Chapter XXIV: Part 24

Thus saith the Lord,
The labour of Egypt, and 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_),—(_or, there is no other God._)
_Isa._ xlv. 14.

So _Jeremiah_: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish it in Migdol, and publish in Noph and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee; for the sword shall devour round about thee.

“O thou daughter dwelling in Egypt, furnish thyself to go into captivity: for Noph shall be waste and desolate, without an inhabitant.

“The daughter of Egypt shall be confounded; she shall be delivered into the hands of the people of the north.” _Jer._ xlvi. 1, 19, 24.

“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 multitudes, and her foundations shall be broken down.

“Ethiopia, and Lybia, and Lydia, and all the mingled (_mixed-blooded_) people, _Chub_ and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

“In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.

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

“At Taphanhes 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.

“And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the countries, and they shall know that I am the Lord.” _Ezek._ xxx. 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 26.

“And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hands of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people afar off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” _Joel_ iii. 8.

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

“Strange such difference there should be
'Twist tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.”

But we were sure the passage had been greatly misunderstood, and were, perhaps, too much emboldened by the hope, that the providence of the All-wise might yet again issue forth the truth from the tongue of the feeble.

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

LESSON XVI.

From the root המּה has also been derived the Arabic word حَمَّانٌ _haman_, and the Syriac ܚܳܡܳܢ' _haman_, and adopted by the Hebrews in the word חַמָן _haman_, which Castell translates “_images_,” dedicated to the worship of the sun, the worship of fire, heat, &c.

The Hebrew use of this word will be found in a plural form in _Lev._ xxvi. 30, thus: “And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your _images_,” _hammanekem_. 2 _Chron._ xiv. 3 (the fourth of the Hebrew text:) “And brake down the _images_,” חַמָנִ֑ים _hammanim_; also xxxiv. 4, 7: “And the _images_, (חַמָּנִים _hammanim_) that were on high above them, he cut down,” “and had beaten the graven images (חַמָנִ֖ים _hammanim_) into powder.” _Isa._ xvii. 8: “Either the groves or the _images_,” חַמָנִֽים _hammanim_; also xxvii. 9: “The groves and images (חַמָנִֽים hammanim) shall not stand up.” _Ezek._ vi. 4, 6: “Your altars shall be desolate, and your _images_ (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔ם _hammanekem_) shall be broken,” “and your _images_ (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔ם _hammanekem_) may be cut down.” We have no possible word to express literally this term, but the _hammanekens_, or little HAMS, or fire-houses, the objects of religious adoration, were conical towers, from fifty to one hundred feet high, and fifteen to twenty feet in diameter at the base, and gradually decreasing upward, with a small door or opening fifteen or twenty feet above the base, and four smaller ones near the apex, looking towards the cardinal points.

The moderns have no certain knowledge of their particular use, yet all believe that in them was attempted to be kept the perpetual or holy fire, and perhaps into them was thrust the infant sacrificed to the god. May we not suppose that Daniel and his brethren would have informed us, had it been necessary for us to know more? Spencer, Heb. Laws, lib. ii. cap. 25, § 3, says of these edifices: “_They were of a conical form and of a black colour_.” It seems to us this identifies these edifices with the round towers of Persia and elsewhere, remains of many of which were anciently found in Ireland. The curious about this matter are referred to Gesenius’s Thesaurus, p. 489; also Lee’s Lex. p. 297, where he quotes Henrici Arentii Hamaker Miscellanea Phœnicia, pp. 49, 54; also Diatribe Philologico-Critica aliquot monumentorum Punicorum; Selden, de Diis Syris, ii. cap. 8, and the authors severally cited by them. Upon a full consideration of the subject, Dr. Lee says—“Upon the whole, I am disposed to believe that the term הָם (_haman_) is rather derived from הָם _Ham_, the father of Canaan, of Mitsraim, &c., _Gen._ x. 6–20; and hence by the latter worshipped as presiding angel of the sun, under the title of Ἄμουν, _Greek_ Ἄμμων (_Ammon_), which is probably our very word.” If so, then his very name became significant of the worship of fire, and even expressive of the fire-temples themselves.

By some fanciful relation, not relevant to our subject, between the fire or sun worshippers and astronomy, when the sun was in aries (the ram), the god Ham, _Ammon_, _Hammon_, or _Jupiter Hammon_, was represented with a ram’s head for his crest; with this crest became associated the idea of the god, and hence chonchologists, even to this day, call certain shells, that are fancied to resemble the ram’s horn, _Ammonites_, giving further evidence, even now, of how deeply seated was the association between the earlier descendants of Ham and the fire worship of their day.

