view the desolation of our condition, till, in the maturity of his counsels, he saw fit to blend with the discovery the bright visions “of the glory about to be revealed.” Rom. viii. 18.

The heathen nations, although painfully alive to the brevity of human life, and deeply impressed with the vanity of our hopes, were equally ignorant of our fallen nature, and of the holiness of that God before whom we are to be adjudged. Their conception of an existence after death was cheerless and indistinct, although, even at this late day, among the most lofty intellects of their time, we can now perceive a longing desire after something to them unknown, a hankering for the proof of a spiritual immortality. Thus, while there was but little in their anticipations of a future state to excite their apprehension or alarm, there was but little to stimulate their hope.

The vulgar were sometimes alarmed by the majestic terrors of the Thunderer, and the philosopher was sometimes penetrated by those perfections which he was led to ascribe to the mighty Mind.

Yet the wisest sages of antiquity do not seem to have perceived in human guilt an internal malignity, which no penitence can expiate, nor blood of dying victims wash away.

If some glimpses of the miseries and dangers in which sin had involved us were disclosed to the favoured few, yet visions of prophecy dispelled the gloom; for, “where there is no vision the people perish.” Prov. xxix. 18.

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.

Now, when we behold our condition, although we see evidences of our fallen state, of the degradation of our intellectual and moral faculties, yet we see also a provision of mercy by which the creature may be delivered from “the bondage (δουλειας, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

Viewed in connection with this sublime truth, the value of human interests, the pain of human sufferings, and the grief of human wrongs disappear; yea, vanish from the eye of the true believer. The grandeur of his future prospects dignifies his present state, however humble. His present evils, which might overwhelm him if attached to his ultimate condition, lose all their bitterness when converted by redeeming love into mere lessons of moral discipline. The pain is softened by the endearment of paternal tenderness, and he feels and knows that they will only accompany the mere infancy of his being.

The poor, humble, but Christian slave, hears constantly the lessons of Titus, and is happy in his obedience to his own master, that he may please him well in all things, watchful to not contradict, nor purloin from any one, and careful to show all good fidelity, that he may adorn the doctrine of God. He feels that no one has a deeper interest in that grace; for it hath equally appeared to all men.

He remembers his fellow-slaves of Colosse, and while with singleness of eye he heartily serves his earthly master, he feels that the act is ennobled, and is transferred to be an act of devotion and obedience to the great Jehovah.

Sympathy carries him back to his Corinthian brethren, in common with whom he feels no anxious care to change the condition in which he was called, for while he is content to abide where God has placed him, he knows that he has been purchased by the blood of Christ, and promoted to the rank of a freeman of the Lord.

With his fellow-slaves of Ephesus, he may tremble with fear lest his obedience to his master shall not be performed with good-will and singleness of heart, as unto Christ himself, for he knows that God has not required of him merely eye-service; yet he also knows that Christians, whether bond or free in this world, will hereafter be remembered of God for whatever good they do. Yea, he yields himself to the exhortations of Timothy, and accounts his own master worthy of all honour and obedience, that the name of God and his doctrine should not be blasphemed; nor does he feel the less reverence for his believing master, but rather does his service with alacrity as to a brother, and with heart-felt joy, because he is a faithful and beloved partaker of the benefits of his labour.

And when he hears men, whose ignorance of God has caused them to be puffed up with the idea of their own importance and purity, evidently filled with pride, as though they could teach God a more holy government, attempting to exhort and teach them a different doctrine, he feels, he knows that such are not only evil and bad men, but ignorant ones, such as dote about questions, and strifes of words, which have no other tendency than to fill the mind with envy, strife, railing, and evil surmises, such as are among men of corrupt minds, among men who are destitute of the truth, and among men who suppose that gain is godliness. He will view such men, however thoughtless they may be of their true position or sincere in their belief, as standing in the position of the serpent in Eden. Their lessons to him are disobedience to God. From such he will withdraw himself; yea, he will fly from them as from a deadly poison, because disobedience to God for ever ends in ruin and death. But from Timothy he learns contentment, for, as he brought nothing into the world with him, and as he can most certainly carry nothing out, so, having food and raiment, he will be content, and especially so as contentment and godliness are great gain.

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.”

------------------

LESSON XV.

From the immense disproportion between our finite minds and the infinite objects of future hope, our conceptions of the disimbodied spirit must necessarily be feeble. But while we anticipate the promised freedom of the celestial world, the disenthralment of our intellectual faculties, and the deliverance of our moral powers from all corruption, the mind becomes more and more habituated to the scenes thus disclosed, and even reaches to prospects of resplendent beauty; to visions of unclouded truth; to the solution of the little difficulties of our own earthly trials; to the evolutions of the Divine character in connection with our little planet, and even to that infinitude that mocks the bounds of time and space.

Thus the pious Christian, who meditates upon God and the heavens, the work of his hand, feels a divine influence spread over his soul, while the active and the retired, the ardent and the timid, the philosopher whose mind is illumined by the varied lights of science, and the pious slave, whose researches are confined to the sayings of some unlettered expositor, will each cherish anticipations congenial to his peculiar state of mind. Yet all will grow in grace; all will rise above the level of temporal delights; and all will embrace in their expanding conceptions the mighty import of that glorious promise, that “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him,” 1 Cor. ii. 9, till elevated so far above earthly associations, that each can say, “I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness.” Ps. xvii. 15.

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.

“Then we all, with open face, beholding, as in a glass, the glory of God, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory.” 2 Cor. iii. 18.

Such, then, is the picture and such the prospect of the Christian character; and well may Christians, even the slave, “Reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed.” Rom. viii. 18.

From the monarch down, viewed from the distance of eternity, man occupies but a point. All earthly distinctions become so small that nothing short of the eye of omnipotence can see them. The same language describes, and the same God will prepare their rest.

The Christian slave feels exalted even while on earth, for he is well persuaded “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor power, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God.” Rom. viii. 38.

If for a few days the afflicted Christian and slave “wander in the wilderness in a solitary way;” if “hungry and thirsty, their souls faint in them,” he is yet “hastening to a city of habitations.” Ps. cvii. 4, 5, 7.

If even the sun of his earthly hopes be set, yet he is hastening to a country where “thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.” Isa. lx. 20.

With such views the heart is elevated above the pains and miseries of this transitory world to the contemplation of hope celestial.

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.

Like her, in humble submission, he obeys the command, and prays, “O Lord, correct me,” for “I know that the way of man is not in himself it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Jer. x. 23.

In the miseries and vanities with which he is surrounded, the Christian only sees proofs of a fallen, not of a hopeless state. He, like old Æneas, is seeking and looking for a home in a foreign land, and, like him, constantly requires the interposition of some friendly providence to warn him that he is still distant from the destined shores.

Mutandæ sedes; non hæc tibi littora suasit, Delius, aut Cretæ jussit considere Apollo.—2d Ænead.

Like the Israelites, he has pitched his tent in a wilderness of sin, and feels grateful for those afflictions that reiterate the admonition: “Arise and depart, for this is not your rest.” Micah ii. 10.

He knows that “this corruptible will put on incorruption, that this mortal will put on immortality, and that as he has borne the image of the earthly, he shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” See 1 Cor. xv. 49, 53.

Why then should our hearts sink in sadness, because, as we have seen, sin has destroyed the balance of moral power among men,—even the foundation on which their universal equality could exist, whence some races of men have gone deep down in the pit of human degradation, until the man and the brute are found in the same animal tenement.

Such is the poisonous nature of sin, that the heart that deviseth wicked imaginations always finds “feet running swiftly to ruin.” See Prov. vi. 18.

But God hath promised that the remnant of Israel shall not speak lies: “Neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth, for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.” Zeph. iii. 12, 13.

But the ways of God are not as the ways of man; he makes his enemies build his throne.

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.

Study and pray to improve the powers that God hath given, while you compare the things that be with the causes and designs of Providence; and while you note that “the evil bow before the good, and the wicked at the gates of the righteous,” note also that “the way of the ungodly shall perish.” They shall be “like the chaff which the wind driveth away.” For “the hand of the diligent shall bear rule; but the slothful shall be under tribute.” “He that hath not sells himself to him that hath.” Therefore, “the borrower is servant to the lender,” and wherefore, “wisdom is better than rubies;” for “by me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honour are with me: yea, durable riches and righteousness.”

But God hath promised that “the whole earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” Isa. xi. 9. Therefore, so long as the tares and the wheat shall grow together, “Wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I will rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms to pour out upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language that they may all call on the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, (בַּת־פוּצַ֔י Bath Putsi, the daughter of Phut, the most degraded of the African tribes,) shall bring mine offering.” Zeph. iii. 8–10.

The slavery of the African tribes to those of the true faith is here clearly announced, and the great benefit of their conversion to the worship of the true God proclaimed as an abundant reason.

Thus Isaiah, speaking of the house of Israel, the prototype of the church of God, says—“Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, they shall fall down unto thee; they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Verily, God is in thee, and there is no God” beside. Isa. xlv. 14.

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.”

God ever requires of the powerful the protection of the weak, of the more learned the instruction of the ignorant, and of the more wise the government of those who cannot govern themselves.

“For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” Acts xiii. 47.

------------------------------------

Study VI

------------------

LESSON I.

Sin is any want of a conformity to the law of God. Man was created free from sin. He was placed under the government of laws adapted to his condition. But a want of conformity to any item of such law necessarily disorganized and deranged some portion of his original condition. Let us cast a hasty view at the operation of these laws. It is contrary to the law of God that a man should put his hand in the fire; when he does so, his condition is somewhat physically changed, and he is in trouble.

It is contrary to the law of God that a man should bear false testimony; he having done so, his condition is changed mentally, and his troubles increase.

It is contrary to the law of God that a man should remain ignorant; he doing so, is not in the condition of him who has multiplied and replenished his mental and physical capabilities: he is less capable, he has less power.

The law of God is all powerful, and will be executed. The punishment of its breach is certain. It is effect following cause. The whole of God’s creation is planned by this principle.

A want of conformity to the law operates as a poison, that spreads through the moral and physical man, sinking, forcing him down to trouble, pain, misery, ruin, and death.

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.

Speculators upon the holy writ may say what they will; yet it is certain, that act, called the eating the apple, was an act, whatever it may have been, that necessarily injured the character, health, mind, and body of man. It is certain, because it did so. It was the very birth of death itself. The wages of sin are death—the Lord God Almighty hath spoken it!! Another law of God, till then unknown to man, was brought instantly into operation. His wants were changed; the earth no longer produced spontaneously to them. In the emphatic language of that day, it was cursed, that he might have less leisure time and opportunity to continue in the downward course of sin to sudden destruction and death. He was in great mercy condemned to labour for the supply of his daily wants; he was made the slave to the necessities of animal life. Is it necessary to quote Scripture to show that it abounds with the doctrine that idleness is a wonderful promoter of sin? God in great mercy contrived that his hungry body and naked back should in some measure keep him from it.

“Therefore, the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.” Gen. iii. 23, “To till” is translated from לַֽעֲבֹד֙ la avod, to slave. It is the very word that means a slave; but is here used as a verb, and literally means to slave the ground. In this early instance of its use in holy writ, in relation to man, it is used as a verb, to show us, not that he had become the property of any other person, but a slave to his own necessities, and that the labour required was the labour of a slave.

Until man had become poisoned by sin there was no want of a law, of an institution to interpose between him and his sudden destruction and death.

This is the first degree of slavery among poor, fallen men, and upon which now depend their health, happiness, and continuance of life.

------------------

LESSON II.

“But Cain was a tiller of the ground.” The word tiller is translated from the same word used as a noun, a slave of the ground, having reference to its cultivation for his support and sustenance. And here we see the peculiar propriety of the language of the Psalmist: “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, that he may bring forth food out of the earth.” Ps. civ. 14. In this instance, “service” means slavery, and is translated from the same word, לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣ת la avodath. “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the slavery of man, that he may bring forth food out of the earth.”

But we are directly informed that the Lord had no respect for the offering of Cain; that Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell; and the Lord reasoned with him and said, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door;” also promising him, if he would do well, he should have rule over his younger brother! All this shows that Cain’s progress in sin had become very considerable, notwithstanding the mild yet unavoidable slavery already imposed. But, like many other sinners, he ran his race rapidly, until his hands were dyed in his brother’s blood.

“When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” Gen. iv. 12. Here tillest is also translated from the same word, and means “when thou slavest the ground,” showing most clearly that the slavery imposed on Adam was attached to Cain, with the additions, that the earth should not yield unto him her strength,—that he should be a fugitive and a vagabond,—and a mark was placed upon him. The expression that the ground should not yield unto him its strength, may be understood to mean that it should not be as productive, or, that some other person should enjoy a portion of the benefit of his labour, or in fact both: his labours were to be in some measure fruitless. And let us notice how this portion of his sentence compares with other announcements of Jehovah:

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

“The Lord will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish, but he casteth away the substance of the wicked.”

“The hand of the diligent shall bear rule, but the slothful shall be under tribute.”

“Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regardeth reproof shall be honoured.”

“A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children, but the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.”

“The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall want.” Proverbs.

“He should be a fugitive and a vagabond.”

“The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Prov. xxviii. 1.

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” Ps. i.

And again: “Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquities of his fathers be remembered with the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.” Ps. cix. 6–14.

Such is the prospect of the desperately wicked: “The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.” Prov. iii. 33.

------------------

LESSON III.

But Cain had a mark set upon him. The word translated mark is א֔וֹת oth: it means a mark of a miraculous nature, whereby some future thing is of a certainty known, and may be something done or only said. Whatever it may have been, the object was to prevent him from being slain by any one meeting him, by its proclamation of the burden of the curses under which he laboured. It was, therefore, absolutely the mark of sin, sealing upon him and his race this secondary degree of slavery. The mark distinguished them as low and servile as well as wicked, and hence its protective influence.

But what was the mark of sin? What is it now? and what has it ever been? If one is accused of some vile offence, a little presumptive evidence will make us say, It is a very dark crime; it makes him look very black. This figure, if it be one, now so often applied, is so strongly used in Scripture, and in fact by all in every age, that the idea seems well warranted that the downward, humiliating course of sin has a direct tendency, by the Divine law, to even physically degrade, perhaps blacken and disbeautify, the animal man.

A similar doctrine was well known to the Greeks. Demosthenes says to the Athenians, “It is impossible for him who commits low, dishonourable, and wicked acts, not to possess a low, dirty intellect; for, as the person of a man receives, as it were, a colouring from his conduct, so does the mind take upon itself a clothing from the same acts.” See Second Olynthiac. So the Arabians: “God invited unto the dwelling of peace, and directed whom he pleaseth into the right way. They who do right shall receive a most excellent reward, and a superabundant addition; neither blackness nor shame shall cover their faces.” Koran, chap. x.

“On the day of the resurrection, thou shalt see the faces of those who have uttered lies concerning God, become black.” Koran, chap. xxxix.

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.

So the Mohammedan tradition, that the bad spirits, Monker and Nakir, who, upon the death of a man, come to examine him, are awful and black. See Prelim. Disc. p. 90. And hence the belief is that the wicked, even before judgment, will stand looking up to God with their faces obscured by blackness and disfigured by all the marks of sorrow and deformity. Idem, p. 99.

So also the fable, that a precious stone of paradise fell down to the earth to Adam, whiter than milk, but turned black by the touch of a wicked woman, or, as others say, by wickedness of mankind generally; but the story is that its blackness is only skin-deep, and hence the Arabians carefully preserved it in the Caaba at Mecca. Idem, p. 125. Also, Al Zamakh, &c. in Koran; and Ahmed Ebĕn Yusef; and Pocock, Spec. p. 117.

Similar traditions and quotations may be gathered from all quarters of the world, and from all portions of time; but let us turn to the book that never lies nor misleads. “Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will show the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.” Nahum, iii. 5.

The word here translated skirts, is שׁוּלַיִךְ shulaik. We believe that all scholars agree the Hebrew root of this word is borrowed from the Arabic شَيلࣨ, of which the meaning is postremum cujusque rei; and, hence the idea skirt, the extreme of something hanging down, tending downward.

And from the same source we have the Hebrew word שׁוֹלָל sholal, a captive, a thing captured, &c., because the captive is in an extreme condition; and thus שוּל shūl is made to mean a hem or skirt, from its cognate and Arabic root, the extreme of something tending downwards. Thus شَلَل 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,” שׁוֹלָ֑ל sholal, captive, reduced to the lowest extremity, &c.

Therefore, although perhaps not as literal, the idea of the prophet would have been more exactly conveyed had it been translated, “And I will discover the low extremity of your condition upon your face;” and in this same sense the word is used in Jer. xiii. 22: “If thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts (שׁוּלַ֖יִךְ shulaik) discovered, and thy heels made bare.” Evidently proclaiming the doctrine, that a course of sin, through the Divine providence, will leave its mark.

“She is empty, and void, and waste, and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness. Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord.” Nah. ii. 10, 13.

“At Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt; and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her, and her daughters shall go into captivity. Thus will I execute judgments in Egypt: and they shall know that I am the Lord.” Ezek. xxx. 18, 19.

“Our necks are under persecution: we labour and have no rest. We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities. Servants (עֲבָדִים֙ abadim, slaves) have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand. We get our bread with the peril of our lives, because of the sword of the wilderness. Our skin is black like an oven, because of the terrible famine.” Lam. v. 5–10.

“For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.” Jer. viii. 21.

“Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.” Jer. xiv. 2.

“Her Nazarites were purer than snow; they were whiter than milk; they were more ruddy in body than rubies; their polishing was of sapphire. Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets.” Lam. iv. 7, 8.

“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.

“Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.” Jude 13.

“For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” Jer. ii. 22.

“The show of their countenance doth witness against them.” Isa. iii. 9.

------------------

LESSON IV.

But experience proved that even this second degree of slavery was not a sufficient preventive of sin to preserve man upon the earth. “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.” Gen. vi. 2, 3. The word translated “fair,” and applied to the daughters of men, is טֹבֹ֖ת to voth; it is in the feminine plural, and comes from טָב tav, and cognate with the Syriac word ܛܒܳܗܳ tov or tob; it merely means good, excellent, as the quality may exist in the mind of the person taking cognisance.

It implies no quality of virtue or complexion, but in its use is reflective back to the nominative. It is one of those words which we find in all languages, of which rather a loose use is made. We find it in Dan. ii. 32, (the 31st of the English text,) “excellent;” also Ezra v. 17, “good.” When it is said of Sarah, in Gen. xii. 11, that she was “fair,” meaning that she was of a light complexion, the word יְפַה yĕphath, is used, and is the same with our Japheth, the son of Noah, and comes from יָפַה yapha, and means to shine, to give light, and, as an adjective, well means lightness of complexion, fairness, and brilliancy of beauty. So in Esth. ii. 7, “and the maid was fair and beautiful,” יָפַה yephath. 1 Sam. xvi. 12, “Now he was ruddy and of a fair countenance,” יְפַה yepha. 1 Kings i. 4, “and the damsel was fair,” יָפָ֣ה yaphah.

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 יָפַה 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.”

Asiatic poetry always abounded in hyperbole. Thus an Arabian poet, speaking of his mistress, says—

“I behold in thine eyes, angels looking at me. Deformity in another, in thee is excellent beauty; The garments of the shepherd, upon thee, are the finest tissue, And brass ornaments become fine gold. Thy excellence, so great among men, the god beholds, And is astonished at thy beauty.”

It is not from such productions that we are to look for the simple, original, and radical meaning of terms; and probably even in the case of Canticles, the word יָפַה yapha would not have been allowed by the rules of composition, had it not been first announced in a calm, initiatory manner, that she was a black woman, in order that no misconception might arise from such hyperbole.

Let us suppose ourselves in Arabia, and some poet announces that, for our evening entertainment and diversion, he will deliver a panegyric upon some black woman, and, among other things, says—

Thy neck is as a tower of ivory. Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep. Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet. Thy nose like the tower of Lebanon, That looketh towards Damascus; And the smell of thy nose like apples; And the smell of the roof of thy mouth like the best wine Thy stature is like the palm-tree. Thy skin is fairer than snow, And thy breasts like two clusters of grapes. Thy head is as Mount Carmel, And the hair of thy head like purple, And the curls of thy hair like a flock of goats. Behold, thou art fair, my love; thou hast doves’ eyes.

True, amid such hyperbole, we might have mistaken her colour, if he had not previously informed us on that subject. But, as it stands, there is no falsehood asserted; there is no liability to mistake. The poet merely means that, at least in his conception, she is as lovely, beautiful, and desirable as all those hyperboles would make her. And we think we have reason to contend, that the hyperbolic use of the word יָפַה yapha, in Canticles, does not alter in any sense its real meaning, or, in any ordinary use of language, make it a term applicable to people of colour, or in any sense whatever a synonyme of the טָב tav, or טֹבֹת to voth, as used in Genesis.

This explanation is thought necessary, since it is seen that we shall hereafter contend that the descendants of Cain were black.

------------------

LESSON V.

If we take the passage, Gen. vi. 2, 3, as it stands in connection, it seems to us an obvious deduction that the commingling of the races of Seth and Cain was obnoxious to the Lord.

It is placed in position as the cause why his Spirit should not always strive. He saw that such amalgamation would, did deteriorate and destroy the more holy race of Seth; and therefore determined, with grief in his heart, to destroy man from the earth. All were swept away, except Noah, his three sons, and their four wives. Yet sin found a residence among the sons of Noah, and Canaan was doomed to perpetual bondage, as it now exists upon the earth. “And he said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.” Gen. ix. 25–27.

The expression “servant of servants” is translated from the words עֶ֥בֶד עֲבָדִ֖ים ebed abadim, slave of slaves. The expression is idiomatic, and means the most abject slave.

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?

------------------

LESSON VI.

Having traced the institution of slavery down to its third and final degree, and finding it firmly lodged in the family of Ham, let us now inquire what proof there may be that his descendants are also the descendants and race of Cain. This evidence is to be found in the fact, 1st. That the descendants of Ham were black, inheriting the mark of Cain. 2d. That the traditions and memorials of the family of Ham are also traditions and memorials of the family of Cain. 3d. That Naamah, of the family of Cain, is found to be kept in memory by the earlier descendants of Ham. 4th. That the characteristics of these families are the same, and that no facts are found to exist discordant to the proposition of their being one and the same race; but on the contrary, every vestige of them is in unison with such proposition.

In presenting the evidence touching the several facts of the inquiry, we cannot claim the most lucid or logical arrangement, nor that our remarks will be classed in the best methodical order for the subjects of consideration. But we present the proposition that aboriginal names are always significant terms: thus, Abram, the high father; Abraham, the father of a multitude; Jacob, holding by the heel, supplanting; Israel, one who wrestles with God; and Cain, one that has been purchased or bought: “And she bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.” Gen. iv. 1. The word Cain is from קָנָח Cana, and means to buy, to purchase, and, as a noun, a thing bought; and the word “gotten,” קַנִ֥יתִי canithi, terminating with its verbal formation, means, I have bought or purchased—his name signified one purchased.

There is an allusion to Cain in the Koran; and, although we do not present it as or for authority, yet it may not be out of place to notice what the ancient Arabians have said on the subject: “Verily, I (the prophet) am no other than a denouncer of threats, and a messenger of good tidings unto the people who believed. It is he who hath created you from one person and out of him produced his wife, that he might dwell with her; and when he had known her, she carried a light burden for a time, wherefore she walked easily therewith: but when it became more heavy, they called upon God their Lord, saying, If thou give us a child rightly shaped, we will surely be thankful. Yet when he had given them a child rightly shaped, they attributed companions unto him, for that which he had given them. But far be that from God, which they associated with him! Will they associate with him false gods, which create nothing, but are themselves created, and can neither give them assistance nor help themselves?” Koran, chap. vii.

The Arabian commentators, in explanation of this passage, relate a tradition among them. They say, when Eve was big with her first child, the devil came to frighten and fill her mind with apprehension. But he pretended to her that by his prayers to God he could persuade him to cause her to have a well-shaped child, a son, the likeness of Adam, and that she should be safely delivered of it, upon the condition that she should dedicate or name the child abed al hareth, the slave of the devil, instead of the name that Adam would give it, abed Allah, the slave of God; that Eve accepted the terms, and the child was born, &c. The legend is varied by the commentators, some saying the child died as soon as born, or that the devil applied to Adam instead of Eve, &c.; but they all agree that al hareth was the name the devil went by among the angels.

It is a little remarkable that the passage in Gen. iv. 2, “But Cain was a tiller of the ground,” Heb. obed adamah, the slave of the ground, would be, in Arabic, this phrase, abed al hareth, the cognate of the Hebrew word ארצ erets, the earth. And therefore the Arabic, abed al hareth, will be a translation of the Hebrew in Genesis. This legend will be found in Al Beidawi, Jallado' ddin, Zamakhshari, et al. See Sale’s Koran, vol. i. p. 360.

The discovery of the western continent by Columbus was the great and absorbing event of the age in which it happened. It was an event which, in consideration of the characteristics of men, would be held in commemoration: in all parts of the world it would be a matter of such record as literature made convenient, or the relative influence of the event rendered constant to the mind. And hence we find it referred to not only in books, but in the continent discovered; it is commemorated by the application of the name of the discoverer to its seas, lakes, rivers, mountains, districts of country, cities, towns, &c. Now, if at the time of the event, the world had not advanced to the achievement of literary records, it is evident that the latter mode of commemoration could have been the only one practicable; and history shows us that this mode of commemoration was adopted at the earliest ages, nor laid aside even at this day. This disposition to commemorate is one of the characteristics of the whole human family. Thus Eve commemorated some event, described as the purchase of her first-born of the Lord, by giving said first-born the name of “one purchased.”

“And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.” “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.” “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan.” Gen. ix. 18, 22, 24, 25. The things here recorded took place in quick succession from the removal of Noah’s family from the ark. Ham ultimately had four sons, the youngest of whom he named Canaan. Is there any evidence, at the time of these records, that any of the children of Ham were born, and especially his youngest?

It does appear to us that the word Canaan, as here used, does not mean any particular son of Ham. It is evidently used at a time before he had any sons. From the manner of the relation it seems probable the planting of the vineyard was among the first things Noah did after the flood. Two or three years was all the time required for the consummation of this event. In case Ham had married a female of the race of Cain, he had also identified himself with that race, and might well be called by his father, especially at a moment of displeasure, by a term emphatically showing, yea announcing prophetically, his degradation through all future time,—the degradation to which that connection had reduced him.

The ill-manners of Ham towards his father were not the great cause of the curse. The cause must have previously existed. The ill-manners only influence the time of its announcement. Even had it never been announced, the consequences would have been the same. The sentence of the law is only declaratory of the relation in which one has placed himself. The cause of the curse or degradation here pronounced must have been something adequate, to have produced it. The ill-manners could have no so great effect. And let us inquire, where are we to find an adequate cause for the immediate degradation of an unborn race, unless we find it in intermarriage. His intermarriage, then, could have been with no other than the race of Cain? When Noah spoke to Ham, and said, “Cursed be Canaan,” he had no reference to any particular descendant of Ham, but included them all, as the race of Cain, and, in reproof and disparagement to his son, reproaching the connection. Suppose, even at this day, a descendant of Japheth should choose to amalgamate with the Negro, could not his father readily foretell the future destiny of the offspring,—their standing among the rest of his family? The term Canaan, thus spoken and applied to Ham, was significant of the character his conduct had created, by identifying himself with the race of Cain. It was a new name, deeply and degradingly distinguishing him from the rest of his father’s family. Jacob was called Israel, after having wrestled with God; but an honourable cognomen would be made known and used, whereas one of reverse character might or might not.

It cannot be expected, at this late day, to account for the anomalies of the ancient Hebrew. Terms applied as proper names, whether significant or not, are in all languages, and in all ages, subject sometimes to strange and even oblique alterations. Thus, in the family of Benjamin, “Ard,” of Genesis and Numbers, is changed into Addar in Chronicles; and thus Colon of Genoa was converted into Columbus in the western continent.

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,” הַקּ֭יִן ha Kain, Josh. xv. 57, also Kinah, קִינָ֥ה 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.

In Judges iv. 11, we have, “Now, Heber the Kenite, הַקֵּינִי֨ ha Keni,) which was of the children of Hobab, (the Jethro of Genesis,) the father-in-law of Moses.” We shall hereafter have occasion to show that the father-in-law of Moses was a descendant of Misraim, the second son of Ham; that he dwelt in the mountains of Midian, and, when spoken of in regard to his country, was called a Midianite; but his daughter, when spoken of in regard to her colour, was called an Ethiopian; but now, when he is spoken of in regard to his race, he is called a Cainite, Kenite.

In Josh. xv. 17, we have a derivative in common origin of the foregoing, in “Kenaz,” the brother of Caleb; but upon examining 1 Chron. ii., we shall find a sufficient reason in the blood of that family; and in all instances where such derivative is found, we shall find the same cause to warrant its use.

------------------

LESSON VII.

Such evidence as there may be that Ham did take to wife some particular female of the race of Cain, will also be the most positive evidence that their descendants are one and the same.

Let it be noticed that, immediately preceding the account of the flood, and the causes which led to that judgment upon the earth, we are presented with the genealogical tables of the families of Cain and Seth, down to that period; and that these tables terminate with Ham, in that of Seth, and in the female Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, in the genealogy of Cain. Ham and Naamah are thus placed upon a parallel, so far as it regards these tables.

It surely is not difficult to perceive the cause why, in the table of Seth, the genealogical line ending in the family of Noah was selected; but, if the entire race of Cain were to be destroyed by the flood, why was the particular line ending in Naamah chosen? Why was any such table of his race required? Beside Eve, the two wives of Lamech and this Naamah are the only females whose names are given before the flood? If the entire race of Cain was destroyed, how was the name of Naamah of more importance for us to know than that of thousands of the same race? Why has God sent these facts down to us? Has he ever revealed to us any thing unnecessary for us to know? Is it consistent with his character to do so? There have been, through all time since the deluge, traditions and legends among the Arabians, and many other Asiatic tribes, that this Naamah and her posterity continued upon the earth subsequent to that period. We give in substance a tale of traditionary lore among the Eastern nations, found in the Book Zohar, and referred to by Sale, page 87. They believe that at an extremely ancient time, there was an inferior race of beings, whom they call “jin,” (query, a cognate of ינה yana or jana, to cast down, destroyed, used in a bad sense, to cast away;) that this race was created from, by, or someway connected with fire, heat, &c., either in their original state or in an acquired condition; that they eat, drink, propagate, and die, and are subjects of salvation or reprobation, like men; that they inhabited the world for ages before Adam was created; that they fell at length into general corruption; that, therefore, Eblis (one of the names of the devil) drove them into a remote part of the earth, and confined them there; but, however, some of their race remained; and that Tahmunah, (the Noah of the Hebrew Scriptures,) one of the ancient kings of Persia, drove them into the mountains of Kâf.

