Book Read Free

The Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin

Page 76

by Harriet Beecher Stowe


  “I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have

  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 inspired

  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 despise 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

 

‹ Prev