Another of the rules of Christian justice which will be found applicable
to our subject, is, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye even so unto them: for this is the law and the
prophets.” _Matt._ vii. 12.
The remarks made upon the first rule are in some measure applicable to
this.
The desire of something to be done must be founded on good reason and
conformable to justice. Folly ever marks an unreasonable desire; and
that desire is always unjust which merely reaches to the taking from
another without the corresponding desire to reciprocate. Such desires
are changed instantly into the action of the mind called “_coveting_,”
and are most strictly forbidden, for this good reason, that very action
of the mind is a mental theft; and the moral wickedness in the
individual “coveting” is the same as though he were practically a thief.
But, further, the desire must be predicated upon a presumable condition:
for, by the rule, it would be unjust to desire that which it would not
be possible to have done to us; so it would be to desire any other
impossibility. Suppose A. should desire that you would make him rich,
does it follow that he must make you rich when he has no ability to do
so? The case is not founded upon a presumable condition, nor, on good
reason, upon a desire to reciprocate, consequently unjust.
But suppose A. feels anxious for your warm regard for his prosperity in
his lawful understandings, here the desire reaches to nothing unjust, to
no disorder in society, or beyond your power, and clearly within his
power to reciprocate; he is then bound by the rule to feel a warm desire
for your prosperity in all your lawful undertakings. And who does not
perceive that if one desires your good wishes, he must of necessity feel
good wishes for you. Whether the desire imply merely a mental or
physical action, similar examples will illustrate. The rule is truly a
golden one, and, so far as acted upon, binds society together in peace
and good-will.
It is quite analogous to the twenty-fourth maxim of Confucius, which
reads thus: “Do unto another as thou would be dealt with thyself; thou
only needest this law alone: it is the foundation and principle of all
the rest.” And is in spirit with the fifty-third maxim of the same
philosopher: “Acknowledge the benefits by the return of other benefits;
but never revenge injuries.” We trust the rule is none the less sacred
because it was revealed to man at an early period.
Let us illustrate the correctness of these views by the inconsistency of
those opposite. Others say that if we were in slavery we should wish to
be made free, therefore we are bound by this rule to set free all who
are in slavery now.
If this be true, in order that the whole circle of action may be
consistent, there must be another link added to the chain; hence we find
that the advocates of this interpretation say, also, “that same inward
principle which teaches a man what he is bound to do for others, teaches
equally, and at the same instant, what others are bound to do to him.”
_Channing_, vol. ii. p. 33. This proposition inevitably follows the
preceding; for who is he that can say among men that that is a good rule
which is not reciprocal.
This imaginary rule would perhaps be less obnoxious in case of universal
equality. For, in that case, we may suppose an universal equality of
desire, without which one wishes one thing and another its opposite. But
so long as God rules, universal equality can only happen in case of
universal perfection, in which case neither sin nor slavery can exist,
and in which case the argument will not be wanted. But the rule as left
by Jesus Christ was made for man in his fallen state.
But again, if the interpretation of our opponents be true, then the
proposition may be resolved into this state:—A. is as much bound by the
desire of B. as by his own, and the whole world is fully bound by both.
But the whole world individually desire adversely to each other, yet
each desire is to be harmoniously gratified. Let each one make out the
examples; we think they will find them extremely ridiculous in the
result. The doctrine involves plainly the most gross contradictions, and
is therefore a naked nullity.
Again, if it be the law of God, that because we desire a thing,
therefore we are bound to give that thing to another, it implies that
the desire was the manifestation of God’s will; in short, that the
desire was a portion of his revealed law; consequently, whatever any man
desires is a portion of inspiration. Hence Channing says, (page as
above,) “his conscience, in revealing the moral law, does not reveal a
law for himself only, but speaks as a universal legislator.” Now it
follows, that, as each man desires an opposite, therefore there are as
many opposite systems of the laws of God as there are individuals who
desire them; in other words, it would be making God’s law just what each
one desired it to be. Thus making the law of God a perfect nullity.
But again, if the interpretation of the golden rule, as employed by them
who use it to inculcate immediate emancipation, be true, then it
contradicts the spirit of the command, “Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife; nor his
_man-servant_, (וְעַבְדּ֤וֹ _ve abeddo_, _male slave_,) nor his
_maid-servant_, (וַֽאֲמָתוֹ֙ _va amatho_, _female slave_,) nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” _Exod._ xx. 17.
Here the word “covet” is used to mean a strong desire without the wish
or ability to reciprocate; therefore without good reason—consequently
unjust. It is the same exercise of the mind that leads a man to acts of
theft that is here forbidden: an exercise of the mind that leads to many
disorders in society, and hence this command. The command does not
extend to him who desires his neighbour’s house, man-servant,
maid-servant, ox, or ass, upon the condition that the desire is founded
upon good reason. The neighbour having the will and power to part with,
and he who desires the power and will to reciprocate, these
qualifications bring the desire within the purview of the golden rule,
and remove all tendency to disorders in society. To buy and sell with
the view to reciprocate gain, has a very strong tendency to bind society
together in peace and good-will.
In the lesson of the golden rule, the Saviour gave a check to impetuous
and improper desires,—to the wicked and improper hankering after the
substance or condition of others,—by bringing to view the propriety of
performing themselves such acts as they demanded of others: that they
should prove themselves worthy of the solicited favour by a reciprocity
of feeling and action.
This we think evident from what precedes: “If then ye, being evil, know
how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your
Father that is in heaven give good things unto them that ask him.”
The doctrine of the golden rule seems to be often misunderstood. We
quote from the great Selden: “Guided by justice and mercy, do unto all
men as you would have them do to you, were your circumstances and theirs
reversed. If the prisoner should ask the judge whether he would be
content to be hanged were he in his case, he would answer, No! Then says
the prisoner, Do as you would be done to. Neither of them must do as
private men; but the judge must do by him as they have publicly agreed:
that is, both judge and prisoner have consented to the law, that if
either of them steal, he shall be hanged.” _Selden._
“If the wickedest wretches among yourselves, the most peevish, weak, and
ill-natured of you all, will readily give good gifts to their children
when they cry for them, how much rather will the great God, infinite in
goodness, bestow blessings on his children who endeavour to resemble him
in his perfections, and for that ask his grace and other spiritual and
heavenly blessings;” but God grants these blessings alone upon this
condition, that, “animated by his goodness, you study to express your
gratitude for it by your integrity and kindness to your
fellow-creatures, treating them in every instance as you would think it
reasonable to be treated by them, if you were in their circumstances,
and they in yours; for this is, in effect, a summary and abstract of all
the human and social virtues recommended in the moral precepts of the
_law_ and the _prophets_, and it was one of the greatest ends of both to
bring men to this equitable and amiable temper.” _Doddridge._
Such are the comments of these men upon this subject.
But permit us to remark that the word _man-servant_, in the command just
quoted, is translated from the Hebrew עֶבֶד _ebed_, and means what we
mean by the word _slave_. And let it be remembered that, in the
decalogue, in one of the original laws of God the Father, delivered to
Moses from Sinai, the slave is classed with the ox, the ass, in short,
with all other property, as an article of possession; and that we are
commanded not to have a desire to change the possession unjustly. And
that, by a fair interpretation of the golden rule issued by the living
lips of Jesus Christ, if we reasonably and justly desire to change the
possession, we must honestly reciprocate the full value thereof.
Let the candid world, the truth-searching philosopher, and the humble
Christian examine, and say whether these conclusions are not founded on
reason, justice, and the laws of God.
------------------