Another version of the same legend is, that this race of beings was begotten by Aza with Naamah, the daughter of Lamech. (Let us here note, אזא aza is a Chaldaic word, meaning heat, to grow hot, &c., and as such is used in Dan. iii. 22,—therefore a synonyme with Ham, as applied to the son of Noah.) But some have it that the race is the joint offspring, or from the double paternity, of Aza and Azael. (Let us also notice, that this monstrosity of paternity is reduced to a single personage by the fact, that the Hebrew suffix el merely gives quality, even by repetition, as thus,—Aza the mighty Aza.) But this version of the legend denominates the race “Shedim,” the plural of shed, a word sometimes used to express idols, but more often used to mean desolation, destruction, &c.; and because the nursing breast is often exhausted, or from the notion that such exhaustion is akin to a thing destroyed, this word is applied to the female breast; and hence a posterity strongly marked by natural peculiarities would very readily take some name expressive of such fact. Even at this day, in reference to such peculiarities, we say, they took it from the “breast.”

We deem it unnecessary to enter into a critical history of the word shed or shedim, as used by the Arabians, the “sed” of the Hebrews; but we may be permitted to remark that, from its conveying the idea of destruction, desolation, so strongly, the Hebrews applied it also to mean a “field,” or country, in a destroyed or desolate or uncultivated condition; and it is thus used in many places. See Genesis iii. 1.; and is thus the word we call Sodom. It always carries with it the idea opposite to improvement; and, governed by the same leading idea, writers have applied it, perhaps rather figuratively, to any living existence found wandering over waste and solitary districts. We might pursue the subject of this tradition, and from the analogy of language, as well as from ancient associations, at least find some evidence that Zahmurah was no other than Noah; that the affix “el” with Aza arose from the acknowledged superiority of the race of Seth to that of Cain, in consequence of which they were sometimes described as “the sons of God,” Gen. vi. 4; and that the tradition points to the race of Ham, and their humble condition in the world.

Traces of this legend will not only be found as above, but also in Gemara, in Hagiga, and Igrat Baale Hayyin, c. 15.

If it be a fact that the Negro race are the descendants of Ham and Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, of the race of Cain, it might be thought there would still be existing some traditions of such an extraordinary fact. As such we present the legend: not that we attach to it any undue importance, and especially not to be received as evidence at all, in contradiction of one word found in the holy books. But if a legend of ancient time shall be found, when sifted from the ignorance of fable or the fraud of design, to coincide with facts as related in the holy books, we may be permitted to consider the same as a circumstance not altogether unworthy of consideration.

But, we repeat, unless Naamah was to survive the destruction of the deluge, why was her name, why was her genealogy recorded and sent down to future time?

We think it certain that if she did survive the flood, she must have done so as the wife of one of Noah’s sons. Now, as it is evident that the intermixture of the two races was regarded by Jehovah as a sin, it is not probable that either Shem or Japheth took her to wife, since they were both most honourably distinguished by a public blessing immediately after the flood.

But again: Noah had been preaching the then impending ruin near a hundred years. Lamech might well have had some glimpses of the subdiluvian world, and certainly saw the consequential ruin to young Ham, of the holy family of Noah, from such a connection with his daughter, Naamah. It could not otherwise than operate as a moral death to all the high hopes of him and his posterity. In case such connection was formed, and Lamech was forward in aiding or influencing it, then well might his troubled soul exclaim to his two wives as related.

But in case Ham did take to wife this daughter of Lamech, we might expect her name also to be held in remembrance by her posterity, as we have seen to some extent was that of Cain; and if we find such fact to exist in regard to her, it will be to our mind strong additional proof, that the descendants of Ham were in common the descendants of Cain. We notice here the fact, which we may hereafter deem necessary to prove, that, of the children of Ham, Cush originally settled in Arabia and the southwestern parts of Asia generally, Misraim in Egypt, Phut in the northern parts of Africa and southward indefinitely, and Canaan in Palestine.

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.

------------------

LESSON VIII.

Before we close this branch of our inquiry, let us examine into the significancy and composition of the name “Naamah,” as applied to the daughter of Lamech: and we take occasion here to say how deeply we are indebted to the labours of the Rev. Dr. Lee, the regius professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, England, and whom we have no question in believing to be among the most penetrating oriental scholars of the age. By an intimate knowledge of the Asiatic languages, he discovered that in many instances where, in a cognate case, the Heemanti would be used in Hebrew, in them the word was supplied with a particle, changing or influencing the sense. Upon full research, he determined that the Heemanti, in Hebrew, were the fragments of ancient or obsolete particles, still influencing the significance as would have done the particles themselves. Let us take an example in our own language: able implies fulness of power; add to it the prefix un, and you reverse the sense wholly. Yet we do not perceive, without reflection, that the prefix really is a contraction of something similar to “I am not,” &c.

With this door open to a constitutional knowledge of the language, let us take the word צם am. The terminating aspirate of the word Naamah will be readily formed from this by the usual feminine, as a fragment of the בּוּת later בַּת bath. And for the prefix nun, we beg leave to quote from Lee’s Lectures, pages 123 and 124:

“We come now to propose a conjecture on the prefix nun, and on the modification of sense which primitive words undergo in consequence of its influence. If then we take this (נ) as the defective form of some primitive word, appearing sometimes in the form of הנ, at other times as נ only, we may suppose it to have been derived from the (Arabic) root, which, had it been preserved in Hebrew, might have been written הָנָֽה hanah, אָנָה anah, or אָנָא ana. The senses attributed to it by Castell (in his Arabic Lexicon) are, among others, ‘ad extremum perfectionis terminum pervenit—assecutus fuit, seu percepit—retinuit, detinuit, coercuit,—lenitate, modestia et patientia usus fuit,’ &c. Supposing this word, or some defective form of it, to be construed with any other, the sense of both taken together would, in general, give the force of the forms thus compounded. And as this form of compound is often in the leading word of one of the conjugations, it becomes the more important to ascertain its properties. Primitive words receiving this particle will have a sort of passive sense, or will exhibit subjection to the action implied by the primitive accidentally, but not habitually. Words receiving this augment, subjecting them to the action implied by the primitive word, may, when the context requires it, also be construed as having a reciprocal sense, or as implying possibility,” &c.

Now then, let us present examples of the influence of this particular Heemanti: —שָׂכּוּר sakur, a hireling, one whose habit is to be hired, one whose occupation is that of being hired by others. Add נ nun, and we have נִשְׂכָּ֔רוּ niskkaru, as in 1 Sam. ii. 5, and translated thus: “They that were full have hired out themselves for bread.” The idea in Hebrew is: They who were habitually full, from the force of the circumstances influencing the case, have been compelled to hire themselves to others for bread. The sakur is a hireling from habit, from constitution, from custom, &c., and which idea enters into the meaning of the word. But the prefix of the proposed Heemanti at once destroys all idea of habit, fitness, constitution, or custom; but yet the individual is a “hireling,” but only as the force of circumstances influencing the case compelled him to be so. Thus this Heemanti gives a reflective quality, reflecting back upon the agent or actor, as thus: שָׁמַר shamar, he guards, נִשְׁמַר nishmar, he guards himself; that is, under the force of circumstances affecting the case, he was compelled to guard himself. Thus כּמר chemar is sometimes used to express the idea black, as a constant, habitual quality. In Lam. v. 10, we find it with this Heemanti, thus, נִכְמָ֔רוּ nichemaru, “our skin was black;” not that their skin was naturally and habitually black, but made so by the facts of the case: and this same word, with this Heemanti, is used in Gen. xliii. 30, and translated, by attempting to express a Hebrew cognate idea, into “yearn.” The idea is, his bowels did not habitually “yearn,” but the action was forced upon him by the facts of the case; and the same again in 1 Kings iii. 26. In Hosea xi. 8, we find it again translated “my repentings are kindled:” because his people were bent on backsliding, which would cause the Assyrian to be their king, and war to be in their cities continually, and their bad counsels themselves to be destroyed, his repentings were forced to be “kindled.” See the passage.

This particle then prefixed to the word עם am, with its feminine termination, makes the word נעמה Naamah, with the meaning, under the condition of things, she was to become a people distinct to herself; not that she would be a people absolutely, by the habitual action of constituent ability, but she would be a people distinct to herself, only as the peculiar influencing causes made her so,—showing also that these causes gave distinction and character to her posterity. Thus her very name shadowed forth the condition of her race. A Frenchman goes to England, or vice versa: a generation passes and nationality is lost. Not so with the Ethiopian. For “though thou wash thee with nitre and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” Jer. ii. 22.

A form of the word “Naamah” is used in character of a masculine plural, in Isa. xvii. 10, and translated “pleasant,” as if from נעם nam. Forced to differ from this translation, we beg leave to place the whole passage before the scholars of the day:

כִּ֤י שָׁכַ֙חַתְּ֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעֵ֔ךְ וְצ֖וּר מָֽעֻזֵּ֭ךְ לֹ֣א זָכָ֑רְתְּ עַל־כֵּׄן תִּטְּעִי֨ נִטְעֵ֣י נַֽעֲמנִים וּזְמ֥רַׄת זָ֖ד תִּזרָעֶֽנּוּ׃

It is translated thus: “Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants and shalt set it with strange slips.”

We beg to inquire whether there is not a material defect in the latter clause of this translation? The verb “to plant,” in Hebrew, governs two accusatives, to wit, the plantation and the thing planted. In English, we are compelled to render one of the names as governed by a preposition. Thus, he planted a field with corn, or he planted corn in a field. The word זְמֹרַה zemorath, is often translated a song, as “The Lord Jehovah is my strength and song.” See Ps. cxviii. 14 and Isa. xii. 2. But the idea is more comprehensive than is our idea expressed by the term “song.” It includes the result of a course of conduct. Thus the result of a devout worship of God is that Jehovah becomes the “Zemorath” of the worshipper; and we doubt not our term result, although imperfect, will give a better view of the prophet’s idea in this place than the song. In this sense this word is used in Gen. xliii. 11, and translated “fruits:” thus, “take of the best fruits of the land,” that is, the best results of our cultivation. The prophet informs his people that they intermix and amalgamate with the Naamathites because they have forgot God, and that the result is the two last words in the passage, to wit, the “zar” and “tizera-ennu” that is, a “stranger.” See Exod. xxx. 33; Levit. xxii. 10, 12, 13, where “zar” is translated “stranger;” also, Job xix. 15, 17; also, Prov. v. 10, 17, and 20; and many other places, surely enough to determine its meaning here. The original sense of the last word in the passage was to sow seed, hence to scatter and destroy. The result of such amalgamation then is, their posterity will be a deteriorated race, and the pure Hebrew stock sown to the winds, scattered, wasted away and destroyed.

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 נַ֥עֲמָנִ֔ים 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.

By the use of some such paraphrasis the idea of the prophet will be brought to mind: “Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou (or therefore dost thou) plant Naamathites,” (that is, amalgamate with the descendants of Ham and Naamah,) “and the fruits of the land shall be a stranger” (that is, their adulterated posterity will be heathen) “scattering thee away;” that is, wasting away not only the purity of the Hebrew blood, but their worship also.

Repeat: “Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength.” Therefore dost thou cohabit with the heathen, and thy posterity, O Jacob, shall be an enemy, and thou scattered away and destroyed! Such is the announcement of the prophet.

One of the most bitter specimens of irony contained in the Scriptures is the answer of Job to the Naamathite: “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.” The passage needs no comment.

The view we take of the word “Naamanim,” as used by Isaiah, we think warranted by the succeeding sentence, which we ask the scholar to notice.

“For a day thou shalt make thy plant to grow, for a morning thou shalt make thy seed to flourish, but the harvest shall be a heap” (a burden unbearable) “in the days of grief and desperate sorrow.” And such has ever been the lot of the white parent who has amalgamated with the negro; as to posterity, it is ruin.

The prophet borrowed his figure from agriculture. His intention was to present to the mind the abortiveness of such a course of sin, by presenting a bold and distinct view of the mental and moral character of the descendants of Naamah; and is on a par with—“Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord.” Amos ix. 7.

------------------

LESSON IX.

By referring to the instances where we allege are to be found variations of the names Cain and Naamah, it will be at once noticed that some of them are quite remarkable. Shall we be excused for a few remarks in explanation, by way of example, of other lingual changes? Queen Elizabeth lived but yesterday; and her history has not advanced through a very great variety of languages, yet we find, in commemoration of her, one place named Elizabeth, Elizabeth City, Elizabethtown, Elizabethville, Elizabethburg, and another, even Betsey’s Wash-tub, and because she was never married, one is called Virgin Queen, and another Virginia.

Now, we all know that at a very ancient period, the worship of the sun and of fire was introduced into the British Isles. Is there nothing left at this day in commemoration of that fact? The sun became an object of great and absorbing consideration. The ancient Celtic word grian meant the sun; from the application of this word and its variations, we have a proof, not only of how words are made to change, but also of the fact that the people of that country were once addicted to the worship of the sun or fire. Hence Apollo, who was the sun personified, was called Grynæus. At once we find a singular change in the name of the Druidical idol Crom-Cruach, often called Cean Groith, the head of the sun. This was the image or idol god to whom the ancient inhabitants of Ireland offered infants and young children a sacrifice. It was in fact the same as the Moloch of the ancient Hamitic occupants of Palestine, and was so firmly established in the superstitions of the world, that whatever race had the ascendency in Ireland, it continued to be thus worshipped, giving the name of the “Plains of slaughter” to the place of its location, until St. Patrick had the success to destroy the image and its worship; and hence also the names Knoc-greine and Tuam-greine, hills where the sun was worshipped, and other places in Ireland, even now keep in memory that worship: Cairn-Grainey, the sun’s heap, Granniss’ bed, corrupted from Grian-Beacht, the sun’s circle. A point of land near Wexford is called Grenor, the sun’s fire, and the town of Granaid, because the sun was worshipped there. And we may notice a still greater variation in Carig-Croith, the rock of the sun—and even our present word grange, from the almost obsolete idea, a place enclosed, separate and distinct, but open to the sun, now used as a synonyme of farm.

Let us take our word fire, and we shall perceive remarkable changes through all the languages from the Chaldaic down. Gen. xi. 28, “Ur” is translated from אוּר which means fire. Abraham was a native of Chaldea, and from a place where they worshipped fire, or the sun. It was used to mean the sun, Job xxxviii. 12; also, in the plural, Isa. xxiv. 15: “Wherefore glorify ye the Lord in the fires?” It is here ארֻים urim. Because fire emitted light, it became used to mean light. The words urim and thummim meant lights or fires, and truth: among the fire-worshippers the same term meant fire and sun. The Copts called their kings suns. Hence from this term they took the word ouro, to mean the idea of royalty; their article pi, made piouro, the sun or the king, which being carried back to the Hebrews, they made it Pharaoh; but the sun was regarded as a god, and hence the Egyptian kings came to be called gods; but the Chaldaic and Hebrew אוּר, when applied to fire or the sun by the Copts, as an object of worship, was distinguished from the idea of royalty by the term ra and re, with the particle pira and pire, generally written phra and phre. Hence the Greek πυρ, pur, to mean fire, and hence pyrites, which means a fire-stone, a stone well burned, or a stone containing fire, &c.

And hence also the Hebrew word ראי rai, a mirror, vision, the god of vision, and by figure a conspicuous or illustrious person. But according to Butman, the Sanscrit root Raja is the original of the obsolete Greek word, Ῥα, Ῥαια, Ῥαων, and if so, possibly of the Chaldaic word under view. But however that may be, it is evident that the Greek radios is at least derived through the channel indicated; and we now use the term ray to mean an emanation from great power. Our word regent is also from the same source, through the Latin rex, and may be found, slightly modified, through all the European dialects. And it may be remarked that, cognate therewith, we have the Arabic word raiheh, or raygeh, to mean fragrancy; the poetic minds of the Arabians uniformly applying this image to legitimate rule and government.

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.

Changes of language sometimes take place upon a single word apparently by caprice, among different tribes of people,—sometimes by the transposition of the consonant or vowel sound; by the insertion of a letter or letters for the sake of euphony; by the contraction or abbreviation of letters for the sake of despatch; by the reduplication of a letter or syllable on the account of some real or fancied importance or emphasis attached to it; and by the deletion or addition of a letter or syllable at the commencement or end of a word, for a real or supposed more felicitous enunciation of certain sounds in succession; and hence alterations, slight at first, are liable to become quite remarkable.

Thus μορφη in Greek, becomes formæ in Latin; regnum becomes reign; cœlum, ciel; ultra jectum, Utrecht; and עבד ebed, eved, as variously pronounced, meaning a slave, becomes obediens, obedienter, obedio, obedientia, in Latin, and obey, obedient, &c., in English. The Celtic ros becomes horse, and the English grass becomes garse. Consonants of the same order are interchanged; p becomes b, and b v, d t, g k and sometimes n,—φ becomes ph or f, d or t becomes th, and g or c gh. It is therefore impossible that such changes should not have taken place, and therefore they give proof of the genuineness of the history they may develop.

------------------

LESSON X.

WE have heretofore remarked that such names as are derived from Cain or Naamah are never found in the holy books, except among and applied to the descendants of Ham. But there are some few instances of the application of these terms in the family of the Benjamites. It is therefore our design now to prove, so far as may be, that such instances, in the family of Benjamin, are wholly confined to those cases where the Benjamite was a mixed-blooded person, and a descendant of Ham, as well as of the youngest son of Jacob. The holy books do give evidence that individuals of the race of Shem did sometimes commingle with the descendants of Ham.

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, (עֶבֶד ebed, a slave,) an Egyptian, (מִצְרִ֖י Mitsri, a Misraimite, a descendant of the second son of Ham,) whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant, (עֶבֶד 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 (עֶבֶד ebed, slave) from a child, shall have him become his son at length.” Prov. xxix. 21.

“Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign; and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there: and his mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammonitess. And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammonitess.” 1 Kings xiv. 21, 31.

“For Rehoboam was one-and-forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there, and his mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammonitess.” 2 Chron. xii. 13.

“But King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh; women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you.” 1 Kings xi. 1, 2.

By thus personally amalgamating with the various nations over whom he ruled, Solomon, no doubt, expected more firmly to establish his throne. This led to the selection of the son of this woman for his successor.

A vast majority of the tribes over whom his reign extended were the descendants of Ham.

But this very act, which he thought to be political wisdom, although contrary to the laws of God, brought ruin to the permanency of his dynasty. The great majority of his Jewish subjects, hunting up, as was natural, plausible excuses, rejected with scorn the contamination of the royal house.

And we see such manifestation of Divine providence even at the present day: even among ourselves, men whose talents and patriotism might authorize them to look to any station, are forced back by public sentiment, degraded by a notorious amalgamation with the descendants of Ham.

We shall hereafter see some proof that this “Naamah,” the mother of Rehoboam, was the individual whose praises are celebrated in the book of Canticles: at any rate, she was an Ammonitess, a descendant of Ham, and the prophet Hanani includes the Ammonites among those whom he calls Ethiopians. See 2 Chron. xvi. 8.

If then it be true that Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, was the great female progenitor of the race of Ham, we should expect to find some testimony of her remembrance even among her mingled offspring. And since the unmixed race of Ham have generally, at all times of the world, been too degraded to even leave behind them any written memorials, it is to the mixed race, and their connection with the races of Shem and Japheth, that we are principally to look for any particular fact concerning them; and it is reasonable to conclude, as we find this kind of memorial among the mixed race, that the same kind of memorial existed much more frequently among the unmixed races of Ham.

“And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.” Gen. xlvi. 21.

“The sons of Benjamin after their families of Bela, the family of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the family of the Ahiramites; of Shupham, the family of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the family of the Huphamites. And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman; of Ard, the family of Ardites, and of Naaman, the family of Naamanites.” Num. xxvi. 38–40.

“Now Benjamin begat Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, and Ahirah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth. And the sons of Bela were Addar, and Gera, and Abihud, and Abishua, and Naaman, and Ahoah, and Gera, and Shephuphan, and Huram. And these are the sons of Ehud: these are the heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of Geba, and they removed them to Manahath. And Naaman, and Ahiah, and Gera, he removed them, and begat Uzra and Abihud. And Shaharaim begat children in the country of Moab, after he had sent them away.” 1 Chron. viii. 1–8.

The hurried reader might well apprehend these three different accounts of the same matter to be somewhat contradictory. We think otherwise. We had, in fact, prepared several sheets, elucidating these genealogies of Benjamin, but upon a review we found much irrelevant to the subject of our present inquiry: we deem only a few remarks necessary.

Our object is to show that these genealogies prove that some portion of the family named were coloured people, descended from Ham, and that Naaman is distinguished most clearly to be of that class.

It will be readily perceived that Muppim מִפֻּיִ֥ם, in Genesis, is formed from מֹף Moph, and thus used in Hos. ix. 6: “Memphis (מַֹף Moph) shall bury them.” Our word is a Hebraism of the Coptic word נֹף Noph, the Nod of Genesis, the No of the prophets Ezekiel and Nahum, and finally confounded with Memphis.

It is here used after the form of a Hebrew masculine plural, and as a caput, to aid in the classification of the descendants of Benjamin; and clearly designates, whatever may have been their blood, that one class were Memphites.

So the word huppim הֻפִּים is formed from the quite ancient word הַף haph, which means innocence, purity; whence also the word הָפָה haphah, covered, shielded, protected; and hence, הֻפָּה hupah, bride-chamber, the marriage-bed, and marriage itself. In this sense the word is used in Joel ii. 16, and in several other places, where the translator has so paraphrased the idea as to make it imperceptible to the English reader.

Nor is it an unworthy consideration in the etymology of this word, that from the idea purity, the Arabians borrowed from it their word جار hhar, to mean white, which was quickly introduced into Hebrew in the word הוּר hur, and הוֹר hor, to mean white also. Hence, Mount הָור Hor, “the white mountain;” and from which branch of the derivation the corresponding words in Numbers and Chronicles have taken their origin. Here, then, we have another word used in the same manner, to designate another class of the descendants of Benjamin, as of the pure stock, legitimate and white.

The word וָאָֽרְּדְּ va ard or ared in Genesis, and אַ֣רְדְּ ard or ared in Numbers, is changed by dagesh and transposition into אַדָּר addar in Chronicles. It is unnecessary to go into an explanation of Hebrew peculiarities. It is probable that we never have had the true pronunciation of any of these words. But however that may be, the analogy of language seems to show that this word is a cognate of the Arabic غَرَض gharadh, and the Syrian ܕܓܳܪܳܕ dharadh, and from whence עֲרָד harad or arad; yet there is nothing more common than for aleph and ghain to interchange in one and the same word. They are ever regarded as cognates. But again, the word is not of Hebrew origin, and with the latter spelling, we find it in Num. xxi. 1, xxxiii. 40, Josh. xii. 14, and Judges i. 16, as the name of a Canaanitish city. The Arabic is more guttural than Hebrew, and it has two ghains, one more guttural than the other, distinguished by רְבִיעַ rĕviă, a resting upon; thus, in translating Arabic into Hebrew, the one will take the Hebrew ghain, but the Arabic ghain with which this word is spelled is at once converted into the Hebrew aleph; so that while we thus find the very word, we find it with the evidence of a Canaanitish admixture.

Its application in Hebrew seems to be mostly confined to the wild ass, (see Dan. v. 21;) but the Syriac gives it effrænatus, effrænis fuit, and the Arabic, durus fuit, fugit. Such, then, being its signification in these languages, we may well perceive its adaptedness to the wild ass. We all know that the wild Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael; now a true synonyme in Hebrew of this word was applied to him: “He shall be a wild man;” he was illegitimate, mixed-blooded. The term can apply to no other than such a race as that of Ishmael,—wild, illegitimate, and of impure blood.

In Numbers we find Shupham, and in Chronicles Shephuphan, substituted for the Muppim in Genesis; both being the same word in different forms. The root is שֶׁפִי shephi, a high situation; hence שָפַט shaphat, a judge, and its derivatives are applied to the person or thing adjudged. Hence שִׁפְחָה shiphehhahh, a female slave; (See Gen. xvi. 16; i. 2, 3; also xx. 14; also xxxii. 22;) and hence, also the Syrian ܫܳܦܦܰ shafefa, a serpent, because the serpent had been adjudged, condemned. Whence the Hebrew shephiphim, poetically used to mean a serpent, as, “Dan shall judge his people; Dan shall be a serpent by the way.” Gen. xlix. 16. In this passage in Hebrew, there is a beautiful paronomasia in the word Dan, which also means a judge, judge and the serpent. But the serpent is called שְׁפִיפ֖ןֹ shephiphon, only as it had been adjudged; and it is to be noticed, as here used, it has the same points and accents as in Chronicles, and is substantially the same word,—not, as here, borrowed from the Syriac, to mean a serpent, but used to mean the adjudged, condemned to some condition or degradation. “And they removed them to Manahath.” Manahath was a district of country near the Dead Sea, near the ancient city Zoar; and it is a little remarkable that Zoar was by the Canaanites called Bela, the very name of the son of Benjamin. The whole country was called by the general term Moab. The fact that it was a custom to send persons of a certain description there, seems to be alluded to by the prophet: “Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, O Moab!” Isa. xvi. 4.

But, who were sent there? “Naaman, Ahia, and Gera, he removed them. * * * And Shaharaim begat children in the land of Moab after he had sent them away.” This explains the whole matter. Shaharaim is a plural formation of Shihor, and means black. “And these blacks begat children in the land of Moab after he had sent them away,”—that is, Naaman, Ahia, and Gera; further establishing the fact that the word Naamah is kept in remembrance only by the descendants of Ham. One class of the race of Benjamin is described in Genesis as Memphites; in fact, that whole genealogy substantially divides them into those who were white, and of pure descent, and into those who were not white, and of impure descent. Numbers and Chronicles confirm and warrant the same distinction.

The seventh Psalm commences thus:—“Shiggaion of David, which he sang unto the Lord, concerning the words of Cush, the Benjamite.” It would have been more readily understood, and more decidedly a translation thus: A song of lamentation of David, which he sang unto the Lord, concerning the words of an Ethiopian, a Benjamite.

The word “Cush,” as often elsewhere, is here used to designate a descendant of Ham by his colour. But it clearly proves an amalgamation, to some extent, of the race of Ham, in the family of Benjamin.

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.

------------------

LESSON XI.

It remains now to examine what proof there exists that the descendants of Ham were black. We wish to impress upon the mind the fact, that among all aboriginal nations, and in all primitive languages, proper names are always significant terms. Such is the fact among the Indian tongues of America at this day. The holy books give ample proof that such was eminently the case among the ancient Hebrews. Every name that Adam bestowed was the consequence of some cause that operated on his mind. And if we examine minutely into the influences operating even among ourselves, in such cases, we shall be unable to deny that such is the universal law. There is a cause for every thing.

“And the sons of Ham (were) Cush and Misraim, and Phut and Canaan.” Gen. x. 6.

It will not be denied that the word Ethiopian, as used in Scripture, means a black man. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots.” Jer. xiii. 23. The word “Ethiopian,” in this passage from Jeremiah, is translated from כּוּשִׁי֨ Cushi, the very name of the oldest son of Ham. And we shall find in every instance where in the Old Testament the word Ethiopia or Ethiopian is used, that it is translated from the same word, varied in termination according to the position in which it is used, and as applied to country or people. “Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians (כֻשִׁיִּ֙ים Cushiim) unto me?” Amos ix. 7. It became and was used as a general term, by which all descendants of Ham were designated by their colour, in the same manner as we now use the Latin word negro to designate the same thing. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.” Num. xii. 1. And we deem these facts alone sufficient to establish the truth of the proposition that that branch of Ham’s family were black.

In the examination of what evidence may now be found that the family of Misraim were black, we beg to notice a fact which we suppose no scholar will dispute—that he settled in Egypt, and, in fact, gave his name to that country. As Cush gave his name to all Ethiopia and its inhabitants, as Canaan gave his name to the land of Canaan, and Canaanites to its inhabitants, so Misraim gave his name to Egypt and its inhabitants. Whenever we find the word Egypt or Egyptian in our English version, we never fail to find מִצְרָים Mitsraim in the Hebrew text. His descendants took upon them the particular appellation Misraimites, as in Gen. xvi. 1: “And she had a handmaid, (שִׁפְחָ֥ה shiphehhah, a female slave,) an Egyptian, (מִצְרִ֖ית Mitsrith a descendant of Misraim,) whose name was Hagar.” She was a Misraim, a descendant from the second son of Ham. The word is translated “Egyptian.” A family feud growing up upon the occasion of her having a son by her master Abraham, she and her son were sent away to the wilderness of Paran; where, when the son was grown, she took him a wife of her own race, from the land of Egypt. See Gen. xxi. 21. The descendants of Ishmael, therefore, were three-fourths of Misraimitish blood, and are known and distinguished as of his race, by the particular name of Ishmaelites.

Midian was a district of country lying near to and including Mount Sinai. The people, in reference to the country, were called Midianites, but without any reference to their descent or race. From the position of the district of country called Midian, it would be reasonable to suppose the inhabitants in after times to be descended from Ishmael; and in fact, whenever we find any allusion made to the whole country of the Ishmaelites, we shall find it to include Midian. But it may be proper to remark, that from a notable mountain called Gilead, situated in this region, the whole country was sometimes called by that name, and one of the cities in it also called Gilead.

We are all acquainted with that most beautiful and pathetic history of Joseph; but let us read a passage—and we pray you to notice with distinctness the language:

“And they lifted up their eyes and looked, and behold a company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. * * * And Judah said, * * * Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him. * * * And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites, merchantmen, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites; and the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar. And Joseph was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites which had brought him down thither.” Gen. xxxvii. 25–36, and xxxix. 1. Is it not positive and clear that the Ishmaelites and the Midianites were one and the same people?

But again, there was, during the days of the judges, a destructive war between the Israelites and the Midianites. “And the Midianites and the Amalekites, and all the children of the east, lay along in the valley, like grasshoppers for multitude. * * * And when Gideon was come, behold, there was a man that told a dream. * * * And when Zeba and Zalmunna fled, he pursued after them, and took the two kings of Midian, Zeba and Zalmunna, and discomfited all the host.

“And Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle before the sun was up. * * * Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son, and thy son’s son also, for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian. And Gideon said unto them, I would desire a request of you, that you would give me every man the ear-rings of his prey. (For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites.)” See Judg. vii. 12–14, also viii. 12–24.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us