Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

but till they were destroyed they might hold them in servitude. God could have commanded them to destroy the surrounding nations also; but he did not, but gave them permission to buy some of them for servants. This was a special commandment to a special people, for special purposes, and expired by its own limitation.

That this permission to the Israelites to hold slaves or servants, if not during life, at least till the year of Jubilee, was contrary to the general principles of love, justice, and compassion, which every man should exercise towards every other man needs no argument to show. It was only justified by God's authority to his creatures; and because the heathen deserved worse than bondage from God's hand.

[ocr errors]

I may as well here remark that I incline to the belief that the Jubilee released the heathen servants. The term forever as applied to the duration of the servitude of an individual cannot mean eternally. It may therefore as well be limited by the Jubilee, as by a servant's lifetime. And notwithstanding Dr. J. has gaustraded a little on this matter it would be just as easy to ridicule the idea of forever meaning a life-time, as till the year of Jubilee. It is evident that forever--le olam---is used improperly in either sense. And here, though I intend to criticise as little as possible, I may remark that in Lev. XXV. 29. 30. which Dr. J. produces to show that le olam reaches beyond the Jubilee, the Hebrew word is not le olam but latsemithuth. The Dr. was a little out in his criticism that time. Tell it not in Lane Seminary &c.

I am more inclined to the belief of the Jubilee being a year of universal emancipation because of its typical nature. It fore-shadowed the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles; the proclamation of glad tidings of great joy to all people; the diffusion of temporal as well as spiritual blessings among the nations; and the ultimate spread of the gospel with all its blessings to the remotest ends of the earth. From this view of the subject it appears that it was not the will of God that slave-holding should be practiced by his authority, by any people after the expiration of the Mosaic economy: and that the slavery which existed under that economy was not of the same unmitigated character as that which is practiced in the Southern States.

But the regulations in that Mosaic code respecting Hebrew servitude, show clearly that, involuntary, causeless, absolute and hereditary slavery is contrary to the general principles of the moral law. A Hebrew might become a servant for six years and no longer. The case of the servant whose ear was bored is to be treated as an excep

tion. It does not invalidate the rule. A Hebrew might sell himself when in embarrassed circumstances, or perhaps his creditor might sell him for debt. There would be no injustice in that---to sell his labor for a term of months, or years so as to be equivalent to the amount of debt. This I say would be justice; though in many cases christian charity would not allow it to be done. But to prevent such occurrences from terminating in hopeless slavery, every seventh year was a year of release; and then every Hebrew servant went out free. That was a statute of limitation. Some might have been sold for one year, some for two, some for four---any number of years within the six---but the seventh year released all. Now this was a law among brethren: it was based on the principles which should regulate the dealings of mankind with one another. The Mosaic code is therefore so far from tolerating slavery, it forbids it.

Here is the proper place for rescuing the decalogue from the imputation of supporting slavery. The fourth and the tenth commandments speak of servants. They assume the existence of servants and maids, which Dr. J. thinks must necessarily be slaves. He argues partly from the meaning of Ebed, partly from the possessive pronoun thy, and partly from the assumption that a hireling could not be coveted. In all which particulars, as a pedant would say, there is more in the conclusion than in the premises. When the terms, thy wife, thy son, thy servant, and thy horse are employed together, the kind of possession implied in each of the particulars is different from that of the others. A man might properly say, Thou shalt not abuse thy son, thy hireling, thy apprentice, nor thy horse. This would not prove that the hireling or theapprentice was a slave, or a chattel. So much for one particular. If you have a man hired by the day he is not very liable to be coveted; except that the treatment he receives from you may induce him to prefer your service to that of any other person, while many another might be very glad to entice him away from your employment. But it is plain that where a man is hired by the month, or by the year, he is as liable to be coveted as a slave. The same is true of apprentices---a kind of servitude which is perfectly consistent with justice, and humanity. I knew a young man once to hire himself for the term of four years, the principal consideration being, that he should receive a deed for 160 acres of land. For those four years he was a servant, and a very faithful servant. I do not know that any of the neighbors coveted him: but they might have coveted him. Would not such coveting have been a breach of the tenth commandment? Was not the employer, or the master

bound to see that he observed the sabbath while he resided in his family? Does not the fourth commandment require a master to see that his apprentices and journeymen observe the sabbath? Another particular disposed of. But as to the meaning of Ebed; has not Dr. J. himself shown that it precisely corresponds to the English word servant? It extends to all kinds of service which one man is bound to render to another. Dr. J. has produced some passages in which the hireling is distinguished from the servant. He might have produced one where ebed is distinguished from ebed---servant from servant. I Kings ix: 20-22. We are there told that Solomon levied a tribute of bond service on the heathen that were left in the land; but of the children of Israel Solomon made no bondmen: yet they were his men of war, and his servants. He did not make of them abed; but yet they were abadaio. Solomon, keeping in view the distinction which God had made between his own people, and the aboriginal inhabitants of the country, put the latter to drudgery, or hard unusual labor in the public service; but the children of Israel were his servants; serving him in official stations, honorable employments. Such is the latitude with which this word is used. It does not necessarily mean a slave. The Hebrew servant who served for cause six years or any portion of it was an ebed. The statutes before referred to, defined the kind of servants which the Israelites might have. The fourth commandment required that they and their children, and all in their employment should rest on the Sabbath: the tenth forbade them to covet those who were rightfully in the employment of apother. As these commandments apply to us they require us to keep those in our employment from laboring on the Sabbath and forbid us to covet those whose services, at the time, rightly belong to another. The Dr's argument fails in all the particulars; and the decalogue stands vindicated from authorizing American Slavery.

It is sometimes necessary, in order to weaken the general impression which a writer is likely to produce on the minds of his readers, to show that he errs even in matters not essential to his argument: for it is often thought because a writer proves something, therefore he establishes his point. The Dr's argument would have appeared to an intelligent reader much stronger, if he had said nothing about the Gibeonites and had not undertaken to apologize for a certain church in Virginia who supported their preacher, by hiring out slaves, and appropriating the hire to the stipend.

A his logic in this argument is so glaringly deficient it is sufficient harely to call the reader's attention to the lame spots. He remarks:

"1. They were reduced to perpetual slavery, they and their children: 2d. This was a punishment for their sin: they had forfeited their lives: they knew that they wero devoted to death and preferred slavery to death: 3d. This slave labor was employed partly about the house of God and the altar." Now the manner in which he applies this to the 'Virginia' case is this: "It may be said, if the church trustees came honestly by them; and if they could not set them free to the benefit of the slaves; and if they hired them to good masters, who were kind to them, and taught them the Christian religion: if all these, then I cannot see any more harm in it, than in the church of God, using slave labor "for the house of my God" and "for the congregation and altar of the Lord." But had these slaves forfeited their lives, as, he says the Gibeonites had? Was their slavery the punishment of their sin as that of the Gibeonites was? Had they chosen slavery in preference to death? "Oh most impotent and lame conclusion!" Oh shameful apology, for most detestable conduct! What was this Virginia church doing but attempting to serve God and Mammon; and at the same time oppressing the poor?

But the Gibeonites were not such slaves as American slaves. They were not the property of individuals: they dwelt in their own cities and in the bosom of their families: though they were liable at any time to be called into the public service---into the veriest drudgery about the altar: but for just cause as Dr. J. himself has shown.

There is another very ugly paragraph in the Dr's pamphlet, commencing on page 27 If the priest buy any soul with his money, &c. What kind of feelings is such language calculated to excite? The priest as well as any other Israelite might buy servants as prescribed by the statute: but it is an awful perversion of the passage to plead it in defence of Ministers of the Gospel, so called, buying and breeding slaves. But I shall endeavor not to notice any more of these small things. As far as I have noticed them I have done it with no unkind feelings to Dr. Junkin. I wish he may never write any more such things. He was evidently under the influence of excited feelings; or at any rate did not consider what he was doing.

In my next, if the Lord will, I will take up the New Testament argument. J. R.

28

REV. DR. MACDILL:--

For the Evangelical Guardian.

Dear Sir---While I was in the South last winter, it was suggested that it would be a matter of great importance to send valuable religious books to foreign lands, where the English language is taught or spoken, and that the Board of the Calvinistie Book Concern might become an important auxiliary, in connection with missionary labors, in disseminating the Truth. Since my return home I have occasionally referred to the subject, and have found others concurring in that opinion. But we were all at a loss to know whether there exists any demand for such publications at the points referred to. It will be seen by the letter presented below, that the work in which we were contemplating engaging had already been commenced---that the way is open, and that all that is wanting is the means of carrying it out. Rev. Mr. Rogers has recently returned from India, where he was connected with the Lodiana Mission. I am indebted to him also for the additional facts stated below.

MR. CHRISTY:

My Dear Sir, You are desirous to know what is likely to be the utility of the Calvinistic Library among our Missionaries in India, I have no doubt but a set of these books, would be found very useIt is composed of a class of Books, which, alful at every station. though much valued by the brethren generally, are still very scarce among them.

A copy of Dick's Theology, published by yourself, found its way to Lodiana by some means, a few years ago; and its arrival, I can asOur Catechist, GOLOK sure you was hailed with much pleasure. NATH, was just then commencing the systematic study of Theology, and we felt much at a loss for a text book to put into his hand. The arrival of this book relieved us of the difficulty. He has since studied it through in course, and has recently been ordained to the work of the ministry. A few copies of this work, for the use of the Boy's Orphan Schools, would be particularly valuable. It is our design to educate as many of the pupils as evince the requisite talent and piety, for the ministry. If, therefore, there are among your friends, any persons who have the means and the heart, to aid the cause of missions by the bestowment of some of these standard volumes. I hardly know any way in which they could do it more effectually. Our brethren there have an entire literature to create. And the literature which they are now beginning to form, is to last, I trust, till the end of time. Is it not important then, that

« ElőzőTovább »