Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-02-04
Bishop Hopkins.--No. 3.

Himself and his inspired messengers, did and
said, in reference to Slavery" Here then, is a
plain declaration that Christ Himself did ana
SAID something in reference to Slavery. After
appealing to the law of Moses in justification
of Slavery, he says: :" AT the coming of Christ
the institution of Slavery was universal, and
then asks, How did our Lord treat the ques-
ton? Did He make it the topic of a single re-
mark? Did He utter one syllable on the sub
iect }" lie then adds, " His sacred rebukes
fell thick and fast on every form of iniquity.-
But the case of the Stakeholder was never mem
toned" Suppose historian should say that
a certain fact was proved by three witnesses /;
that after infinitely relating the testimony of
two of the witnesses, he should say that the
other witness did not utter syllable in refer
ence to the fact in question. Would not such
historian forfeit all claim to candor and verac-
ty? What confidence then can we have in the
avowed candor and sincerity of the Bishop who
not only contradicts himself, but is "ready to
wrest the Bible and denounce the plainest
principles of justice in his assault against
" our national declaration of human rights"
LIST, 1t does, however, appear that Christ
did say something in reference to Slavery. At
Nazareth, the place of Christ's residence, He
preached, perhaps, His first sermon from these
words of the prophet Isaiah sc The spirit of
the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed
me to preach the Gospel to the poor; he hath
sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach
deliverence to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind to set at liberty them that
are bruised. To preach the acceptable year of
the Lord. "-Luke A. 1919.
This is a genuine Abolition text and had the
evangelist given full report of His sermon, we
should have an Abolition sermon. "To preach
delircrance to the captireS," and "the acceptable
gear Of the Lord, is, in the opinion of the learn
ed DR.. Lowth, an Episcopalian, "a manifest
alluson to the proclaiming of the year of
jnbilee by sound of trumpets :" This" says
the DR.. -" Wasa year of general release of debts
and obligations; of bondmen and bondwomen. -
g Our Savior" says he "by applying this text
to Himself, text so manifestly relating to the
institution above mentioned, plainly declares
the typical design of that institution" Now
the benefit of the Gospel was proffered to all
This is admitted by the Bishop, for it is an ar
tcle of his faith. Then, if all slaves were not
released at the jubilee as he contends, it was
not typical of the gospel of Christ. But, if the
jubilee was typical of a free gospel, as believed
in general by commentators on the Bible, then
Slavery like the service of the altar and the
types and shadows of Christ, should have ceased
at the commencement of the dispensation.
ID, Christ not only recognized the existence
of Slavery, and made it the foundation Of apar-
able, but virtually condemned it,
Our Savior says /" Therefore is the kingdom
of heaven likened unto certain king which
would take account of his servants. And when
he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto
him which owed him thousand talents But
for as much as he had not to pay, his lord com,
manded him to be sold, and his aoite and children
and all that he had, and payment to be made. >
liere is plain allusion to the custom of selling
the insolvent debtor and his family, according
to the law of Moses. But the lord of this serv
ant forgave him the debt, and on his refusing
to extend the like compassion to ga fellow
servant" his lord delivered him unto the tor
mentors until he should pay all that was du'
unto him." Our Savior then adds 1" So like
wise shall my heavenly Father do also unto
you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every
vent debtors was the only kind of Slavery
among the Hebrews that could seem to deriv'
any support from our ideas of legal Justice
But this kind of Slavery was most clearly con
demned by the declaration of Christ that, " L
We forgive not the humble and insolvent debt
or, We s.shall be delivered unto the tormentors
Now what was the declaration, that he VIII,
should enforce a certain law should be punish
ed, but the condemnation and virtual repeal o
such law?
The Bishop, in reference to the slave laws o
the Hebrews, asks, Where is the law which
higher than the code laid down by the Deity
Where is the rule of morals which shall CLAIM
supremacy over the word of God?" He re
quires us, therefore, to believe that not singl
law of God was ever abolished. But Chris
did abolish certain laws of God. He says in Eli
sermon on the Mount, g Ye have heard it hat
been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
tooth. But say unto you that ye resist no
evil but whoever shall smite thee on thy RICH
cheek, turn to him the other also"
In the :" code of laws laid down by the Deity,
and which the Bishop considers the higher la,t
it is said, "And thine eye shall not pity; bu
life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tootl
hand for hand, foot for foot; "-Deut. 10 q
Did not Christ specifically abolish so much {
this law as required eye for eye, and tooth f
tooth? Is not the command to "resist NJ
evil" or, to require eye for eye, tooth for tootl
the higher law? Though Christ did not specit
cally abolish that part of the law which require
hand for hand and foot for foot, yet does nj
every intelligent Christian consider this requis
ton of the law fully abolished? Why, ther
was this law abolished? The reason is yer
obvious, for 1t was the law of retaliation, an
therefore inconsistent with the gospel of Chris
He also abolished the Mosaic law of divorc
except for single offence on the part of Il
wife. This law, He informed the Jews, W,
given " for the hardness of their hearts, an
was not 50 from the beginning" Is it nj
then, reasonable to suppose that the Hebrew
were permitted to purchase and enslave Il
heather on account of the hardness of the