§6; 1. Definition of Δουλο?.
The word commonly translated servant in the authorized7 version of the New Testament is Δουλο?, (doulos,) which is most probably derived9 from the verb δεω, (deo,) 'I bind10.' Hence the most direct meaning of the noun is 'bondsman.' Many Abolitionists, with a reckless violence of criticism which cannot be too sternly reprobated, have endeavoured to evade12 the crushing testimony13 of the New Testament against their dogma, by denying that this word there means slave. Some of 147 them would make it mean son, some hired servant, and some subject, or dependent citizen. Even Mr. Albert Barnes, in his Commentaries on the Epistles, denies that the Word carries any evidence that a servile relation, proper, is intended by the sacred Writers. Every honest and well-informed biblical scholar feels that it would be an insult to his intelligence to suppose that a discussion of this preposterous16 assertion was needed for him: but as our aim is the general reader, we will briefly17 state the evidence that δουλο?, when not metaphorical18, means in the mouth of Christ and his apostles a literal, domestic slave.
Judea and the Roman Empire in their day were full of domestic slaves, so that in many places they were more numerous than the free citizens. Δουλο? is confessedly the Word used for slave by secular19 writers of antiquity20, in histories, statutes21, works on political science, such as Aristotle's, in the allusions23 of Greeks to the Roman civil law, where they make it uniformly their translation for Servus, so clearly and harshly defined in that law as a literal slave. Did apostles and evangelists use the Greek language of their day correctly and honestly? And if δουλο? in them does not mean slave, there is no stronger word within the lids of the New Testament that does; (nor in the Greek language;) so that there is in all the apostolic histories and epistles, no allusion24 to this world-wide institution which surrounded them! Who believes this? Again: The current Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, whose idioms are more imitated in the New Testament than any other book, uses δουλο?, as in Leviticus xxv. 44, for translation of the Ebed, bought with money from the 148 Gentiles. The places where the New Testament writers use δουλο? metaphorically25 imply the meaning of slave as the literal one, because the aptness of the trope depends on that sense. Thus, Acts iv. 29, xvi. 17, Romans i. 1, apostles are called God's δουλοι, servants, to express God's purchase, ownership and authority over them, and their strict obedience26. Make the literal sense any thing less than slave proper, and the strength and beauty of the trope are gone. Again, the word is often used in contrast with son, and political subject, so as to prove a different meaning. Thus, John viii. 34, 35: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δουλο?) of sin. And the δουλο? abideth not in the house forever: but the son abideth ever." Luke xix. 13, 14: "He called his ten δουλοι, and delivered them ten pounds, etc.; but his citizens (πολιται = political subjects) hated him," etc. Galatians iv. 1: "Now the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a δουλο?, though he be lord of all, but is under tutors and governors," etc. In conclusion: all well-informed and candid28 expositors tell us, that by δουλο?, the New Testament means slave. We may mention Drs. Bloomfield, Hodge, and Trench29. The classical authorities of the Greek language give this as the most proper meaning; and the biblical lexicons30 of the New Testament Greek testify the same. Of the latter, we may cite Dr. Edward Robinson, of New York, no friend to slavery. He says:
"Δουλο? ου.δ = (subst. fr. δεω,) a bondsman, a slave, servant, properly by birth, diff. from ανδροποδον, 'one enslaved in war.' Compare Xen. Anab. iv. 1, 12, αιχμαλωτα αυδραποδα. Hell. i. 6, 15; Thuc. viii. 28, τα ανδραποδα παντα, και δουλα και ελευθερα. But such 149 a captive is sometimes called δουλο?, Xen. Cyr. 3, 1, 11, 19, ib., 4, 4, 12. Different also from ? διακονο?, see that art. No. 1. In a family, the δουλο? was one bound to serve, a slave, the property of his master, a 'living possession,' as Aristotle calls him, Pol. 1, 4. ? δουλο? κτημα τι εμψυχον. Compare Gen. xvii. 12, 27; Exod. xii. 44. According to the same writer, a complete household consisted of slaves and freemen, Polit. 1, 3. οικια δε τελειο? εκ δουλων και ελευθερον. The δουλο?, therefore, was never a hired servant, the latter being called μισθιο?, μισθωτο?, q. v. Dr. Robinson then proceeds to define δουλο? in detail as meaning, "1, Properly of involuntary service, a slave, servant, as opposed to ελευθερο?. 2, Tropically, of voluntary service, a servant, implying obligation, obedience, devotedness34. 3, Tropically, a minister, attendant, spoken of the officers and attendants of an Oriental court, who are often strictly35 slaves."
§ 2. Slavery often mentioned; yet not condemned36.
The mere38 absence of a condemnation39 of slaveholding in the New Testament is proof that it is not unlawful. In showing that there is no such condemnation, we are doing more than we could be held bound to do by any logical obligation: we might very properly throw the burden of proof here upon our accusers, and claim to be held innocent until we can be proved to be guilty by some positive testimony of holy writ15. But our cause is so strong, that we can afford to argue ex abundantia; to assert more than we are bound to show. We claim then the significant fact, that there is nowhere any rebuke43 150 of slaveholding, in express terms, in the New Testament. Of the truth of this assertion it is sufficient proof, that Abolitionists, with all their malignant44 zeal45, have been unable to find a single instance, and are compelled to assail46 us only with inferences. The express permission to hold slaves given by Moses to God's people, is nowhere repealed by the 'greater than Moses,' the Divine Prophet of the new dispensation. Let the reader consider how this fact is strengthened by the attendant circumstances. Christ and his apostles preached in the midst of slaves and slaveholders. The institution was exceedingly prevalent in many parts of the world. Potter tells us that in Athens, (a place where Paul preached,) the freemen citizens, possessed47 of franchises48, were twenty-one thousand, and the slaves four hundred thousand. The congregations to which Christ and his apostles preached, were composed of masters and their slaves. The slavery of that day, as defined by the Roman civil law, was harsh and oppressive, treating the slave as a legal nonentity49, without property, rights, or legal remedy; without marriage, subject, even as to his life, to the caprice of his master, and in every respect a human beast of burden. Again: to this institution Christ and his apostles make many allusions, for illustration of other subjects; and upon the institution itself they often speak didactically. Yet, while often condemning51 the abuses and oppressions incident to it, they never condemn37 the relation. Several times the apostles give formal enumerations of the prevalent sins of their times; as in Romans i. 29, 31; Galatians v. 19 to 21; Matthew xv. 19; Colossians iii. 8, 9; 2 Timothy iii. 2 to 4. These catalogues of sins are 151 often full and minute; but the owning of slaves never appears among them.
Now, we are entitled to claim, that this silence of the later and final revelation leaves the lawfulness52 of slaveholding in full force, as expressly established in the earlier. On that allowance we plant ourselves, and defy our accusers to bring the evidence of its repeal5. On them lies the burden of proof. And we have indicated by the circumstances detailed53 above, how crushing that burden will be to them.
This is the most appropriate place to notice the evasion54 attempted from the above demonstration55. They plead that slavery is not specially56 forbidden in the New Testament, because the plan of the Bible is to give us a rule of morals, not by special enactments57 for every case, but by general principles of right, which we must apply to special cases as they arise. "Inspiration has not," say they, "specially condemned every possible sin which may occur in the boundless58 varieties of human affairs, because then the whole world would not contain the books that should be written; and the voluminous character of the rule of duty would disappoint its whole utility; and if any sin were omitted in order to abridge59 it, this would be taken as a sanction. Hence, God gives us a set of plain general principles, of obvious application under the law of love." Therefore, it is argued, we are not to expect that the sin of slaveholding should be singled out. Enough that general principles given exclude it.
There is a portion of truth in this statement of the matter, and in the grounds assigned for it. But waiving60 for the present the exposure of the groundless assertion 152 that there are any general principles in the New Testament condemnatory61 of slaveholding, we deny that this book teaches morals only by general rules. It also does it, in a multitude of cases, by special precepts63. A multitude of special sins prevalent in that and all ages are singled out. This being so—the lists of particular sins being so full and specific as they are—we assert it would have been an unaccountable anomaly to pass over a thing so important, open, prevalent, had it been intrinsically wrong. But why does Revelation omit a number of particulars, and state general principles? For the lack of room, it is said. The other plan would have made the Bible too large. Now we ask, as the case actually stands in the New Testament, would not a good deal of room have been saved as to slavery, by simply specifying64 it as wrong? It is a queer way to economize65 space, thus to take up a subject, define it at large, limit, modify it, retrench66 its abuses, lay down in considerable detail a part of its duties and relations; and then provide by some general principle for its utter prohibition67! Would not the obvious way have been, to say in three plain words, what was the only fundamental thing, after all, which, on this supposition, needed to be taught, "Slavery is sinful?" This would have settled the matter, and also have saved space and ambiguity68, and made an end of definitions, limitations, abuses, inferences and all, in the only honest way. But farther, we admit that the Bible has left a multitude of new questions, emerging in novel cases, to be settled by the fair application of general principles, (which are usually illustrated69 in Scripture70 by application to some specific case.) Now must not an honest mind argue, 153 that since the human understanding is so fallible in inferential reasonings, especially on social ethics72, where the premises73 are so numerous and vague, and prejudices and interests so blinding, a special precept62, where one is found applicable, is better than an inference probably doubtful? Will it not follow a 'thus saith the Lord,' if it has one, rather than its own deduction74 which may be a blunder? Well, then, if God intended us to understand that he had implicitly75 condemned slavery in some general principles given, it was most unlucky that He said any thing specific about it, which was not a specific condemnation. For what He has specifically said about it must lead His most honest servants to conclude that He did not intend to leave it to be settled by general inference, that He exempted76 it from that class of subjects. Had God not alluded77 to it by name, then we should have been more free to apply general principles to settle its moral character, as we do to the modern duel79, not mentioned in Scripture, because it is wholly a modern usage. But since God has particularized so much about slaveholding, therefore, honesty, humility80, piety81, require us to study his specific teachings in preference to our supposed inferences, and even in opposition82 to them. Here, then, we stand: Inspiration has once expressly authorized slaveholding. Until a repeal is found equally express, it must be innocent.
§ 3. Christ applauds a Slaveholder.
Our Lord has thrown at least a probable light upon his estimation of slaveholders by his treatment of the 154 Centurion83 of Capernaum, and his slave. The story may be found in Matthew viii. 5 to 13, and Luke vii. 2 to 10. This person, though a Gentile and an officer of the Roman army, was, according to the testimony of his Jewish neighbours, a sincere convert to the religion of the Old Testament, and a truly good man. He had a valued slave very sick, called in Matthew his "boy," (παι?,) a common term for slave in New Testament times; but Luke calls him again and again his "slave," (δουλο?.) Hearing of Christ's approach, he sent some of his Hebrew neighbours, (rulers of the synagogue,) to beseech84 our Lord to apply his miraculous85 power for the healing of his sick slave. A little later he appears himself, and explains to Jesus, that it was not arrogance86, but humility, which prevented his meeting him at first, with his full confidence. For as he, though a poor mortal, was enabled, by the authority of an officer and master, to make others come and go at his bidding, so he knew that Christ could yet more easily bid away his servant's disease. And therefore he had not deemed it necessary to demand (what he was unworthy to receive) an actual visit to his house. Hereupon Christ declares with delight, that he "had not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." This was high praise indeed, after the faith of a Nathanael, a John, a James, a Mary Magdalene, a Martha, and a Lazarus. Yet this much-applauded man was a slaveholder! But our Lord comes yet nearer to the point in dispute. He speaks the word, and heals the slave, thus restoring him to the master's possession and use. Had the relation been wrong, here, now, was an excellent opportunity to set things right, when he had before him a subject so docile88, so humble89, so grateful 155 and trustful. Should not Christ have said: "Honest Centurion, you owe one thing more to your sick fellow-creature: his liberty. You have humanely91 sought the preservation92 of his being, which I have now granted; but it therefore becomes my duty to tell you, lest silence in such a case should confirm a sinful error, that your possession of him as a slave outrages93 the laws of his being. I cannot become accomplice94 to wrong. The life which I have rescued, I claim for liberty, for righteousness. I expect it of your faith and gratitude95, that instead of begrudging96 the surrender, you will thank me for enlightening you as to your error." But no; Christ says nothing like this, but goes his way and leaves the master and all the people blinded by his extraordinary commendation of the slave-owner, and his own act in restoring the slave to him, to blunder on in the belief that slavery was all right. Certain we are, that had Dr. Channing, or Dr. Wayland, or the most moderate Abolitionist, been the miracle-worker, he would have made a very different use of the occasion. However he might have hesitated as to immediate97 and universal emancipation98, he would have felt that the opportunity was too fair to be lost, for setting up a good strong precedent99 against slavery. Hence we feel sure that Christ and they are not agreed in the moral estimate of the relation.
§ 4. The Apostles separate Slavery and its Abuses.
We find the apostles everywhere treating slavery, in one particular, as the Abolitionists refuse to treat it; that is to say, distinguishing between the relation and 156 its incidental abuses. Our accusers now claim a license100 from the well-known logical rule, that it is not fair to argue from the abuses of a thing to the thing itself. Hence they insist that in estimating slavery, we must take it in the concrete, as it is in these Southern States, with all that bad men or bad legislation may at any time have attached to it. And if any feature attaching to an aggravated101 case of oppression should be proved wrong, then the very relation of master and slave must be held wrong in itself. The bald and insolent102 sophistry103 of this claim has been already alluded to. By this way it could be proved that marriage, civil government and church government, as well as the parental104 relation, are intrinsically immoral105; for all have been and are abused, not only by the illegal license of individual bad men, but by bad legislation. Just as reasonably might a monk106 say to all Mohammedans, that marriage is a sin, for the character of the institution must be tried in the concrete, with all the accessaries which usually attend it in Mohammedan lands, and most certainly with such as are established by law; and among these is polygamy, which is sinful; wherefore the marriage relation is wrong. And this preposterous logick has been urged, although it has been proved that, in the vast majority of cases in these States, masters did preserve the relation to their slaves, without connecting with it a single one of the incidents, whether allowed by law or not, which are indefensible in a moral view. To say that the relation was sinful, in all these virtuous107 citizens, because some of the occasional incidents were sinful, is just as outrageous108 as to tell the Christian109 mother that her authority over her child is a 157 wicked tyranny, because some drunken wretch110 near by has been guilty of child-murder. But our chief purpose here is to show, that the apostles were never guilty of this absurdity111; and that, on the contrary, they separated between the relation and its abuses, just as Christian masters now claim to do.
Let the reader note then, that the type of slavery prevailing112 where the apostles preached, was, compared with ours, barbarous, cruel, and wicked in many of its customary incidents, as established both by usage and law. Slaves were regarded as having neither rights nor legal remedies. No law protected their life itself against the master. There was no recognized marriage for them, and no established parental or filial relations. The chastity of the female slave was unprotected by law against her master. And the temper of society sanctioned the not infrequent use of these powers, in the ruthless separation of families, inhuman113 punishments, hard labour, coarse food, maiming, and even murder. Such were the iniquities114 which history assures us connected themselves only too often with this relation in the apostles' days, and were sanctioned by human laws.
But did they provoke these inspired law-givers to condemn the whole institution? By no means. As we have seen, they nowhere pronounce the relation of master and slave an inherent wrong. They everywhere act as though it might be, and when not abused, was, perfectly115 innocent. And that it might be innocent, they forbade to the members of the Christian church all these abuses of it. Thus they separated between the relation and its abuses. Doubtless, the 158 standard which they had in view, in commanding masters to "render to their servants those things which are just and equal," was the Mosaic116 law. We have seen how far this was in advance of the brutalities permitted by pagan laws, and how it protected the life, limbs, and chastity of servants among the Hebrews. This law, being founded in righteousness, was in its general spirit the rule of the New Testament church also. When this separation is made by the apostles between the relation and its abuses, we find that the former includes, as its essentials, just these elements: a right to the slave's labour for life, coupled with the obligation on the master to use it with justice and clemency117, and to recompense the slave with a suitable maintenance; and on the slave's part, the obligation to render this labour with all good fidelity118, and with a respectful obedience. Is not this just the definition of slavery with which we set out?
§ 5. Slavery no Essential Religious Evil.
The Apostle Paul teaches that the condition of a slave, although not desirable for its own sake, has no essential bearing on the Christian life and progress; and therefore, when speaking as a Christian minister, and with exclusive reference to man's religious interests, he treats it as unimportant. The proof of this statement may be found in such passages as the following: 1 Cor. xii. 13, "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free: and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." Galat. iii. 28, "There is 159 neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female; for we are all one in Jesus Christ." So, substantially, says Colos. iii. 11. But the most decisive passage is 1 Cor. vii. 20, 21: "Let every man abide27 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." (Paul had just defined his meaning in the phrase "calling in which he was called," as being circumcised or uncircumcised, bond or free.)
The drift of all these passages is to teach that a man's reception by Christ and by the Church does not depend in any manner on his class or condition in secular life; because Christianity places all classes on the same footing as to the things of the soul, and offers to all the same salvation120. When, therefore, men come to the throne of grace, the baptismal water, the communion table, distinctions of class are left behind them for the time. Hence, these distinctions are not essential, as to the soul's salvation. The last passage quoted brings out the latter truth more distinctly. Is any Christian, at his conversion121, a Jew? That circumstance is unimportant to his religious life. Was he a Gentile? That also is unimportant. Was he a slave when converted to Christ? Let not this concern him, for it cannot essentially122 affect his religious welfare: the road to heaven is as open to him as to the freeman. But if a convenient and lawful40 opportunity to acquire his freedom, with the consent of his master, occurs, then freedom is to be preferred. Such is the meaning found in the words by all sober expositors, including those of countries where slavery does not exist. Who 160 can believe that the apostle would have taught thus, if slavery had been an iniquitous123 relation?
But when he tells the Christian servant that freedom is to be preferred by him to bondage124, if it may be rightfully acquired, we must remember the circumstances of the age, in order to do justice to his meaning. The same apostle, speaking of marriage, says, "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not to be bound." Does he mean to set himself against the holy estate of matrimony, and to contradict the divine wisdom which said that "it is not good for man to be alone?" By no means. He explains himself as advising thus "because of the present distress126." Exposure to persecution127, banishment128, death, made it a step of questionable129 prudence130 at that time, to assume the responsibilities of a husband and father. Now the laws and usages of the age as to slaves were, as we have seen, harsh and oppressive. But worse than this, many masters among the heathen were accustomed to require of their slaves offices vile14, and even guilty; and scruples131 of conscience on the slave's part were treated as an absurdity or rebellion. In such a state of society, although the relation of servitude was not in itself adverse132 to a holy life, the prudent133 man would prefer to be secured against the possibility of such a wrong, by securing his liberty if he lawfully134 could. Moreover, society offered a grade, and a career of advancement135, to the "freedman" and his children. Master and slave were of the same colour; and a generation or two would obliterate136 by its unions the memory of the servile condition. But in these States, where the servant's rights were so much better protected by law and usage, and 161 where the freed servant, being a black, finds himself only deprived of his master's patronage137, and still debarred as much as ever from social equality by his colour and caste, the case may be very different. Freedom to the Christian slave here, may prove a loss.
Now who can believe that the Apostle Paul would have spoken thus of slavery, if he had thought it an injurious and iniquitous relation, as hostile to religion, as degrading to the victim's immortal138 nature, and as converting him from a rational person into a chattel139, a human brute140? He treats the condition of bondage, in its religious aspects, precisely141 as he does accidents of birth, being born circumcised or uncircumcised, a citizen of the Empire or a subject foreigner, male or female. We have a practical evidence how incompatible143 such language is with the Abolitionist first principle, in their very different conduct. Do they ever say to the Christian slave: "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it." We trow not. They glory in teaching every slave they can to break away from his bondage, even at the cost of robbery and murder. And Mr. Albert Barnes informs his readers, that in his interviews with runaway144 slaves, he long ago ceased to instruct them that it was their duty to return to their masters. It is evident, therefore, that this abolitionist and St. Paul were not agreed.
§ 6. Slaveholders fully125 Admitted to Church-membership.
We now proceed, in the sixth place, to a fact of still greater force: that slaveholders were admitted by Christ to full communion and good standing71 in the Christian church. Let us first establish the fact. In 162 Acts X. 5-17, we learn that the pious145 Cornelius had at least two household servants, (οικετων, one of the Septuagint words for domestic slave.) There is no hint of his liberating146 them; but the Apostle Peter tells his brethren, Acts xi. 15-17, that he was obliged to admit him by baptism to the church, by the act of God himself. Says he: "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us," (power of miracles,) "who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God?" So he baptized him and his servants together. Again we find the Epistle to the Ephesians addressed in the first verse, "to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful brethren in Christ Jesus," with a blessing147 in the second verse appropriate to none but God's children. When, therefore, in subsequent parts of the Epistle, we find any persons addressed in detail with apostolic precepts, we conclude of course that they are included in "the saints and faithful." But all expositors say these terms mean church members in good standing. If we find here any persons commanded to any duty, we know that they are church members. This thought confirms it, that St. Paul knew well that his office gave him no jurisdiction148 over the external world. He had himself said to the church authorities at Corinth, "What have I to do, to judge them that are without?" 1 Cor. v. 12. Now, in the sixth chapter and ninth verse of Ephesians, we find him, after commanding Christian husbands, Christian wives, Christian parents, Christian children, and Christian slaves, how to demean themselves, addressing Christian masters: "And ye, masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, 163 knowing that your Master also is in heaven," &c. Here, therefore, must have been slaveholders in good standing in this favourite church, which was organized under St. Paul's own eye. The Epistle to the Colossians is also addressed "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse:" and in ch. iv. 1, Christian slaveholders are addressed: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal," &c. There were, therefore, slaveholders in full communion at Colosse. Again: Mr. Albert Barnes (whom we cite here for a particular reason which will appear in the sequel) says correctly, that Timothy received his first Epistle from St. Paul at Ephesus, three or four years after that church was planted, having been left in charge there. But in Ephes. vi. 2, St. Paul Writes: "And they" (i. e. these Christian slaves) "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," (i. e. of the blessings150 of redemption.) "These things teach and exhort151." There were still slaveholders then, in this church, three or four years after its organization; and Timothy is commanded to have them treated as brethren faithful and beloved, partakers of the favour of God. The Epistle to the Ephesians, according to the same Mr. Barnes, was written from four to seven years after the founding of the church, and that to the Colossians from ten to thirteen. So that this membership of slaveholders had continued for these periods.
But we have a stronger case still. St. Paul, during his imprisonment152 at Rome, addresses Philemon of Colosse thus: "Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and 164 Timothy our brother, unto our dearly beloved and fellow-labourer, (συνεργο?) and to our beloved Apphia and Archippus, our fellow-soldier, and to the church in thy house." Philemon, then, was a church member; his house was a place of meeting for the church; he was beloved of Paul; and last, he was himself a Christian minister. (Such is the only meaning of συνεργο? here, according to the agreement of all expositors, of whom may be mentioned Bloomfield, Doddridge, and Dr. Edward Robinson of New York.) But Philemon was a slaveholder: the very purpose of this affectionate epistle was to send back to him a runaway slave. Here, then, we have a slaveholder, not only in the membership, but ministry153 of the Church.
Now when we consider how jealously the apostles guarded the purity of the church, it will appear to be incredible that they should receive slaveholders thus, if the relation were unrighteous. The terms of admission (for adults) were the renunciation of all known sin, and a credible154 repentance155 leading to reparation, where ever practicable. Even the Baptist, who was unworthy to loose the shoe-latchet of Christ, could say: "Bring forth157 therefore the fruits meet for repentance." From all the prevalent and popular sins of Pagan society, the church members were inexorably required to turn away; else excommunication soon rid the church of their scandal. Thus, 1 Cor. v. 11, says: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous158, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." Christ separated his church out of the world, to secure sanctity and holy 165 living. To suppose that he, or his apostles, could avowedly161 admit and tolerate the membership of men who persisted in criminal conduct, betrays the very purpose of the church, and impugns163 the purity of the Saviour164 himself. And here, all the evasions165 of Abolitionists are worthless; as when they say that Christ's mission was not to meddle166 with secular relations, or to interfere167 in politics; for the communion of the church was his own peculiar168 domain169; and to meddle with every form of sin there was precisely his mission. Entrance to the church was voluntary. The terms of membership were candidly170 published; the penalty for violating them was purely171 spiritual, (mere exclusion172 from the society,) and interfered173 with no man's political rights or franchises. So that within this spiritual society, Christ had things his own way; there was no difficulty from without that could possibly restrain his action; and if he tolerated deliberate sin here, his own character is tarnished175.
So cogent176 is this, that Mr. Albert Barnes, in his 'Notes' on 1 Tim. vi. 2, seeks to evade it thus: "Nor is it fairly to be inferred from this passage that he (Paul) meant to teach that they (masters) might continue this (i. e. slaveholding) and be entitled to all the respect and confidence due to the Christian name, or be regarded as maintaining a good standing in the church. Whatever may be true on these points, the passage before us only proves, that Paul considered that a man who was a slaveholder might be converted, and be spoken of as a 'believer' or a Christian. Many have been converted in similar circumstances, as many have in the practice of all other kinds of iniquity177. What 166 was their duty after their conversion was another question."
That is, as a murderer or adulterer might become a subject of Almighty178 grace, so might a slaveholder; but all three alike must cease these crimes, when converted, in order to continue credible church members! To him who has weighed the Scripture facts, this statement will appear (as we shall find sundry179 others of this writer) so obviously uncandid, that it is mere affectation to refrain from calling it by its proper name, dishonesty. The simple refutation is in the fact, by which Mr. Barnes has convicted himself, that the slaveholders were still in the churches from three to thirteen years after they were organized, with no hint from the apostle that they were living in a criminal relation; that they were still beloved, approved, yea applauded, by Paul; and that one of them was even promoted to the ministry. The last case is particularly ruinous to Mr. Barnes. For when did Philemon first acquire his slave Onesimus? Before the former first joined the Church? Then Paul permitted him to remain all these years a member, and promoted him to the ministry, with the 'sin of slavery' unforsaken! Was it after he joined the church? Then a thing occurred which, on Mr. Barnes' theory, is impossible: because buying a slave, being criminal, must have terminated his church membership.
We thank God that it is true that some sinners of every class are converted. But their conversion must be followed by a prompt repentance and forsaking181 of their sins. Thus, it is said to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. vi. 9 to 11: "Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of 167 themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified183 in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." According to the Abolitionists, another class of criminals fully deserving to be ranked in the above black list—slaveholders—enter the church under Paul's administration, without being washed or sanctified. If slaveholding is wrong, it was their duty on entering the Church to repent156 of, forsake180 and repair this wrong; to liberate174 their slaves, and to repay them for past exactions so far as possible. If this was their duty, it was the duty of the apostle to teach it to them. But he has not taught it: he has taken up the subject, and merely taught these masters that they would discharge their whole duty by treating their slaves, as slaves, with clemency and equity185; and then he has continued them in the Church. It remains186 true, therefore, that this allowed membership of slaveholders in the apostolic churches, proves it no sin to own slaves.
§ 7. Relative Duties of Masters and Slaves recognized.
Another fact equally decisive is, that the apostles frequently enjoin187 on masters and slaves their relative duties, just as they do upon husbands and wives, parents and children. And these duties they enforce, both on master and servant, by Christian motives189. Pursuing the same method as under the last head, we will first establish the fact, and then indicate the use to be made of it.