The long and fanciful story of _Io_, changed by Jupiter into a white cow; of her flight from the fifty sons of Egyptus; of her becoming the progenitor of the _Ionians_; the Egyptians claiming her under the name of _Isis_; of her marriage with _Osiris_, who became at length _Apis_ and _Serapis_, worshipped in the image of a black bull with a white spot in his forehead, and many such tales, are all legitimately descended from his family peculiarities, their relative condition in the world, and the fact that Ham became the imaginary _deity_ of his descendants.

Much evidence may be had proving that Ham became inseparably associated with, and in fact the very father of, idolatry, and of all those enormities growing out of it; enormities with which idolatry has ever been attended, and which time and the history of man for ever give proof to be a total preventive of all physical and moral elevation and improvement; and which, like other breaches against the laws of God, have, at all times, among all men, for ever been accompanied by both physical and moral degradation. But the descendants of Ham gave his name to their country. Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_ was the Coptic name for Egypt, which the Septuagint translates into Χαμ _Cham_. Plutarch styles Egypt Χημία _Chemia_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_, and, as if he wished to give some account of its origin, adds, θερμή γὰρ ἐστὶν καὶ ὕγρα, “for it is _hot and humid_;” showing that the Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_ of the Copts signified the same as the Ham of the Hebrews. But the Coptic word Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_, Χημι and Χημε of Plutarch, also signified the adjective _black_. See Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, under the word חָם _Ham_; and with this signification the word _Ham_ is used in _Ps._ lxxviii. 51: “The chief of their strength in the tabernacles of _Ham_:” Septuagint, Χαμ, _Cham_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, black. cv. 23: “And Jacob sojourned in the land of _Ham_,” חָם _Ham_: Septuagint, Χαμ, _Cham_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, black. 27: “And wonders in the land of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ _Cham_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, black. cvi. 22: “Wondrous works in the land of _Ham_:” Septuagint, Χαμ _Cham_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, black. The idea is, the land of the black people.

In this sense also the word is used in _Gen._ xiv. 5: “And smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in _Ham_.” The Septuagint translates this passage into Καὶ ἔθνη ἰσχυρά ἅμα αὐτοῖς, as though the בְּהָ֑ם _be Ham_ was a pronoun, and which seems to have been the view of several ancient translators. But such certainly was not the view of the translators of the received version; nor of Martindale, and others from whom he compiled. He says of this passage—“2. _Ham_, crafty, or heat; the country of the Zuzims, the situation of which is not known:” p. 326. We certainly agree with the Septuagint that זוּזִים _Zuzim_ was a significant term, and perhaps well enough explained by ἔθνη ἰσχυρὰ, for which a suitable translation would seem to be _wicked_, _perverse_, _strong_, _numerous_, or _stubborn heathen_. They were probably the זַמְזֻמֲים Zamzummims of _Deut._ ii. 20.

The word בְּהָ֑ם _be Ham_, unless a pronoun as above, against which much can be said, is evidently used as in the _Psalms_ quoted. In all these cases _Ham_ is used somewhat as a synonyme of כּוּשׁ _Cush_; and when applied to a country generally, meant whatever country was occupied by the descendants of _Ham_. The sense of the sentence, _and Zuzims in Ham_, will then be, _and the stubborn heathen in Ethiopia_, or, _the perverse tribes of Cush_, or _the wicked nations of Ham_; all meaning the black tribes, descendants of Ham, or some one of them, when particularity is intended, as probably in this case; and let it be noticed, that Martindale, p. 241, gives “blackness” as his first definition of _Cush_. The descendants of Ham applying his name to themselves and country, they being black, it necessarily became significant of that colour. We have Germans, Swedes, English; but if we say “Negroes,” or if we say Africans, we mean black men, because those words, as now used, mean men of colour; and in a sense analogous, the word _Ham_ seems to have been used in the passages quoted.

This view of the word _Ham_ we think elucidates the history of Esther and that of Haman הָמָ֥ן the son of Hamadatha—_Agagite_, _ha Agagi_. The word is a patronymic of אַגָג _Agag_,—hence he was an Amalekite: “Agag, the king of Amalek”—“Agag, the king of the Amalekites.” 1 _Sam._ xv. 20, 32. “Now there was one Haman, the son of Amadatha, by birth an Amalekite.” _Josephus_, book ii. cap. vi. 5. This shows the cause of the extraordinary hatred that existed between her people and his. His very name shows that he was a descendant of _Ham_, and we think also proves that the Amalekites were black; and which fact is confirmed by 1 _Sam._ xv. 6: “And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart; get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them,”—evincing the fact that by mere inspection he could not distinguish the one from the other. We have before shown that the Kenites were black. The argument follows, that the Amalekites were also.

The word _Ham_ is also used in 1 _Chron._iv. 40, in the same manner as it is in _Psalms_ and _Genesis_, thus: “For they of _Ham_ חָ֔ם had dwelt there of old.” This is said of Gedar, “_even unto the east_ side of the valley.” Now Gedar was in the mountains of Judea, (see _Josh._ xv. 48–60,) or in the valley, (see _Josh._ xv. 36;) and as that account of the country of Judea closes (see _idem_, 63) by informing us whom the inhabitants of Judah could not drive out, and as the inhabitants of Gedar are not included in such list, it is to be presumed that the inhabitants of Gedar were so driven out at the time of Joshua; and leaves us nothing else to conclude than that, whoever they were, they who are spoken of in this passage, as having dwelt there of old, were the people driven out by him. But _Josh._ xii. 7, 8 informs us who the people were on the west side of Jordan, both in the mountains and valleys, and names them as Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites; and from the 9th to the 24th gives us an account of their kings, among whom is named the king of Gedar, who was smitten and driven out. It is immaterial which of the tribes they were. They were inhabitants of Palestine, (see 2 _Chron._ xxviii. 18 and 1 _Chron._ xxvii. 28,) of the land of Canaan, not of south, east, nor of northern Arabia, nor of Egypt or any part of Africa; yet they are emphatically spoken of as of _Ham_, clearly having reference to their descent and colour. Here we have an additional key whereby to unlock the meaning of this word as used in _Psalms_ and _Genesis_. There can be no doubt these primitive inhabitants of Gedar were the descendants of Canaan. Yet they are described by the same term which in other places is used to describe the descendants of Cush and Mitsraim; a term which most unquestionably determines them to have been black.

But the Coptic word _chemi_, which we have seen had the same significancy as חָם _ham_ in Hebrew, opens to the view the real meaning of a few Hebrio-Coptic words that grew into common use among the Hebrews subsequent to their bondage in Egypt. We allude solely to the derivatives of Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_. כֹּמֶר _Chemar_ is thus derived, and occasionally used by the holy writers to signify black; thus, _Lam._ v. 10: “Our skin was _black_” נִכְמָ֔רוּ _ni chemaru_. True, some have disputed the accuracy of this translation. They take a cognate meaning, and say _our skin was hot_, &c. We hope to be excused for adopting the received version. But either meaning proves the origin of the word from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, the same as the _ham_ of the Hebrews. The fact is, the cognate meaning, sometimes, necessarily forces itself into an English translation, as in _Gen._ xliii. 30: “For his bowels did yearn,” נִכְמְרוּ _grew hot_, _warmed_, became agitated, &c. 1 _Kings_ iii. 26: “Her bowels _yearned_,” נִכְמְרוּ _grew hot_, _troubled_, &c.; and also _Hosea_ xi. 8: “My repentings are kindled,” נְכְמְרוּ _became hot_, &c.

But in all these instances the figure of speech is more particularly Asiatic, and more obscure than is well suited to our modern dialect, as we think will be seen by comparing them with _Job_ iii. 5, “Let the blackness of the day terrify it.”

From this Coptic name of HAM has _also_ been derived the appellative term of the Moabitish and Ammonitish god כְּמֹוּשׁ _Chemosh_. The Syrians applied this term to the fancied being who oppresses mankind during the dark hours of their sleeping, and hence _distressing dreams_, _incubus_, &c. _Chemosh_ is ranked with the god of destruction among the Hindoos, _Muha Dēvā_. The worshippers of this god are in Scripture called עַם־כְּמוֹשׁ _am Chemosh_, the people of Chemosh, particularly the Moabites and Ammonites. The image of this god was a _black stone_.

The term applied to the priesthood in this worship among the black tribes is also derivative from the same Coptic word to which we have often added in translation the word “idolatrous.” Thus, 2 _Kings_ xxiii. 5, “and he put down the _idolatrous_ priests הַכְּמָרִים _ha chemarim_.” _Hosea_ x. 5, “And the _priests_ thereof” כְּמָרָיו. _Zeph._ i. 4, “And the name of the _Chemarims_,” הַכְּמָרִים _ha Chemarim_, i. e. the _priests_ of the Hamitic fire-worshippers, &c. Some commentators, not connecting these words with the Coptic, and the _priest_, as the term applies, with the black families of Ham, have conceived that the idea _blackness_, as associated with these idolatrous priests, had reference to their apparel. Hence they conceive that these priests always wore black apparel; whereas the fact is they were _black men_, and, as such, are described by a term indicating that fact, as well as that of their idolatry and descent; and here we find the foundation of that modern and common prejudice, that the appropriate dress of the clergy is _black_.

But we find another derivative from the word _Ham_, _Gen._ xxxviii. 13: “And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy _father-in-law_ חָמִיךְ goeth up.” 25: “She sent to her _father-in-law_,” heḥāmîhā So also 1 _Sam._ iv. 19: “And that her _father-in-law was dead_.” 21. “And because of her father-in-law,” חָמִֽיהָ. This word is used in the feminine in _Micah_, vii. 6, thus: “Against her _mother-in-law_,” בַּֽחֲמֲֹתָ֑הּ _la hamtha_. We notice the word is preceded by the word כַּלָּה, which word, in _Gen._ xxxviii. 11, is applied to _Tamar_, and in _Jer._ ii. 32, evidently to a “bride” taken from the heathen, which was forbid; and is also used in _Cant._ iv. 8, for the “spouse,” who is made to declare herself a _black woman_, giving evidence that the word in _Micah_ is used in character.

This word is also used in the feminine in _Ruth_ i. 14: “And Orpah kissed her _mother-in-law_,” לַּֽחֲמוֹתָ֔הּ _la hamotha_. ii. 11: “All that thou hast done unto thy _mother-in-law_,” חֲמוֹתֵךְ _hamothek_. 18: “And her _mother-in-law_ saw what she had done,” _hamotha_. 19: “And her _mother in-law_ (_hamotha_) said unto her;” “and she showed her _mother-in-law_,” _la hamotha_. 23: “And dwelt with her _mother-in-law_,” _hamotha_. iii. 1: “Then Naomi her _mother-in-law_,” _hamotha_. 6: “All her _mother-in-law_ bade her,” _hamotha_. 16: “And when she came to her _mother-in-law_,” _hamotha_. This is certainly not the most usual word in Hebrew to express the idea of _parent-in-law_.

But these instances of its use are too frequent, its declination too varied, and in both genders, to admit the idea that they are the result of error or casualty, although some lexicographers seem to reject it. It may be noticed that the individual holding the junior position was a female—that in each case the _parent-in-law_ was most unquestionably of pure Shemitic race.

But suspicion may at least be allowed to such purity in these young females. Tamar’s husbands were half of Canaanitish blood. It would be expected that she was of that race, but if not, her intermarriage with those sons of Judah placed her in that rank. The sons of Eli were notoriously wicked and licentious, and although the widow of Phinehas appears to have been of a devout cast, yet God had determined to destroy the house of Eli on their account, and to wrest the priesthood from the family. The suspicion as to her race grows out of these facts and the character of her husband. Ruth was declaredly a Moabitess, and Orpah was of that country.

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

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

LESSON XVII.

Having thus, at some length, passed these subjects in review, we present our reflections to the impartial mind.

But there are grown up upon this earth some men who would seem to be so holy and pure that even the providences of God are defective in their sight, and by their conduct seem to evince their opinion to be that Jehovah could not well manage the government of the world without their especial counsel and aid. And do such really mean to condemn God, unless his government shall comport with their views? In kindness of heart, and for the benefit of such poor fallen ones, we propose to close this our present Study by reading to them the thirty-third chapter of Ecclesiasticus, omitting the five verses irrelevant to the subject.

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

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

“He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness where there is no way; yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock. The righteous shall see it and rejoice, and all iniquity shall stop her mouth. Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the loving-kindness of the Lord.” _Ps._ cvii. 40–43.

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

We submit the foregoing, confident, although there may be obscurity and darkness yet surrounding the subject, which we have not the ability to dispel, that the time will come, when it will be made plain to the understanding of all. We therefore resign the subject, touching the colour of the descendants of Ham, of their relationship with the family of Cain, and the ordinances of God influencing their condition in the world, to those more learned, more critical, and of more mental power, and into the hands of those whose lips have been touched by a more living coal from the altar of the prophet.

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

Study VII.

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

LESSON I.

In the inquiry into the scriptural views of slavery, by ALBERT BARNES, Philadelphia, 1846, page 322, we find the following assertion: “No man has a right to assume that when the word δοῦλος, _doulos_, occurs in the New Testament, it means a slave, or that he to whom it was applied was a slave.”

Our object in our present study is to prove that this assertion is not true; and our object further is to prove that when the word δοῦλος, _doulos_, occurs in the New Testament, it means a slave, and that he to whom it was applied, as an appropriate distinctive quality, was a slave.

Suppose some infidel, a monomaniac in the study of infidelity, should put forth the proposition that when the words Jesus Christ occur in the New Testament, no one had the right to assume that they meant the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. We should feel it a needless labour to refute it; a foolish, false assertion often does not merit or require refutation, but the falsity of propositions may not be equally obvious to all, as in the present case.

The premises include the observance of the constitution, idioms, and use of the Greek language.

To him whose mind can flash upon the volume of Greek literature, like the well-read schoolboy upon the pages of Dilworth,—our present study and argument will be unnecessary and useless; but, as unsavoury as it may seem, from the evidence that reaches us, we doubt whether the great mass of those called learned, do not remember and practise their Greek only as the old veterans in sin do the evening and morning prayers of their childhood.

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

We fear those who sit under such teaching may grope in deep darkness; and may we humbly pray, that, like the stroke of Jove, the light of the Almighty may reach them from afar.

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

LESSON II.

When the untruthfulness of the lesson taught involves a misconception of the character and laws of God, its direct tendency is to create in the mind an idea of, we may say, an image of God and his laws, as decidedly different from him and his law as is the lesson taught from the truth; and here, perhaps, through all time, has been the commencement of idolatry.

Is it not as much idolatry to worship a false image of the mind, as it would be an image of wood or stone?

You teach that δοῦλος, _doulos_, does not mean _slave_ in the word of God; you consequently teach that God disapproves of it, and that his laws forbid it. We say the exact contrary. It is therefore evident that the idea, the image we form in the mind of our God, is quite different from the idea you form in your mind of your God. But God cannot possess a contradiction in quality; therefore the God we worship must be a different God from the God you worship. But there can be but one God; therefore your God is a false God, or our God is a false God. You are an idolater, or we are one.

And shall it be said that our language is too strong?—unnecessarily extreme in its denunciation?—unwarranted by the views, by the language held by the advocates of abolition and the friends of the anti-slavery movements now in action in the Northern sections of our country? Hear the proclamation of Mr. Wright, an eloquent speaker, before the Anti-Slavery Society, as reported in the Boston papers, May 30th, 1850:

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

Thus the enemies of Jehovah give rapid proof of their idolatry.

It may be well here to remark, that the doctrine thus strange and astray from truth, may be expected to engraft itself upon such intellects as are led to the conclusion that man possesses within himself an unerring guide between right and wrong,—a doctrine which to us appears deeply fraught with ruin to the individual, and degradation to public morals.

We therefore condemn, most decidedly, the doctrine that man possesses a mental power called “moral sense,” “conscience,” or the “light within us,” which enables him unerringly to decide on right and wrong. You may as well say it will always enable him to discern the truth. Nor do we comprehend how the mind can entertain such a notion, unless the intellect is thus impressible that the mind can believe in the existence of what would be a sister faculty, clairvoyance, or a thousand other such fantasies.

Man possesses no power by which he can know God, only as he has revealed himself by inspiration and by the daily manifestations of his law. We prefer to worship the God of Abraham and Moses, who gave them directions how slaves should be governed, and of whom they should be purchased:—the God of the Bible, in which he has plainly revealed the reason why they are slaves. The history of the human intellect gives proof that among its strong characteristics is a desire, a fondness to search into mystery. While this quality stimulates to inquiry after truth, in well organized minds, it is an important means of man’s improvement and progression. But in the absence of all guides which can direct the path to successful inquiry, or by the substitution of false lights, man has ever gone astray. Here idolatry commences her reign.

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

We do not propose that any man or any race has, without exception, been under the constant influence of those axioms that guide the mind along the thread of truth; but that some men and some races have deviated far more than others, and that the effect of such difference is quite perceptible. Some races have become highly improved, while others only give evidence that they belong to the animal race of men.

Distinctions from this source arose between Cain and Abel; between the sons of Noah, Abraham, and the fire-worshippers of his day; between Jacob and Esau; and between the Israelites and the idolaters of the surrounding Hamitic tribes. This love of searching into mystery without using the aids to find truth, has at all times of the world, when supreme power was the object of contemplation, led men to idolatry, sometimes of the grossest kind; to the belief in mysterious influences, supernatural agencies, of spirits and demons, magic, witchcraft, &c.

To the same order of causes we are to attribute the sentiment entertained by some, that certain portions of Scripture and certain words sometimes contain unknown, hidden, secret, or mysterious meanings or instructions. Such views involve the proposition that such words, when used in the Scripture, have a different meaning than when otherwise used by men, and are to be translated into another language by substituting different ideas than those expressed by such words when used by man in his own oral or written language.

Do they forget that the language of man is the language of God? That revelation is always adapted to the understanding of men? They forget to know this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. It happens that men take their own circumscribed view of the providence of God, as God’s ordinance touching a matter, and if Scripture is in contradiction, then they search for mysterious or unusual meaning, and give it such interpretation as they imagine suits the case.

Hence theologians who deny that slavery is of Divine authority, are led to the necessity of also denying that the Greek word δοῦλος, _doulos_, means slave; or that, in its verbal formation, it expresses a cognate action.

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

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

LESSON III.

The Greek noun δοῦλος, _doulos_, which we say means a slave unconditionally, so far as we have been able to examine, took its origin, both phonetically and literally, among the Greeks. Let us take δοῶ, as theme for διδώμι, and λοὐω, or from the radical λοῶ, lŏō: both phonetically and significantly the word is complete. At the most ancient period of the Greeks, it is said they had no slaves, and it is a little remarkable that the word “_doulos_” is very seldom found in the most ancient of the Greek writers: but other nations more advanced had slaves. The idea, slave, was then expressed by them by the term δμώς, _dmos_, evidently of foreign origin. This latter term was nearly or quite obsolete as early as the days of Alexander, when the word _doulos_ is found to have taken its place.

The ancient and Eastern nations were particular in their custom of bathing their bodies and washing their feet, &c. One of the first and most important uses to which the early Greeks seem to have applied slaves, was in these personal purifications; and hence the peculiar name δοῦλος originated; δου-λούω, one whose office it was to bathe and wash them, a bondman for that particular use.

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

But it does not affect the force of our argument, even if it shall be thought that the origin we give the word is doubtful. All we at the present moment propose is, that it is an original Greek term, all of which terms, either remotely or immediately, spring from particles having a significant and phonetic relation with the derivative. Such has been the doctrine of all who have written upon the philology and origin of the Greek language. Valckenaerus (the edition of Venice, published by Coletos) says, p. 8—

“Verba simplicia apud Græcos sunt vel ‘primitiva,’ vel a primitivis per varios flexus ‘derivata.’

“Primitiva verba admodum sunt ‘pauca:’ ‘derivatorum’ numerus est infinitus.

“‘Binæ’ literarum syllabæ verbum primitivum constituunt.

“Verba primitiva, secundum observationem tertiam, dissyllaba sunt vel ‘bilittera,’ vel trilittera, vel quadrilittera.

“Primitiva ‘bilittera,’ per rei naturam, dari possunt in universum (si vel totam linguam perscrutemur) tantum quinque, nempe ἄω,ἔω, ὅω,ἴω, ὔω Primitiva ‘trilittera’ sunt, quæ a ‘vocali,’ ‘quadrilittera’ (pleraque saltem) quæ a ‘consonante,’ incipiunt. Hoc certum est: sed de eo etiamnum addubito, an nonnulla verba ‘quinque’ litteris constantia pro ‘primitivis’ debeant haberi?” &c.

And Lennepius, de Anologia Linguæ Græcæ, (eadem editio,) p. 38:

“Cognita literarum potestate, earumque antiquitate, ad primas linguæ Græcæ origines indagandas progrediendum est. Videndum itaque primo loco, quænam voces pro ‘simplicissimis originibus’ haberi possint, quænam minus? Hoc autem ut rite peragatur, quædam de ‘partibus orationis’ ante sunt monenda.

“Ex viii. partibus quas vulgo statuunt grammatici, ‘Verbum et Nomen’ principem obtinent locum: quum reliquæ omnes facillime ad harum partium alterutram referi possint. Quapropter etiam ‘Aristoteles,’ aliique de veteribus, revera ‘duas’ tantum esse ‘partes orationis’ voluerunt.

“Addunt quidem alii tertiam partem, utriusque, nempe et ‘verbi et nominis, ligamentum,’ sive particulas, quod, nempe, particulæ orationem in unum corpus veluti connectant et devinciant. Sed, qui attentius ‘particularum’ naturam inspexerit, facile animadvertat, omnia fere, quæ ‘particularum’ nomine insigniuntur, si ‘exteriorem formam’ eorumque naturam grammaticam inspiciamus, referenda esse vel ad ‘nomen’ vel ad ‘verbum.’

“Ita verbi gr.: particula ᾽ȣ͂ν, Lat. igitur, revera participium est, contracta pro ἐὸν, quod neutrum a masculo ἐὼν est, quo modo participium verbi ἐὼ, vel εἰμὶ, pronuntiarunt Iones, quum Attici ἐὸν contraxerint in ᾽ȣ͂ν. Apparet itaque, Græcum ᾽ȣ͂ν revera pertinere ad nomina participialia. Eadem ratio cernitur quoque in particulis ποὶ, πῆ, πȣ͂, quæ ‘adverbia loci’ dicuntur, quorum duo priora proprie ‘dativa antiqua’ sunt, postremum vero genitivus est; quemadmodum similis ratio cernitur in adverbiis quæ dicuntur ‘Loci’ apud Latinos, _quò_, _quà_, et similibus.

“Ad ‘verba’ porro referenda sunt ἄγε, φέρε, ἰδȣ͂, ἲθι, ἔια vel ἔα, et plura alia similia, id quod in aliis clarius, in aliis minus manifesto, apparet. Horum tamen omnium rationem eandem fuisse in prima linguæ Græcæ infantia, non est quod dubitemus.

“Hæc igitur quum revera sic sese habeant, jam porro inquirendum est, utrum verba, an vero nomina, ‘primas’ linguæ Græcæ stirpes nobis subministrent.

“Docet autem ipsa rei natura, si de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis sermo fiat, ‘nomina’ a ‘verbis,’ non verba a nominibus, primum esse formata.

“Quum enim omnes res vocabulis, tanquam nominibus, signatæ, ab usu qui singulis adest, vel quacumque etiam actione, nomina, sua acceperint: clare apparet, sicut ipsam actionem unde res denominata sit, ita etiam verbum, quo actio designetur, præcedere nomini, quod ab actione aliqua rei sit inditum. Atque hoc adeo certum est, non solum in lingua Græca, sed etiam omnibus omnino linguis, ut extra omnem controversiam positum esse videatur: nisi quis delabatur illuc, ut linguas integras, qua late patent, nullo artificio humano accedente, uno temporis articulo hominibus divinitus datas esse, eosque statim caluisse tot myriadas quot in singulis linguis sunt vocabulorum; tametsi res ipsas vocabulis istis designandas plerosque primos homines ignorasse certum est.

“Hoc autem quam sit rationi contrarium, atque ipsi experientiæ, facile apparet, si modo consideremus, ea ratione multa vocabula existere jam debuisse priusquam eorum utilitas inter homines ulla esset, quæque proinde, non nisi vani et inutiles soni, facile et sine ulla jactura dediscenda fuissent.

“Quin imo experientia abunde docet, primum res ipsas inveniri hominum industria, deinde autem inventis nomina imponi, sive ab utilitate sive alia qualitate ducta. Ex quo porro apparet, quo plures res ab aliquo populo inveniantur, eo ditiorem et uberiorem eorum linguam fieri, ut adeo mirandum non sit tantam esse linguæ Græcæ copiam et ubertatem, quum exculta ea fuerit a populo ingeniosissimo, cui omnes artes et disciplinæ non tantum primordia sua, sed etiam omnem fere splendorem, debent. Linguas itaque diligenter consideranti, idem quod in artibus, in iis quoque usu venire apparebit: eas nimirum a paucis simplicissimisque initiis profectas, non nisi sensim et progressu temporis ad eam qua postea patuerunt amplitudinem pervenisse. Quum autem hominum natura ita sit comparata, ut primum eas res circumspiciat, quæ necessario ad vitam sustentandam, et cum aliis quibuscum homo societatis vinculo conjunctus est secure agendam, requirantur, dein vero ea excogitat quæ vitam jucundiorem possint reddere, valde verisimile fit vocabula ea in linguis antiquissima esse quibus res designantur ad vitam degendam necessariæ, si recesseris ab iis vocabulis, quæ in antiquissimorum vocabulorum locum deinceps substitute sunt, ut revera hujus generis multæ vocabulorum formæ inveniantur, quæ verborum obsoletorum locum occupaverunt.

“Porro non alienum erit hic observasse non tantum ejusmodi vocabula antiquissima existimari debere, sed etiam ‘ipsas’ significationes verbis subjectas tanto antiquioris usus esse, tantoque magis proprias esse habendas, quanto sunt propiores iis rebus quas corporis sensibus percipimus. Ab iis enim semper servata quadam similitudine ad reliquas quascumque verborum significationes progrediendum est: ut adeo appareat, paucissimas revera esse proprias verborum ‘significationes,’ nec alias esse nisi corporeas, sive eas quibus res sensibus externis expositæ designantur.

“E contrario autem, translatarum significationum copiam immensam, quæ ex propria notione, tanquam ex trunco arboris rami, quaquaversum pateant; manente similitudine inter eas omnes et propriam seu primam stirpis significationem, similiter atque rami, utcumque dispersi, et communem et communis trunci naturam retinent.

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

“Quumque actiones infinitæ, sive nulli certæ personæ adsignatæ, per rei naturam antecedere debeant iis quæ certæ personæ attribuuntur, verba ‘infinitiva’ simplicissima proprie primas linguæ Græcæ origines continere certum est.

“Harum autem plurimæ, quum jam a longissimis temporibus, una cum plerisque notionibus propriis, ex usu ceciderint, ac difficillimaæ sæpe indagatu sint, quo certiores progredi possimus, id semper tenendum est, ne quidquam admittamus quod constanti analogiæ linguæ repugnet; dein etiam, ut ex ipsis linguæ reliquiis, rite inter se comparatis, inquiramus a quo verbo originali vocabulum quodque oriatur: etiam tum, quum minus ipsum verbum originale superstes sit.

“Ubi enim in sequentibus agetur de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis ‘primitivis,’ id non ita accipiendum est quasi ea omnia, sicut etiam multa derivata simpliciora, florente lingua Græcæ, in sermone Graæcorum adhuc exstitisse vellem; sed tantum, in primo linguæ Græcæ ortu, aut exstitisse revera aut saltem existere potuisse. Neque enim, in hoc linguæ Græcæ defectu, æque certo sciri potest, an tanta copia, quantam fingere verborum per linguæ naturam constanti analogiæ ductu liceat, prima linguæ Græcæ ætate reipsa viguerit.”

* * * * *

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

Therefore δοῦλος could not have meant slave,—“an idea of which they had no notion.” Even if this statement were true, we do not perceive how it proves their proposition. To show the futility of such argument, we consent, for the moment, that δοῦλος is not an original Greek word, but was borrowed from some other language, in which it meant something distinct from the idea of slave: say, a freeman, if you choose. Language, and all its parts, has ever been found to conform itself to the habits and wants of those who use it. Wherefore we often find a term, which some centuries ago expressed a certain distinct idea, now to express quite a different one. We therefore cannot say, with any propriety, that, because the word δοῦλος meant a “freeman,” at the age of Noah, that it also meant the same thing at the age of Alexander. If it meant a “freeman” at the age of Noah, we are to determine that fact by its use at that period; if otherwise, we should be able to prove that our word _slave_ does not mean a slave now, but a proud and lofty distinction.

It is a term borrowed from the Schlavonic, where its significance was _fame_, _renown_, &c.; but the Schlavonians going into bondage to other nations, upon their inroads on Europe, the term implying _fame_ in their ancient national distinctions came to signify in succeeding ages the condition of bondage. But although, as we have seen, a language is modified by the habits of those who apply it, yet this liability to change ceases when the language ceases to be the common vehicle of thought. Such substantially has been the case with the ancient Hebrew, since the era of the prophets; and such has, emphatically, been the case with the ancient Greek since the breaking down of the Roman Empire.

And even at the age of the apostles, the Greek had already arrived at the very highest point of its cultivation. No history, no writer gives proof of any subsequent improvement. If, then, we desire with seriousness and truth to determine the significance of any term then in use, the same is alone to be found by an investigation of the Greek literature of that age.

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

With a view to be enabled to come to a truthful decision as to the definiteness of the idea intended to be conveyed by the word _doulos_, when used in the writings of the apostles, let us make a suitable inquiry among the Greek authors read and studied at their time, regardless of what may be the result as to the establishment of any peculiar theory or favourite notion. Let a development of the truth be the sole object of the research, careless of what else may stand or fall thereby. And since all have not chosen to burden themselves with the toilsome lesson necessary in a preparation for such examination, we consent that such may pass it by with the same indifference with which they regard the study.

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

LESSON IV.

We commence our quotations from the Greek authors with the Cebetis Tabula, from the Gronovius edition, Glasgow, 1747: