LESSON XIX.
Our English wordwaris 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, frompallo, 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 wordbattle: whereas the Hebrew term,laham, cognate withHam, on whose descendants the curse of slavery was pronounced by Noah, involves the idea ofdestruction, as a thingburned,consumed,devoured, anddestroyed; hence the Hebrews would say, the sword devoured, that is, eats up, &c.; yet their termgerav, orkerab, 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 termwar, 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 ideawar, with him, the leading sentiment was the extinction of those against whom thewarwas waged. Theirdoctrine, 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 ofDeut.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 inEx.xvii. 16, “The Lord hath sworn that the Lordwill havewar with Amalek from generation togeneration,” and in the preceding verse, that “Moses built an altar and called itJehovah-nissi.” The wordnissimeans 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 ofexample, 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.” 2Sam.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 knownshall 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 warandmy 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, andChub, (the Arabians readNub, 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 countriesthat aredesolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the citiesthat arewasted.
“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 bebrought 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 signifyingsouth land,&c.) desolate, and will set a fire in Zoan, (bothIsoanandIsaan;itmeansa wanderer, &c. and was the name of a city at the mouth of the Nile,) and will execute judgments inNo.
“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 strengthshall 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 asMisraim, the son of Ham:) and they shall know that I am the Lord.”Ezek.xxx. 1–19.
And soZeph.ii. 12: “Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword.” We shall take occasion to notice this passage elsewhere. AndJoeliii. 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.”Zephaniahiii. 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,evenall 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,eventhedaughter of mydispersed(Putsi, the daughters of Put; the word meansdispersed, 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. SeeLardner, 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, providedthey only restored to him the cities ofRiminiandFaenza. 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 ofFaenza. 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 ofVenice, 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.” (SeeGuicand, et Onuphrius in vita Julii II., et Raymund ad ann. 1509, andBower, 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.” SeeBurnet’s Hist. of the Reform.1. 3.Pallavicino, 1. 4.Saudeos de Schis.b. i., andBower, 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 someof 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.”
Under the termwar, mankind have from time immemorial included those acts which the more enlightened nations of modern days have designated by the name ofpiracy, a word derived from the Greekpeirao. The primary sense isto dare,to attempt, &c., as,to rush, anddrive 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 calledrobbery, &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 theheathen 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 womenand 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 immediatepresence 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 intriumph, 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 goldwere 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, anotherchieftain, 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 ofDere Columb-kill, the Londonderry of more modern times. Here theHydaher-teagh, thechiefs of the oak habitations, (theO'Dougherty’sof a latter day,) secured the record of their name in the “Book of Howth.” But here theTuatha 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 ofSt. 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 denominatedFin-gal, or white strangers, and by another body, calledDubh-gal, or black strangers, who took possession of Leinster and Ulster, and ravaged the country. In 853, a sea-king, named Amlave,Auliffe, orOlave, 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 awayfor 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.
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 thefree, from an amalgamation with theslaves, did not proceed from any consideration as torace, 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 oftheir 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 theesnedistinguished from thetheow; and read of female slaves of the first, the second, and third rank. In later enactments we meet withborders,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 histune—in Latin, hisvilla. From the latter word they were by the Normans denominatedvilleins, while the collection of cottages in which they dwelt acquired the name ofvillage. 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. Whereverslaves 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.
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 signifiedfameanddistinction, 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 sayslaaf; Germans,sclave; Danes,slaveandsclave; 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 languageServian, from the Roman wordservus, 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 nameserf. 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 theSlaveshas been degraded by chance or malice from the signification ofgloryto that ofservitude. 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 fromslava,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, andin course of time, by a corruption of their language, Medi, in the barbarous dialect of Libya, becameMauri—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.
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 Asiacommenced. 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 andphysical 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 allowedto 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 fiercecountenance, 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 whichincluded 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 withChristian nations, to the same extent it has substantially increased with Mohammedan countries.