THE LAW OF PASSIVE OBEDIENCE, OR Chriſtian Submiſſion to Perſonal Injuries:
Wherein is ſhewn, that the ſeveral texts of ſcripture, which command the entire ſubmiſſion of ſervants or ſlaves to their maſters, cannot authorize the latter to exact an involuntary ſervitude, nor, in the leaſt degree, juſtify the claims of modern Slaveholders.
By GRANVILLE SHARP.
THE illegality of ſlavery among Chriſtians is a point which I have long laboured to demonſtrate, as being deſtructive of morality, and con⯑ſequently dangerous both to body and ſoul. There are nevertheleſs ſome par⯑ticular Texts in the New Teſtament, which, in the opinion even of ſeveral well meaning and diſintereſted perſons, ſeem to afford ſome proof of the tolera⯑tion of ſlavery among the primitive Chriſtians; and, from thence, they are [4]induced to conceive, that Chriſtianity doth not oblige its profeſſors to renounce the practice of ſlaveholding.
A learned and reverend correſpondent of mine ſeems to have adopted this no⯑tion, and has ſignified his opinion near⯑ly to the ſame effect, in a private letter to me on this ſubject, to which I have not yet ventured to ſend him a reply, though it is a conſiderable time ſince I received his letter; but, to ſay the truth, the queſtion in which I had never before apprehended any difficulty, was render⯑ed very ſerious and important, upon my hands, by my friend's declaration; and I thought myſelf bound to give it the ſtricteſt examination, becauſe I conceiv⯑ed (as I do ſtill) that the honour of the Holy Scriptures, which of all other things, I have moſt at heart, was con⯑cerned in the determination of the point in queſtion; and yet I know, that my [5]friend is full as zealous for the honour of the Scriptures as myſelf, and much more learned in them, being very emi⯑nent in that moſt eſſential branch of knowledge.
I believe alſo that he is perfectly diſ⯑intereſted, and of undoubted Chriſtian benevolence. The objection has therefore acquired an accumulated weight from the authority and worth of the perſon who made it; and conſequently, it de⯑manded more circumſpection and read⯑ing, to anſwer it in any reaſonable time, than my ſhort broken intervals of leiſure (the only time that I was then maſter of) would permit me to beſtow upon it; and as ſo much time has already elapſed, the anſwer which I originally intended for my friend's private peruſal, ſhall now be addreſſed to all well meaning perſons in general, who may have had the ſame motives for admitting in any degree the [6]legality of ſlavery; and that there are many ſuch (even among thoſe that are concerned in the practice of ſlavehold⯑ing) the example of my diſintereſted friend's opinion, and common charity, oblige me to ſuppoſe. I ſhall therefore conſider my friend's opinion as the com⯑mon excuſe of our American and Weſt Indian brethren for tolerating ſlavery a⯑among them.
This objection to my general doctrine is expreſſed in the moſt guarded terms; —ſo guarded, that it obliges me to ac⯑knowledge, that the obſervation is, in ſome reſpects, ſtrictly true. My pre⯑ſent attempt is not to confute, but [7]rather to demonſtrate wherein this truth conſiſts, which will afterwards enable me to point out ſuch a due limitation of the doctrine, as will ren⯑der it entirely conſiſtent with the hypotheſis, which I have ſo long labour⯑ed to maintain, viz. the abſolute illega⯑lity of ſlavery among Chriſtians,
In conformity to my worthy friend's declaration I muſt firſt obſerve, that the diſciples of Chriſt (whoſe Kingdom, he himſelf declared,—‘is not of THIS WORLD.’ John xviii. 36.) had no expreſs commiſſion to alter the TEMPO⯑RAL CONDITION OF MEN, but only to prepare them for a BETTER WORLD by the general doctrines of faith, hope, charity, peace and goodwill, (or univer⯑ſal love and benevolence to all man⯑kind) ſubmiſſion to injuries, dependence up⯑on God, &c. &c. &c. which (though general doctrines) are amply and ſuffi⯑ciently [8]efficacious indeed, for the par⯑ticular reformation of ALL CONDITIONS OF MEN, when ſincerity is not want⯑ing in the application of them; but the principal intention of the whole ſyſ⯑tem is evidently to draw men from the the cares and anxieties of this preſent life, to a better hope in the life to come, which is Chriſt's proper kingdom: Chriſtian ſervants therefore were of courſe inſtructed to be patient, to be humble and ſubmiſſive to their maſters, ‘not only to the good and gentle, but al⯑ſo to the froward.’ So that even ill uſage does not juſtify perverſeneſs of be⯑haviour in chriſtian ſlaves.
THE apoſtle Paul alſo frequently in⯑ſiſts upon the abſolute neceſſity of an unfeigned obedience in the behaviour of chriſtian ſervants to their maſters. ‘Let every man abide in the ſame calling wherein he was called.’ ‘Art thou [9]called being a ſervant? care not for it;’ &c. 1 Cor. vii. 21. and again, ‘Ser⯑vants 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 to men: knowing that whatſoever good thing any man doeth, the ſame ſhall he receive of the Lord, whe⯑ther he be bond or free," Epheſ. vi 5-8. Again,’ ‘Servants obey in all things (your) maſters according to the fleſh; not which eye ſervice, as men pleaſers, but in ſingleneſs of heart fearing God: and whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men. Coloſ. iii. 22, 23. The ſame apoſtle inſtructs Ti⯑mothy to recommend obedience to ſer⯑vants, 'Let as many ſervants (ſays the apoſtle) as are under the yoke, count [10]their own maſters worthy of all honour, that THE NAME OF GOD AND HIS DOCTRINE 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 PAR⯑TAKERS OF THE BENEFIT. Theſe things teach and exhort: If any man teach otherwiſe, and conſent not to whole⯑ſome words, (even) the words of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and to the doctrine which is according to godlineſs; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about queſtions, and ſtrifes of words, whereof cometh envy, ſtrife, railings, evil-furmiſings, perverſe diſputings of men of corrupt minds, and deſtitute of the truth, ſuppoſing that gain is godli⯑neſs. From ſuch withdraw thyſelf. But godlineſs with contentment is great gain. for we brought nothing into (this) world, [11]and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content.' 1 Tim. vi. 1 to 8.—And again he inſiſts on the ſame doctrine, '(Exhort) ſervants, (ſays he) to be obedient unto their own maſters, (and) to pleaſe (them) well in all things, not anſwering again, not pur⯑loining, but ſhewing all good fidelity; that they may ADORN THE DOC⯑TRINE OF GOD OUR SAVIOUR IN ALL THINGS.’ Titus ii. 9, 10.
THESE Texts are amply ſufficient to prove the truth of my learned friend's aſſertion, ſo far as it relates to THE DUTY OF THE SLAVES THEMSELVES, but this abſolute ſubmiſſion required of Chriſtian ſervants, by no means implies the legality of ſlaveholding ON THE PART OF THEIR MASTERS, which he ſeems to apprehend.
[12]THE ſlave violates no precepts of the goſpel by his abject condition, pro⯑vided that the ſame is involuntary (for if he can be made free, he is expreſsly commanded by the apoſtle to uſe it ra⯑ther §) but how the maſter who enfor⯑ces that involuntary ſervitude, can be ſaid to act conſiſtently with the Chriſtian profeſſion, is a queſtion of a very dif⯑ferent nature, which I propoſe to ex⯑amine with all poſſible care and impar⯑tiality, being no otherwiſe intereſted in it, than as a Chriſtian who eſteems both maſters and ſlaves as brethren, and con⯑ſequently, while he pities the unhappy temporal condition of the latter, is ex⯑tremely [...]nxious for the eternal welfare of the former.
[13]I HAVE already admitted, that CHRIS⯑TIANITY DOTH NOT RELEASE SLAVES, ‘from the obligation they were under ac⯑cording to the cuſtom and law of the countries where it was propagated,’ agreeable to my learned friend's aſſer⯑tion, in favour of which I have pro⯑duced a variety of texts: but as ‘the reaſon of the law,’ (according to a maxim of the Engliſh law) ‘is the life of the law,’ we cannot with juſtice draw any concluſion from thence, in fa⯑vour of the maſter's claim, till we have examined the principles, on which the doctrine of ſubmiſſion, in theſe ſeveral texts, is founded; and we ſhall find, up⯑on a general view of the whole, that the principal reaſon of enforcing the doctrine was not ſo much becauſe the perſons to whom it was addreſſed, were ſlaves, as becauſe they were Chriſ⯑tians, and were to overcome EVIL [14]with GOOD, to the GLORY OF GOD and RELIGION.
THESE principles are clearly expreſſed in ſeveral of theſe very texts, and implied in all of them, viz. 'That the name of God and his doctrine be not blaſphemed.' (1 Tim. vi. 1.) and again, ‘that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savi⯑our IN ALL THINGS.’ (Titus ii. 10.) So that a zeal for the GLORY OF GOD, and of HIS RELIGION (the principles of the firſt great commandment) is the appa⯑rent ground and ſole purpoſe of the Chriſtian ſlave's SUBMISSION, which was therefore to be ‘WITH SINGLE⯑NESS OF 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 TO MEN: knowing that whatſoever good thing any man doeth, the ſame ſhall HE RECEIVE OF THE [15]LORD, whether he BE BOND OR FREE.’ Epheſ. vi. 5-8. And again, the ſame apoſtle charges the ſervants among the Coloſſians, to obey ‘not AS MEN PLEA⯑SERS, but in ſingleneſs of heart, FEAR⯑ING GOD: and whatſoever they do, to do it heartil, as TO THE LORD, and NOT UNTO MEN.’ Coloſſ. iii. 2.
THUS it is plain that the ſervice was to be performed 'as TO THE LORD,' and 'NOT TO MEN,' and therefore it cannot be conſtrued as an acknowledge⯑ment of any right, or property really veſted in the maſter. This will clearly appear upon a cloſer examination of ſome of theſe texts. In the firſt, for inſtance, though the apoſtle Peter enforces the neceſſity of the ſer⯑vants ſubmiſſion to their maſters, in the ſtrongeſt manner, commanding them to be ſubject ‘not only to the good and gentle, but ALSO TO THE FROWARD,’ &c. (1. Pet. ii. 18.) [16]yet he adds in the very next verſe,—‘for this is thank worthy, if a man, FOR CONSCIENCE TOWARDS GOD, endure grief, SUFFERING wrongfully,’— [...], ſo that, it is manifeſt, the apoſ⯑tle did not mean to juſtify the claim of the maſters, becauſe he enjoin⯑ed the ſame ſubmiſſion to the ſer⯑vants that ſuffered wrongfully, as to thoſe who had good and gentle maſters: and it would be highly injurious to the goſpel of peace, to ſuppoſe it capable of authorizing wrongful ſufferings, or of eſtabliſhing a right or power in any rank of men whatever, to oppreſs others unjuſtly, or [...]! And though the apoſtle Paul, alſo, ſo ſtrongly exhorts ſervants to ſub⯑mit to their maſters, and ‘to abide in the ſame calling wherein they were call⯑ed,’ and 'not to care for it.' (1 Corin⯑thians, vii. 20, 21.) Yet at the ſame time he clearly inſtructs them, that it is their duty to prefer a ſtate of freedom whenever they can fairly and honeſtly [17]obtain it; ‘but if thou mayeſt be made free (ſays he) USE IT RATHER.’ (v.21.) And the reaſon, which he aſſigns for this command, is as plainly delivered, viz. the equality of ſervants with their maſters in the fight of the Almighty, ‘For he that is called in the Lord, (being) a SER⯑VANT (ſays he) is the Lord's FREE⯑MAN: LIKEWISE, alſo he that is call⯑ed (being) FREE, is Chriſt's SERVANT.’ (verſe 22.) Chriſt having purchaſed all men to be his peculiar ſervants, or ra⯑ther freemen. ‘Ye are bought with a price ſays the apoſtle, in the 23d verſe.) BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN,’ which plainly implies, that it is incon⯑ſiſtent with the dignity of a Chriſtian, who is the ſervant or freeman of GOD, to be held in an unlimited ſubjection, as the bond ſervant or ſlave of a MAN; and, conſequently, that a toleration of ſlavery, in places where Chriſtianity is eſtabliſhed by law, is intirely illegal; [18]for tho' THE SLAVE commits no crime by ſubmitting to the involuntary ſervice, (which has been already demonſtrated,) yet the CHRISTIAN MASTER is guilty of a ſort of ſacriledge, by appropria⯑ting to himſelf, as an abſolute property, that body, which peculiarly belongs to God by an ineſtimable purchaſe! For if God ſaid of the Jews, even under the old law, (Levit. xxv. 52.) ‘THEY ARE MY SERVANTS, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; THEY SHALL NOT BE SOLD AS BONDMEN.’ ‡ How much [19]more ought Chriſtians to eſteem their brethren, as the peculiar ſervants of GOD on account of their being freed from the more ſevere bondage of our ſpiritual ene⯑my, [20](of which the Egyptian bondage was only a type) by the ineſtimable price of Chriſt's blood! and, ſurely, we may therefore ſay, ‘they are GOD'S SER⯑VANTS,’ whom Chriſt hath redeemed with his own blood, as much as the Jews of old who were on that account expreſly enfranchiſed from worldly bond⯑age, ‘THEY ARE MY SERVANTS, THEY SHALL NOT BE SOLD AS BONDMEN;’ for this application of the text is entirely to the ſame effect as the apoſtle's expreſſion to the Co⯑rinthians,—‘Ye are bought with a price, BE NOT YE THE SER⯑VANTS OF MEN.’ (1. Cor. vii. 23.) [21]Dr. Whithy, indeed ſuppoſes that the words 'ye are bought with a price,' re⯑fer only to a pecuniary price given by the primitive Chriſtians, to buy their brethren out of ſlavery.' But the autho⯑rity of Juſtin Martyr and Tertullian, which he cites, by no means proves his interpretation of the text, tho' it may ſufficiently prove the primitive practice of redeeming ſlaves; which al⯑ſo furniſhes a new argument againſt the legality of ſlavery among Chriſtians, ſo [22]far as the example of the primitive Chriſtians is concerned. But ſcripture is beſt interpreted by ſcripture, and therefore the moſt certain means of aſ⯑certaining the true meaning of the words [...], ‘ye are bought with a price,’ is to have recourſe to the very ſame expreſſion ( [...], the words being only tranſpoſed) in the preceding chapter, 20th verſe, where we ſhall find that it can refer to nothing leſs than the ineſtimable price of Chriſt's redemption, ‘What know ye not (ſays the apoſtle) that your BODY is the TEM⯑PLE [23]OF THE HOLY GHOST, (which is) in you, which you have of God, and YOU ARE NOT YOUR OWN? FOR YE ARE BOUGHT WITH A PRICE: therefore glo⯑rify God IN YOUR BODY, and in your ſpirit, WHICH ARE GOD's,’ (1 Cor. vi. 19, 20.) and, conſequently, it is the duty of a Chriſtian legiſlature to vindicate THE LORD'S FREEMEN from SLAVERY, as all mankind are included in the ſame ineſtimable purchaſe, for it is not only their ſouls but even their bodies, which are God's;' and therefore it is an abomi⯑nable ſacriledge, that thoſe bodies which are capable of being the ‘temple of the Holy Ghoſt,’ ſhould be eſteemed the mere chattels and private property of mercenary planters and merchants, merely for the ſake of a little worldly gain!
BUT ſlaveholders may perhaps al⯑ledge that believing maſters are mention⯑ed [24]as 'faithful and beloved,' in one of the texts, which I have cited, and are alſo expreſsly accounted as 'partakers of the benefit,' (ſee 1 Timothy, vi. 2.) ſo that, from thence, they may perhaps infer, that ſlavekeeping is not inconſiſ⯑tent with their Chriſtian profeſſion.
BUT theſe expreſſions are included in that part of the apoſtles charge to Timothy, which relates merely to the inſtruction of ſervants, ſo that there is no room to ſuppoſe, that any reference was intended to the practice of the maſ⯑ters by way of juſtification. The mean⯑ing therefore can amount to no more than this, viz. that, as it is the duty of ſervants to 'count their own maſters,' (even thoſe that are unbelievers) 'wor|'thy of ALL HONOUR ‡, THAT THE NAME OF GOD AND HIS DOCTRINE [25]'BE NOT BLASPHEMED,' ſo the ſame reaſon obliges them, more eſpecially, to count their believing maſters ‘worthy of all (lawful) honour,’ becauſe of their Chriſtian profeſſion, which renders them accepted of God. For common charity obliges us, as Chriſtians, to ſup⯑poſe that all men, who believe and hold the ſame profeſſion as ourſelves, are 'faithful and beloved,' as well as ‘par⯑takers of the benefit’ of Chriſt's redemp⯑tion, ‡ becauſe Belief is the true means [26]of leading and diſpoſing men to acquire ſuch happineſs; and though many other neceſſary Chriſtian qualities may ſeem wanting in our believing brethren, yet we muſt not preſume to condemn them; God alone being their Judge: and, for this reaſon alſo, Chriſtian ſer⯑vants muſt not condemn and deſpiſe their believing maſters, (though they know themſelves equalin dignity as brethren, and that it is, conſequently, their maſters duty to treat them as brethren,) but muſt render them ſervice the more willingly on this account, having brotherly love as an additional motive to faithful ſer⯑vice. It is manifeſt, therefore, that this text was intended to regulate the [27]conduct of Chriſtian ſervants, and not that of Chriſtian maſters; for, with re⯑gard to the former, the doctrine is per⯑fectly conſiſtent with the other texts, that I have quoted; which is not the caſe when it is applied to juſtify the mere temporal claims of maſters or ſlaveholders, becauſe there are many clear and incontrovertible precepts throughout the New Teſtament for re⯑gulating the conduct of Chriſtian maſ⯑ters, which exclude the juſtification of any ſuch claims among Chriſtians, and conſequently forbid any application or interpretation of theſe particular texts in favour of them: and beſides we muſt always remember, that it is not lawful to maintain an hypotheſis upon the teſtimony of any one ſingle text of doubtful interpretation, eſpecially when the ſame does not clearly correſpond with the reſt of the ſcriptures, and can⯑not bear the teſt 'of the royal law,' of [28]which more ſhall be ſaid in my tract 'on the Law of Liberty.'
I mention this text of St. Paul, as one of 'doubtful interpretation,' becauſe commentators are divided concerning the application of the very words on which the imaginary juſtification of the ſlaveholder is ſuppoſed to be founded! Many learned men (and Dr. Hammond among the reſt) have conſtrued the words — ' [...], (1 Tim. vi. 2,) ‡ in a very different manner from the common verſion, and applied them to the ſervants, which entirely deſtroys the preſumption in favour of the ſlave⯑holder.
Nevertheleſs I have contented myſelf with the common rendering, being con⯑vinced [29]that no concluſions can fairly be drawn from this text in favour of Sla⯑very, even when the epithets ‘faith⯑ful and beloved,’ &c. are applied to the Maſters; becauſe the ſignification of them muſt neceſſarily be reſtrained within the bounds of goſpel doctrine; and, therefore, we cannot conceive that the apoſtle intended, by the applica⯑tion of theſe epithets, to juſtify any practices which are inconſiſtent with the benevolence enjoined in other parts of the New Teſtament; for this would be liable to produce a contrary effect from that which the apoſtle expreſſly intended by his injunction, viz. that "the name of God and his doctrine be not blaſphemed."
Thus it appears, I hope, that the principles, on which the doctrine of the ſervants ſubmiſſion is founded, are clear⯑ly expreſſed; ſo that Slaveholders can have no right to avail themſelves of any [30]of theſe texts to enforce an ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION; for, though theſe ſeveral texts clearly juſtify the Slave, yet they cannot juſtify the Maſter, unleſs he can ſhew that the ſame principles, (or reaſon of the Law,) on which they are founded, hold good alſo on his ſide of the queſ⯑tion. (1) Can the Slaveholders and [31]African traders alledge, for inſtance, that they ſhall ‘adorn the doctrine of [32]God our Saviour,’ (Titus ii. 10.) by perſiſting in their unnatural pretenſions [33]to an abſolute property in their poor bre⯑thren? or that they ‘do the will of [34]God from the heart,’ (Epheſians vi. 5, &c.) when they retain their neigh⯑bour [35]in an involuntary unrewarded ſer⯑vitude for life? If they can do this, I [36]ſhall have reaſon to be ſilent. But if, on the contrary, it ſhould evidently ap⯑pear [37]that a very different behaviour is required of Chriſtian Maſters, ‘that [38]the name of God and his doctrine be not blaſphemed,’ (1 Tim. vi. 1.) they muſt be obliged to allow that the "rea⯑ſon, or life of the law" is againſt them; and, conſequently, that none of theſe texts, relating to Chriſtian ſervants, are capable of affording them the leaſt ex⯑cuſe for their ſelfiſh pretenſions. They will find alſo, upon a more careful ex⯑amination of the Scriptures, that they themſelves are as much bound by the goſ⯑pel to bear perſonal injuries with patience and humility, as their Slaves. Becauſe the benevolent principles of the goſpel of peace require all men, freemen as well as ſlaves, to return "good for evil." "Bleſs them that CURSE you," (ſaid our [39]Lord,) ‘and PRAY for them which DESPITEFULLY USE YOU.’ And unto ‘him that SMITETH thee on the one cheek, offer alſo the other; and him that TAKETH AWAY thy cloke, forbid not (to take thy) coat alſo,’ &c. Luke vi. 28, 29. But, though ſubmiſ⯑ſion and placability are thus unqueſti⯑onably enjoined to the ſufferers in all the caſes above recited in the text, yet ſurely no reaſonable man will pretend to alledge, from thence, that tyrants and oppreſſors have thereby obtained a legal right, under the goſpel, to curſe others, and uſe them deſpitefully; or that the unjuſt oppreſſion of ſtrikers and robbers is thereby authorized or juſtified! In the ſame light exactly muſt we view the Slave⯑holders claim of private property in the perſons of men, whenever an attempt is made to ſupport it on the foundation of any ſuch texts as I have quoted, wherein ſervants or ſlaves are exhorted to ſubmit [40] with paſſive obedience, &c. to their Maſ⯑ters; becauſe the right (as it is impro⯑perly called) or pretenſion of the Maſ⯑ter may with the greateſt propriety be compared to the pretended right or au⯑thority of oppreſſing or robbing others, which is too often exerciſed by imperial tyrants and deſpotic princes, as well as by their brethren in iniquity of a lower claſs, viz. pirates, highwaymen, and extortioners of every degree! The goſpel of peace cannot authorize the oppreſſion of theſe lawleſs men, though it clearly enjoins patience, ſubmiſſion, and acqui⯑eſcence, to the individuals that are en⯑jured, whether freemen or ſlaves! The placability and abſolute ſubmiſſion, com⯑manded by the laſt-cited text, to Chriſ⯑tians in general, are manifeſtly founded on the very ſame principles with that particular ſubmiſſion which the goſpel requires of Chriſtian ſlaves; and is far⯑ther parallel to the latter, by being e⯑qually [41]paſſive; ſo that the oppreſſion of the Slaveholder can no more be juſtified by any text of the New Teſtament, that I am able to find, than the oppreſſion of the ſtriker and robber.
Unhappily for the Chriſtian world, the duties of patience, ſubmiſſion, and placability, enjoined by the goſpel to per⯑ſons injured, are too commonly either miſunderſtood or rejected; though the temporal, as well as the eternal, happineſs of mankind greatly depends upon a con⯑ſcientious and proper obſervation of theſe duties: for even the moſt rigid obedi⯑ence to the letter of the command would be far from being productive, either of the real evils to which the pernicious doctrine of a national paſſive obedience apparent⯑ly tends, or of the imaginary inconve⯑niences apprehended by the advocates for duelling, becauſe the ſame benevo⯑lent principles, (viz. univerſal love and [42]charity, founded on the great command⯑ment, ‘Thou ſhalt love thy neigh⯑bour as thyſelf,’) which oblige the true Chriſtian, moſt diſintereſtedly, to forgive all injuries, and paſs over every affront offered to his own perſon, will neceſſarily engage him, on the other hand, as diſintereſtedly, to oppoſe every degree of oppreſſion and injuſtice, which affects his brethren and neighbours, when he has a fair opportunity of aſſiſting them; and from hence ariſes the zeal of good men for juſt and equitable laws, as being the moſt effectual means of preſerving the peace and happineſs of the community, by curbing the inſolence and violence of wicked men. We have an eminent example of this loyal zeal in the behaviour of the apoſtle Paul, who could not brook an infringement of the Roman liberty from any perſons whatever in the adminiſtration of government, though he could endure perſonal injuries [43]from men unconnected therewith, and the perſecutions of the multitude, with all the Chriſtian patience and meekneſs which the goſpel requires. The Scrip⯑ture-hiſtory of this great apoſtle affords many proofs of his extraordinary hu⯑mility and patience under ſufferings, ſo that his ſpirited oppoſition to the illegal proceedings of magiſtrates cannot be at⯑tributed to private reſentment on his own account, but merely to his zeal for the public good, founded upon the great Chriſtian principle of ‘loving his neigh⯑bour as himſelf,’ ſince the maintaining of good laws is, certainly, the moſt ef⯑fectual means of promoting the welfare and happineſs of ſociety. His reſolute and free cenſure of the magiſtrates at Philippi, in the meſſage which he ſent by their own ſerjeants, (2) his ſpirited [44]remonſtrance to the chief captain at Jeruſalem, (3) and his ſevere rebuke [45]to the high prieſt himſelf, even on the ſeat of judgement, (4) are remarkable inſtances of this obſervation.
In the laſt-mentioned inſtance, in⯑deed, the apoſtle was charged, by thoſe "that ſtood by," with reviling God's [46]high prieſt, which would have been a notorious breach of the law, had there not been circumſtances of juſtification ſufficient to vindicate the ſeverity of the Apoſtle's cenſure: theſe, however, were not urged by the apoſtle himſelf, who beſt knew how to behave towards thoſe with whom he had to do. He readily allowed the principle (however) on which the cenſure of his accuſers was founded, but he by no means retracted what he had ſo juſtly applied to the perſon of the unworthy magiſtrate who ſat to judge him; neither did he even acknowledge him to be the high prieſt, though he was expreſſly queſtioned for a ſuppoſed miſbehaviour to that digni⯑tary! His anſwer was cautiouſly word⯑ed.— He did not ſay, — I knew not that this perſon, whom I have cenſured, was the high prieſt, but, — [...], &c. ‘I knew not, brethren, that there is a high [47]prieſt.’ (5) Which anſwer, though on the firſt hearſay it ſeems to bear ſome affinity to an excuſe or apology for what had paſt, yet, in reality, includes a ſtill farther rebuke; for it plainly im⯑plies that the high prieſt, in whoſe pre⯑ſence the apoſtle then ſtood, was (in ſome reſpect or other) deficient or blame⯑able in his deportment as chief magi⯑ſtrate, either that he did not duly ſup⯑port the dignity of that ſacred and diſtinguiſhing public character, ſo that he did not ſeem to be high prieſt, and of courſe could not be known and hon⯑oured as ſuch; or elſe that his behaviour had been ſo unjuſt and illegal that he did not deſerve to be conſidered as a lawful magiſtrate, who had publicly demeaned [48]himſelf as a tyrant, by commanding a priſoner to be beaten, contrary to law, without hearing his defence! And, that this latter ſenſe is moſt probable we may learn by the following circum⯑ſtance, viz. that the apoſtle choſe to de⯑cline the diſpute, and to wave the accu⯑ſation about reviling the high prieſt, by acknowledging the principle of law on which it was manifeſtly founded, viz. Thou ſhalt not ſpeak evil of the ruler of thy people. But, be pleaſed to obſerve, he neither acknowledged that he him⯑ſelf had broken the ſaid precept by ſo ſeverely cenſuring the unjuſt ruler, nor did he acknowledge the preſence of a high prieſt in the perſon of Ananias; neither did he allow the by-ſtanders time enough to criticiſe upon the true literal meaning of his reply, (whereby they would probably have been led to demand ſome expreſs recantation of the perſonal cenſure which he had ſo amply [49]beſtowed upon the high prieſt,) but he prudently changed the ſubject in debate from the PERSON of the high prieſt (who was a zealous overbearing SADDUCEE) (6) to an avowed cenſure of his whole ſect, charging the SADDUCEES in particular with the unjuſt perſecution, then before the aſſembly, and openly appealing to the oppoſite party, the Phariſees, in order to divide his united enemies: ‘I am a PHARISEE, (ſaid he,) the ſon of a PHARISEE; of the hope and re⯑ſurrection of the dead I AM CALLED IN QUESTION.’ Such a manifeſt reflection againſt the whole body of [50] Sadducees cannot by any means favour the ſuppoſition of an intended apology, or recantation, in the preceding ſentence, to ſoothe the enraged leader of that very party, whom he had publicly branded as a hypocrite, with the ſignificant ap⯑pellation of whited wall! Let it be alſo remembered that the ſuppoſed breach of the precept ‘(thou ſhalt not ſpeak evil of the RULER of thy people)’ could not reſt entirely on the circumſtance of KNOW⯑ING ANANIAS TO BE THE HIGH PRIEST; for, whether the apoſtle did know, or did not know, that Ananias was high prieſt, yet he certainly knew, before he cenſured him, that he was a ruler of the people, and that he then ſat in the quality of a judge; (for this is declared in the very cenſure itſelf, — ‘ſitteſt thou to JUDGE ME after the law, and commandeſt me to be ſmit⯑ten CONTRARY TO LAW?’) ſo that whether Ananias was really high prieſt, [51]or not, yet he was manifeſtly cenſured in his official capacity as a ruler, or ma⯑giſtrate, and not as a private individual, through any inadvertency or miſtake of the apoſtle, as ſome commentators have conceived. And, even when the a⯑poſtle was informed, by thoſe ‘that ſtood by,’ that the magiſtrate whom he had cenſured was the ‘high prieſt, ("revileſt thou God's high prieſt?") Yet his reply, (I knew not, brethren, that there is a high prieſt,)’ when fairly compared with the preceding cenſure of Ananias, as an unjuſt diſpenſer of God's law, ‘(ſitteſt thou to judge me according to law?’ &c.) proves, as I before re⯑marked, that the apoſtle neither ac⯑knowledged the dignity of a high prieſt, nor that of a legal ruler, in the perſon of Ananias, though he knew him at the ſame time TO BE A RULER, and had cenſured him as ſuch, for having noto⯑riouſly proſtituted the power and autho⯑rity [52]of a ruler, and violated the law, by commanding him to be ſtricken contra⯑ry to law, notwithſtanding, that he ſat to judge (as the apoſtle remarked) ‘AC⯑CORDING to the law;’ in which caſe no epithet whatever could be ſo apt and expreſſive to mark the true character of the dignified hypocrite in power, as whi⯑ted wall! This proves, that the apoſtle knew well enough with whom he had to do. The cenſure was too juſt, and his prophecy in the accompliſhment too true, ("God ſhall ſmite thee," thou whited wall,) (7) to be eſteemed a mere un⯑guarded ſally of reſentment! The latter ſuppoſition is, indeed, inconſiſtent with the remarkable ſagacity, prudence, and readineſs of mind, which always diſtin⯑guiſhed [53]this apoſtle in bearing his teſti⯑mony to the truth, on the moſt danger⯑ous emergences! The apoſtle's known character as a choſen veſſel for Chriſt's ſervice, and as an exemplary preacher of RIGHTEOUSNESS, will by no means permit us to conceive that he was either guilty of any miſtake or inadvertency with reſpect to the perſon of the high prieſt on this occaſion; or of any illegal or miſbecoming behaviour to him as a ruler or judge of the people! When theſe ſeveral circumſtances are compared with the general bad character of Ananias, (8) [54]as a perſecuting zealot of the moſt virulent and intolerant ſect among the Jews, it muſt appear that the apoſtle accounted that perſon unworthy of any eſteem as a magiſtrate, whom he had ſo publicly con⯑victed [55]of abuſing and perverting the legal authority with which he had been en⯑truſted; and, indeed, a notorious breach of the law, by any man in the capacity of a ruler, may reaſonably be eſteemed a temporary diſqualification for ſuch an honourable truſt; for, a judge without juſtice and righteouſneſs, who openly per⯑verts judgement, does thereby unqueſ⯑tionably degrade himſelf from the dig⯑nity of his ſtation, and render himſelf unworthy, for the time being, of that reſpect which is otherwiſe due to his rank in office. The ſame apoſtle, in⯑deed, upon another occaſion, commands us to give "honour to whom honour" is due; but what honour can be due to a convicted hypocrite, — a ‘whited wall,’ — a ‘wolf in ſheep's cloath⯑ing,’— to an ‘Ananias on the ſeat of judgement?’ SUCH characters muſt expect SUCH treatment, as Ananias met with, from all ſenſible and diſcerning [56]men; if the latter are alſo equally loyal with the apoſtle, I mean in the ſtrict and proper ſenſe of the word loyal, (which is ſo frequently miſapplied and perverted by ſycophants,) that is, if they are equally zealous with that a⯑poſtle for law, juſtice, and righteouſneſs, for the general good of mankind! So that if we approve of the apoſtle's ad⯑vice, in the beginning of the ſame ſen⯑tence, viz. ‘RENDER, THEREFORE, UNTO ALL THEIR DUES,’—‘tri⯑bute, unto whom tribute,’—‘cuſtom, to whom cuſtom,’—‘FEAR, to whom FEAR,’—‘HONOUR to whom HO⯑NOUR;’ we muſt needs alſo allow, that the apoſtle's practice (even in his behaviour to Ananias) was ſtrictly con⯑ſiſtent with his own declared precepts, and that he moſt juſtly rendered to A⯑nanias HIS DUE, when he ſo ſeverely reprimanded his conduct as a judge! When all theſe circumſtances are duly [57]conſidered, the meaning of the apoſtle's reply, may, fairly enough, be para⯑phraſed in the words of LORINUS, (9) [58]as I find him quoted by CORNELIUS A LAPIDE, viz. ‘I knew not that he [59]was the high prieſt, becauſe, from his furious manner of ſpeaking, he did not ſeem to be a HIGH PRIEST, but a TYRANT.’ This ſenſe is ſtrictly conſonant to reaſon and natural right!
Juſtice and righteouſneſs are ſo in⯑ſeparably connected with the proper character of a CHIEF MAGISTRATE or RULER, that any notorious perverſion of thoſe neceſſary principles, in the ac⯑tual exerciſe of that official power with [60]which a magiſtrate is entruſted for legal (and not for illegal) purpoſes, muſt un⯑avoidably diſtinguiſh the contemptible hypocrite, THE WHITED WALL, from the honourable MAGISTRATE, and de⯑prive the former of the reſpect which is due only to the latter! ‘Sitteſt thou to judge me ACCORDING TO THE LAW, and commandeſt me to be ſmitten CON⯑TRARY TO LAW?’ Thus the a⯑poſtle clearly explained the fitneſs and propriety of the reproachful figure of ſpeech, (whited wall,) by which he had expreſſed the true character of the unworthy judge!
An appellation ſimilar to this was given, even by our Lord himſelf, to the Scribes and Phariſees, who were the teachers and magiſtrates of the people: ‘Wo unto you, SCRIBES and PHARI⯑SEES, HYPOCRITES; for ye are like unto WHITED SEPULCHRES, which, [61]indeed, appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead mens bones and of all uncleanneſs.’ (Matth. xxiii. 27.)—And, in the context, he calls them "blind guides," (v. 24.)—‘hypo⯑crites,’ (v. 25.)—‘full of hypocriſy and iniquity,’ (v. 28.)—‘partakers in the blood of the prophets,’ (v. 30.)—‘ſer⯑pents,’—"generation of vipers,"— "how can ye eſcape the damnation of hell?" &c. (v. 33.) Nay, Herod himſelf, the tetrarch of Galilee, was not exempt⯑ed from the ſeverity of our Lord's cen⯑ſure, when there was a proper occa⯑ſion to declare it; for, though our Lord lived, for the moſt part, under Herod's temporal juriſdiction, that is, in GALI⯑LEE, yet he openly characteriſed the craf⯑ty, baſe, and ſelf-intereſted, diſpoſition of the TETRARCH, by expreſſly cal⯑ling him a FOX,— (10) ‘Go ye, and tell [62]that FOX,’ &c. (Luke xiii. 32.) and, though our Lord endured the moſt [63]provoking indignities from the licentious ſoldiery and reviling multitude, in ſi⯑lence, anſwering not a word, agreeable to that ſtriking character of a ſuffering [64]Meſſiah, ſo minutely deſcribed, many ages before, by the prophet Iſaiah; (11) yet he made an apparent diſtinction be⯑tween the VIOLENCE and INJUSTICE of theſe, as individuals, and the INJUS⯑TICE of a man in a public character, as a chief magiſtrate; for even, in our Lord's ſtate of extreme humiliation, when his hour of ſufferings was come, he did not fail to rebuke the INJUSTICE of the high prieſt in his judicial capacity, becauſe, inſtead of proceeding againſt him by the legal method of examination by wit⯑neſſes, he had attempted to draw out matter of accuſation from his own mouth, againſt himſelf, by INTERRO⯑GATORIES, according to the baneful method of arbitrary courts!
[65]But our Lord ſoon put a ſtop to his impertinent QUESTIONS, by referring him to the legal method of finding evi⯑dence by witneſſes: —Why ASKEST ‘thou me? ASK them which heard me, what I have ſaid unto them: behold, they know what I ſaid.’ John xviii. 21. Upon which, a time-ſerving of⯑ficer, who probably had not accuſtom⯑ed himſelf to diſtinguiſh the different degrees of reſpect that are due to good and bad magiſtrates, ‘gave Jeſus a blow, or rap with a rod,’ ( [...],) ſaying, ‘Anſwereſt thou the high prieſt ſo?’ (v. 22.) which open in⯑juſtice, to a perſon uncondemned, (even while he ſtood in the preſence of the ma⯑giſtrate, who ought to have protected him,) drew a farther remonſtrance, even from the meekeſt and humbleſt man that ever was on earth, though the ſame divine perſon afterwards ſuffered much greater indignities in ſilence! For, ‘Je⯑ſus [66]anſwered him,’—‘If I have ſpo⯑ken evil,’ (ſaid he,) ‘bear witneſs of the evil: but, if well, why ſmiteſt thou me?’ (V. 23.)
This ſhews that the reprehenſion of magiſtrates and their officers, for in⯑juſtice and abuſe of power, is not incon⯑ſiſtent with the ſtricteſt rules of Chriſti⯑an PASSIVE OBEDIENCE: and, though the apoſtle Paul, in a ſimilar caſe, uſed much harſher language, yet his cenſure was undoubtedly juſt and true, and the ſeverity of his expreſſions was plainly juſtified (as I have already ſhewn) by the event! i. e. by the fatal cataſtrophe of ANANIAS. The law, therefore, which forbids the ſpeaking evil of the ruler of the people, is certainly to be underſtood with proper exceptions, ſo as not to ex⯑clude any juſt cenſure of rulers, when their abuſe of office, and the cauſe of truth and juſtice, may render ſuch cen⯑ſure [67]expedient and ſeaſonable. That the apoſtle Paul thus underſtood the text in queſtion, is manifeſt from his man⯑ner of quoting it, when he was charged with reviling God's high prieſt, if the ſeverity of his cenſure be compared with the indifference which he ſhewed, im⯑mediately afterwards, towards the of⯑fended Sadducee, by openly profeſſing himſelf to be of an oppoſite party, and by throwing an oblique charge againſt the whole body of Sadducees, as the principal authors of the unjuſt perſecu⯑tion againſt himſelf,—‘I am a PHARI⯑SEE,’ (ſaid he,) ‘the ſon of a PHA⯑RISEE; of the hope and reſurrection of the dead am I called in queſtion.’ (Acts xxiii. 6.) Thus he manifeſtly threw the whole blame upon the Sadducees, and thereby ſhewed no inclination to apolo⯑gize for the ſeverity of his ſpeech to their dignified chief!
[68]I muſt farther remark, that the a⯑poſtle's behaviour, in openly oppoſing the high prieſt, (who, as ſuch, was alſo a chief magiſtrate and judge,) is by no means inconſiſtent with that excellent advice which the ſame apoſtle has laid down in the thirteenth chapter of his Epiſtle to the Romans, though it is frequently cited by the advocates for ar⯑bitrary power, in order to juſtify their falſe notions concerning the neceſſity of abſolute ſubmiſſion and entire paſſive obe⯑dience!
To an inattentive reader, indeed, the apoſtle's expreſſion may ſeem too much to favour ſuch doctrines, if the ſenſe and connexion of the whole context are not carefully weighed together; but though he ſaid,—‘Let every ſoul be ſubject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the pow⯑ers that be are ordained of God. Whoſo⯑ever [69]therefore, reſiſteth the power, re⯑ſiſteth the ordinance of God: and they, that reſiſt, ſhall receive to themſelves damnation.’ Yet he immediately af⯑terwards ſignifies what kind of rulers he ſpoke of "that were not to be reſiſted." "For RULERS" (ſays he in the very next verſe) ‘ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is GOOD, and thou ſhalt have praiſe of the ſame; for he is the MINISTER of GOD to thee for GOOD.’ (But ANANIAS, as a ruler, was certainly the very reverſe of this deſcription, ſo that the practice of the apoſtle, with reſpect to him, was by no means oppoſite to this doctrine.) "But" (ſays he) ‘if thou do that which is EVIL, be afraid; for he beareth not the ſword in vain: for he is THE MINISTER OF GOD, a revenger to (execute) wrath upon him that doeth evil. Where⯑fore (ye) muſt needs be ſubject, not only [70]for wrath, but alſo FOR CONSCI⯑ENCE SAKE. For this cauſe pay ye tribute alſo: for they are GOD'S MINI⯑STERS, attending continually upon this very thing. Render, therefore, to all their dues: tribute, to whom tri⯑bute (is due); cuſtom, to whom cuſ⯑tom; fear to whom fear; honour(12)to whom honour.’ (Romans xiii. 1 to 7.) Now, be pleaſed to remark, that the apoſtle has expreſſly and repeatedly aſſigned the reaſon why ſo much reſpect and obedience is due to the higher pow⯑ers, or to the ruler, or magiſtrate; ‘for he is’ (ſays the apoſtle) the MINISTER "OF GOD TO THEE FOR GOOD," &c. and again,—‘for he is the MINISTER OF GOD, a revenger to wrath upon him that doeth evil:’ and again,—‘FOR THEY ARE GOD'S MINISTERS;’— that is, they are God's miniſters while [71]they maintain juſtice and righteouſneſs in the execution of their public charge, howſoever deficient their characters may be in other reſpects, as private individu⯑als; but, on the other hand, ſuch an unjuſt ruler as Ananias, for inſtance, who ſat to judge ACCORDING TO LAW, and yet commanded a perſon to be beaten CON⯑TRARY TO LAW, ſuch a ruler, I ſay, cannot be eſteemed a miniſter of God to us FOR GOOD, or a miniſter of God in any reſpect whatſoever. A man, who is notoriouſly guilty of perverting the laws, and of abuſing the delegated power, with which he is entruſted, by acts of vio⯑lence and injuſtice, is ſo far from being "the miniſter of God," that he is mani⯑feſtly "the miniſter of the devil;" which is the expreſs doctrine of the common law of this kingdom, according to the moſt approved and moſt antient autho⯑rities; wherein we find it applied not merely to inferior rulers, but to the ſu⯑preme [72]preme magiſtrate, even to the king himſelf, (13) if he rules contrary to [73]law, by violating, corrupting, or per⯑verting, in any reſpect, the powers of [74]government! And that excellent con⯑ſtitutional lawyer, Lord Sommers, informs us, that ST. EDWARD'S LAW even goes farther, (14) viz. ‘That, unleſs the king performs his duty, and anſwers the end for which he was conſtituted, not ſo much AS THE NAME OF A KING ſhall remain in him.’ Now, when theſe conſtitutional principles of the Engliſh law are collated and duly compared with the precepts before cited from the apoſtle Paul, they are ſo far from being contradictory, that the full and clear meaning of them all may be maintained together without the leaſt inconſiſtency or diſcrepance of doctrine; for we may ſurely ſay, with the apoſtle, "Render to all their dues," &c. without ſeeming to favour the pernicious and dangerous doctrine of an unlimited paſ⯑ſive [75]obedience! ‘Render, therefore, to all their dues; tribute, to whom tri⯑bute (is due); cuſtom, to whom cuſtom; fear, to whom fear; honour, to whom honour.’—For, though cuſtom, tribute, fear, and honour, are certainly due to him who is the MINISTER OF GOD to us for good, yet, ſurely, no honour is due, or ought to be rendered, to THE MINISTER OF THE DEVIL, to the perjured violater of a public truſt, who, in the eye of the Engliſh law, is not even worthy of ‘ſo much as the name of a king!’
Fear, indeed, may too often be ſaid to be due to ſuch men when in power; but it is a very different ſort of fear from that reverential fear which is due to him who ‘is the miniſter of God to us for good!’ It is ſuch a fear only as that, which men have of a wild beaſt that devours the flock! He is fierce and [76] ſtrong, ſay they, and, therefore, each indi⯑vidual, through fear of perſonal inconveni⯑ence to himſelf, is induced to wink at the ruinous depredations made upon his neigh⯑bours and brethren, ſo that, for want of a prudent and timely oppoſition, the vora⯑cious animal (which in a ſtate is a many⯑headed monſter) becomes ſtronger and more dangerous to the community at large, till the unwary time-ſervers them⯑ſelves perceive (when it is too late) that, by their own ſelfiſh connivance, re⯑ſpectively, as individuals, they have been acceſſaries to the general ruin; and, as ſuch, muſt one day be anſwerable to God for their ſhameful breach of that LAW OF LIBERTY, (15) (‘Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf,)’ in which we are aſſured all the law is fulfilled, (16) [77]and by which, we are alſo aſſured, we ſhall be judged! (17)
This heavenly principle is the true and proper ground for patriotiſm, and undoubtedly has always been the pre⯑dominant motive of great and good men, (ſuch as the diſintereſted and loyal apo⯑ſtle Paul, following his Lord's exam⯑ple,) in their oppoſition to the injuſtice of rulers and magiſtrates, though they paſſively ſubmit to perſonal injuries from other hands! for, in this, as I have al⯑ready remarked, conſiſts the due diſ⯑tinction between the neceſſary Chriſtian ſubmiſſion to perſonal injuries, and the doctrine of an unlimited paſſive obedience.
The SUBJECTION and OBEDIENCE to MAGISTRATES, enjoined by the ſame apoſtle in his Epiſtle to Titus, (c. iii. 1.) muſt certainly be underſtood with the [78]ſame neceſſary limitations,—‘Put them in mind (ſays the apoſtle) TO BE SUB⯑JECT TO PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS, TOOBEY MAGISTRATES,’ ( [...], ſays he, but then he im⯑mediately ſubjoins,) ‘to be ready to e⯑very good work.’ — And no man can be eſteemed ‘ready to every good work,’ if he is obedient to magiſtrates when their commands exceed the due li⯑mits of the law; or if (contrary to the ex⯑ample of the apoſtle himſelf) he neglects a fair opportunity of publicly diſcounten⯑ancing and cenſuring any notorious per⯑verſion of juſtice and right by a magiſtrate!
The ſame neceſſary limitation of the doctrine of obedience muſt alſo be un⯑derſtood when we read the exhortation of another apoſtle on this head, viz. ‘Submit yourſelves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's ſake: whether it be to the KING, as ſupreme; or [79]unto GOVERNORS, as unto them that are ſent by him FOR THE PUNISH⯑MENT OF EVIL DOERS, and for the PRAISE OF THEM THAT DO WELL. For ſo is the will of God, that with WELL-DOING ye may put to ſilence the ignorance of fooliſh men: as free, and not uſing (your) liberty for a cloke of maliciouſneſs, but as the ſervants of God!’ (1 Peter ii. 13-16.) GOVER⯑NORS are here declared to be ſent for the puniſhment of evil doers, and for the praiſe of them that do well; to ſuch, there⯑fore, as anſwer this deſcription, the ſub⯑miſſion and honour enjoined in the context are undoubtedly due; but, whenever the governors themſelves become the evil do⯑ers, and, like Ananias, inſtead of praiſing and encouraging "them that do well," do notoriouſly abuſe, oppreſs, and mur⯑der, them, as he did, (18) it would be a [80]manifeſt perverſion of the text to ſup⯑poſe that we are required thereby to ‘ſubmit ourſelves to every ordinance of [81]man,’ (19) without admitting ſuch juſt and neceſſary exceptions to the doctrine [82]as I have already cited from the example of the apoſtle Paul, and even from that of our Lord himſelf.
And, therefore, though the apoſtle Peter adds,—‘Honour all (men): love the brotherhood: fear God: honour the king:’ yet he muſt neceſſarily be underſtood to mean, with the apoſtle Paul, that we muſt render ‘honour to whom honour’ is DUE, and not to [83] honour ſuch men and ſuch kings as are unworthy of honour! (20)
[84]But what men (it will be ſaid) are to be eſteemed the proper judges of deſert in ſuch caſes, ſo as to determine with propriety when honour is or is not to be rendered? To which I anſwer, — Every man is a judge of it if he be not an idiot or mad man! Every man of common ſenſe can diſtinguiſh juſ⯑tice from injuſtice, right from wrong, [85]honourable from diſhonourable, (21) when⯑ever he happens to be an eye or ear witneſs of the proper circumſtances of evidence for ſuch a judgement! Every man, (except as above,) be he ever ſo poor and mean with reſpect to his rank in this life, inherits the knowledge of good and evil, or REASON, from the common parents of mankind, and is thereby rendered anſwerable to GOD for all his actions, and anſwerable to MAN for many of them!
In this hereditary knowledge, and in the proper uſe of it, (according to the different ſtations of life in which men ſubſiſt in this world,) conſiſts the equality of ALL MANKIND in the ſight of GOD, and alſo in the eye of the law, I mean the common law and rules of natural juſ⯑tice, which are formed upon the ſelf⯑evident [86]concluſions of human reaſon, and are the neceſſary reſult of the above⯑mentioned hereditary knowledge in MAN. Every man knows, by what we call conſcience, (which is only an effect of human reaſon upon the mind,) whether his own actions deſerve the cenſure of the magiſtrate, who ‘bears not the ſword in vain!’ And the ſame prin⯑ciple of hereditary knowledge enables him to judge alſo concerning the out⯑ward actions of other men, whether they be juſt or unjuſt; whether they be praiſe⯑worthy or cenſurable!
But, if a man abuſes his own natural reaſon, and ſuffers himſelf to be blinded by private intereſt, by paſſion, or un⯑reaſonable reſentment, or by pride, en⯑vy, or perſonal partiality, and is there⯑by led to miſconſtrue the actions of his ſuperiors, to behave unſeemly to⯑wards them, and to cenſure them pub⯑licly [87]without a juſt cauſe, the conſci⯑ence of ſuch an offender againſt rea⯑ſon will ſpeedily inform him that he has cauſe to fear the magiſtrate, and that he is liable to ſuffer for his miſbe⯑haviour "as an evil doer:" but, when the like faults are diſcoverable on the o⯑ther ſide, that is, on the ſide of the ſuperior or magiſtrate, (as it happened in the caſe of Ananias,) a juſt cenſure of the unjuſt magiſtrate, even though it comes from the pooreſt and meaneſt man that happens to be preſent, will have its due weight in the opinion of all unprejudiced and diſintereſted per⯑ſons, and may occaſion a conſiderable check to the progreſs of injuſtice; and, therefore, if any man neglects ſuch an opportunity (when he has it in his power) of making a perſonal proteſt (as Paul did) againſt the public injuſtice of a wicked magiſtrate, he ſtrengthens the hand of iniquity by his timidity [88]and remiſſneſs, and becomes acceſſary to the public diſgrace by refuſing his endeavours, according to his abilities, (howſoever ſmall,) to vindicate the laws of God, and maintain the common rights of his neighbours and brethren. Such an one unhappily demonſtrates that he has more fear of MAN than of GOD, and much more love for himſelf than he has for his neighbour and country, and, conſequently, in that awful day, when he ‘ſhall be judged by the law of liber⯑ty,’ (22) muſt be liable, (unleſs a timely repentance ſhould have previouſly reſtored him to a better uſe of that he⯑reditary knowledge for which all men are accountable,) muſt be liable, I ſay, ‘to be caſt with the unprofitable ſer⯑vant into outer darkneſs: there ſhall be weeping and gnaſhing of teeth!’ Matth. xxv. 30.
[89]ALL MEN, therefore, be they ever ſo rich, or ever ſo poor and mean, are REQUIRED to vindicate the cauſe of truth, juſtice, and righteouſneſs, when⯑ever they have a favourable opportunity of doing ſo; they ARE REQUIRED, I ſay, becauſe they ARE ENABLED by their NATURAL KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL to diſcern and judge concerning the fitneſs or unfitneſs of human actions, and of the juſtice or injuſtice of all mea⯑ſures and proceedings that happen to fall within the reach of their inſpection and conſequent obſervation. He, who denies this, is ignorant of the true dig⯑nity of human nature, and wants a teacher to point out to him not only the equality of mankind before God, but alſo the uni⯑verſal conditions of man's ſubſiſtence in the world!—THE HEREDITARY KNOW⯑LEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL may, at leaſt, be eſteemed as the ONE TALENT [90]for which all mankind are accountable to the univerſal Lord! And, therefore, if they wilfully abuſe or bury THIS TALENT, they have ſurely nothing to expect but the condemnation above⯑mentioned of the unprofitable ſervant!
Shall we blame the patriotic apoſtle, then, for his zeal in vindicating the natu⯑ral rights of mankind againſt an UNJUST JUDGE, when he had ſo fair an op⯑portunity of proteſting againſt his ini⯑quity? God forbid! Let us, on the contrary, revere his example, which, in reality, affords no oppoſition to the doctrine laid down in the beginning of this Tract concerning the neceſſity of ‘Chriſtian ſubmiſſion to perſonal inju⯑ries.’ If he, ſometimes, freely and courageouſly expreſſed his reſentment for perſonal ill uſage, (23) it was al⯑ways [91]ways in vindication of the law, on which (next to the providence of God) the ſafety, liberty, and happineſs, of the community depend; whereas, the haſty revenger of his own cauſe is ſo far from being a friend to the com⯑munity, or a lover of liberty, that he himſelf is actually a tyrant; becauſe he neglects the neceſſary doctrine of ‘Chriſ⯑tian ſubmiſſion to perſonal injuries,’ and on every occaſion is ready to re⯑venge his own cauſe with his own hand, and to uſurp all the diſtinct offices of [92]judge, jury, and executioner! He is ſo far from vindicating the law, like the generous and patriotic apoſtle, for the ſake of national liberty, that he manifeſt⯑ly ſets himſelf up above the law, (which is the firſt characteriſtic of a tyrant,) and thereby renders himſelf in fact an open enemy to liberty, and conſequently a diſgrace to ſociety!
| Levitious. | ||
| Chap. | Verſes. | Pages. |
| xxv. | 52. | 18. |
| Deuteronomy. | ||
| xv. | 12, 14. | 21. |
| Ecclesiastious. | ||
| xxxiii. | 12. | 34n. |
| Isaiah. | ||
| liii. | 7, 8. | 64 n. |
| Matthew. | ||
| v. | 17. | 63 n. |
| xxiii. | 24, 25. | 61. |
| 27, 28. | 61. | |
| 30. 33. | 61. | |
| xxv. | 30. | 88. |
| Mark. | ||
| ix. | 6. | 58 n. |
| Luke. | ||
| chap. | verſes. | pages. |
| vi. | 28, 29. | 39. |
| xiii. | 32. | 62. |
| John. | ||
| viii. | 34. | 72 n. |
| 41. | 72 n. | |
| 43, 44. | 72 n. | |
| xv. | 12 to 15. | 37 n. |
| xviii. | 21, 22. | 65. |
| 23. | 66. | |
| 36. | 7. | |
| Acts. | ||
| iv. | 8. | 83 n. |
| 10. | 83 n. | |
| 19, 20. | 83 n. | |
| vii. | 51, 52. | 84 n. |
| 54. | 84 n. | |
| xvi. | 30 to 39. | 44 n. |
| xxii. | 24 to 30. | 45 n. |
| xxiii. | 1 to 5. | 45 n. |
| xxiii. | 6. | 67. |
| xxiv. | 20. | 80 n. |
| Romans. | ||
| ii. | 11. | 34 n. |
| vi. | 6. | 73 n. |
| xiii. | 68. | |
| 1 to 7 | 70. | |
| 9, 10. | 37 n. | |
| 1 Corinthians. | ||
| vi. | 19, 20. | 23. |
| vii. | 21. | 7. |
| 20, 21. | 16. | |
| 21 to 23. | 12 n. | |
| 21. | 17. | |
| 21. | 17. | |
| 22. | 17. | |
| 23. | 17. 20. | |
| Galatians. | ||
| v. | 14. | 76 n. |
| Ephesians. | ||
| vi. | 5 to 8. | 7. 15. |
| 5, &c. | 34. | |
| 8, 9. | 34 n. | |
| Colossians. | ||
| iii. | 2. | 15. |
| iii. | 18. | 32 n. |
| 20. | 33 n. | |
| 22. | 33 n. | |
| 22, 23. | 7. | |
| 23, 24. | 33 n. | |
| 24. | 34 n. | |
| 25. | 31n. 34n. | |
| iv. | 1. | 35n. 36n. |
| 1 Timothy. | ||
| vi. | 32 n. | |
| 1 to 8. | 11. | |
| 1. | 14. 38. | |
| 2. | 24. 28. | |
| Titus. | ||
| ii. | 9. | 32 n. |
| 9, 10. | 11. | |
| 10. | 14. 32. | |
| iii. | 1. | 77. |
| James. | ||
| ii. | 12. | 77n. 84n. |
| 1 Peter. | ||
| ii. | 13 to 16. | 79. |
| 18. | 15. | |
Page 47, line 2, for hearſay, read hearing.
(1) This is apparently the caſe in the other ‘dif⯑ferent relations of life, mentioned in theſe contexts;’ as in the relation between huſbands and their wives, parents and their children, but is far otherwiſe in the relation be⯑tween maſters and their ſervants, (unleſs free hired ſer⯑vants are to be underſtood,) and therefore the objecti⯑on of my learned friend, drawn from thence, cannot be juſt. He ſays, ‘If the connexion of perſons in the two former reſpects be lawful, ſo that huſbands had a right to the ſubjection of their wives, and wives a right to the love of their huſbands; parents had a right to the honour and obedience of their children, and chil⯑dren a right to maintenance and inſtruction by their pa⯑rents: unnatural (ſays he) is it to imagine the connection between Maſters and Slaves was looked upon by him as abſolutely unlawful, ſo that the former had no right to rule the latter! Indeed, he very clearly ſignifies (ſays he) that the right of dominion remained, when be oppoſes DOING WRONG TO OBEYING IN ALL THINGS THEIR MASTERS ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, &c. as he does. Coloſſ. iii. 25.’ ‘ [...] [...].’
But my learned friend has entirely miſunderſtood the purport and intention of my arguments on theſe ſeveral texts relating to obedience and ſubmiſſion. I have not attempted to prove, by theſe particular expreſſions of the apoſtle, that ‘the connexion between Maſters and Slaves was looked upon by him as abſolutely unlawful, ſo that the former had no right to rule the latter;’ for this I have demonſtrated, I truſt, by OTHER AUTHORI⯑TIES of Scripture equally authentic, and much leſs liable to be miſunderſtood. My attempt to explain the texts in queſtion extends no farther than to ſhew that they do not really juſtify the uncharitable claims of the modern Slaveholders, though they are frequently cited for that purpoſe.
An attempt to ſhew that any particular doctrine is NOT NECESSARILY IMPLIED in a certain text or texts of Scrip⯑ture, is a very different thing from an attempt to PROVE or AUTHENTICATE AN OPPOSITE DOCTRINE by the ſame text of Scripture! For inſtance, when my learned friend aſſerts, as above, that the apoſtle to the Coloſ⯑ſians, iii. 25. ‘very clearly ſignifies that the right of do⯑minion remained, when he oppoſes DOING WRONG to OBEYING in all things their Maſters,’ &c. I do not pretend to build an oppoſite doctrine upon the very ſame words, but ſhall only endeavour to ſhew that this ſup⯑poſed "right of dominion" is not neceſſarily implied in the text which my friend has cited in ſupport of it.
The ſervants are indeed expreſsly and plainly ex⯑horted to obedience and ſubmiſſion, as well in this as in all the other texts before recited, ſo that a contrary behaviour in them might certainly be eſteemed a ‘do⯑ing wrong’ on their part yet this by no means implies "a right of dominion" veſted in the Maſter; for that would prove too much; becauſe the like ſub⯑miſſion is elſewhere equally enjoined to thoſe who are expreſsly ſaid to ‘endure grief, SUFFERING WRONG⯑FULLY,’ ( [...],) and we cannot ſuppoſe (as I have before obſerved) that the ſubmiſſion enjoined implies a right in the Maſter to exerciſe ſuch a dominion as that of oppreſſing others UNJUSTLY, or [...]; for that could not poſſibly tend to promote the declared purpoſes of the apoſtle's exhortations, viz. "that the name of God and his doctrine be not blaſphemed," (1 Tim. vi.) and again, ‘that they may adorn the doctrine of God in all THINGS,’ (Titus ii. 9.) Theſe purpoſes, how⯑ever, are fully anſwered in the advice given by the ſame apoſtle to all the other different relations of life men⯑tioned by my worthy friend. WIVES may ‘adorn the doctrine of God’ by SUBMISSION to their ‘own huſbands, as it is fit in the Lord.’ (See Coloſſ. iii. 18.) And HUSBANDS, by love to their wives: for they are expreſsly charged in the following verſe ‘not to be bitter againſt them,’ that is, they muſt, by love and ſincere affection, moderate and ſoften that ſupreme authority with which huſbands are entruſted, (by the laws of God and man,) that they may rule rather by the gentle influence of an inviolable love and fidelity, as ſo good an example will ſeldom fail to produce due reſpect, and will certainly "adorn the doctrine" or profeſſion of the Chriſtian. CHILDREN ‘may adorn the doctrine of God’ by OBEDIENCE to their ‘parents in all things, for this is well-pleaſing (ſays the text) unto the Lord.’ (v. 20.) And again, the reciprocal duty of FATHERS is plainly pointed out to be a prudent modera⯑tion of that paternal authority with which they are en⯑truſted, for they are carefully warned againſt an arbi⯑trary ſeverity, ‘Provoke not (ſays the apoſtle) your children to anger, leſt they be diſcouraged.’ SERVANTS are in the very next verſe (v. 22.) commanded to ‘obey in all things their Maſters according to the fleſh, not with eye-ſervice, as MEN-PLEASERS, but in ſingleneſs of heart, FEARING GOD:’ ſo that the SUBMISSION of the ſervants was alſo to adorn the "doctrine of God," it being manifeſtly enjoined only for God's ſake, and not on account of any ſuppoſed "RIGHT OF DOMINION" inveſted in the Maſters, which the following verſes (v. 23, and 24.) when applied to THE SERVANTS, ſufficiently demonſtrate,—‘And whatſoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord, and NOT UNTO MEN: knowing, that of THE LORD ye ſhall receive THE REWARD OF THE INHE⯑RITANCE: for YE SERVE THE LORD CHRIST.’ And to the ſame eternal and unerring Diſpenſer of Re⯑wards (and not to temporal Maſters) is attributed the power of puniſhing the "doing wrong," mentioned in the very next verſe; which, according to my learned friend's notion, is oppoſed to obeying in all things the Maſters;—‘he that DOETH WRONG (ſays the text) ſhall receive for THE WRONG which he hath done: and THERE IS NO RESPECT OF PERSONS.’ (v. 25.)
Such ſtrict impartiality in the adminiſtration of juſtice cannot always be attributed, with certainty, even to the beſt-regulated human tribunal, and much leſs is it applicable to the deciſions of uncontrouled will and pleaſure, in puniſhing "wrong doing," under the ab⯑ſolute dominion of Slaveholders! No earthly dominion whatever is conducted with ſuch an equal diſtribution of rewards and puniſhments, as that it may always with truth be ſaid, "there is no reſpect of perſons," for this is the proper characteriſtic of the judgements and do⯑minion of GOD and CHRIST alone. ‘For THE LORD is JUDGE, and with him is NO RESPECT OF PERSONS.’ Eccleſiaſticus xxxv. 12. "For there is NO RESPECT OF PERSONS with GOD." Rom. ii. 11. And, there⯑fore, we may fairly conclude that the puniſhment, not only of SLAVES, but that alſo of MASTERS, that "do wrong," is to be underſtood in the text which my friend has cited to ſupport his notion of a ‘right of dominion’ veſted in the Maſters; ſo that the ſaid ſuppoſed right has, indeed, but a very "ſlippery" foundation! Agreeable to my laſt remark on this text, (Coloſſ. iii. 24.) the learned Dr. Whitby has com⯑mented upon it, as if he thought it exactly parallel to another declaration of the ſame apoſtle, (viz. Epheſ. vi. 8 and 9.) wherein not only both Maſters and Ser⯑vants are unqueſtionably included, but alſo the domi⯑nion, or judgement, in which ‘THERE IS NO RESPECT OF PERSONS,’ is expreſsly attributed to our ‘MAS⯑TER IN HEAVEN.’ — ‘Chriſt, in judging men at the laſt day, (ſays the Doctor,) will have NO RESPECT to the quality or external condition of any man's perſon; but, WHETHER HE BE BOND OR FREE, he ſhall receive recompence FOR THE GOOD THAT HE HATH DONE, in obedience to him; whether he be MASTER or SERVANT, he ſhall be puniſhed for THE WRONG THAT HE DOTH in thoſe relations.’
If all theſe circumſtances be duly conſidered, it will manifeſtly appear, I truſt, that the Maſters ſup⯑poſed "right of dominion" (which, certainly, is not EXPRESSED in the text) cannot even be implied in theſe contexts, nor in any of the parallel paſſages al⯑ready recited! Can the Maſter adorn the ‘doctrine of God our Saviour,’ (as in the other indiſſoluble re⯑lations of life,) by continuing the unnatural connection of Maſter and Slave, and by exacting involuntary labour from his brethren, without wages or reward, agreeable to my friend's notions of the ſuppoſed implied ‘right of dominion?’ The reciprocal duty of the Maſter is mentioned, indeed, in the next chapter, (Col. iv. 1.) but it is of ſuch a nature as muſt neceſſarily lead Chriſ⯑tian Maſters to abhor any ſuch ſuppoſed ‘right of dominion’ as that which is tolerated in the Britiſh colonies, and which my friend ſeems deſirous to defend! The Maſters are not directed by the apoſtle to claim as their own, by "right of dominion," the labour of their ſervants WITHOUT WAGES, but, on the contrary, are expreſsly commanded to ‘GIVE unto (their) ſer⯑vants that which is JUST and EQUAL;’ which com⯑prehends (as I have fully ſhewn in the preceding tract) ſuch a meaſure of generoſity, recompence, and benevolence, on the part of the Maſter, as is totally inconſiſtent with the claims and views of modern Slaveholders! and, if put in practice, would neceſſarily effect the entire abolition of ſlavery!
The Maſters are likewiſe carefully reminded, in the laſt mentioned text, that they ‘alſo have a Maſter in Heaven.’ (Col. iv. 1.) — A Maſter, by whoſe example they are bound to regulate their conduct, ſo that this conſideration alone is a ſufficient antidote a⯑gainſt ſlavery; for the principal doctrine of that heaven⯑ly Maſter was LOVE, which cannot ſubſiſt with the contrary exaction of involuntary ſervitude! ‘This is my commandment,’ (ſaid that glorious and gracious MASTER,) "That ye LOVE one another. AS I have LOVED you." The nature of his love (which we are to imitate, that is, to LOVE as he hath LOVED us) is then immediately deſcribed as exceeding all bounds of compariſon, "Greater LOVE" (ſaid he) ‘hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his FRIENDS. Ye are my FRIENDS, if ye do whatſoever I command you. HENCEFORTH I CALL YOU NOT SERVANTS.’ Here is an expreſs enfranchiſement of his Servants for our example! The univerſal Lord and Maſter of all men delights in promoting the dignity of human nature; which cannot be ſaid of the temporal Slaveholder, who enforces an imaginary "right of do⯑minion," by exacting an involuntary ſervice, and that for no other purpoſe than for the ſake of a little pe⯑cuniary gain, by depriving the labourer of his hire; which ſavours of no other love but ſelf-love; whereas, our diſintereſted Lord and Maſter hath even laid down his life through love and compaſſion to his SERVANTS, and hath declared us free, as before recited. — ‘Hence⯑forth I call you not SERVANTS; for the Servant’ (ſaid he) ‘knoweth not what his Lord doeth; but I have called you FRIENDS; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.’ (John xv. 12-15.) And, in the 17th verſe, he again enforces his doctrine of LOVE: "Theſe things I command you, (ſaid he,) that ye LOVE one another." The meaſure of this indiſpenſible LOVE is expreſsly declared in the Scrip⯑tures, ‘Thou ſhalt LOVE thy neighbour AS THYSELF. LOVE worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore LOVE (is) the fulfilling of the law.’ (Rom. xiii. 9 and 10.)
Such LOVE, therefore, is clearly incompatible with the arbitrary claims of the Slaveholder, who can nei⯑ther be ſaid to LOVE his neighbour as himſelf, nor to cheriſh that LOVE which worketh no ill to his neighbour, whilſt he ſtrenuouſly contends for ſuch ‘a right of dominion’ as may enable him to exact, not only the involuntary ſervice of his neighbours and brethren, con⯑trary to the law of nature, but alſo to rob them of the fruits of their own labours, ‘GIVING THEM NOT FOR THEIR WORK;’ againſt which practices a ſevere denunciation of WOE is expreſsly declared in the Scriptures; as I have fully demonſtrated in my tract on "the Law of Retribution," as well as in the prece⯑ding tract: and, therefore, as it is neceſſary to con⯑ſtrue difficult or dubious paſſages of Scripture conſiſt⯑tently with the general tenour of Scripture evidence, it would be highly improper to admit this oppoſite, doc⯑trine of a ſuppoſed "RIGHT OF DOMINION," eſpe⯑cially as the ſame is not expreſſed in the text which my learned friend has cited for it, but is merely drawn forth by an imaginary implication!
(9) ‘Neſciebam eum eſſe PONTIFICEM, quia, ex modo loquendi furioſo, non videtur eſſe PONTIFEX, ſed TYRANNUS.’ Many of the moſt learned and cele⯑brated commentators have conſidered the apoſtle's cenſure nearly in the ſame light. In the learned com⯑mentary, commonly called Aſſembly's Annotations, the ſame ſenſe is applied to the apoſtle's reply to the charge of having reviled God's high prieſt, viz. ‘I knew him not to be a lawful high prieſt, WHO THUS VIO⯑LATETH THE LAW; and, indeed,’ (ſays the Com⯑mentary,) "he was but an uſurper. — For proof of which they refer us to ‘Joſephus, Ant. l. 20. c. 3.5. Chr. Helvic. Theat. Hiſt. Anno Chriſti, 46.’
The learned MATHIAS FLACIUS FRANCOWITZ remarks, that the famous Auguſtine, biſhop of Hippo, thought this reply of the apoſtle IRONICAL, * ‘and truly, (ſays he,) it borders upon IRONY; for, when he ſaw him (Ananias) ſit in the chief place among the prieſts, to judge according to the law, he neceſſarily knew him to be the high prieſt: for even the little children knew that by his mere pomp and attendants; and much leſs could a man, ſo watchful and diligent as Paul, be ignorant of it; the ſenſe therefore, is,’ (ſays the learned Francowitz,) ‘I do not acknowledge, in this man, the high prieſt of God, but a hypocrite, a de⯑ceiver, and a perſecutor of the truth. Otherwiſe, I well know that a ruler is not to be ſpoken againſt or reviled.’ To the ſame effect, alſo, the learned monſieur Martin, — "as St. Paul" (ſays he †) ‘was not ignorant, nor could be ignorant, that this was the high prieſt, eſpecially as he ſaw him at the head of the ſanhedrim, it is better to tranſlate the term of the original, by I DID NOT THINK, &c. as in Mark ix. 6. and ſo to underſtand this reply of St. Paul as a grave and ſtrong irony, by which he would make thoſe underſtand, by whom he was accuſed of the want of reſpect for the high prieſt, that this perſon was a man unworthy of that character, and that he did not be⯑lieve, that a vicious and wicked man, ſuch as Ananias, who had uſurped the pontificate by purchaſing it of the Romans, could deſerve to be eſteemed as the high prieſt of God!’
It would be tedious to quote all the authorities that may be found to this purpoſe; the evidence, however, of the learned Dr. Whitby, as it includes more au⯑thorities than his own, is worthy the readers notice.—‘Dr. LIGHTFOOT and GROTIUS (ſays he) think as I do, that St. Paul does NOT go about TO EXCUSE HIS MISTAKE, but rather ſaith, I KNOW WELL ENOUGH THAT GOD'S HIGH PRIEST IS NOT TO BE REVILED, but that this ANANIAS is a HIGH PRIEST, I know not, i. e. I DO NOT OWN HIM AS SUCH who hath procured this title by bribery: our celebrated RABBINS having declared that ſuch an one IS NEITHER A JUDGE, nor TO BE HONOURED AS SUCH,’ &c.
(10) "The meſſage, our Lord here ſends to Herod," (ſays a ſenſible and learned commentator, the Rev. Mr. Francis Fox, in his edition of the New Teſtament, with references ſet under the text in words at length,) ‘is no breach of that command which forbids the SPEAKING EVIL OF THE RULER OF THE PEOPLE, and conſequently is no blemiſh (ſays he) in our Lord's ex⯑ample. For our Lord here acts AS A PROPHET, as one who had received an extraordinary commiſſion from God: and thoſe, who were truly PROPHETS, were, in the EXECUTION of their COMMISSION, above the greateſt MEN and moſt powerful princes, whom they were not to ſpare when God ſent them to reprove for ſin.’ All this is certainly true with reſpect to the real autho⯑rity of Chriſt to cenſure Herod, and that his apply⯑ing ſo harſh and ſevere an expreſſion to the tetrarch ‘is no blemiſh in our Lord's example:’ but yet this is not, I apprehend, the proper method of reconciling the ſeeming difficulty, which ariſes from this example, of our Lord's applying a ſevere and reproachful epithet to a chief ruler, (in calling Herod a FOX,) when it is compared with that precept of the law, which forbids the ſpeaking evil of the ruler of the people; for, though our Lord had ample ſuperiority and authority to re⯑prove whomſoever he pleaſed, even the greateſt ruler upon earth, yet, with reſpect to his own perſonal be⯑haviour, as a man among men, he claimed no autho⯑rity to diſpenſe with the poſitive precepts of the Mo⯑ſaic law, on account of his own real dignity, or ſupe⯑riority over the reſt of mankind, but ſtrictly obeyed the law in all things, and publicly declared his ſtrict conformity thereto. "Think not," (ſaid he,) ‘that I come to deſtroy the LAW or the PROPHETS: I am not come to deſtroy, but to fulfill.’ Matth. v. 17.
"By THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" (ſays the ſame ingenious commentator above cited) ‘are meant the great rules of life, delivered in the writings of MOSES and the PROPHETS, or in the Old Teſtament, more eſpecially the duties of the MORAL or NATURAL LAW;’ (from whence thoſe, reſpecting our beha⯑viour to RULERS, cannot with propriety be excluded;) ‘Theſe, our Lord aſſures us, HE DID NOT COME to DE⯑STROY or DISSOLVE: It was not his deſign to FREE men from the obligation they were under to practiſe the MORAL LAWS of GOD, but to fulfil and perfect them. This our Lord did, BY LIVING UP TO THOSE LAWS HIMSELF,’ (which totally excludes the idea of his diſpenſing, on account of his own real ſuperio⯑rity, with that moral law reſpecting behaviour to ru⯑lers,) ‘and becoming thereby AN EXAMPLE TO US, by freeing them from the corrupt gloſſes, which the teachers among the Jews put upon them, and by expound⯑ing them in their fulleſt ſenſe, and according to their juſt latitude, ſhewing that they command not only an OUT⯑WARD OBEDIENCE, but THE OBEDIENCE even of the MIND and THOUGHTS, as appears in what our Lord delivers in the following verſes: — Theſe laws have their foundation in the reaſon and nature of things, and therefore their obligation will never ceaſe.’
(19) The apoſtles and diſciples of Chriſt were ſo far "from ſubmitting themſelves to every ordinance of man," that they boldly rejected the unjuſt commands even of the high prieſt and the whole national council of the Jewiſh ſtate! The great council, called SANHEDRIM, i. e. [...], (the commands of which they rejected,) in⯑cluded at that time all perſons of their nation that bore any public authority or dignity among them, for the text expreſsly informs us that ‘their RULERS, and ELDERS, and SCRIBES, and ANNAS, THE HIGH PRIEST,’ (and the high prieſts ſince the time of the Maccabees were generally conſidered as a ſort of prin⯑ces,) ‘and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high prieſt, were gathered together at Jeruſalem.’
No power, therefore, amongſt the Jews, could be more reſpectable (in regard to temporal authority) than this great national council: and the apoſtle Pe⯑ter accordingly acknowledged their legal authority at firſt, by reſpectfully addreſſing them, ſaying,—‘Ye rulers of the people and elders of Iſrael,’ &c.
Yet, notwithſtanding the temporal authority of this awful aſſembly of rulers and elders, (or ſenators,) they were publicly diſregarded and contradicted by the a⯑poſtles even in their preſence, upon the very firſt pro⯑poſal of an unreaſonable and unlawful ORDINANCE; for "they called them," (the apoſtles,) ‘and COMMANDED THEM not to ſpeak at all, nor teach in the name of Jeſus.’—But ‘Peter and John anſwered and ſaid unto them, whether it be right in the ſight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but ſpeak the things we have ſeen and heard.’ (Acts iv. 19 and 20.) And afterwards, when they were brought a ſecond time before the ſaid great council to anſwer for their breach of this ‘ORDINANCE OF MAN,’ ‘the high prieſt aſked them, ſaying, DID NOT WE STRAIGHTLY COMMAND YOU that you ſhould not teach in this name, and behold ye have filled Jeru⯑ſalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apoſtle an⯑ſwered and ſaid,—WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RA⯑THER THAN MEN,’ &c. This ſentence, in effect, holds good with reſpect alſo to the rejection of every public ordinance that is contrary to reaſon, juſtice, or natural equity, as well as thoſe that are contrary to the written word of God! This I have ſhewn more at large in my Declaration of the People's Right.