done to you.”
And when, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, all these
immortal words of Christ, which had lain buried like dead seed
in the heart, were quickened and sprang up in celestial verdure,
then these twelve became, each one in his place, another Jesus,
filled with the spirit of him who had gone heavenward. The
primitive Church, as organised by them, was a brotherhood of
strict equality. There was no more contention who should be
greatest; the only contention was, who should suffer and serve
the most. The Christian Church was an imperium in imperio; submitting outwardly to the laws of the land, but professing
inwardly to be regulated by a higher faith and a higher law.
They were dead to the world, and the world to them. Its cus-
toms were not their customs; its relations not their relations.
All the ordinary relations of life, when they passed into the
Christian Church, underwent a quick, immortal change; so that
the transformed relation resembled the old and heathen one no
more than the glorious body which is raised in incorruption
resembles the mortal one which was sown in corruption. The
relation of marriage was changed, from a tyrannous dominion of
the stronger sex over the weaker, to an intimate union, sym-
bolising the relation of Christ and the Church. The relation of
parent and child, purified from the harsh features of heathen
law, became a just image of the love of the heavenly Father;
and the relation of master and servant, in like manner, was
refined into a voluntary relation between two equal brethren, in
which the servant faithfully performed his duties as to the Lord, and the master gave him a full compensation for his services.
No one ever doubted that such a relation as this is an inno-
cent one. It exists in all free States. It is the relation which
exists between employer and employed generally, in the various
departments of life. It is true, the master was never called upon
to perform the legal act of enfranchisement--and why? Because
the very nature of the kingdom into which the master and slave
had entered enfranchised him. It is not necessary for a master
to write a deed of enfranchisement when he takes his slaves into
Canada, or even into New York or Pennsylvania. The moment
the master and slave stand together on this soil, their whole
relations to each other are changed. The master may remain
master, and the servant a servant; but, according to the consti-
tution of the State they have entered the service must be a
voluntary one on the part of the slave, and the master must
render a just equivalent. When the water of baptism passed
over the master and the slave, both alike came under the great
constitutional law of Christ's empire, which is this:
“Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your
minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be
your servant, yea, the servant of all.” Under such a law, servi-
tude was dignified and made honourable, but slavery was made
an impossibility.
That the Church was essentially, and in its own nature, such
an institution of equality, brotherhood, love, and liberty, as made
the existence of a slave, in the character of a slave, in it, a con-
tradiction and an impossibility, is evident from the general scope
and tendency of all the apostolic writings, particularly those of
Paul.
And this view is obtained, not from a dry analysis of Greek
words and dismal discussions about the meaning of doulos, but
from a full tide of celestial, irresistible spirit, full of life and love,
that breathes in every description of the Christian Church.
To all, whether bond on free, the apostle addresses these
inspiring words: “There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye
are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.” “For through him we all have
access, by one Spirit, unto the Father.” “Now, therefore, ye
are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the
saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foun-
dation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner-stone.” “Ye are all the children of God, by
faith in Jesus Christ; 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.”
“For, as the body is one, and hath many members, and all
the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also
is Christ; for by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body,
whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free;
and whether one member suffer, all members suffer with it, or
one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.”
It was the theory of this blessed and divine unity that what-
ever gift, or superiority, or advantage, was possessed by one
member, was possessed by every member. Thus Paul says to
them, “All things are yours: whether Paul, or Apollos, or
Cephas, or life, or death, all are yours, and ye are Christ's, and
Christ's is God's.”
Having thus represented the Church as one living body,
inseparably united, the apostle uses a still more awful and im-
pressive simile. The Church, he says, is one body, and that body
is the fulness of him who filleth all in all; that is, He who
filleth all in all seeks this Church to be the associate and com-
plement of himself, even as a wife is of the husband. This body
of believers is spoken of as a bright and mystical bride, in the
world, but not of it; spotless, divine, immortal, raised from the
death of sin to newness of life, redeemed by the blood of her
Lord, and to be presented at last unto him, a glorious Church,
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.
A delicate and mysterious sympathy is supposed to pervade
this Church, like that delicate and mysterious tracery of nerves
that overspreads the human body; the meanest member cannot
suffer without the whole body quivering in pain. Thus says
Paul, who was himself a perfect realisation of this beautiful
theory: “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended,
and I burn not?” “To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive
also.”
But still further, individual Christians were reminded, in
language of awful solemnity, “What! know ye not that your
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which
ye have of God, and that ye are not your own?” And again,
“Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I
will dwell in them and walk in them.” Nor was this sublime
language in these days passed over as a mere idle piece of
rhetoric, but was the ever-present consciousness of the soul.
Every Christian was made an object of sacred veneration to
his brethren, as the temple of the living God. The soul of
every Christian was hushed into awful stillness, and inspir
ed
to carefulness, watchfulness, and sanctity, by the consciousness
of an in-dwelling God. Thus Ignatius, who for his pre-eminent
piety was called, par excellence, by his Church, “Theophorus,
the God-bearer,” when summoned before the Emperor Trajan,
used the following remarkable language: “No one can call
Theophorus an evil spirit,****for, bearing in my heart
Christ the King of Heaven, I bring to nothing the arts and
devices of the evil spirits.”
“Who, then, is `the God-bearer'?” asked Trajan.
“He who carries Christ in his heart,” was the reply.* * * *
Dost thou mean him whom Pontius Pilate crucified?”
“He is the one I mean,” replied Ignatius.* * * *
“Dost thou, then, bear the crucified one in thy heart?” asked
Trajan.
“Even so,” said Ignatius; “for it is written, `I will dwell
in them and rest in them.' ”
So perfect was the identification of Christ with the individual
Christian in the primitive Church, that it was a familiar form of
expression to speak of an injury done to the meanest Christian
as an injury done to Christ. So St. Paul says, “When ye sin
so against the weak brethren, and wound their weak consciences,
ye sin against Christ.” He says of himself, “I live, yet not I,
but Christ liveth in me.”
See; also, the following extracts from a letter by Cyprian,
Bishop of Carthage, to some poor Numidian Churches, who had
applied to him to redeem some of their members from slavery
among bordering savage tribes. (Neander, Denkw i. 340.)
We could view the captivity of our brethren no otherwise than as our own, since
we belong to one body, and not only love, but religion, excites us to redeem in our
brethren the members of our own body. We must, even if affection were not
sufficient to induce us to keep our brethren, we must reflect that the temples of
God are in captivity, and these temples of God ought not, by our neglect, long to
remain in bondage.* * * *
Since the Apostle says, “as many of you as are baptised have put on Christ,” so
in our captive brethren we must see before us Christ, who hath ransomed us from
the danger of captivity, who hath redeemed us from the danger of death; Him
who hath freed us from the abyss of Satan, and who now remains and dwells in us
to free Him from the hands of barbarians! With a small sum of money to ransom
Him who hath ransomed us by his cross and blood, and who hath permitted this to
take place that our faith may be proved thereby!
Now, because the Greek word doulos may mean a slave, and
because it is evident that there were men in the Christian Church
who were called douloi, will anybody say, in the whole face and
genius of this beautiful institution, that these men were held
actually as slaves in the sense of Roman and American law?
Of all dry, dull, hopeless stupidities, this is the most stupid.
Suppose Christian masters did have servants who were called
douloi, as is plain enough they did, is it not evident that the
word douloi had become significant of something very different
in the Christian Church from what it meant in Roman law? It
was not the business of the apostles to make new dictionaries;
they did not change words--they changed things. The baptised,
regenerated, new-created doulos, of one body and one spirit with
his master, made one with his master, even as Christ is one with
the Father, a member with him of that Church which is the
fulness of Him who filleth all in all--was his relation to his
Christian master like that of an American slave to his master?
Would he who regarded his weakest brother as being one with
Christ hold his brother as a chattel personal? Could he hold
Christ as a chattel personal? Could he sell Christ for money?
Could he hold the temple of the Holy Ghost as his property, and
gravely defend his right to sell, lease, mortgage, or hire the
same, at his convenience, as that right has been argued in the
slaveholding pulpits of America?
What would have been said at such a doctrine announced in
the Christian Church? Every member would have stopped his
ears, and cried out, “Judas!” If he was pronounced accursed
who thought that the gift of the Holy Ghost might be purchased
with money, what would have been said of him who held that
the very temple of the Holy Ghost might be bought and sold,
and Christ the Lord become an article of merchandise? Such
an idea never was thought of. It could not have been refuted,
for it never existed. It was an unheard-of and unsupposable
work of the devil, which Paul never contemplated as even possible,
that one Christian could claim a right to hold another Christian
as merchandise, and to trade in the “member of the body, flesh
and bones” of Christ. Such a horrible doctrine never polluted
the innocence of the Christian Church even in thought.
The directions which Paul gives to Christian masters and
servants sufficiently show what a redeeming change had passed
over the institution. In 1st Timothy, St. Paul gives the follow-
ing directions, first, to those who have heathen masters, second,
to those who have Christian masters. That concerning heathen
masters is thus expressed: “Let as many servants as are under
the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the
name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” In the next
verse the direction is given to the servants of Christian masters:
“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.” Notice,
now, the contrast between these directions. The servant of the
heathen master is said to be under the yoke, and it is evidently
implied that the servant of the Christian master was not under
the yoke. The servant of the heathen master was under the
severe Roman law; the servant of the Christian master is an
equal, and a brother. In these circumstances, the servant of
the heathen master is commanded to obey for the sake of recom-
mending the Christian religion. The servant of the Christian
master, on the other hand, is commanded not to despise his
master because he is his brother; but he is to do him service
because his master is faithful and beloved, a partaker of the same
glorious hopes with himself. Let us suppose, now, a clergyman,
employed as a chaplain on a cotton plantation, where most of
the members on the plantation, as we are informed is sometimes
the case, are members of the same Christian Church as their
master, should assemble the hands around him and say, “Now,
boys, I would not have you despise your master because he is
your brother. It is true you are all one in Christ Jesus; there
is no distinction here; there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither
negro nor white man, neither bond nor free, but ye are all
brethren--all alike members of Christ, and heirs of the same
kingdom; but you must not d
espise your master on this account.
You must love him as a brother, and be willing to do all you can
to serve him, because, you see, he is a partaker of the same benefit
with you, and the Lord loves him as much as he does you.”
Would not such an address create a certain degree of astonish-
ment both with master and servants? and does not the fact that
it seems absurd show that the relation of the slave to his master
in American law is a very different one from what it was in the
Christian Church? But again, let us quote another passage,
which slave-owners are much more fond of. In Colossians iv.
22, and v. 1--“Servants, obey, in all things, your masters,
according to the flesh; not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but
in singleness of heart as fearing God; and whatsoever ye do, do
it heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto men, knowing that of
the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance, for ye
serve the Lord Christ.” “Masters, give unto servants that
which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in
heaven.”
Now, there is nothing in these directions to servants which
would show that they were chattel servants in the sense of slave-
law; for they will apply equally well to every servant in Old
England and New England; but there is something in the
direction to masters which shows that they were not considered
chattel servants by the Church, because the master is com-
manded to give unto them that which is just and equal, as a
consideration for their service. Of the words “just and equal,”
“just” means that which is legally theirs, and “equal” means
that which is in itself equitable, irrespective of law.
Now, we have the undoubted testimony of all legal authorities
on American slave-law, that American slavery does not pretend to be founded on what is just or equal either. Thus Judge
Ruffin says: “Merely in the abstract, it may well be asked
which power of the master accords with right. The answer
will probably sweep away all of them;” and this principle, so
unequivocally asserted by Judge Ruffin, is all along implied and
we have just soon in all the
upon slavery and the slave-law. It would take very little legal
acumen to see that the enacting of these words of Paul into a