Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigor. Lev. 25: 39–55.

And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken both of man and of beast. And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle; one soul of five hundred both of THE PERSONS and of the beeves, &c.

And the persons were sixteen thousand: of which THE LORD'S TRIBUTE WAS THIRTY AND TWO PERSONS. And Moses gave the tribute which was the Lord's heave offering, unto Eleazer, the priest, as the Lord commanded Moses. Numbers 31: 25, 26, 28, 40, 41.

Then shall no stranger eat of the holy thing; a sojourner of the priest or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and HE THAT IS BORN IN HIS HOUSE; they shall eat of his meat. Leviticus 22: 10, 11.

And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. Ex. 21: 16 and Deut. 24: 7. Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. Deut. 23: 15.

INTRODUCTION.

Reasons for this present discussion: the authorities in Biblical criticism upon which the argument relies are not partisan. Difference between the New England and the British anti slavery sentiment.

HAVING considered, according to our proposed plan, The Moral Law, The Constitutional Law, The Criminal Code, we come next to the consideration of the Civil Law of Moses, relating to persons and things. And here among the very first of its enactments stand the laws relating to servitude.

It is obviously impossible to present any adequate view of this code without entering upon some discussion of a feature of Moses' laws, which of late has been so much

talked about, and so little understood, viz: these slavery enactments. It would certainly be sufficient reason for desiring to instruct the Christian people fully on this subject, were there no other reason, that modern unbelievers of the Colenso school, cite the fact of the recognition of slavery by Moses as indisputable proof that his writings could not have been "given by inspiration of God."*

You will remember that while expounding the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17th), I took occasion to define my position, as a preacher of the word, in regard to this vexed question of slavery; that, except as the subject comes in my way in the exposition of the Scriptures, I feel that I have little to do with it, here in a country where no

* "The wife and her children shall be his master's” (Ex. 21: 4). "For he is his money" (v. 21). "I shall never forget the revulsion of feeling with which a very intelligent Christian native, with whose help I was translating these words into the Zulu tongue, first heard them, as words said to be uttered by the same great and gracious Being, whom I was teaching him to trust in and adore. His whole soul revolted against the notion that the great and blessed God, the merciful Father of all mankind, would speak of a servant or maid as mere 'money,' and allow a horrible crime to go unpunished, because the victim of the brutal usage had survived a few hours. My own heart and conscience at the time fully sympathised with his. But I then clung to the notion that the main substance of the narrative was historically true. And I relieved his difficulty and my own for the present by telling him, that I supposed that such words as these were written down by Moses, and believed by him to have been divinely given to him, because the thought of them arose in his heart as he conceived by the inspiration of God, and that hence to all such laws he prefixed the formula Jehovah said unto Moses' without it being on that account necessary for us to suppose that they were actually spoken by the Almighty. This was, however, a very great strain upon the cord which bound me to the ordinary belief in the historical veracity of the Pentateuch; and since then that cord has snapped in twain altogether." Colenso on The Pentateuch, part 1, page 50.

such institution exists: for, having little confidence in, I do not wish to give countenance, by my example, to that sort of religion which exercises itself about the sins of other people rather than its own; and whose repentance, like the Pharisee's, having no sins of its own to mourn over, wastes its sighs over those of the publican "standing afar off." But, on the other hand, having undertaken to expound to you this Great Book, I dare not allow the fear of having sectional prejudices imputed to me, or the consideration that I must here run counter to the almost universal popular prejudices of the country so to restrain me that I should "shun to declare the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20: 17.)

Not to tax your time and patience with the too common critical disquisitions concerning the import of the Hebrew term ebed, and the Greek doulos, which our translators rendered "servant," because, in their day, the word servant" still retained its primary and proper signification of "bondman," or "slave," from its Latin original, "servus," *-allow me to premise that, in regard

66

The fact that the Latin servus means slave, is no mere modern deduction from etymology and classic usage, but rests upon the precise legal definition of the Justinian Code. Thus :

"Servi antem exeo appellati sunt quod imperatores captivos vendere et per hoc servare, nec occidi solent; qui etiam mancipia dicti sunt quod ab hostibus manu capiebantur," &c.

"Slaves (servi) are so called from the fact that commanders are used to sell their captives, and by this means to preserve (servare) rather than kill them. They are also said to be mancipia, because they were taken by hand (manu capta) from the enemy." Justinian Institutes, Lib. 1. Tit. 3.

Thus also Augustine :

Itaque primos servos, quibus hoc nomen in Latina lingua inditum est, bella fecerunt. Qui enim homo ab homine superatus jure belli possit occidi, quia servatus est, servus est appelatus: inde et mancipia quia manu capta sunt."

"Thus, as is indicated by the name appropriated to them in

to these terms in particular, as well as the exegesis, in general, of the scripture texts relating to slavery, I but follow not only the ancient critics, but also the best and most generally accepted British and Continental biblical scholars of the new anti-slavery era, who cannot be suspected of partiality to my theories. For, somewhat to my surprise, I find that, unlike the New England anti-slavery sentiment which is obviously the natural result of the trifling with, and perversion of, the plainest language of Scripture by their partisan commentators and preachers, who have a foregone conclusion to support, the British anti-slavery sentiment seems to exist rather in spite of the judgment of the latest and highest results of British and Continental biblical scholarship as to the exegesis of the texts of Scripture relating to the subject of slavery.*

the Latin language, wars made the first slaves. For the man conquered by a man according to the law of war might be slain; but because he was preserved (servatus est) he was called servusa slave. Hence also they were called mancipia, because (manu capta sunt) they were taken by hand."

Manifestly the logic of Mr. Barnes and that school of critics who argue that ebed (Hebrew), doulos (Greek), and servus (Latin), do not properly mean slave, because sometimes applied figuratively to free persons, would prove with equal force that the word slave in Virginia does not properly denote a bondman, because sometimes Virginians speak of freemen as "slaves to strong drink," "slaves to habit; " and of free ladies of the highest position as "slaves to fashion."

Says the learned McKnight:

"The word doulos properly signifies a slave. Our English translators, in all places where the duties of slaves are inculcated, have justly translated it servant, because, anciently, the Greeks and Romans had scarce any servants but slaves, and because the duties of the hired servant, during the time of his service, are the same with those of the slave. So that what the Apostle said to the slave was in effect said to the hired servant." McKnight on Ep. Col. 3: 22.

* Those who have searched the Scriptures under no other guidance than the exegetical platitudes, and critical thimblerigging of that American politico-evangelical school propheti

Finding myself thus brought face to face with the subject, in the regular course of these Sabbath evening expositions, I propose to develope the principles of the Mosaic Civil Code in regard to it, and, as I did

66

cally described, to the very life, by the Apostle (1 Tim. 6: 4) as proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh... perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness," (and therefore manufacturing interpretations to suit the popular market,) will be surprised at finding such statements as follow, from cotemporary British and German scholars, all directly in the teeth of the charlatans who quibble about ebed and doulos as not signifying a bond-slave.

In the article "Laws of Moses," in the new cyclopædia of Dr. Wm. Smith, embodying the last and highest results of biblical scholarship in England, Rev. Alfred Barry presents this synopsis, under the head of "Laws Civil."

"(c) MASTER AND SLAVE. Power of the master so far limited, that death under actual chastisement was punishable (Ex. 21: 20), and maiming was to give liberty ipso facto (ver. 26, 27). The Hebrew slave to be freed at sabbatical year.

"Foreign slaves to be held and inherited as property for ever (Lev. 25: 45, 46) and fugitive slaves from foreign nations not to be given up. (Deut. 23: 15)."

In the Art. SLAVE, from the pen of Rev. William Latham Bevan, Vicar of Hay, occur these statements:

"The institution of slavery was recognised, though not established, by the Mosaic Law, with a view to mitigate its hardships, and to secure to every man his ordinary rights.

"Repugnant as the notion of slavery is to our minds, it is difficult to see how it can be dispensed with in certain phases of society without, at all events, entailing severer evils than those which it produces.

"The Hebrew designation of the slave shows that service was the salient feature of his condition; for the term ebed usually applied to him is derived from a word signifying "to work," and the very same term is used in reference to offices of high trust held by free men. In short, service and slavery would have been to the ear of the Hebrew equivalent terms, though he fully recognized grades of servitude according as the servant was a Hebrew or a non-Hebrew, and of the latter according as he was bought with money," "or born in the house."

66

The slave is described as "the possession" of his master,

« AnkstesnisTęsti »