In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations and circ.u.mstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following this guide, but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in deciding any moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our brother_, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought to be p.r.o.nounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing self-evident truths!--like decrying the authority of general principles!--like exalting himself at the expense of reason!--like opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at variance with the dictates of humanity!
What then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that fundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding light upon, all its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of slavery?--_that we must "do to" slaves as we would be done by_, AS SLAVES, _the_ RELATION _itself being justified and continued_? Surely not. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule reaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences and operations. The _natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very basis of this great precept. It obviously requires _every man to acknowledge another self in every other man_. With my powers and resources, and in my appropriate circ.u.mstances, I am to recognize in any child of Adam who may address me, another self in his appropriate circ.u.mstances and with his powers and resources. This is the natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires us to admit, defend, and maintain.
"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD."
They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, who charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any "levelling system"_ cannot but produce. In all its bearings, tendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully hostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine a.s.serts; and this necessarily opens the way for _variety of condition_. In other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own powers, and employing his own resources, according to his own choice;--the right, while he respects his social relations, to promote as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and resources, and NOT ANOTHER"S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF, and not another. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarra.s.s another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own proper sphere. Now, as in the const.i.tutional endowments; and natural opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of condition.
But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social of their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While each is inalienably ent.i.tled to a.s.sert and enjoy his own personality as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations.
While each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor the social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly recognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations to, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social relations. What higher honor could it do to man, as _an individual_, than to const.i.tute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively and definitely disposed of? "Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, so do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and authorized to pa.s.s judgment on all the cases in social life in which he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their _claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of _another self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me.
Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally brought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to promote each other"s welfare. As his contribution to this great object, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam, to consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort.
If his "abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each other. In this service, each is to exert _himself_--employ _his own_ powers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth; and a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis of a _common character_, by virtue of which all men and each--one as truly as another--are ent.i.tled, as a birthright, to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another, may choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are placed--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor, the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market, where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas with his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the service of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them partakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual understanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to the Golden Rule.
What then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements in which one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a chattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in any disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself?
The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION ITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every thing within the scope of _human action_. To "whatever MEN DO." it extends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to each other--contrary to nature and most injurious to the general welfare. This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns.
Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated.
Mutual service and slavery--like light and darkness, life and death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The one the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors, and blesses.
"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR."
Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--"_Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_." "A certain lawyer," who seems to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my neighbor?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man whom we could reach with our sympathy and a.s.sistance, was our neighbor, ent.i.tled to the same regard which we cherished for ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can _slavery, as a_ RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of love_--such love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam of all the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright? To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his immortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the heart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and dispose of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such, consists. All this--well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or "tears be his meat night and day," fondly cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_ ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A SLAVE, _is set apart from the rest of the human family_. Is it an exercise of love, to place our "neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing power, of such a relation?--to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals of his humanity?
"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[19]
The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed.
Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and religion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to catch him with their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body, soul, and substance? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for _the relation_, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he thus enters. _The relation cannot be forced upon him_. What though Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market for them in the English colonies?--what though modern Dracos have "framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go "to their own place," const.i.tuted you the owner of the "neighbors"
whom they had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like this, as can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men are "deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be _chattels personal_?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the climax--to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in the work of slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the soul of the whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a lifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, and testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, are nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _princ.i.p.al_. Let him look to it.
[Footnote 19: You join with them in their b.l.o.o.d.y work. They murder, and you bury the victims.]
But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor"s" throat.
Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue; whatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath of Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into h.e.l.l."
Professor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great commandment "decide against the theory of slavery, as being in itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular precepts, inst.i.tutions, and usages, which are authorized and enjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary expression--the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible, enforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than _the application of these injunctions to specific relations or particular occasions and conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, do prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule and the second great command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, no other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other precept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the sacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command, which may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What must his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon such inquiries?--to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose?
Can he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to make its meaning plain and welcome? What must he think of G.o.d, to search his word in quest of gross inconsistencies, and grave contradictions! Inconsistent legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular arrangements!
What must be the moral character of any inst.i.tution which the Golden Rule decides against?--which the second great command condemns?
_It cannot but be wicked_, whether newly established or long maintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every modification and at all times--_wickedness must be its proper character. It must be_, IN ITSELF, _apart from its circ.u.mstances_, IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from its incidents_, SINFUL.
"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER."
In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects around us from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental precepts, the known circ.u.mstances and characteristic arrangements, of primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false conclusions will be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore, be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent spirit of the New Testament inst.i.tutions and arrangements. For to what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our inquiries under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That, for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?--That those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be expected to exert; that thus they are to const.i.tute a cla.s.s by themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and literature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the high places of learning and of power?
If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we should explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what must inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our conclusions? What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we might undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which primitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly, perhaps, to the primitive churches; the character, relations, and condition of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language and explaining the usages of the New Testament!
"SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE."
Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up the _true standard of greatness_, deserves particular attention. In repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the clearest light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; _and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all_." In other words, through the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim widely prevails in the world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, and mark of greatness, TO EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to others, while it authorizes us to relax the exertion of our own powers, gives us a fair t.i.tle to the use of theirs; that "might,"
while it exempts us from serving, "gives the right" to be served.
The instructions of the Savior open the way to greatness for us in the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in whatever it may consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, and demands of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we _are useful_. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, affectionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus the greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the servant.
The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied.
He bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even through the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And to make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, he embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a memorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged for his disciples the most menial of all offices--taking, _in washing their feet_, the place of the lowest servant. He took great pains to make them understand, that only by imitating this example could they honor their relations to him as their Master; that thus only would they find themselves blessed. By what possibility could slavery exist under the influence of such a lesson, set home by such an example? _Was it while washing the disciples" feet, that our Savior authorized one man to make a chattel of another_?
To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official exertions he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls their attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In the most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful labor, "_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_." What must be the bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained where every man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where idleness was esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of starvation as a punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, or used, or needed? Must not every one in such a community contribute his share to the general welfare?--and mutual service and mutual support be the natural result?
The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed throughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be universally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up what they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and begin at once to "labor, working with their hands," for necessary and charitable purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others, every man would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for his own wants, but also to acc.u.mulate funds, "that he might have to give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, at once and forever.
In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an obvious and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would have them remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of their fellow men, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has thus united wages with work. Whoever renders the one is ent.i.tled to the other. And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding and a voluntary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you to work for me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, fairly opens the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force me to render you whatever wages you may choose to exact for any services you may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as involuntary servitude, is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton professor seems to regard it as a violation of the principle which unites work with wages.
The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual laborers--of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to "weeping and howling," a.s.suring them that the complaints of the injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, and that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were corrupted, and their garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were cankered; that the rust of them should be a witness against them, and should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they had heaped treasures together for the last days, when "miseries were coming upon them," the prospect of which might well drench them in tears and fill them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings were heeded there, would not "the South" break forth into "weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else are its rich men about, but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer, who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating their fields and producing their luxuries! Encouragement and support do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar inst.i.tution"
which they call patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of the republic?
In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, "_Honor all men_." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity may justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human right must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this command. How then, in the light of such obligations, must slavery be regarded? Are those men honored, who are rudely excluded from a place in the human family, and shut up to the deep degradation and nameless horrors of chattelship? _Can they be held as slaves, and at the same time be honored as men_?
How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from the admonitions and instructions which James applies to the arrangements and usages of religious a.s.semblies. Into these he can not allow "respect of persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims, "have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your a.s.sembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?" _If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors_. On this general principle, then, religious a.s.semblies ought to be regulated--that every man is to be estimated, not according to his _circ.u.mstances_--not according to anything incidental to his _condition_; but according to his _moral worth_--according to the essential features and vital elements of his _character_. Gold rings and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, can ent.i.tle no man to, a "good place" in the church. Nor can the "vile raiment of the poor man," fairly exclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his heart and head may fit him to fill. To deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade a man below a thing; for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things, "which perish with the using?" And this must be "to commit sin, and be convinced of the law as transgressor."
In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and reduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile raiment," which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough.
But the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or complexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, or improvidence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of character. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my birth?--how for my complexion? To despise or honor me for these, is to be guilty of "respect of persons" in its grossest form, and with its worst effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing to do with; for which, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest injustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of slavery, which cannot be maintained under any form nor for a single moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshippers of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew?[20]
[Footnote 20: In Carlyle"s Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we have the following anecdote ill.u.s.trative of the character of a "grandmother" of the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately towards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the ear, and these words, "_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes last_!"" Let those who justify the negro-pew arrangement, throw a stone at this proud woman--if they dare.]
Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to religious a.s.semblies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where plenty, intelligence and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, the poor are to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to him that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed, the lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."
In the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the drawing-room, the saloon--special reference should be had, in every arrangement, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least able to provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, ample accommodations must be made, whatever may become of our kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while such occasions signify little to the latter, to the former they are pregnant with good--raising their drooping spirits, cheering their desponding hearts, inspiring them with life, and hope, and joy. The rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully together, cannot but mutually contribute to each other"s benefit; the rich will be led to moderation, sobriety, and circ.u.mspection, and the poor to industry, providence, and contentment. The recompense must be great and sure.
A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which these things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He freely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of society. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not hesitate to be a cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners.
And when flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, as an ultraist and leveler, he explained and justified himself by observing, that he had only done what his office demanded. It was his to seek the lost, to heal the sick, to pity the wretched;--in a word, to bestow just such benefits as the various necessities of mankind made appropriate and welcome. In his great heart, there was room enough for those who had been excluded from the sympathy of little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel overlooked none--least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world.
Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?--a gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social life, to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our warmest sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor of the world?
Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of the Golden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations are reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard as we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were fastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved have a natural claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they suffer spring from a persecution which can hardly be surpa.s.sed in malignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion of the insults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. It is for _the work of G.o.d_, and not their own deserts, that they are loaded with chains. _This is persecution_.
Can I regard the slave as another self--can I put myself in his place--and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or keep him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally subversive of every system and every form of slavery?
The general descriptions of the church, which are found here and there in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing on the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words meet the eye: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."[21] Here we have--
1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human equality_. "Ye are all ONE;"--so much alike, so truly placed on common ground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, _that one is the same as another_.
2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_." The natural equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For--