In Ephesians vi. 5 to 9, having addressed the other 168 classes, the Apostle Paul says: "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; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service as to the Lord and not unto men; knowing that whatsoever190 good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 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."
In Colos. iii. 22 to iv. 1, inclusive, almost the same precepts occur in the same words, with small exceptions, and standing in the same connexion with recognized relations. Let the reader compare for himself. In 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2, we read: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke191 count their own masters worthy87 of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine192 be not blasphemed. 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." So, in the Epistle to Titus, having directed him how to instruct sundry other classes in their relative duties, he says, ch. ii. 9 to 12: "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things: not answering again; not purloining193, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn194 the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly 169 lusts195, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world," etc. So, the Apostle Peter, 1 Ep. ii. 18, 19: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure grief, suffering wrongfully."
The word for servant in all these passages is δουλο?, except the last, where the Apostle Peter uses οικετια. But this is also proved to mean here, domestic slaves proper, by the current Septuagint and New Testament usage, by its relation to δεσποται?, (masters,) which always means in this connexion the proprietor196 of a slave, and by the reference in the subsequent verse to being buffeted197 for a fault; an incident of the slave's condition, rather than of the hired freeman's. Now the drift of all these precepts is too plain to be mistaken. Slaves who are church-members are here instructed that it is their religious duty to obey their masters, to treat them with deferential198 respect, and with Christian love where the masters are Christian, and to render the service due from a servant with fidelity and integrity, without requiring to be watched or threatened. The motives urged for all this are not carnal, but evangelical, a sense of duty, love for Christ and his doctrine, the credit of which was implicated199 in their Christian conduct here, and the expectation of a rich reward from Jesus Christ hereafter.
But the apostles are not partial. In like manner they positively200 enjoin on masters who are church-members, the faithful performance of their reciprocal duties to their slaves. They must avoid a harsh and minatory201 government: they must allot202 to the slave an equitable203 170 maintenance and humane90 treatment, and in every respect must act towards him so as to be able to meet that judgment204, where master and slave will stand as equals before the bar of Jesus Christ, at which social rank has no weight. These precepts imply, of course, that both master and servant are church-members; otherwise they would not have been under the ecclesiastical authority of the apostles. They imply with equal clearness, that the continuance of the relation was contemplated205 as legitimate207: for if this is terminated as sinful, the duties of the relation are at an end, and such precepts are so much breath thrown away. Does any sophist insist that the "rendering208 of that which is just and equal" must not be less than emancipation? The very words refute him; for then he would no longer be his servant, and the master no longer master; so that he could owe no duties as such. Further, the same passage proceeds to enjoin on the slave the duties of a continued state of servitude. We repeat: all these passages contemplate206 the continuance of the relation among church-members, as legitimate. What would men say of the Christian minister who should instruct the penitent209 gambler how to continue the stated practice of his nefarious210 art in a Christian manner: and the penitent adulterer how to continue his guilty connexion exemplarily? When such a law-giver as Christ legislates211 concerning such a thing, there is but one thing he can consistently enjoin: and that is its instant termination. If slaveholding is a moral wrong, the chief guilt42, of course, attaches to the master, because on his side is the power. When the apostles pass, then, from the duties of servants to those of masters, it is unavoidable 171 that they must declare the imperative212 duty of emancipation. But they say not one word about it: they seek to continue the relation rightfully. Therefore, either slaveholding is not wrong, or the apostles were unfaithful. The explanation of these passages, which we have given, is that of all respectable expositors, especially the British, no friends of slavery.
The attempt is made to argue, that if this were correct, then the holy apostles would be implicated in a connivance213 at the excesses and barbarities which, the history of the times tells us, often attached to the servile condition. The answer is: that they condemn and prohibit all the wrongs, as criminal, and leave the relation itself as lawful. No other defence can be set up for their treatment of the conjugal214 and parental relations. Antiquarians tell us they also were then deformed215 by great abuses. The wife and child were no better than slaves. Over the latter the father had the power of life and death, and of selling into bondage. From the former he divorced himself at pleasure, and often visited her with corporal punishment. How do the apostles treat these facts? They recognize the relation and forbid its abuses. Shall any one say that because these abuses were current, therefore they should have denounced the domestic relations, and invented some new-fangled communism? Or shall it be said that, because they have not done this, they wink216 at the wife-beatings, the child-murders, and the other barbarities so common in Greek and Oriental families? We trow not. Why then should these absurd inferences be attached to their treatment of domestic slavery? 172
But the favourite evasion of these Scriptures217 is that of Dr. Wayland: "The scope of these instructions to servants is only to teach patience, fidelity, meekness219, and charity, duties which Christians220 owe to all men, even their enemies." In like strain, Mr. Albert Barnes, in his 'Notes on Ephesians,' vi. 7, writes: "But let not a master think, because a pious slave shows this spirit, that therefore the slave feels the master is right in withholding221 his freedom; nor let him suppose, because religion requires the slave to be submissive and obedient, that therefore it approves of what the master does. It does this no more than it sanctions the conduct of Mary and Nero, because religion required the martyrs222 to be unresisting, and to allow themselves to be led to the stake. A conscientious224 slave may find happiness in submitting to God, and doing His will, just as a conscientious martyr223 may. But this does not sanction the wrong, either of the slave-owner or of the persecutor225." It is difficult to restrain the expression of natural indignation at so shameless a sophism226 as this, which outrages at once the understanding of the reader and the honour of Christ. It represents the pure and benign227 genius of Christianity as walking abroad, and finding oppressor and oppressed together, the oppressor avowedly within her reach, as well as his victim, as a subject of her spiritual jurisdiction and instruction. To the one she is represented as saying: "Oh, injured slave! glorify228 thy meek218 and lowly Saviour under this unrighteous oppression, by imitating His patience." Turning then to the other, who is present, and equally subject to her authority, must she not, of course, give the correlative injunction: "Oh, master! since thy yoke 173 is wicked, cease instantly to persecute229 Christ in the person of his follower230." But no: abolitionism represents her as saying nothing at all on this point; but merely dismissing his side of the case with the injunction to oppress equitably231! The honest mind meets such a statement, not only with the 'Incredulus sum,' but with the 'Incredulus odi,' of the Latin satirist232. And the suffering victim of oppression could not but feel, while he recognized the duty of patience, that the counterpart treatment of his oppressor by Christianity was a foul233 injustice234. The fact that Christ and apostles admitted these masters, with these slaves, to the same communion, proves that the comment of Mr. Barnes is preposterous. The fact that these Christian slaves are commanded to treat these pretended oppressors as "brethren, faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit," proves it. Do the apostles, while enjoining235 patience under the persecutions of a bloody236 Nero, admit that Nero, with his brutality237, to the same Christian communion with the peaceful and holy victims, address him as "saint and faithful in Christ Jesus," and instruct him to burn and tear the Christians for their faith, in a godly manner? The comment is disproved by Peter, when he says that there were slave-owners who were "good and gentle," as well as others who were "froward." Does truth or common sense distinguish "good and gentle" persecutors? It is disproved farther, by the fact that the apostles do not enjoin patience only, on these servants, as on Christians forbearing under an injury; but they enjoin duty, obedience, and fidelity also, as upon Christians paying reciprocal obligations. It is not patience under ruthless force, which 174 they require, as a tribute to Christ's honour; but it is obedience due to the master's legitimate authority, and that, a tribute due to the master also. Servants must "show all good fidelity." This implies an obligation to which to be faithful. Fidelity does not exist where there is no debt. To unrighteous exaction184 we may be submissive; but fidelity has no place. But the crowning refutation is, that St. Paul sent back an escaped slave to his master Philemon, from Rome to Colosse, hundreds of miles away. Will any one say that the duty of Christian submission238 and patience under wrongs extends so far as to require an injured Christian to go back several hundred miles, and hunt up his oppressor in order to be maltreated again, after Providence239 had enabled him to escape from his injuries? If Mr. Barnes is correct, Onesimus should have claimed that he had now availed himself of Christ's own command: "When they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another;" and was rightfully concealed240 in the midst of the vast metropolis241. This was requiring him to "turn the other cheek" with a vengeance242: to waive243 the right of peaceable escape which his Divine Lord had given him, and go all the way to Asia to be unjustly smitten244 again! There is this farther absurdity: the pious servant is required to stretch his forbearance to so Quixotic a degree, as to waive, not only the claim of forcible self-defence, but that of legal protection. (Oh that the holy Abolitionists had practised towards the injured South a little tythe of this forbearance which their learned scribe so consistently inculcates!) Is it Christ's requirement, that the Christian under oppression must refuse the shield of legal protection? Did Paul think 175 thus, when, prosecuted245 at the bar of Porcius Festus by unscrupulous enemies, he claimed the rights of his citizenship246 with so admirable a union of forbearance and courage? Now, if Messrs. Wayland and Barnes are right, these oppressed slaves possessed a tribunal in common with their oppressors, to which they could lawfully, peacefully, forgivingly, yet righteously summon them: the church court. They could have demanded of these authorities, with the strictest Christian propriety247, to use all their spiritual powers, so far as they went, to induce the masters, their fellow-members, to give them that liberty which was their due. But, so exceedingly forbearing are they, that they not only forego forcible resistance, but the peaceable claim of their ecclesiastical right, for fear they might be thought to act in an impatient manner! A highwayman meets me in a wood, and begins to beat me and rob me: I have a weapon, but I forbear to use violence against him. Meantime, the legal authorities pass by, and I also forbear to claim their protection under the law, lest it should scandalize the amiable248 highwayman, and make him think less favourably249 of my religion!
It may be well, in concluding this point, to notice the plea that Christians were required by the apostles to render not only patience and submission to the Emperor Nero, but also allegiance and hearty250 obedience. Yet none will say that Nero was a righteous ruler. We reply, the case is precisely in our favour: for it proves the proposition exactly parallel to ours, that civil government is a lawful institution, notwithstanding it is abused. The government of the C?sars was providentially the de facto one, and Nero, bad as he 176 was, its recognized head. As such, all his magisterial251 acts which were not specifically contrary to God's law, were legitimate, and were the proper objects of the civic252 obedience of the Christian subject. Otherwise, the apostles would never have exacted it for him. The instance does imply, therefore, that civil government is a lawful relation; and this is precisely what we infer from the parallel instances of obedience enjoined253 on servants to masters. If Abolitionists are not willing to argue that the relation of ruler and subject is sin per se, notwithstanding the obedience required to Nero, they cannot argue from their proposed analogy between Nero's cruelties and slaveholding. But an equally conclusive254 reply is, that apostles never admitted a Nero, with his barbarities in full sway, to the same communion-table with his patient Christian victims, commanding the latter to forbear as towards a wrongdoer, and yet failing to give him the correlative command, to cease the wrong-doing.
§ 8. Philemon and Onesimus.
The Epistle to Philemon is peculiarly instructive and convincing as to the moral character of slavery. This Abolitionists betray, by the distressing255 wrigglings and contortions256 of logic41, to which they resort, in the vain attempt to evade its inferences. The whole Epistle need not be recited. The apostle, after saluting257 Philemon as a brother and fellow-minister, and commending him in terms of peculiar beauty, warmth, and affection, for his eminent258 piety, and his hospitalities and charities to Christians, proceeds thus, v. 8 to 19: "Though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that 177 which is convenient, yet, for love's sake, I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged259, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten260 in my bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me; whom I have sent again: thou, therefore, receive him, that is, mine own bowels261: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the Gospel. But without thy mind would I do nothing: that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever; not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord. If thou count me therefore, a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it," &c. That it may not be supposed we give an explanation of these words warped262 to suit our own views, we will copy the very words of the judicious263 Dr. Thomas Scott, one of the most fair and reasonable of expositors, and a declared enemy of slavery. In his introduction to the Epistle, he says: "Philemon seems to have been a Christian of some eminence264, residing at Colosse, (Col. iv. 9, or 17,) who had been converted under St. Paul's ministry, (19,) perhaps during his abode265 at Ephesus, (Acts xix. 10.) When the apostle was imprisoned266 at Rome, Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, having, as it is generally thought, been guilty of some dishonesty, 178 left his master and fled to that city, though at the distance of several hundred miles. When he came thither267, curiosity or some such motive188 induced him to attend on St. Paul's ministry, which it pleased God to bless for his conversion. After he had given satisfactory proof of a real change, and manifested an excellent disposition268, by suitable behaviour, which had greatly endeared him to Paul, he judged it proper to send him back to his master, to whom he wrote this epistle, that he might procure269 Onesimus a more favourable270 reception than he could otherwise have expected." Notes on v. 12 to 16: "Onesimus was Philemon's legal property, and St. Paul had required, and prevailed with him, to return to him, having made sufficient trial of his sincerity271: and he requested Philemon to receive him with the same kindness as he would the aged apostle's own son according to the flesh, being equally dear to him, as his spiritual child. He would gladly have kept him at Rome, to minister to him in his confinement272, which Onesimus would willingly have done in the bonds of the Gospel, being attached to him from Christian love and gratitude; and as he knew that Philemon would gladly have done him any service in person, if he had been at Rome, so he would have considered Onesimus as ministering to him in his master's stead. But he would not do any thing of this kind without his consent, lest he should seem to extort160 the benefit, and Philemon should appear to act from necessity, rather than from a willing mind. And though he had hopes of deriving273 benefit from Onesimus' faithful service, at some future period, by Philemon's free consent, yet he was not sure that this was the Lord's purpose concerning 179 him; for perhaps he permitted him to leave his master for a season in so improper274 a manner, in order that, being converted, he might be received on his return with such affection, and might abide with Philemon with such faithfulness and diligence, that they should choose to live together the rest of their lives as fellow-heirs of eternal felicity. In this case he knew that Philemon would no longer consider Onesimus merely as a slave, but view him as 'above a slave, even a brother beloved.' This he was become to Paul in an especial manner, who had before been entirely275 a stranger to him; how much more, then, might it be supposed that he would be endeared to Philemon, when he became well acquainted with his excellency! seeing he would be near to him both in the flesh as one of his domestics, and in the Lord, as one with him in Christ by faith."
Thus far Dr. Scott. These are substantially the views given of this epistle by Calvin, Whitby, Henry, Doddridge, McKnight, Hodge, and others: none of whom were slaveholders, or friends of the institution. Now, our purpose is not to vindicate276 the intrinsic innocence277 of slaveholding here, by dwelling278 again upon the just arguments, which have been already stated: that a slaveholder here receives from an inspired apostle the highest Christian commendations; and that he is addressed as a brother minister in the church. The Epistle presents still more emphatic279 evidence: First, if the relation is unrighteous, and the master's authority unfounded, then the only ground upon which the duty of the slave's submission rests, is that of Christian forbearance. When the wicked bonds were once happily evaded280, and the oppressed person in 180 safety, that ground of obligation was wholly at an end. A captive has been unlawfully detained by a gang of highwaymen, for the purpose of exacting281 ransom283. He has given them the slip, and is secure. Is there any obligation to go back, because, while there, there was an obligation to refrain from useless violence and bloodshed? Let us even suppose that the means of the captive's escape were in some point immoral: does this fact make it his duty to go back and submit himself to the freebooters? By no means. To God he ought to repent of whatever was immoral in the manner of his escape: but he is bound to make no reparation for it to the robbers, because they had no right to detain him at all. But we see St. Paul here enjoining on the newly-awakened conscience of Onesimus, the duty of returning to his master. That the apostle sent him, and that he went back under a sense of moral obligation, is proved by two facts: St. Paul had a strong desire to retain him, being greatly in need of an affectionate domestic, in his infirm, aged, and imprisoned condition, but he felt that he must not. (Verse 13.) Paul had no power, except moral power, to make Onesimus go back, being himself a helpless captive; so that the latter must have been carried back by a sense of duty. Hence this instance proves, beyond a cavil284, that the relation of master and servant was moral; it lies above the level of all those quibbles which we have been compelled to rebut285.
Second: the transaction clearly implies a moral propriety or ownership in Onesimus' labour, as pertaining286 to Philemon; of which the latter could not be rightfully deprived without his consent. For proof, see the 181 fact that Paul says, (v. 14,) "Without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly." The attendance of Onesimus on Paul, i. e., the bestowal287 of his labour, would have been, if given, Philemon's "benefit" to Paul. If, as Abolitionists say, Onesimus belonged to himself, how could it be Philemon's benefit, or benefaction? See also the fact that St. Paul (v. 18) explicitly288 recognizes the justice of Philemon's claim to indemnity290 for Onesimus' bad conduct. In order to smoothe the way for his pardon by his justly offended master, he proposes to pay this himself, whatever it may be, and (v. 19) gives the force of a pecuniary291 bond to his promise, by writing and signing it with his own hand: (the rest of the Epistle, as the most of Paul's, being evidently written by an amanuensis.) Some expositors, indeed, explain the 18th verse by supposing that Onesimus, when running away, had stolen something from Philemon. There is not a particle of evidence for this in the narrative292; and it is a most unsafe method of explaining the Scriptures, to do it by bringing in gratuitous293 surmises294. But be this as it may, Paul's language covers both suppositions, of debt for his delinquent295 services, and retention296 of his master's property: ("If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee any thing.") Is it objected that St. Paul suggests, v. 19th, that gratitude ought to cause Philemon to forego the exaction of such a vicarious payment from him? The reply is, that the very nature of this plea implies most strongly the legal completeness of Philemon's title to the compensation. A poor man is sued for a debt. His only answer is, that he thinks the suitor ought to be generous enough to remit297 this debt 182 to him, inasmuch as he had once saved that suitor's life. Surely this plea is itself an admission that the debt is legal; and if the claimant chooses to be ungracious enough to press it under the circumstances, it must be paid. Moreover, Philemon's debt of gratitude was, thus far, to Paul, and not to Onesimus. Paul's stepping under the burden of his debt was an act of voluntary generosity298 only. The apostle makes no claim of any obligation, even of courtesy, from Philemon to his delinquent slave.
But if Onesimus' labour was Philemon's property, of which he could not be rightfully deprived without his own consent, and for the loss of which he was entitled to an equivalent, slaveholding cannot be in itself unlawful. We have here a recognition of the very essence of the relation.
This case is so fatal to the theory of all Abolitionists who admit the canonical299 authority of the Epistle, that desperate efforts are made to pervert300 its meaning. Mr. Albert Barnes, Coryph?us of these expository sophists, says in one of his comments, that it does not appear from the Epistle that Paul really sent Onesimus back to his master at all! "There is not the slightest evidence that he compelled, or even urged him to go. The language is just such as would have been used on the supposition, either that he suggested to him to go and bear a letter to Colosse, or that Onesimus desired to go, and that Paul sent him agreeably to his request. Compare Philip. ii. 25, Col. iv. 7, 8. But Epaphroditus and Tychicus were not sent against their own will; nor is there any more reason to think that Onesimus was." Mr. Barnes then adds the notable reason, that Paul 183 had no sheriff or constable301 to send Onesimus by; so that if he did not choose to return, he could not compel him. But the stubborn fact is, that Onesimus went; and it must be accounted for. This author's account is, that he probably found he had not mended his condition by running away, and so, desired to return to regain302 his comfortable home; whereupon Paul availed himself of the occasion to write to his friend. This solution is not particularly honourable303 to the religious character of either party: we shall neither insult the apostle by adopting, nor the understanding of readers by refuting it. As to Paul's 'sending' of Epaphroditus to Phillippi, and Tychicus to Colosse, we note that the word is not the same with the one used of Onesimus. This is ανεπεμψα; and it is expressly defined by Robinson's Lexicon31 as an authoritative304 sending up, or remitting305 to a higher tribunal, such as the sending of Paul by Festus to C?sar, Acts xxv. 21. Further, Paul did 'send' these two brethren, not indeed as slaves are sent, but by his apostolic authority, to which they doubtless cheerfully responded. Paul had no physical force by which to drive Onesimus all the way from Rome to Colosse; but there is such a thing as moral power, and the fact that the conscience of the sent freely seconds the righteous authority of the sender, surely does not prove this authority to be naught306. How perverse307 must he be, who can see in the words, "whom I (Paul) have sent," nothing but that Onesimus sent himself! Is not this the state of facts, plain to any honest mind: that Paul instructed him it was his duty to return to his lawful master, and as his spiritual teacher told him to do so? And this injunction the converted Onesimus cheerfully obeyed. 184
Mr. Barnes also says, it is not proved that Onesimus was a literal slave at all; he may have been a hired servant or apprentice308. Here, as will appear more fully, he expressly contradicts himself. But as to the assumption, we reply, that Onesimus is called, v. 16, δουλο?, a name never given to the hired servant: that he is sent back to his rightful owner, a thing which necessarily implies his slavery: that St. Paul intercedes309 for him; and that he recognizes his master's property in his labour. The whole company of expositors, ancient and modern, until Mr. Barnes, have declared that Onesimus was Philemon's slave.
But others again, following the same notable guide, learn that he was manumitted by the letter of Paul; so that they find here, not a justification310 of the slaveholder, but an implied rebuke of slavery. Thus contradictory311 is error! Just now he was not a slave at all: now he is a slave manumitted; and that by one who had no power to do it. The ground claimed for the latter position is, v. 16, "Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." Now, the obvious sense of these words is, that Philemon should now receive Onesimus back, not as a slave only, but as both a slave and Christian brother. For proof: By what law could Paul manumit another man's servant? And he had admitted Philemon's rightful authority, v. 10, by saying: "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus." Why beseech, if he might have commanded? If Paul had a right to emancipate312, why did he send him back at all, when every other motive prompted to keep him? He again disclaims313 such right, v. 14, "But without thy mind I would do nothing." Still another proof appears, v. 18, 185 19, where St. Paul fully recognizes Onesimus' continued servitude by undertaking314 to pay for his delinquencies. The Epistle then adds, that Philemon was "to receive him back forever," v. 15, i. e., for life. The residence of a free denizen315 or dependent could not be defined as for life; because he would go away whenever he pleased. And last, St. Paul expressly declares that this life-long relation was to be political as well as spiritual, both that of a servant and fellow-Christian—"How much more (beloved) now unto thee both in the flesh and in the Lord."
Such are the wretched quibblings by which abolitionism seeks to pervert the plain meaning of God's Word, as clearly apprehended316 by the great current of Christian expositors, both ancient and modern, Greek, Latin, and English. We almost feel that an apology is due to the enlightened reader, for detaining him with the formal exposure of these miserable318 follies319; but our promise was to display the thorough emptiness of our opponents.
§ 8. St. Paul reprobates320 Abolitionists.
One passage of the New Testament remains to be noticed. It is that which commands the exclusion of Abolitionist teachers from church communion, 1 Tim. vi. 3-5. St. Paul had just enjoined on this young minister the giving of proper moral instruction to servants. The pulpit was to teach them the duty of subordination to masters, as to rightful authority; and if those masters were also Christians, then the obligation was only the stronger. See v. 1, 2. The apostle then proceeds, v. 3, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome321 186 words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness," (the opposite teaching of abolitionism contradicts Christ's own word,) "he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting322 about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife323, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt324 minds, and destitute325 of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
The more carefully these words of the Holy Ghost are considered, the more exceedingly remarkable326 will they appear. Doubtless, every reader of previous ages has felt a slight trace of wonder, that the apostle should have left on record a rebuke of such particularity, sternness, and emphasis, when there appeared nothing in the opinions or abuses of the Christian world, of sufficient importance quite to justify327 it. We have no evidence that, either in the primitive328 or medi?val church, any marked disposition prevailed to assail the rights of masters over their slaves, to such extent as to threaten the disorganization of civil society or the dishonouring329 of Christianity thereby330. This denunciation of the apostle seems to have been sufficient to give the quietus to the spirit of abolition11, so long as any reverence331 for inspiration remained. Even while the policy of the Roman Church and clergy332 was steadily333 directed to the extinction334 of feudal335 slavery in Western Europe, it does not appear that the doctors of that church assailed336 the master's rights or preached insubordination to the slaves. Why then did St. Paul judge it necessary to leave on record so startling a denunciation? The question is answered by the events of our age: these words were 187 written for us on whom these ends of the world have come. And we have here a striking proof that his pen was guided by omniscient337 foreknowledge. The God who told Paul what to write, foresaw that though the primitive church stood in comparatively slight need of such admonitions, the century would come, after the lapse338 of eighteen ages, when the church would be invaded and defiled339 by the deadly spirit of modern abolitionism, a spirit perverse, blind, divisive and disorganizing, which would become the giant scourge340 and opprobrium341 of Christianity. Therefore has this stern warning been recorded here, and left standing until events should make men understand both its wisdom and the lineaments of the monster which it foreshadowed. The learned Calvin, and the amiable Henry, in explaining the Epistle to Philemon, allude78 to the question: Why should this short letter, which directly touches no publick concernment of the churches, written on a personal topick from Paul to his friend, be preserved among the canonical Scriptures by God's Spirit and providence? They answer, that it was placed there because, although short and of private concernment, it teaches us many pleasing lessons of Paul's condescension342 and courtesy, and above all, of the adaptation of Christianity to visit, purify, and elevate the lowest and vilest343 of the ranks of men. This is true, so far as it goes; but another part of God's purpose is now developed. He left this little Epistle among his authoritative words, because he foresaw that the day would come when the Church would need just the instructions against insubordination, which are here presented in a concrete case.
Those who have seen and suffered by modern abolitionism 188 best know, how astonishingly true is the picture here drawn344 of it by the Divine limner. God here declares that the principles of the lawfulness of slavery, the rights of masters, and the duty of obedience in slaves, are wholesome, and according to godliness. In addition, the sacred authority of our Lord Jesus Christ is claimed for them. The Abolitionist who assails345 these teachings is described as a man proud, yet ignorant. This combined arrogance and vindictiveness346, with ignorance of the true facts and merits of the case upon which they presume to dictate347, are proverbial in modern abolitionism, according to the testimony of neutral parties, and even of some of their own clique348. With a stupid superciliousness349, equally ludicrous and offensive, they revile182 men wiser and better than themselves, and pass an oracular verdict upon questions of which they know nothing. They are doting about questions and strifes of words: that is, as the original word means, their minds are morbid350 with logomachies, and idle debates, and corrupted351 by prejudice and the spirit of disputation. ("Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds.") Those who have read thus far in this discussion have seen, in the prejudiced sophisms which we have been compelled to quote for refutation, sufficient evidence of the perverse, erroneous, and disputatious spirit of abolitionism. Their dogmas are not supported by the testimony of Scripture, nor the lights of practical experience, nor sound political philosophy; but by vain and Utopian theories of human rights, and philosophy falsely so called. The fruit of their discussions has been naught but "envy, strife, railings, and evil surmisings." The fact betrays itself in a thousand 189 ways, that envy of the slaveholder and his supposed advantages and power, is the root of much of their zeal. Hence the epithets352 of "aristocrat," "lordly slaveholder," "Southern nabob," as ridiculously false to fact as envious353, which form so large a part of the staple354 of their abuse. They hate us because they suppose we possessed a privilege of which they were deprived. The angry and divisive tendencies of abolitionism have manifested themselves but too familiarly in the rending355 of churches, in the awakening356 of fierce contention357 wherever it has appeared, in the destruction of the union both of law and of love between the American States, and in a gigantic war which has filled a continent with woe358 and crime. And the remaining trait of "railings" is verified by the fact that these professed359 friends of humanity have exhausted360 the most inhuman stores of vituperation upon a class of Christian people whom none can know without loving for their purity and benevolence361. There is no sect that knows how to scold so virulently362 as the Abolitionists. The apostle adds that they are "men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth." Now it is notoriously the fact that this sect, although claiming to be the special advocates of righteousness, have ever prosecuted their ends by unprincipled and false means. Their party action has been hypocritical and unscrupulous. Their main weapons have been slanders364. And the tendency to mendacity has since been illustrated on a scale so grand in the recent War, by falsifications of fact, diplomatic treacheries, and wholesale365 breaches366 of covenant367, that the accuracy of the apostle's description becomes startling. It would seem that when once a man is swayed 190 by this spirit fully, he is under a fatality368 to speak untruth, whether he be prime-minister, historian, official of government, or divine.
The last trait of abolitionism which the apostle draws, is one which, at the first glance, strikes the observer with surprise, but which is fully verified by the reality. This is the intensely mercenary spirit of the sect. "Supposing that gain is godliness." Without due reflection, one would suppose that a party animated369 as much as this is by an intense and sincere fanaticism370, and that, a fanaticism of pretended humanity, whatever violences it might commit, would at least be free from the vice32 of a calculated avarice371. But the suppleness372 of fanaticism in affiliating373 with every other vice, is not duly appreciated; it is a fact, true, if unexpected, that genuine fanaticism can tolerate any thing except the peculiar object of its hate, and that it is compatible with supreme374 selfishness. For what is fanaticism but selfishness acting282 under the forms of pride with its offspring censoriousness, the lust50 of power, envy, and dogmatism? Modern events verify the apostle's picture: the religion and humanitarianism375 of abolition are only a covert376 avarice. The people of the American States are notorious for their worship of wealth, just in proportion as they are swayed by the anti-slavery furor377. No party has ever appeared on the stage of Federal politics, whose ends were so avowedly selfish and mercenary. The wrongs of the slave have been the pretext378, sectional and personal aggrandizement379 the true ends. That party, under the phase of "free-soil," has thrown off the mask, and avowed162 the declaration that the true meaning of their opposition to the rights 191 of Southern masters in the territories is, that "the soil of America belongs to the white man;" and the poor negro, though now a native of it, is begrudged380 a home and a living upon it. There is no class of people in America which has expended381 so little of its money for the actual advantage of the black race, as the abolitionists. Usually, the history of the case has been, that they would give of their money, neither to ransom a slave from bondage, nor to aid the cause of African colonization382, nor to assist a distressed383 free negro of their own section: the only use to which they can be induced to apply it is the printing of vituperations against the masters. It was the testimony of the fugitive384 slaves themselves, that the philanthropy of the Abolitionists extended only to seducing385 them from their homes; thenceforth their whole thought was to make gain of their godliness. The crowning evidence, however, of the mercenary spirit of this party is in this fact, that their advent386 to power in the Federal government of the United States has been, according to the testimony of their mutual387 recriminations, the epoch388 of an unprecedented389 reign142 of peculation390 and official corruption391. Such is the picture of abolitionism as drawn by the Apostle Paul, and verified in America in our day. It is our privilege and our wisdom to obey his closing injunction, "From such withdraw thyself," that we may not become partakers of their sins. From this stern and just denunciation, it may be learned how utterly392 the New Testament is opposed to the whole doctrine and spirit of the party.
We have now passed in review every passage in the New Testament, in which domestic slavery is directly 192 treated, and we have seen that they every one imply the innocency393 of the institution. We have discussed many of the evasions by which Abolitionists attempt to escape these testimonies394, and have found them utterly unsound. There remain two pleas, of more general application to the New Testament argument, to which the ablest of their advocates seem to attach prime importance. To these we will now attend.
§ 9. The Golden Rule Compatible with Slavery.
One of these general objections to our New Testament argument is the following. They say, Christ could not have intended to authorize8 slavery, because the tenour and spirit of His moral teachings are opposed to it. The temper He currently enjoins395 is one of fraternity, equality, love, and disinterestedness396. But holding a fellow-being in bondage is inconsistent with all these. Especially is the great "Golden Rule" incompatible with slavery. This enjoins us to do unto our neighbour as we would that he should do unto us. Now, as no slaveholder would like to be himself enslaved, this is a clear proof that we should not hold others in slavery. Hence, the interpretations398 which seem to find authority for slavery in certain passages of the New Testament, must be erroneous, and we are entitled to reject them without examination. Abolitionists usually advance this with a disdainful confidence, as though he who does not admit its justice were profoundly stupid. But it is exceedingly easy to show that it is a bald instance of petitio principii, and it is founded on a preposterous interpretation397 of the Golden Rule, which every sensible Sabbath-school boy knows 193 how to explode. Its whole plausibility399 rests on the à priori assumption of prejudice, that slaveholding cannot but be wicked, and on a determination not to see it otherwise. Our refutation, which is demonstrative, reveals the Socinian origin and Rationalistic character of these opinions. Socinianism harbours loose views of the authority of inspiration, and especially of that of the Old Testament. It scruples not to declare, that these venerable documents contain many admixtures of human error, and wherever it finds in them any thing it does not like, it boldly rejects and repudiates400 it. Moreover, Socinianism having denied the divinity of our Redeemer Christ, finds itself compelled to attempt an answer to the hard question: Wherein, then, is He greater than Moses, David, or Isaiah? And in what respect does He fulfil those transcendent representations which the Scriptures correctly give of His superiority of person and mission? The answer which orthodoxy makes is plain and good: That it is because He is God as well as man, while they were but sinful men, redeemed401 and inspired; and that His mission is to regenerate402 and atone403, while theirs was only to teach. But the answer which Socinianism has devised is in part this: Christ was commissioned to reform the moral system of the Old Testament, and to teach a new law of far superior beauty, purity, and benevolence. Thus, they have a corrupt polemical motive to misrepresent and degrade the Old Testament law, in order to make a Nodus vindice dignus, for their imaginary Christ, who does nothing but teach. To effect this, they seize on all such passages as those in the "Sermon on the Mount," which refute Pharisaic glosses404, and evolve the 194 true law of love. This is the mint from which abolitionists have borrowed their objections against our Old Testament defence of slaveholding; such as this, that however it may have been allowed to the Hebrews, by their older and ruder law, "because of the hardness of their hearts," it is condemned by the new law of love, taught by Jesus. Now, our refutation (and it is perfect) is, that this law of love was just as fully announced by slaveholding Moses as it is by Jesus; in terms just as full of sweetness, benevolence, and universal fraternity. Yea more, the very words of Jesus cited by them and their Socinian allies, as the most striking instances of the superior mildness and love of His teachings, are in most cases quoted from Moses himself! The authority by which Christ enforced them upon His Jewish auditors405 was Moses' own! Such is the shameful406 ignorance of these fanatics407 concerning the real contents of that Old Testament which they depreciate408. Thus, Christ's epitome409 of the whole law into the two commands to love God and our neighbour, is avowedly quoted from "the law," i. e., the Pentateuch. See Matthew xxii. 36 to 39, and Mark xii. 28 to 33. It may be found in Deut. vi. 4 and 5, and in Levit. xix. 18. Even the scribe of Mark, xii. 32, Pharisee as he was, understood better than these modern Pharisees of abolitionism, that Christ's ethics were but a reproduction of Moses'. He avows410 the correctness of Christ's rendering of the Pentateuch law, and very intelligently adduces additional evidence of it by evident allusion to 1 Samuel xv. 22, and Hosea vi. 6. Again: does Christ inculcate forgiveness of injuries, benefactions towards enemies, and the embracing of aliens in our 195 philanthropy as well as kindred and fellow-citizens? He does but cite them to the authority of Moses in Levit. xix. 18, Exod. xxiii. 4, 5, Levit. xxiv. 22, Exod. xxii. 21, xxxiii. 9. For here their great prophet himself had taught them that revenge must be left to God, that an embarrassed or distressed enemy must be kindly411 assisted, and that the alien must be treated in all humane respects as a fellow-citizen, under a lively and sympathetic sense of their own sufferings when they were oppressed aliens in Egypt. The Golden Rule, as stated by our Saviour, is but a practical application of the Mosaic precept "to love our neighbours as ourselves," borrowed from Moses. In Matt. vii. 12, Christ, after giving the Golden Rule, adds, "for this is the law and the prophets." That is, the Golden Rule is the summary of the morality of the Pentateuch and Old Testament prophets. We repeat that there is not one trait of love, of benevolence, of sweet expansive fraternity, of amiable equity, contained in any of Christ's precepts or parables412, that is not also found in the Laws of Moses. Their moral teachings are absolutely at one, in principle; and so they must be, if both are from the unchangeable God. To say otherwise is a denial of inspiration; it is infidelity; and indeed abolitionism is infidelity. Our reply, then, is, that Christ's giving the law of love cannot be inconsistent with his authorizing413 slaveholding; because Moses gave the same law of love, and yet indisputably authorized slaveholding. We defy all the sophisms of the whole crew of the perverse and destitute of the truth, to obscure, much less to rebut this answer, without denying the inspiration and even the common truthfulness414 of Moses. But that they will 196 not stickle to do: for what do they care for Moses, or Christ either, in comparison of their fanatical idol159?
But a more special word should be devoted33 to the argument from the Golden Rule. The sophism is so bald, and the clear evolution of it has been given so often, even in the humblest manuals of ethics prepared for school-boys, that it is tiresome415 to repeat its exposure. But as leading Abolitionists continue to advance the oft-torn and tattered416 folly417, the friends of truth must continue to tear it to shreds418. The whole reasoning of the Abolitionists proceeds on the absurd idea, that any caprice or vain desire we might entertain towards our fellow-man, if we were in his place, and he in ours, must be the rule of our conduct towards him, whether the desire would be in itself right or not. This absurdity has been illustrated by a thousand instances. On this rule, a parent who, were he a child again, would be wayward and self-indulgent, commits a clear sin in restraining or punishing the waywardness of his child, for this is doing the opposite of what he would wish were he again the child. Judge and sheriff commit a criminal murder in condemning and executing the most atrocious felon419; for were they on the gallows420 themselves, the overmastering love of life would very surely prompt them to desire release. In a word, whatever ill-regulated desire we are conscious of having, or of being likely to have, in reversed circumstances, that desire we are bound to make the rule of our action in granting the parallel caprice of any other man, be he bore, beggar, highwayman, or what not. On this understanding, the Golden Rule would become any thing but golden; it would be a rule of iniquity; 197 for instead of making impartial421 equity our regulating principle, it would make the accidents of man's criminal caprice the law of his acts. It would become every man's duty to enable all other men to do whatever his own sinful heart, mutatis mutandis, might prompt.
The absurdity of the abolitionist argument may be shown, again, by "carrying the war into Africa." We prove from it, by a process precisely as logical as theirs, that emancipation is a sin. Surely the principle of the Golden Rule binds422 the slave just as much as the master. If the desire which one would feel (mutatis mutandis) must govern each man's conduct, then the slave may be very sure that, were he the master, he would naturally desire to retain the services of the slaves who were his lawful property. Therefore, according to this abolition rule, he is morally bound to decline his own liberty; i. e., to act towards his master as he, were he the master, would desire his slave to act.
It is clear, then, that our Saviour, by His Golden Rule, never intended to establish so absurd a law. The rule of our conduct to our neighbour is not any desire which we might have, were we to change places; but it is that desire which we should, in that case, be morally entitled to have. To whatsoever treatment we should conscientiously423 think ourselves morally entitled, were we slaves instead of masters, all that treatment we as masters are morally bound to give our servants, so far as ability and a just regard for other duties enables us. Whether that treatment should include emancipation, depends on another question, whether the desire which we, if slaves, should very naturally feel to be 198 emancipated424, is a righteous desire or not; or, in other words, whether the obligation to service is rightful. Hence, before the Golden Rule can be cited as enjoining emancipation, it must first be settled whether the master's title is unrighteous. The Apostle Paul gives precisely the true application of this rule when he says: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal." And this means, not emancipation from servitude, but good treatment as servants; which is proven by the fact that the precept contemplates425 the relation of masters and servants as still subsisting426. All this is so clear, that it would be an insult to the intelligence of the reader to tarry longer upon the sophism. We only add, that the obvious meaning above put upon the Golden Rule is that given to it by all sensible expositors, such as Whitby, Scott, Henry, before it received an application to this controversy428. Yet, though this obvious answer has been a hundred times offered, abolitionists still obtrude429 the miserable cheat, in speeches, in pamphlets, in tracts430, as though it were the all-sufficient demonstration of the anti-Christian character of slavery. They will doubtless continue a hundred times more to offer it, to gull431 none, however, except the wilfully432 blind.
§ 10. Was Christ Afraid to Condemn Slavery?
The other general evasion of the New Testament argument for the lawfulness of slavery, is to say: That Jesus Christ and his apostles did not indeed explicitly condemn slavery; but that they forbore from doing so for prudential reasons. They saw, say these abolitionists, that it was a sin universally prevalent, entwined 199 with the whole fabrick of human society, and sustained by a tremendous weight of sinful prejudice and self-interest. To denounce it categorically would have been to plunge433 the infant church, at its feeble beginning, into all the oppositions434, slanders, and strifes of a great social revolution, thus jeopardizing435 all its usefulness to the souls of men. For this reason, Christ and his apostles wisely refrained from direct attack, and contented436 themselves with spreading through the world principles of love and equity, before which slavery would surely melt away in due time. So say all the abolitionists. So says Dr. Wayland, in substance, not only in his discussion of slavery, but in his more responsible and deliberate work, the "Moral Science." In that essay, Bk. II., Pt. II., Chap. I., § 1, he says: "The Gospel was designed, not for one race, or for one time, but for all races, and for all times. It looked not at the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but for its universal abolition. Hence the important object of its author was to gain it a lodgement in every part of the known world: so that by its universal diffusion437 among all classes of society, it might quietly and peacefully modify and subdue438 the evil passions of men; and thus, without violence, work a revolution in the whole mass of mankind. In this manner alone could its object, a universal moral revolution, have been accomplished439. For if it had forbidden the evil instead of subverting440 the principle—if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to resist the oppression of their masters, it would instantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility441 throughout the civilized442 world; its announcement 200 would have been the signal of servile war, and the very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations443 of universal bloodshed. The fact that, under these circumstances, the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended to authorize it."
Such is the Jesuitry which is gravely charged, by a professed minister of the Christian religion, and prominent instructor444 of youth, upon our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles! Such is the cowardly prudence which it imputes445 to men who, every one, died martyrs for their moral courage and unvarying fidelity to truth. And thus is the divine origin and agency by which, the Bible declares, and by which alone Christianity is to succeed in a hostile world, quietly left out of view; and American youth are taught to apprehend317 it as a creed446 which has no Divine king ruling the universe for its propagation, no Almighty providence engaged for its protection, no Holy Ghost working irresistibly447 in the hearts of such as God shall call, to subdue their enmity to the obedience of Christ: but Christianity is merely a human system of moral reform, liable to total extinction, unless it is a little sly in keeping back its unpopular points, until an adroit448 occasion offers, (such, for instance, as the power and support of a resistless Yankee majority in some confederation of slaveholders,) to make the unpopular doctrine go down, or at least, to choke off those who dare to make wry449 faces! Christ and the twelve went out, forsooth, into a sinful and perishing world, professing450 to teach men the way 201 of salvation; and yet, although they knew that any sin persevered451 in must damn the soul, they were totally silent as to one great and universal crime! They came avowedly to "reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment;" and yet uttered no rebuke for this "sum of all villainies." They went preaching the Gospel of repentance from all known sin, as the sole condition of eternal life: and yet never notified their hearers of the sin of one universal practice prevalent among them, lest, forsooth, they should raise a storm of prejudice against their system! Nay452, far worse than this: they are not satisfied with a suppressio veri, but as though to insure the fatal misleading of the consciences which they undertook to guide to life, their policy of pusillanimity453 leads them to a positive suggestio falsi. Had they been simply and wholly silent about the great sin, this had been bad enough. But this is not what they did. It is a glozing deceit to attempt to cover up the case under the pretended admission that "the Gospel does not forbid slavery," as though this were the whole of it. Christ and his apostles allude to slavery: they say a multitude of things about it: they travel all around it: they limit its rights and define its duties: they retrench its abuses: they admit the perpetrators of its wrong, (if it be a wrong,) unrepenting, into the bosom454 of the church, and to its highest offices. They do almost every thing which is calculated to justify in masters the inference that it is lawful. And then they finally dismiss the whole matter, without one explicit289 warning of its sinfulness and danger. According to this theory, the apostles find their trusting pupils on the brink455 of the precipice456, 202 surrounded with much darkness; and having added almost every circumstance adapted farther to obfuscate457 their consciences, they coolly leave them there, with no other guidance than a reference to those general principles of equity which, beautifully taught by Moses, had already signally failed to enlighten them.
Dr. Wayland's hypothesis is also deceitful and erroneous, in representing Christ as having no alternatives save the one which he imputes to him, or else of so denouncing slavery as to "teach slaves to resist the oppression of their masters," and thus lighting458 the flames of servile war. Is this so? When a given claim is condemned by the Bible as not grounded in right, does it necessarily follow on Gospel principles that those on whom it is made must resist it by force? Surely not. The uniform teaching of our Saviour to the wronged individual is, "that he resist not evil." Christ, if he had regarded slaveholding as sinful, would not indeed have incited459 slaves to resistance, any more than he did the victims of polygamy which he condemned. But he would have taught his disciples460 the sinfulness of the relation, and within the pale of his own spiritual commonwealth461, the Church, he would have enforced reformation by refusing to admit or retain any who persevered in the wrong. Less than this he could not have done.
The hypothesis is also false to facts and to the actual method of his mission towards deeply rooted sins, as declared both by his words and conduct. He expressly repudiates this very theory of action. He declares that he came "not to send peace on earth, but a sword:" and announces himself as the grand incendiary of the world. How degrading to the almighty king of Zion is 203 this imputation462 of politic22 cowardice463! And how different from the real picture where we see him boldly exposing the hypocrisy464 of the Jewish rulers, and assailing465 their most cherished deceptions466, though he knew that the price of his truthfulness would be his blood! And can this paltry467 theory be true of that Paul, who took his hearers to record, in full view of his dread468 account, that he was "clear from the blood of all men, because he had not shunned469 to declare to them all the counsel of God?" (Acts, xx. 27.) This of the man who everywhere assailed and explicitly denounced the idolatry of Greece and Rome, established by law, entwined with every feeling, and defended by imperial might? This of men who, sternly reprobating the universal libertinism470 of the heathen world, attacked what every one, countenanced471 by sages119 and statesmen, regarded as a lawful indulgence? This of men who boldly roused every prejudice of the Jewish heart, by declaring their darling system of rites149 and types effete472, their ceremonial righteousness a cheat, and the middle wall of partition between them and the Gentiles, the bulwark473 of their proud spiritual aristocracy, broken down? It is slander363.
Finally, this hypothesis represents that Saviour who claimed omniscience474, as adopting a policy which was as futile475 as dishonest. He forbore the utterance476 of any express testimony against the sin of slaveholding, say they, leaving the church to find it out by deduction from general principles of equity. But in point of fact, the church never began to make such deduction, until near the close of the 18th century. Neither primitive, nor reformed, nor Romanist, nor modern divines taught the doctrine of the intrinsic sinfulness of slaveholding. 204 The church as a body never dreamed it. Slavery remained almost universal. It remained for the political agitators477 of atheistic478, Jacobin France, almost eighteen hundred years after Christ's birth, to give active currency to this new doctrine, and thus to infuse energy into the fanaticism of the few erratic479 Christian teachers, such as Wesley, who had hitherto asserted this novelty. Now, did Christ foresee this? If he did not, he is not divine. If he did, then Dr. Wayland believes that he deliberately480 chose a plan which consigned481 seventeen centuries of Christians to a sin, and as many of slaves to a wrong, which he all along abhorred482. Credat Jud?us Apella!
The book from which we have extracted these words of Dr. Wayland, was put forth by him as a text-book for the instruction of young persons in academies and colleges, in the science of morals. We are informed that it is extensively used for this purpose. What can be expected of that people which suffers the very springs of its morality to be thus corrupted, by inculcating these ethics of expediency483? Not satisfied with teaching to mortals that species of morality, so called, which makes convenience the measure of obligation, this scribe of their Israel imputes the same degrading principle to the Redeemer of men, and Author of religion, in thus suppressing the truth, and intimating error to whole generations of his own followers484, in order to avoid the inconveniences of candour. So that unsuspecting youth are thus taught to approve and imitate this corrupt expediency, in the very person of the Redeemer God, whom they are commanded to adore. Will the Yankee give an actual apotheosis485 to his crooked486 principles, in 205 the person of an imaginary New England Christ? We thank God that this is not the Christ of the Bible, nor our Redeemer, but only the hideous487 invention of "men of perverse minds and destitute of the truth." But since we are taught (Psalm cxv. 8) that they who worship false Gods are like unto them, that is to say, that idolaters always reproduce in themselves all the abominations which they adore in their idols488, we need no longer wonder at any thing which the Yankee people may do. Hence that state of publick morals blazoned489 to the world by the effrontery490 of their own corrupt press, charged upon each other in their mutual recriminations, and betrayed in their crimes against the general weal.
In concluding the biblical part of this discussion, it may be expected that we should indicate more exactly the influence which we suppose Christianity ought to have exerted upon slavery, and its ultimate destiny under pure Bible teachings. It may be asked: "When you claim that slavery is literally491 and simply a righteous relation, in itself, if it be not perverted492 and abused; do you mean that this is the normal and perfect relation for the labouring man; that this is to be the fullest and most blessed social development of Christianity: that it ought to subsist427 in the best states of Christian society, and will endure even in the millennium493?" We reply, that one uniform effect of Christianity on slavery, has been to ameliorate it, to remove its perversions494 and abuses, just as it does those of the other lawful relations among men; to make better masters and better servants, and thus to promote the welfare of both. Domestic slavery has been violently and 206 mischievously495 ended in the South; and it is doubtless ended here in this form, finally. And it has long been manifest that the radical496 and anti-Christian tendency of the age is likely speedily to break up this form of servitude in other places where it still prevails. But true slavery, that is, the involuntary subjection of one man to the will of another, is not thereby any more abolished than sin and death are abolished. And least of all will real bondage of man to man be abolished in countries governed by radical democracy. The Scriptural, the milder and more benign form of servitude is swept away, in the arrogance of false political philosophy, to be replaced by more pretentious497 but more grinding forms of society. But, it may be asked: Will not the diffusion of the pure and blessed principles of the Gospel ultimately extinguish all forms of slavery? We answer: Yes, we devoutly498 trust it will, not by making masters too righteous to hold slaves, but by so correcting the ignorance, thriftlessness, indolence, and vice of labouring people, that the institution of slavery will be no longer needed. Just so, we hope that the spread of Christianity will some day abolish penitentiaries499 and jails: but this does not imply that to put rogues500 into penitentiaries is not now, and will not continue, so long as rogues shall continue to deserve imprisonment, an act which an angel might perform without sullying his morality. So likewise, we hope that our ransomed501 world will see the day when defensive502 war and military establishments will be superseded503: superseded not because defensive war and the calling of the Christian soldier are immoral when one's country is wrongfully invaded; but because there will be none immoral 207 enough to commit the aggressions which now justify these costly504, though righteous expedients505 of defence. There appears, in many minds, a strange impotency to comprehend the truth, that the strict righteousness of the relation maintained, and the treatment observed towards a person, may depend on that person's character. They will not see that, as it may be strictly moral to punish one who is guilty because of his guilt, and yet suffering is not intrinsic good in itself; so it may be perfectly righteous to hold a class in bondage, which is incapable506 of freedom, and yet it may be true still that bondage is not a good in itself. Because they cannot accept the extreme dogma, that domestic slavery is the beau ideal of the proper relation of labour to capital, they seem to imagine that they are bound in consistency507 to hold that it is somehow an evil. Yet they have too much reverence for God's word to assert, with the abolitionists, in the teeth of its fair meaning, that slavery is sin per se. So, they attempt to stand on an intermediate ground of invisible and infinitesimal breadth. The plain solution of the matter is, that slavery may not be the beau ideal of the social organization; that there is a true evil in the necessity for it, but that this evil is not slavery, but the ignorance and vice in the labouring classes, of which slavery is the useful and righteous remedy; righteous so long as the condition of its utility exists. Others pass to another extreme, and seeing that the Bible undoubtedly508 teaches that slaveholding is righteous, they liken the relation to those of the husband and father. There is, however, this obvious difference: These relations were established in paradise before man fell. Their righteousness 208 and usefulness are not dependent on the fact that man is a sinner, and they would be appropriately continued as long as men are in the body, though all were perfectly wise and holy. But the propriety of slavery, like that of the restraints and punishments of civil government, rests on the fact that man is depraved and fallen. Such is his character, that the rights of the whole, and the greatest welfare of the whole, may, in many cases, demand the subjection of one part of society to another, even as man's sinfulness demands the subjection of all to civil government. Slavery is, indeed, but one form of the institution, government. Government is controul. Some controul over all is necessary, righteous, and beneficent: the degree of it depends on the character of those to be controuled. As that character rises in the scale of true virtue509, and self-command, the degree of outward controul may be properly made lighter510. If the lack of those properties in any class is so great as to demand, for the good and safety of the whole, that extensive controul which amounts to slavery, then slavery is righteous, righteous by precisely the same reason that other government is righteous. And this is the Scriptural account of the origin of slavery, as justly incurred511 by the sin and depravity of man.
点击收听单词发音
1 testament | |
n.遗嘱;证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 twilight | |
n.暮光,黄昏;暮年,晚期,衰落时期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 meridian | |
adj.子午线的;全盛期的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 repealed | |
撤销,废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 repeal | |
n.废止,撤消;v.废止,撤消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 sect | |
n.派别,宗教,学派,派系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 authorize | |
v.授权,委任;批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 derived | |
vi.起源;由来;衍生;导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 bind | |
vt.捆,包扎;装订;约束;使凝固;vi.变硬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 abolition | |
n.废除,取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 evade | |
vt.逃避,回避;避开,躲避 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 vile | |
adj.卑鄙的,可耻的,邪恶的;坏透的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 writ | |
n.命令状,书面命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 preposterous | |
adj.荒谬的,可笑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 briefly | |
adv.简单地,简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 metaphorical | |
a.隐喻的,比喻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 secular | |
n.牧师,凡人;adj.世俗的,现世的,不朽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 antiquity | |
n.古老;高龄;古物,古迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 statutes | |
成文法( statute的名词复数 ); 法令; 法规; 章程 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 politic | |
adj.有智虑的;精明的;v.从政 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 allusions | |
暗指,间接提到( allusion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 allusion | |
n.暗示,间接提示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 metaphorically | |
adv. 用比喻地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 abide | |
vi.遵守;坚持;vt.忍受 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 candid | |
adj.公正的,正直的;坦率的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 trench | |
n./v.(挖)沟,(挖)战壕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 lexicons | |
n.词典( lexicon的名词复数 );专门词汇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 lexicon | |
n.字典,专门词汇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 vice | |
n.坏事;恶习;[pl.]台钳,老虎钳;adj.副的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 devotedness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 condemn | |
vt.谴责,指责;宣判(罪犯),判刑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 condemnation | |
n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 guilt | |
n.犯罪;内疚;过失,罪责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 rebuke | |
v.指责,非难,斥责 [反]praise | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 malignant | |
adj.恶性的,致命的;恶意的,恶毒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 assail | |
v.猛烈攻击,抨击,痛斥 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 franchises | |
n.(尤指选举议员的)选举权( franchise的名词复数 );参政权;获特许权的商业机构(或服务);(公司授予的)特许经销权v.给…以特许权,出售特许权( franchise的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 nonentity | |
n.无足轻重的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 lust | |
n.性(淫)欲;渴(欲)望;vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 condemning | |
v.(通常因道义上的原因而)谴责( condemn的现在分词 );宣判;宣布…不能使用;迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 lawfulness | |
法制,合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 detailed | |
adj.详细的,详尽的,极注意细节的,完全的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 evasion | |
n.逃避,偷漏(税) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 demonstration | |
n.表明,示范,论证,示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 specially | |
adv.特定地;特殊地;明确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 enactments | |
n.演出( enactment的名词复数 );展现;规定;通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 boundless | |
adj.无限的;无边无际的;巨大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 abridge | |
v.删减,删节,节略,缩短 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 waiving | |
v.宣布放弃( waive的现在分词 );搁置;推迟;放弃(权利、要求等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 condemnatory | |
adj. 非难的,处罚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 precept | |
n.戒律;格言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 precepts | |
n.规诫,戒律,箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 specifying | |
v.指定( specify的现在分词 );详述;提出…的条件;使具有特性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 economize | |
v.节约,节省 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 retrench | |
v.节省,削减 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 prohibition | |
n.禁止;禁令,禁律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 ambiguity | |
n.模棱两可;意义不明确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 illustrated | |
adj. 有插图的,列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 scripture | |
n.经文,圣书,手稿;Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》,《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 premises | |
n.建筑物,房屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 deduction | |
n.减除,扣除,减除额;推论,推理,演绎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 implicitly | |
adv. 含蓄地, 暗中地, 毫不保留地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 exempted | |
使免除[豁免]( exempt的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 alluded | |
提及,暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 allude | |
v.提及,暗指 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 duel | |
n./v.决斗;(双方的)斗争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 humility | |
n.谦逊,谦恭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 piety | |
n.虔诚,虔敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 centurion | |
n.古罗马的百人队长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 beseech | |
v.祈求,恳求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 miraculous | |
adj.像奇迹一样的,不可思议的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 arrogance | |
n.傲慢,自大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 docile | |
adj.驯服的,易控制的,容易教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 humane | |
adj.人道的,富有同情心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 humanely | |
adv.仁慈地;人道地;富人情地;慈悲地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 preservation | |
n.保护,维护,保存,保留,保持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 accomplice | |
n.从犯,帮凶,同谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 gratitude | |
adj.感激,感谢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 begrudging | |
嫉妒( begrudge的现在分词 ); 勉强做; 不乐意地付出; 吝惜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 emancipation | |
n.(从束缚、支配下)解放 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 precedent | |
n.先例,前例;惯例;adj.在前的,在先的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 license | |
n.执照,许可证,特许;v.许可,特许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 aggravated | |
使恶化( aggravate的过去式和过去分词 ); 使更严重; 激怒; 使恼火 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 insolent | |
adj.傲慢的,无理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 sophistry | |
n.诡辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 parental | |
adj.父母的;父的;母的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 immoral | |
adj.不道德的,淫荡的,荒淫的,有伤风化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 monk | |
n.和尚,僧侣,修道士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 virtuous | |
adj.有品德的,善良的,贞洁的,有效力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 outrageous | |
adj.无理的,令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 wretch | |
n.可怜的人,不幸的人;卑鄙的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 prevailing | |
adj.盛行的;占优势的;主要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 inhuman | |
adj.残忍的,不人道的,无人性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 iniquities | |
n.邪恶( iniquity的名词复数 );极不公正 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 mosaic | |
n./adj.镶嵌细工的,镶嵌工艺品的,嵌花式的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 clemency | |
n.温和,仁慈,宽厚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 fidelity | |
n.忠诚,忠实;精确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 sages | |
n.圣人( sage的名词复数 );智者;哲人;鼠尾草(可用作调料) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 salvation | |
n.(尤指基督)救世,超度,拯救,解困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 conversion | |
n.转化,转换,转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 iniquitous | |
adj.不公正的;邪恶的;高得出奇的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 bondage | |
n.奴役,束缚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 distress | |
n.苦恼,痛苦,不舒适;不幸;vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 persecution | |
n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 banishment | |
n.放逐,驱逐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 questionable | |
adj.可疑的,有问题的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 prudence | |
n.谨慎,精明,节俭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 scruples | |
n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 );顾虑,顾忌v.感到于心不安,有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 adverse | |
adj.不利的;有害的;敌对的,不友好的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 prudent | |
adj.谨慎的,有远见的,精打细算的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 lawfully | |
adv.守法地,合法地;合理地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 advancement | |
n.前进,促进,提升 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 obliterate | |
v.擦去,涂抹,去掉...痕迹,消失,除去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 patronage | |
n.赞助,支援,援助;光顾,捧场 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 immortal | |
adj.不朽的;永生的,不死的;神的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 chattel | |
n.动产;奴隶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 brute | |
n.野兽,兽性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 incompatible | |
adj.不相容的,不协调的,不相配的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 runaway | |
n.逃走的人,逃亡,亡命者;adj.逃亡的,逃走的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 pious | |
adj.虔诚的;道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 liberating | |
解放,释放( liberate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 blessing | |
n.祈神赐福;祷告;祝福,祝愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 rites | |
仪式,典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 blessings | |
n.(上帝的)祝福( blessing的名词复数 );好事;福分;因祸得福 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 exhort | |
v.规劝,告诫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 imprisonment | |
n.关押,监禁,坐牢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 ministry | |
n.(政府的)部;牧师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 credible | |
adj.可信任的,可靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 repentance | |
n.懊悔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 repent | |
v.悔悟,悔改,忏悔,后悔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 covetous | |
adj.贪婪的,贪心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 idol | |
n.偶像,红人,宠儿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 extort | |
v.勒索,敲诈,强要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 avowedly | |
adv.公然地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 avowed | |
adj.公开声明的,承认的v.公开声明,承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 impugns | |
v.非难,指谪( impugn的第三人称单数 );对…有怀疑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 evasions | |
逃避( evasion的名词复数 ); 回避; 遁辞; 借口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 meddle | |
v.干预,干涉,插手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 domain | |
n.(活动等)领域,范围;领地,势力范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 candidly | |
adv.坦率地,直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 exclusion | |
n.拒绝,排除,排斥,远足,远途旅行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 interfered | |
v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 );调停;妨碍;干涉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 liberate | |
v.解放,使获得自由,释出,放出;vt.解放,使获自由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 tarnished | |
(通常指金属)(使)失去光泽,(使)变灰暗( tarnish的过去式和过去分词 ); 玷污,败坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 cogent | |
adj.强有力的,有说服力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 iniquity | |
n.邪恶;不公正 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 almighty | |
adj.全能的,万能的;很大的,很强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 sundry | |
adj.各式各样的,种种的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 forsake | |
vt.遗弃,抛弃;舍弃,放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 forsaking | |
放弃( forsake的现在分词 ); 弃绝; 抛弃; 摒弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 revile | |
v.辱骂,谩骂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 exaction | |
n.强求,强征;杂税 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 equity | |
n.公正,公平,(无固定利息的)股票 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 enjoin | |
v.命令;吩咐;禁止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 whatsoever | |
adv.(用于否定句中以加强语气)任何;pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 yoke | |
n.轭;支配;v.给...上轭,连接,使成配偶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 purloining | |
v.偷窃( purloin的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 adorn | |
vt.使美化,装饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 lusts | |
贪求(lust的第三人称单数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 proprietor | |
n.所有人;业主;经营者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 buffeted | |
反复敲打( buffet的过去式和过去分词 ); 连续猛击; 打来打去; 推来搡去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 deferential | |
adj. 敬意的,恭敬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 implicated | |
adj.密切关联的;牵涉其中的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 positively | |
adv.明确地,断然,坚决地;实在,确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 minatory | |
adj.威胁的;恫吓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 allot | |
v.分配;拨给;n.部分;小块菜地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 equitable | |
adj.公平的;公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 contemplated | |
adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 contemplate | |
vt.盘算,计议;周密考虑;注视,凝视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 rendering | |
n.表现,描写 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 penitent | |
adj.后悔的;n.后悔者;忏悔者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 nefarious | |
adj.恶毒的,极坏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 legislates | |
v.立法,制定法律( legislate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 imperative | |
n.命令,需要;规则;祈使语气;adj.强制的;紧急的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 connivance | |
n.纵容;默许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 conjugal | |
adj.婚姻的,婚姻性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 deformed | |
adj.畸形的;变形的;丑的,破相了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 wink | |
n.眨眼,使眼色,瞬间;v.眨眼,使眼色,闪烁 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 scriptures | |
经文,圣典( scripture的名词复数 ); 经典 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 meek | |
adj.温顺的,逆来顺受的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 meekness | |
n.温顺,柔和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 withholding | |
扣缴税款 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 martyrs | |
n.martyr的复数形式;烈士( martyr的名词复数 );殉道者;殉教者;乞怜者(向人诉苦以博取同情) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 martyr | |
n.烈士,殉难者;vt.杀害,折磨,牺牲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 conscientious | |
adj.审慎正直的,认真的,本着良心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 persecutor | |
n. 迫害者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 sophism | |
n.诡辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 benign | |
adj.善良的,慈祥的;良性的,无危险的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 glorify | |
vt.颂扬,赞美,使增光,美化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 persecute | |
vt.迫害,虐待;纠缠,骚扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 follower | |
n.跟随者;随员;门徒;信徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 equitably | |
公平地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 satirist | |
n.讽刺诗作者,讽刺家,爱挖苦别人的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 foul | |
adj.污秽的;邪恶的;v.弄脏;妨害;犯规;n.犯规 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 enjoining | |
v.命令( enjoin的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 bloody | |
adj.非常的的;流血的;残忍的;adv.很;vt.血染 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 brutality | |
n.野蛮的行为,残忍,野蛮 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 submission | |
n.服从,投降;温顺,谦虚;提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 concealed | |
a.隐藏的,隐蔽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 metropolis | |
n.首府;大城市 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 vengeance | |
n.报复,报仇,复仇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 waive | |
vt.放弃,不坚持(规定、要求、权力等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 smitten | |
猛打,重击,打击( smite的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 prosecuted | |
a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 citizenship | |
n.市民权,公民权,国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 propriety | |
n.正当行为;正当;适当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 amiable | |
adj.和蔼可亲的,友善的,亲切的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 favourably | |
adv. 善意地,赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 hearty | |
adj.热情友好的;衷心的;尽情的,纵情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 magisterial | |
adj.威风的,有权威的;adv.威严地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 civic | |
adj.城市的,都市的,市民的,公民的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 enjoined | |
v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 conclusive | |
adj.最后的,结论的;确凿的,消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 distressing | |
a.使人痛苦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 contortions | |
n.扭歪,弯曲;扭曲,弄歪,歪曲( contortion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 saluting | |
v.欢迎,致敬( salute的现在分词 );赞扬,赞颂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 eminent | |
adj.显赫的,杰出的,有名的,优良的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 aged | |
adj.年老的,陈年的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 begotten | |
v.为…之生父( beget的过去分词 );产生,引起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 bowels | |
n.肠,内脏,内部;肠( bowel的名词复数 );内部,最深处 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 warped | |
adj.反常的;乖戾的;(变)弯曲的;变形的v.弄弯,变歪( warp的过去式和过去分词 );使(行为等)不合情理,使乖戾, | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 judicious | |
adj.明智的,明断的,能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 eminence | |
n.卓越,显赫;高地,高处;名家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 abode | |
n.住处,住所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 imprisoned | |
下狱,监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 thither | |
adv.向那里;adj.在那边的,对岸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 procure | |
vt.获得,取得,促成;vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 sincerity | |
n.真诚,诚意;真实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 confinement | |
n.幽禁,拘留,监禁;分娩;限制,局限 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 deriving | |
v.得到( derive的现在分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 improper | |
adj.不适当的,不合适的,不正确的,不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 vindicate | |
v.为…辩护或辩解,辩明;证明…正确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 innocence | |
n.无罪;天真;无害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 dwelling | |
n.住宅,住所,寓所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 emphatic | |
adj.强调的,着重的;无可置疑的,明显的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 evaded | |
逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 exacting | |
adj.苛求的,要求严格的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 ransom | |
n.赎金,赎身;v.赎回,解救 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 cavil | |
v.挑毛病,吹毛求疵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 rebut | |
v.辩驳,驳回 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 pertaining | |
与…有关系的,附属…的,为…固有的(to) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 bestowal | |
赠与,给与; 贮存 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 explicitly | |
ad.明确地,显然地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 explicit | |
adj.详述的,明确的;坦率的;显然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 indemnity | |
n.赔偿,赔款,补偿金 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 pecuniary | |
adj.金钱的;金钱上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 gratuitous | |
adj.无偿的,免费的;无缘无故的,不必要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 surmises | |
v.臆测,推断( surmise的第三人称单数 );揣测;猜想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 delinquent | |
adj.犯法的,有过失的;n.违法者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 retention | |
n.保留,保持,保持力,记忆力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 remit | |
v.汇款,汇寄;豁免(债务),免除(处罚等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 generosity | |
n.大度,慷慨,慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 canonical | |
n.权威的;典型的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 pervert | |
n.堕落者,反常者;vt.误用,滥用;使人堕落,使入邪路 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 constable | |
n.(英国)警察,警官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 regain | |
vt.重新获得,收复,恢复 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 honourable | |
adj.可敬的;荣誉的,光荣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 authoritative | |
adj.有权威的,可相信的;命令式的;官方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 remitting | |
v.免除(债务),宽恕( remit的现在分词 );使某事缓和;寄回,传送 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 naught | |
n.无,零 [=nought] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 perverse | |
adj.刚愎的;坚持错误的,行为反常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 apprentice | |
n.学徒,徒弟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 intercedes | |
v.斡旋,调解( intercede的第三人称单数 );说情 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 contradictory | |
adj.反驳的,反对的,抗辩的;n.正反对,矛盾对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 emancipate | |
v.解放,解除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 disclaims | |
v.否认( disclaim的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 undertaking | |
n.保证,许诺,事业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 denizen | |
n.居民,外籍居民 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 apprehended | |
逮捕,拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 ); 理解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 apprehend | |
vt.理解,领悟,逮捕,拘捕,忧虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 miserable | |
adj.悲惨的,痛苦的;可怜的,糟糕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 follies | |
罪恶,时事讽刺剧; 愚蠢,蠢笨,愚蠢的行为、思想或做法( folly的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 reprobates | |
n.道德败坏的人,恶棍( reprobate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 wholesome | |
adj.适合;卫生的;有益健康的;显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 doting | |
adj.溺爱的,宠爱的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 strife | |
n.争吵,冲突,倾轧,竞争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 corrupt | |
v.贿赂,收买;adj.腐败的,贪污的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 destitute | |
adj.缺乏的;穷困的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 primitive | |
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 dishonouring | |
使(人、家族等)丧失名誉(dishonour的现在分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
331 reverence | |
n.敬畏,尊敬,尊严;Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称;v.尊敬,敬畏,崇敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 clergy | |
n.[总称]牧师,神职人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 steadily | |
adv.稳定地;不变地;持续地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 extinction | |
n.熄灭,消亡,消灭,灭绝,绝种 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 feudal | |
adj.封建的,封地的,领地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 assailed | |
v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 omniscient | |
adj.无所不知的;博识的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 lapse | |
n.过失,流逝,失效,抛弃信仰,间隔;vi.堕落,停止,失效,流逝;vt.使失效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
339 defiled | |
v.玷污( defile的过去式和过去分词 );污染;弄脏;纵列行进 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
340 scourge | |
n.灾难,祸害;v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
341 opprobrium | |
n.耻辱,责难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
342 condescension | |
n.自以为高人一等,贬低(别人) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
343 vilest | |
adj.卑鄙的( vile的最高级 );可耻的;极坏的;非常讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
344 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
345 assails | |
v.攻击( assail的第三人称单数 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
346 vindictiveness | |
恶毒;怀恨在心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
347 dictate | |
v.口授;(使)听写;指令,指示,命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
348 clique | |
n.朋党派系,小集团 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
349 superciliousness | |
n.高傲,傲慢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
350 morbid | |
adj.病的;致病的;病态的;可怕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
351 corrupted | |
(使)败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 ); (使)腐化; 引起(计算机文件等的)错误; 破坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
352 epithets | |
n.(表示性质、特征等的)词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
353 envious | |
adj.嫉妒的,羡慕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
354 staple | |
n.主要产物,常用品,主要要素,原料,订书钉,钩环;adj.主要的,重要的;vt.分类 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
355 rending | |
v.撕碎( rend的现在分词 );分裂;(因愤怒、痛苦等而)揪扯(衣服或头发等);(声音等)刺破 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
356 awakening | |
n.觉醒,醒悟 adj.觉醒中的;唤醒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
357 contention | |
n.争论,争辩,论战;论点,主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
358 woe | |
n.悲哀,苦痛,不幸,困难;int.用来表达悲伤或惊慌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
359 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
360 exhausted | |
adj.极其疲惫的,精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
361 benevolence | |
n.慈悲,捐助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
362 virulently | |
恶毒地,狠毒地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
363 slander | |
n./v.诽谤,污蔑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
364 slanders | |
诽谤,诋毁( slander的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
365 wholesale | |
n.批发;adv.以批发方式;vt.批发,成批出售 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
366 breaches | |
破坏( breach的名词复数 ); 破裂; 缺口; 违背 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
367 covenant | |
n.盟约,契约;v.订盟约 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
368 fatality | |
n.不幸,灾祸,天命 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
369 animated | |
adj.生气勃勃的,活跃的,愉快的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
370 fanaticism | |
n.狂热,盲信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
371 avarice | |
n.贪婪;贪心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
372 suppleness | |
柔软; 灵活; 易弯曲; 顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
373 affiliating | |
使隶属于,接纳…为成员( affiliate的现在分词 ); 加入,与…有关,为…工作 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
374 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
375 humanitarianism | |
n.博爱主义;人道主义;基督凡人论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
376 covert | |
adj.隐藏的;暗地里的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
377 furor | |
n.狂热;大骚动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
378 pretext | |
n.借口,托词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
379 aggrandizement | |
n.增大,强化,扩大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
380 begrudged | |
嫉妒( begrudge的过去式和过去分词 ); 勉强做; 不乐意地付出; 吝惜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
381 expended | |
v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 );使用(钱等)做某事;用光;耗尽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
382 colonization | |
殖民地的开拓,殖民,殖民地化; 移殖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
383 distressed | |
痛苦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
384 fugitive | |
adj.逃亡的,易逝的;n.逃犯,逃亡者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
385 seducing | |
诱奸( seduce的现在分词 ); 勾引; 诱使堕落; 使入迷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
386 advent | |
n.(重要事件等的)到来,来临 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
387 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
388 epoch | |
n.(新)时代;历元 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
389 unprecedented | |
adj.无前例的,新奇的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
390 peculation | |
n.侵吞公款[公物] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
391 corruption | |
n.腐败,堕落,贪污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
392 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
393 innocency | |
无罪,洁白 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
394 testimonies | |
(法庭上证人的)证词( testimony的名词复数 ); 证明,证据 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
395 enjoins | |
v.命令( enjoin的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
396 disinterestedness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
397 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
398 interpretations | |
n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 );表演;演绎;理解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
399 plausibility | |
n. 似有道理, 能言善辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
400 repudiates | |
v.(正式地)否认( repudiate的第三人称单数 );拒绝接受;拒绝与…往来;拒不履行(法律义务) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
401 redeemed | |
adj. 可赎回的,可救赎的 动词redeem的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
402 regenerate | |
vt.使恢复,使新生;vi.恢复,再生;adj.恢复的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
403 atone | |
v.赎罪,补偿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
404 glosses | |
n.(页末或书后的)注释( gloss的名词复数 );(表面的)光滑;虚假的外表;用以产生光泽的物质v.注解( gloss的第三人称单数 );掩饰(错误);粉饰;把…搪塞过去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
405 auditors | |
n.审计员,稽核员( auditor的名词复数 );(大学课程的)旁听生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
406 shameful | |
adj.可耻的,不道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
407 fanatics | |
狂热者,入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
408 depreciate | |
v.降价,贬值,折旧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
409 epitome | |
n.典型,梗概 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
410 avows | |
v.公开声明,承认( avow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
411 kindly | |
adj.和蔼的,温和的,爽快的;adv.温和地,亲切地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
412 parables | |
n.(圣经中的)寓言故事( parable的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
413 authorizing | |
授权,批准,委托( authorize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
414 truthfulness | |
n. 符合实际 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
415 tiresome | |
adj.令人疲劳的,令人厌倦的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
416 tattered | |
adj.破旧的,衣衫破的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
417 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
418 shreds | |
v.撕碎,切碎( shred的第三人称单数 );用撕毁机撕毁(文件) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
419 felon | |
n.重罪犯;adj.残忍的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
420 gallows | |
n.绞刑架,绞台 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
421 impartial | |
adj.(in,to)公正的,无偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
422 binds | |
v.约束( bind的第三人称单数 );装订;捆绑;(用长布条)缠绕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
423 conscientiously | |
adv.凭良心地;认真地,负责尽职地;老老实实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
424 emancipated | |
adj.被解放的,不受约束的v.解放某人(尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚)( emancipate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
425 contemplates | |
深思,细想,仔细考虑( contemplate的第三人称单数 ); 注视,凝视; 考虑接受(发生某事的可能性); 深思熟虑,沉思,苦思冥想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
426 subsisting | |
v.(靠很少的钱或食物)维持生活,生存下去( subsist的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
427 subsist | |
vi.生存,存在,供养 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
428 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
429 obtrude | |
v.闯入;侵入;打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
430 tracts | |
大片土地( tract的名词复数 ); 地带; (体内的)道; (尤指宣扬宗教、伦理或政治的)短文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
431 gull | |
n.鸥;受骗的人;v.欺诈 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
432 wilfully | |
adv.任性固执地;蓄意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
433 plunge | |
v.跳入,(使)投入,(使)陷入;猛冲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
434 oppositions | |
(强烈的)反对( opposition的名词复数 ); 反对党; (事业、竞赛、游戏等的)对手; 对比 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
435 jeopardizing | |
危及,损害( jeopardize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
436 contented | |
adj.满意的,安心的,知足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
437 diffusion | |
n.流布;普及;散漫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
438 subdue | |
vt.制服,使顺从,征服;抑制,克制 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
439 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
440 subverting | |
v.颠覆,破坏(政治制度、宗教信仰等)( subvert的现在分词 );使(某人)道德败坏或不忠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
441 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
442 civilized | |
a.有教养的,文雅的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
443 agitations | |
(液体等的)摇动( agitation的名词复数 ); 鼓动; 激烈争论; (情绪等的)纷乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
444 instructor | |
n.指导者,教员,教练 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
445 imputes | |
v.把(错误等)归咎于( impute的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
446 creed | |
n.信条;信念,纲领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
447 irresistibly | |
adv.无法抵抗地,不能自持地;极为诱惑人地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
448 adroit | |
adj.熟练的,灵巧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
449 wry | |
adj.讽刺的;扭曲的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
450 professing | |
声称( profess的现在分词 ); 宣称; 公开表明; 信奉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
451 persevered | |
v.坚忍,坚持( persevere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
452 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
453 pusillanimity | |
n.无气力,胆怯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
454 bosom | |
n.胸,胸部;胸怀;内心;adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
455 brink | |
n.(悬崖、河流等的)边缘,边沿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
456 precipice | |
n.悬崖,危急的处境 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
457 obfuscate | |
v.使困惑,使迷乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
458 lighting | |
n.照明,光线的明暗,舞台灯光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
459 incited | |
刺激,激励,煽动( incite的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
460 disciples | |
n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 );门徒;耶稣的信徒;(尤指)耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
461 commonwealth | |
n.共和国,联邦,共同体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
462 imputation | |
n.归罪,责难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
463 cowardice | |
n.胆小,怯懦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
464 hypocrisy | |
n.伪善,虚伪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
465 assailing | |
v.攻击( assail的现在分词 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
466 deceptions | |
欺骗( deception的名词复数 ); 骗术,诡计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
467 paltry | |
adj.无价值的,微不足道的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
468 dread | |
vt.担忧,忧虑;惧怕,不敢;n.担忧,畏惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
469 shunned | |
v.避开,回避,避免( shun的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
470 libertinism | |
n.放荡,玩乐,(对宗教事物的)自由思想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
471 countenanced | |
v.支持,赞同,批准( countenance的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
472 effete | |
adj.无生产力的,虚弱的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
473 bulwark | |
n.堡垒,保障,防御 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
474 omniscience | |
n.全知,全知者,上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
475 futile | |
adj.无效的,无用的,无希望的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
476 utterance | |
n.用言语表达,话语,言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
477 agitators | |
n.(尤指政治变革的)鼓动者( agitator的名词复数 );煽动者;搅拌器;搅拌机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
478 atheistic | |
adj.无神论者的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
479 erratic | |
adj.古怪的,反复无常的,不稳定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
480 deliberately | |
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
481 consigned | |
v.把…置于(令人不快的境地)( consign的过去式和过去分词 );把…托付给;把…托人代售;丟弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
482 abhorred | |
v.憎恶( abhor的过去式和过去分词 );(厌恶地)回避;拒绝;淘汰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
483 expediency | |
n.适宜;方便;合算;利己 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
484 followers | |
追随者( follower的名词复数 ); 用户; 契据的附面; 从动件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
485 apotheosis | |
n.神圣之理想;美化;颂扬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
486 crooked | |
adj.弯曲的;不诚实的,狡猾的,不正当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
487 hideous | |
adj.丑陋的,可憎的,可怕的,恐怖的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
488 idols | |
偶像( idol的名词复数 ); 受崇拜的人或物; 受到热爱和崇拜的人或物; 神像 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
489 blazoned | |
v.广布( blazon的过去式和过去分词 );宣布;夸示;装饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
490 effrontery | |
n.厚颜无耻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
491 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
492 perverted | |
adj.不正当的v.滥用( pervert的过去式和过去分词 );腐蚀;败坏;使堕落 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
493 millennium | |
n.一千年,千禧年;太平盛世 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
494 perversions | |
n.歪曲( perversion的名词复数 );变坏;变态心理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
495 mischievously | |
adv.有害地;淘气地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
496 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
497 pretentious | |
adj.自命不凡的,自负的,炫耀的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
498 devoutly | |
adv.虔诚地,虔敬地,衷心地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
499 penitentiaries | |
n.监狱( penitentiary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
500 rogues | |
n.流氓( rogue的名词复数 );无赖;调皮捣蛋的人;离群的野兽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
501 ransomed | |
付赎金救人,赎金( ransom的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
502 defensive | |
adj.防御的;防卫的;防守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
503 superseded | |
[医]被代替的,废弃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
504 costly | |
adj.昂贵的,价值高的,豪华的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
505 expedients | |
n.应急有效的,权宜之计的( expedient的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
506 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
507 consistency | |
n.一贯性,前后一致,稳定性;(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
508 undoubtedly | |
adv.确实地,无疑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
509 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
510 lighter | |
n.打火机,点火器;驳船;v.用驳船运送;light的比较级 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
511 incurred | |
[医]招致的,遭受的; incur的过去式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |