LESSON XI.

In the introductory part of Mr. Barnes’s book, he makes some remarks in

the nature of an apology for his undertaking to examine the subject of

slavery. Page 20, he says—

“Belonging to the same _race_ with those who are held in bondage. We

have a right, _nay_, we are bound to express the sympathies of

brotherhood, and ‘to remember those who are in bonds as bound with

them.’”

We were not aware of any fact relating to Mr. Barnes’s descent; nor did

we before know from what race he was descended.

We were truly much surprised at this avowal, and endeavoured to imagine

that he had used the word in some general and indefinite sense, as some

do when they say animal _race_, and human _race_. But on examining his

use of the word, page 20: “How is a foreign _race_, with so different a

complexion, and in reference to which, so deep-seated prejudices and

aversions exist, in every part of the land, to be disposed of if they

become free?”—and page 27: “And the struggles which gave liberty to

millions of the Anglo-saxon _race_ did not loosen one rivet from the

fetter of an African;” page 83: “The Hebrews were not essentially

distinguished from the Egyptians, as the Africans are from their masters

in this land, by colour;” and page 86: “They were a foreign _race_, as

the African _race_ is with us;” and page 96: “There are in the United

States now, according to the census of 1840, 2,486,465 of a foreign

_race_ held in bondage;” and page 97: “It would have been as just for

the Egyptians to retain the Hebrews in bondage as it is for white

Americans to retain the African race;”—we were forced to conclude that

the author understood his language and its meaning.

Such, then, being the fact, we cannot find it in our heart to blame him

for “expressing the sympathies of brotherhood.” But we feel disposed

with kindness to relieve his mind from the burthen of such portion of

sympathy for those of his _race_ who are in slavery, as he may conceive

to be a duty imposed by the injunction, “Remember those who are in bond,

as bound with them.” We will quote the passage, _Heb._ xiii. 3:

“Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them.” It is translated

from the Greek— Μιμνήσκεσθε τῶν δεσμίων ὡς συνδεδεμένοι, _Mimnēsicĕsthe

tōn dĕsmiōn hōs sundĕdĕmĕnoi_. The words translated “bonds,” “bound

with,” &c. are derived from the root δέω, _deo_, and signifies to bind,

to bring together, to chain, to fetter, to hinder, to restrain, &c.,

which meaning falls into all its derivations. When one was accused of

some offence, and was, on that account, restrained, so that he might be

surely had at a trial for the same, such restraint would be expressed,

as the case required, by some of its derivations. Hence we have δέσις,

_dĕsis_, the act of binding; δέσμα, _desma_, a bond, a chain; δέσμιος,

_desmios_, chained, fettered, imprisoned, &c.; δεσμός, _desmos_, a bond,

chain, knots, cords, cables; δεσμόω, _desmŏō_, to enchain, to imprison;

δεσμοφύλαξ, _desmophulax_, a jailer, &c.

The word is used, differently varied, in _Matt._ xvi. 19; xviii. 18;

_Acts_ viii. 23; xx. 23; xxiii. 21; xxvi. 29; _Rom._ vii. 2; 1 _Cor._

vii. 39; _Eph._ iv. 3; _Philip._ i. 16; _Col._ iv. 18; 2 _Tim._ ii. 9;

_Philem._ 10; _Heb._ x. 34; xi. 36; and never used, in any sense

whatever, to express any condition of slavery. St. Paul was under the

_restraint_ of the law upon a charge of heresy. All the Christians of

his day were very liable to like danger. His only meaning was that all

such should be remembered, as though they themselves were suffering a

like misfortune. Suppose he had expressed the idea more diffusely and

said, “Remember all Christians who, for teaching Christ crucified, are

persecuted on the charge of teaching a false religion, as though you

yourselves were persecuted with them.”

Such was the fact. Surely no one, by any course of rational deduction,

could construe it into an injunction to remember or do any thing else,

in regard to slavery or its subjects, unless upon the condition that the

slave was, by some means, under restraint upon a similar charge. St.

Paul was never married; cannot be said to have looked with very ardent

eyes upon the institution of marriage; by many is thought to have been

unfavourably disposed towards it. We have among us, to this day, some

who pretend that they think it a great evil, are its bitter enemies, and

give evidence that, if in their power, they would totally abolish it.

Suppose such a man should say that, because he belonged to the same

_race_ with those who were bound in the bonds of wedlock, it was his

privilege to express the sympathies of brotherhood, and expostulate

against that evil institution; nay, that he was enjoined by St. Paul to

do so, in this passage, “Remember those who are in bonds, as bound with

them,”—what would be the value of this appeal to St. Paul? But the very

word he uses, in the passage quoted, is also used, almost invariably, in

the gospels, to express the restraint imposed by matrimony; yet it is

never used to express any condition, or quality, or station, in regard

to slavery.

The naked, unadorned proposition presented by Dr. Barnes is, that,

because St. Paul enjoined the Hebrew Christians to sympathize with, to

remember all those who were labouring under persecution on the account

of their faith in Christ, they were also bound to remember, to

sympathize with the slaves, on the account of their being in slavery, as

though they were slaves themselves. We feel that such argument must ever

be abortive.

From the delicacy of Dr. Barnes’s situation, as “belonging to the same

_race_ with those held in bondage,” we feel it a duty to treat the

position with great forbearance. Had it come from one of the more

favoured race of Shem, or the still more lofty _race_ of Japheth, we

should have felt it an equal duty to have animadverted with some

severity.

It would have appeared like a design to impose on those ignorant of the

original; and might have put us in mind of the cunning huckster, with

his basket of addled eggs,—although unexpectedly broken in the act of

their delivery to the hungry traveller; yet the incident was remembered

by the recorder of propriety.

------------------

Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons · 第 52 / 254 题