Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

diction been in his hands, or been assumed by him, there can be no doubt that every abuse of the then existing Jewish government would have been reformed. As the case was, he comprehended all his great design in one sentence, when he said to Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Let me now put some questions respecting the teaching and doctrines of Christ. In what part of the Gospels is there any record of his taking special cognizance of slavery? Where is even a direc tion to masters, or a declaration respecting the demeanor of slaves, to be found in them? I believe indeed, and I shall hereafter endeavor to show, that the Saviour uttered sentiments, which, in their ultimate effects, must abolish- totally and forever abolishall slavery, except in cases of crime. But where did he intermeddle with the then existing relations between master and slave? Not a word is to be found in the Gospels indicative of such an interposition. And yet, there seems to have been great need of some interposition. It should be remembered, that the Roman power and laws were then dominant in Palestine. The Jews had only the power of controlling religious worship and rites. Of course, the cruel Roman laws were dominant there, which gave the power of life and death to the master of a slave. The Jews of that generation, also, were surely as bad as those whom Jeremiah denounced, for misusing their Hebrew servants. And yet, while almost every prevailing sin of the day is expressly and strongly denounced by the Saviour, he does not once touch on the abuses of slavery. Not even in his Sermon on the Mount, has he brought this matter into view. Why not? On the ground of the Abolitionists, who make it a malum in se, it is impossible to free him from the imputation of gross neglect and abandonment of duty, as a preacher of righteousness. I call now upon them to explain these facts. My statements they cannot deny. I ask then I have a right to demand some satisfactory explanation.

[ocr errors]

My own explanation (to which they doubtless will not accede) is, that Christ purposely and carefully abstained from meddling with those matters which belonged to the civil power. Slavery was one of these. An undertaking to dictate on this subject, would have subjected him to the accusation of being pragmatical in the affairs of the civil government. He would have been accused before the Roman governor. Nor was this all which influenced his course. He

doubtless felt, that slavery might be made a very tolerable condition, nay, even a blessing to such as were shiftless and helpless, in case of kind and gentle mastership. It was not like murder or robbery. It might therefore be tolerated for a while, rather than embroil himself and his disciples in a quarrel with the Jews and Romans. His policy differed, no doubt, from that of the immediate Emancipationists. He took care to utter truths and establish principles, which in their gradual influence and operation would banish slavery from the face of the earth; but he would leave the completion of the work to time, and to the slow but sure operation of the principles which he inculcated. He doubtless thought and said with Paul: "Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it." He, it would seem, believed that the sudden breaking up of the then existing frame-work of society, would have occasioned evils greater than slavery. He did not therefore issue any commands for immediate action, in respect to this matter.

slavery, is every day Few venture indeed Still we have some

His whole conduct, however, in regard to practically called in question and condemned. directly to attack him or to vilify his character, bolder spirits, it would seem, in Boston, who do not scruple to cast contumely upon him, even in public assemblies; as some late scenes in New York testify. There are many, I fear, in our country, who do not think that any serious regard is to be paid to his teachings ar his example, in respect to the matter before us. But still, there are many, I do hope and trust, who, although they seem never to have seriously reflected on this subject, may be induced to pause and examine, before they advance any farther in the career of violence.

Thus much in respect to Him who knew no sin; who spake as man never spake; and to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth. We come next to his apostles and disciples. Have they trodden in the steps of their Lord and Master?

Let us begin with Paul. The first passage which I shall quote, is Eph. 6: 5-9:

(5) Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (6) Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; (7) With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men; (9) Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (9) And, ye masters,

do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Servants then, in the Apostle's view, are bound to be obedienteven with fear and trembling, i. e. with a high sense of reverence for their masters. In singleness of heart, i. e. with sincerity. As unto Christ strongly expresses the high sense of duty which they should cherish. The sixth verse has made this idea intense, by precluding all mere show or pretence of obedience, and requiring an obedience like that due to Christ, i. e. an obedience of the heart such as God requires, and because such service is the doing of God's will. Verse 6th requires all this to be done with good will, i. e. heartily, cheerfully, not grudgingly and with morose feelings. The 8th verse encourages such obedience by promise of reward. In the 9th, the masters are taught their duty. The clause do the same things unto them is somewhat obscure and difficult. Same as what? Surely not the same as the obedience required of the servant; for this would make no sense. I do not see anything in the preceding context with which same may be compared, excepting the clause: "Whatsoever good thing any man doeth." The servants were to do good by ready, hearty, and cheerful obedience. The masters to do good to the servants, by kindness, lenity, and forbearance. So the next clause appears to explain it, "forbearing threatening." Paul would have servants rendered obedient by kindness which would win them, not by severe looks, threatening words, and a rod held over them. I believe there is many a master at the South, who honestly aims at obedience in this particular. Those who do not, should ponder well the last part of verse: "There is no respect of persons with God." In his sight, an obedient servant is as good as his master, even if his master is kind and gentle; unspeakably better, if he is severe and rigid in his exactions.

If such were Paul's injunctions, in respect to master and slave, how do the language and conduct of most Abolitionists accord with them? They do not scruple to tell the slave, that he owes no duty to his master, and that he ought to escape from his service if possible. They hesitate not to furnish him with all the means of escape, which are in their power. It has been publicly declared in this place, by one of the most distinguished orators of the anti-slavery party, that a servant would have as good a right to cut his master's

throat, if it were necessary in order to make his escape, as he would have to take away his life in defence of his own, when he was assailed with a deadly weapon. And this-all this—what is it, compared with Paul's view of the subject? And how is conscience, that mighty arbiter of all questions-how is it to be disposed of, on the present occasion? This question must be met; it must be met fairly and honorably. No evasion will answer the purpose. Nor is this passage to be ignored. Men, ministers of the gospel, politicians, Christians, are bound to meet it, face to face. If not, then let Paul be abjured. This is the only honest course, when we refuse to hearken to him. It is hypocrisy, if we profess to acknowledge him as an inspired teacher, and then flout at his doctrines, and ridicule and contemn those who inculcate obedience to him. The time has come when this matter is to be met directly and honestly. Tergiversation will not do. If Paul is cast off-that is one thing. An honest deist, if such a rarity can be found, might consistently ignore Paul. But this will not do for Christians. Many say, that to be the master of a slave, proves the want of Christianity, an unfitness for Christian fellowship. In what part of the New Testament is that found? On the other hand, one may with very much more reason say, that a refusal to obey Paul, an ignoring of what he has taught respecting slavery, and a vilification of all who plead for the duty of obeying him, is unspeakably stronger evidence of the want of Christian principle.

The Ephesian church was not the only one to whom Paul preached after the same tenor, in regard to slavery. To the Colossians (3: 22-25 and 4: 1) he says:

(22) Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: (23) And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; (24) Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. (25) But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he has done: and there is no respect of persons. 4: 1, Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal: knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

As these words are mostly identical with those already commented on, much need not be said. One sentence only, in respect to servants, needs to be noticed. It is this, which is addressed to servants: "But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath

done; and there is no respect of persons." In other words: The servant who does the wrong of withholding hearty and cheerful obedience, shall be punished; for God will punish the wrong-doing slave, as well as the wrong-doing master. One other declaration respecting masters, needs some notice, specially since it has so often been misinterpreted and abused. It is this: "Masters, give to your servants what is just and equal." The shade of meaning in the original is not given by our translation. It stands thus in the Greek: "Show to your servants justice and equity,” viz., in your dealings with them, and in your requirements of service from them. All excessive and rigorous demands are forbidden by this passage; and nothing more is meant by it. The Greek word (ioórŋra) means literally, when applicable to objects of sense, equality. But in the moral sense, (which is plainly the one here intended), it means equity. Many a time has this passage been produced to show, that masters are bound to make their servants equal to themselves, i. e. to make freemen of them. If so, then how could the Apostle insist, as he does in the preceding verses, on the sincere and thorough obedience of the servants to their masters? How could they be bound to obedience, after they became freemen? No-such an exegesis is felo de se. It is absolutely preposterous. On the other hand, that masters should be charged not to make unjust and inequitable demands on their servants, and that they should treat them with gentleness and lenity, was a doctrine worthy of him who preached it.

In 1 Tim. 6: 1-4, Paul has again given us his views very graphically:

(1) Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. (2) And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. (3) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, (4) He is proud, knowing nothing.

Here comes before us an injunction on servants to "count their masters as worthy of all honor," i. e. to treat them with high respect, and ready obedience. But why so? "In order that the name of God and his doctrine [the Gospel] be not blasphemed." In other words: 'If a course of conduct the opposite of this should be

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »