Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition of kindred pa.s.sages, it may be sufficient to say:--
1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master, was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment.
Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an affectionate service.
2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had its soul in _good-will_, mutually cherished and properly expressed.
Hence "THE SAME THINGS," the same in principle, the same in substance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of the master and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth by the one and the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual service. Do we here find the chattel principle?
3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, unfaithful. Of course, the master must "FORBEAR THREATENING."
Slavery without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is of necessity a _system of threatening_, injecting into the bosom of the slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and torment him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it derives from "threatening," and you annihilate it at once and forever.
4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the principles of the divine government, where "RESPECT OF PERSONS"
could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with, and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery is developed in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once obeyed, would be sure to confer.
"The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is recognized in "the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."[60]
Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks; otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject--with the slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to.
How gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to fall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament had its basis and support in "justice and equality;" the very opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction to which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery, raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his rights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of justice!
[Footnote 60: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.]
"It is remarkable," saith the Princeton professor, "that there is not even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles "to masters to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and immediate duty."[61] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have nothing to say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton professor has the a.s.surance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, AND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a _distinct reference to the government of G.o.d_.[62] "Without respect of persons," they were to be G.o.d-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and merciful "brethren." And whither would this lead them? Could they stop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable rights?--of doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the sorrows, improve the character, and raise the condition of the degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of "their Master in Heaven?" Could the apostles have subserved the cause of freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to enjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which freedom consists--const.i.tuting its living root and fruitful germ_!
[Footnote 61: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]
[Footnote 62: The same, p. 10.]
The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural defence of "the peculiar inst.i.tution," maintains, that the "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout the greater part of Christendom_"[63]--"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a fair compensation for labor; insists on the mental and intellectual improvement of_ ALL _cla.s.ses of men; condemns_ ALL _infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in short, not only that_ FREE SCOPE _should be allowed to human improvement, but that_ ALL SUITABLE MEANS _should be employed for the attainment of that end_."[64] It is indeed "remarkable," that while neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an exhortation to masters to liberate their slaves," they enjoined such "general principles as have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge"
emanc.i.p.ation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the rights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of all cla.s.ses, with free scope and all suitable means, the object of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only "remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes and no--hot and cold, in one and the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery!
[Footnote 63: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.]
[Footnote 64: The same, p. 31.]
In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings on the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord"s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ"s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." [65]
[Footnote 65: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.]
In explaining and applying this pa.s.sage, it is proper to suggest:
1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke,"
they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity.
"If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in so doing? Their "brother" could _he_ be, who kept "the yoke" upon their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible?
And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian inst.i.tution?--or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the cause of freedom?
2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord"s freeman." In _him_, therefore, should they cheerfully confide.
3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations.
To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased.
It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "_Ye are bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN."
With his eye upon the pa.s.sage just quoted and explained, the Princeton professor a.s.serts that "Paul represents this relation"--the relation of slavery--"as of comparatively little account."[66]
And this he applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to _American_ slavery. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle?
[Footnote 66: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.]
To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the bearing of the pa.s.sage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher [67] from any free State, can be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Christian inst.i.tution! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the pa.s.sage in question, he addresses himself to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him "who is no respecter of persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke," throw it off. In the mean time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;"
that the gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord"s freeman." And, for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope.
It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all cla.s.ses of men; it condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end."
[68] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is ent.i.tled to your warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of the republic, and cement "the Union?"
[Footnote 67: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where the "peculiar inst.i.tution" is cherished with great warmth and maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was a.s.sured, that the Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to which the Bible gives countenance and support_.
In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and, according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor.
"There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this subject. The great ma.s.s of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others, _by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that though slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it shall he expedient to abolish it_; or, if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, both in Church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible allows no tampering with sin.
"To these remarks, there are some n.o.ble exceptions, to be found in both parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of grat.i.tude to the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of that article is said, without contradiction, to be _Professor Hodge, of Princeton_--HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, _my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the_ ONLY ONE _who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious charge of living in the habitual transgression of G.o.d"s holy law_."]
[Footnote 68: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.]
"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged, that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it around him_ IN JUDEA."[69] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "_in_ Judea," which neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is not denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have had slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must have known they could not hold in the light of open day!
[Footnote 69: The same, p. 9]
We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or courage,[70] for refusing to "break down the wall of part.i.tion between Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [71] The propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and ourselves.
[Footnote 70: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.]
[Footnote 71: Matt. xv. 24.]
In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our Savior"s incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest attention:--
1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded to.[72] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of life, the Jews, during our Savior"s ministry among them, seem to have been scrupulously observant of the inst.i.tutions and usages of the "Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and slaveholding--those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed among the heathen--they seem at length, as the result of a most painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced.
[Footnote 72: "The Bible against Slavery."]
2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,[73] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been less effectually aroused by the presence of "the yoke," than was Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms?
[Footnote 73: Psalm lx.x.xii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.]
3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews.