The professing3 primitive4 Christian regarded and treated his slave as a brother, but in the eye of the law he was still his chattel5 personal,—a thing, and not a man. Why did not the apostles, then, strike at the legal relation? Why did they not command every Christian convert to sunder6 that chain at once? In answer, we say that every attempt at reform which comes from God has proceeded uniformly in this manner,—to destroy the spirit of an abuse first, and leave the form of it to drop away, of itself, afterwards,—to girdle the poisonous tree, and leave it to take its own time for dying.
This mode of dealing7 with abuses has this advantage, that it is compendious8 and universal, and can apply to that particular abuse in all ages, and under all shades and modifications9. If the apostle, in that outward and physical age, had merely attacked the legal relation, and had rested the whole burden of obligation on dissolving that, the corrupt10 and selfish principle might have run into other forms of oppression equally bad, and sheltered itself under the technicality of avoiding legal slavery. God, therefore, dealt a surer blow at the monster, by singling out the precise spot where his heart beat, and saying to his apostles, “Strike there!”
Instead of saying to the slave-holder, “manumit your slave,” it said to him. “treat him as your brother,” and left to the slave-holder’s conscience to say how much was implied in this command.
In the directions which Paul gave about slavery, it is evident that he considered the legal relation with the same indifference11 with which a gardener treats a piece of unsightly bark, which he perceives the growing vigor12 of a young tree is about to throw off by its own vital force. He looked upon it as a part of an old, effete13 system of heathenism, belonging to a set of laws and usages which were waxing old and ready to vanish away.
There is an argument which has been much employed on this subject, and which is specious14. It is this. That the apostles treated slavery as one of the lawful15 relations of life, like that of parent and child, husband and wife.
The argument is thus stated: The apostles found all the relations of life much corrupted16 by various abuses.
They did not attack the relations, but reformed the abuses, and thus restored the relations to a healthy state.
The mistake here lies in assuming that slavery is the lawful relation. Slavery is the corruption17 of a lawful relation. The lawful relation is servitude, and slavery is the corruption of servitude.
When the apostles came, all the relations of life in the Roman empire were thoroughly18 permeated19 with the principle of slavery. The relation of child to parent was slavery. The relation of wife to husband was slavery. The relation of servant to master was slavery.
The power of the father over his son, by Roman law, was very much the same with the power of the master over his slave.[30] He could, at his pleasure, scourge20, imprison21, or put him to death. The son could possess nothing but what was the property of his father; and this unlimited22 control extended through the whole lifetime of the father, unless the son were formally liberated23 by an act of manumission three times repeated, while the slave could be manumitted by performing the act only once. Neither was there any law obliging the father to manumit;—he could retain this power, if he chose, during his whole life.
Very similar was the situation of the Roman wife. In case she were accused of crime, her husband assembled a meeting of her relations, and in their presence sat in judgment24 upon her, awarding such punishment as he thought proper.
For unfaithfulness to her marriage-vow, or for drinking wine, Romulus allowed her husband to put her to death.[31] From this slavery, unlike the son, the wife could never be manumitted; no legal forms were provided. It was lasting25 as her life.
The same spirit of force and slavery pervaded26 the relation of master and servant, giving rise to that severe code of slave-law, which, with a few features of added cruelty, Christian America, in the nineteenth century, has re?nacted.
With regard, now, to all these abuses of proper relations, the gospel pursued one uniform course. It did not command the Christian father to perform the legal act of emancipation to his son; but it infused such a divine spirit into the paternal27 relation, by assimilating it to the relation of the heavenly Father, that the Christianized Roman would regard any use of his barbarous and oppressive legal powers as entirely28 inconsistent with his Christian profession. So it ennobled the marriage relation by comparing it to the relation between Christ and his church; commanding the husband to love his wife, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it. It said to him, “No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church;” “so ought every one to love his wife, even as himself.” Not an allusion29 is made to the barbarous, unjust power which the law gave the husband. It was perfectly30 understood that a Christian husband could not make use of it in conformity31 with these directions.
In the same manner Christian masters were exhorted32 to give to their servants that which is just and equitable33; and, so far from coercing34 their services by force, to forbear even threatenings. The Christian master was directed to receive his Christianized slave, “NOT now as a slave, but above a slave, a brother beloved;” and, as in all these other cases, nothing was said to him about the barbarous powers which the Roman law gave him, since it was perfectly understood that he could not at the same time treat him as a brother beloved and as a slave in the sense of Roman law.
When, therefore, the question is asked, why did not the apostles seek the abolition35 of slavery, we answer, they did seek it. They sought it by the safest, shortest, and most direct course which could possibly have been adopted.
30. See Adams’ Roman Antiquities36.
31. Dionys, Hal. II. 25.
点击收听单词发音
1 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 emancipation | |
n.(从束缚、支配下)解放 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 professing | |
声称( profess的现在分词 ); 宣称; 公开表明; 信奉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 primitive | |
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 chattel | |
n.动产;奴隶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 sunder | |
v.分开;隔离;n.分离,分开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 compendious | |
adj.简要的,精简的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 modifications | |
n.缓和( modification的名词复数 );限制;更改;改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 corrupt | |
v.贿赂,收买;adj.腐败的,贪污的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 indifference | |
n.不感兴趣,不关心,冷淡,不在乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 vigor | |
n.活力,精力,元气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 effete | |
adj.无生产力的,虚弱的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 specious | |
adj.似是而非的;adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 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: |
|
|
17 corruption | |
n.腐败,堕落,贪污 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 permeated | |
弥漫( permeate的过去式和过去分词 ); 遍布; 渗入; 渗透 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 scourge | |
n.灾难,祸害;v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 imprison | |
vt.监禁,关押,限制,束缚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 unlimited | |
adj.无限的,不受控制的,无条件的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 liberated | |
a.无拘束的,放纵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 lasting | |
adj.永久的,永恒的;vbl.持续,维持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 pervaded | |
v.遍及,弥漫( pervade的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 paternal | |
adj.父亲的,像父亲的,父系的,父方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 allusion | |
n.暗示,间接提示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 conformity | |
n.一致,遵从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 exhorted | |
v.劝告,劝说( exhort的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 equitable | |
adj.公平的;公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 coercing | |
v.迫使做( coerce的现在分词 );强迫;(以武力、惩罚、威胁等手段)控制;支配 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 abolition | |
n.废除,取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 antiquities | |
n.古老( antiquity的名词复数 );古迹;古人们;古代的风俗习惯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |