ARTICLE IV.

REPUBLICAN TENDENCIES OF THE BIBLE.

By Rev. ENOCH POND, D. D., Prof. Theology, Bangor Theological Seminary.

REPUBLICAN tendencies are, of course, tendencies to freedom. When we say that the Bible is republican in its tendencies, we mean that it is favorable to the production and enjoyment of rational liberty.

But rational liberty is not perfect, unrestricted liberty. Such liberty cannot exist in a regular and well-ordered community. Rational liberty is liberty subjected to reasonable and necessary restraints, such as the best good of the community demands.

When we say, therefore, that the Bible is republican in its tendencies, we mean that it tends to liberty on the one hand, and that it furnishes the needful restraints on the other; so that liberty may not terminate in anarchy, or run out into unbridled licentiousness.

Let us now look at the Bible in both these points of view. And first, let us consider its tendencies to civil freedom, or to the production and enjoyment of rational liberty.

And here the first thing that strikes us is, the early and uniform representation of Scripture, that mankind constitute one universal brotherhood race. The Scriptures represent us as all of one race, the children of one common father and mother. "God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth." Now what is this but a declaration, on Divine authority, of the natural equality of men? In a family of children, born and educated under the same roof, all are supposed to be on an equality. One is no better by nature, than another. And if one or more of them should pretend that they were of better blood than the others that they were born to rule, and the rest to serve; would there be any reason or right in such a pretence? Would it be tolerated a moment, by the head of the household, or by the family? And yet, according to a fundamental representation of the Bible, we are all, as I said, one family of children, born and educated under one widely extended roof, subject in general to the same regulations, and under the care and providence of the same Heavenly Father. Where then, I ask, is the natural hereditary right of kings? Where rests the authority of tyrants and despots? On what but the grossest usurpation, is founded the right of one man to invade the liberties of another, and trample his immunities in the dust? That memorable passage in the Declaration of American Inde

pendence-all men are born free and equal-was learned from the Scriptures, and is but a republication of the unvarying testimony of Scripture, as to the natural equality of men. Being all of one race, of one blood, the children of one common earthly father, and Heavenly Father, we are obviously, by nature, equal; and no one can assume the rights of another, or begin to lord it over him, without palpable usurpation. In this view, the Bible, wherever it is read, is a standing reproof of every form of despotism and oppression; a standing vindication of the immunities and rights of the individual man. This single feature of the Bible, if there were no other, is enough to establish its republican character, and render it a republican book.

Then the fundamental laws of the Bible are all in accordance with that great fact which has just been stated. The first of the commandments is: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength," and the second is like unto it: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." These general, fundamental precepts of the Bible are based on the assumption of man's universal brotherhood, and if they were but duly regarded, would bring to an end all oppression and tyranny, and carry the blessings of liberty to every human being. Just look at the operation of this precept: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor;" and hence "if this Divine injunction were but obeyed, the whole catalogue of social ills-of ills inflicted by one man upon another-would instantly cease. And then the operation of the other precept above quoted is equally obvious. Who ever wished his neighbor to oppress him; to invade his rights, to trespass upon his liberties, and tread his honor in the dust? Who ever wished his neighbor to treat him otherwise than with kindness and benevolence? But whatever we would that men should do to us, we are required to do the same to them. If I would not that my neighbor should injure me, I must not injure him. If I would not that he should trespass upon my liberties, I must not trespass upon his. his. Who does not see what the operation of such a law must be, the world over, whenever understood and obeyed? It must of necessity break every yoke, but that of Christ. It must put an end to all social evils, and introduce everywhere the reign of liberty and peace.

We have seen what would be the operation of some of the more general and fundamental laws of the Bible. If now we examine its precepts in detail; if we follow them out in their various applications; we shall find them all pervaded by the same spirit. Everywhere the persecutor, the oppressor is rebuked, and the rights of the individual man are defined and

established. "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and write grievousness which they have prescribed, to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people." "Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work." "Rob not the poor because he is poor, neither oppress the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those who spoiled them." "He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, shall surely come to want." "This is the heritage of the oppressor, which he shall receive of the Almighty. If his children be multiplied, it is for the sword, and his offspring shall not be satisfied with bread." "Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it."

It would be needless to multiply passages of this description. The Scriptures are full of them, all implying the right of the individual man to personal liberty, and the fruit of his own labor, and denouncing the severest judgments on those who shall presume to invade their neighbor's right, and violently take it away. It is easy to see what must be the influence of such a book upon the cause of human freedom and happiness. It stands forth everywhere as the vindicator of the oppressed, and a terror to the oppressor. It denounces alike the tyrant on his throne, and the petty despot who rules with a rod of iron his subject household. It demands of both, and of all of a similar character, under penalty of the wrath of heaven, that they loose the bands of wickedness, undo the heavy burthens, break every yoke, and let the oppressed go free,"

Such then, are the precepts, the injunctions of the Bible. If now we turn from these to its general spirit, we shall find that this is one of universal kindness and philanthropy, and one altogether favorable, of course, to human freedom and happiness. We might anticipate as much as this from what has been already said; and when we look into the sacred word, we find our anticipations more than realized. Witness the story of the Good Samaritan, to which is appended the injunction: "Go thou and do likewise." Witness the touching, searching parable of the unforgiving servant: "Shouldst thou not have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee?" Witness also the following, out of the numberless like passages which might be quoted: "As we have, therefore, opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice, and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving

one another, even as, God for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you." "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them, and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves, also, in the body." "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows, in their affliction, and keep himself unspotted from the world."

I quote these passages, not with a view to critical comment, but to show the general spirit and strain of Bible instruction, with regard to the duties which we owe to one another. And surely no one can fail to appreciate the kind, philanthropic bearing of the Scriptures in this respect, and the influence which such a book must have upon the world. So far as received, it must tend to relax the hard and of oppression, to break the yoke of bondage, to promote a universal sympathy, and render human beings everywhere (what they were designed to be), a band of brothers.

The religion of the Bible has the same benignant tendency, regarded in another light. It goes to depreciate all outward distinctions; those which are created by the spirit of the world, and which serves to engender hurtful, hateful passions; while it magnifies those distinctions which spring from character, and are the result of real goodness. The artificial distinctions among men are numerous and various. There are the high and the low, the rich and the poor, the learned and the ignorant, the honored and the despised. There are princes and subjects, the bond and the free. Now the Bible makes very little of distinctions such as these. It represents them as of almost no account in the sight of God. Whatever our conditions in life may be, we are all alike little and vile before Him. We are all alike dependent upon His sovereign bounty and mercy. Whether patricians or plebians, high or low, we are all subject to the same law, and bound by the same indispensable obligations, and amenable to the same judgment bar. We are involved in the same circumstances of guilt and ruin, and must be saved by the same Gospel, or not at all. In this view, the religion of the Bible may be termed a universal leveller. It sets at nought all outward, earthly distinctions; brings down the high thoughts and looks of men, and places the entire human family, so far as their relations to God and eternity are concerned, upon the same footing. It exalts the lowly; it abases the proud. The wise, the holy, the good, are blessed; while the selfish, the malicious, the vengeful, the cruel-whatever their rank in life may be-are rejected and accursed.

This levelling feature of Christianity, if I may be allowed the expression, is obviously a republican feature. The artificial distinctions in society are, in most instances, the offspring of pride, and are so many barriers in the way of human progress and happiness. They are bastions, towers, on which one part of the

race have planted themselves, that they may with the greater success control and oppress the other part. Happy will it be for all concerned, when these towers of strength are measurably demolished; and it is one of the blessings of the gospel, that its tendency is gradually, peacefully to destroy them.

Thus far we have been studying the liberal tendencies of the Bible from the book itself; by looking into it, and examining its contents. We have gathered from these what its influence on the freedom and happiness of man must probably be. It is time now that we look abroad, compare our inferences with facts, and see what its influence has actually been.

The Scriptures began to be written by Moses, in about the two thousand five hundredth year of the world. At this period, most of the original, patriarchal forms of government had degenerated into absolute despotisms. Monarchies had been established, in which the will of the sovereign was the only law. Hence it was a vast stride in favor of liberty, that Moses was directed to give to his people a written constitution. The Scriptures thus open with a demonstration in favor of popular liberty, such as the world had never before seen.

This is not the place to go into a critical examination of the political institutions of Moses. Suffice it to say, that they are pervaded by the spirit of freedom, so far as the circumstances of the people and age would allow. We find here no proper provision made for a king; since it was no part of the original design of God that there should be any king in Israel, except Himself. A code of laws was given to the people, and a succession of inspired judges and prophets was to be raised up, by whom the laws were to be administered. In these laws the poor were protected against the rich, and the weak against the strong; the needy and the stranger were provided for; the ungodly and injurious were restrained; and popular liberty, with no checks but those of the most obvious necessity, was secured. Perhaps, no stronger evidence can be adduced of the free, republican character of these laws, than to say, that they were adopted for a time by the early fathers of New England-those stern, unflinching advocates of liberty-as the statutes by which they chose to be governed.

In process of time, the children of Israel became unfit for freedom, and, of course, lost it, or lost a portion of it. They insisted on being governed by a king. But then, their kings were far from being absolute, like those of Assyria and Egypt. The laws of Moses were still in force, and the king was bound by them as really as his subjects (see Deut. 17: 14-16). The monarchy of Israel was a limited, a constitutional monarchy, in which the popular will of the people could at any time make itself THIRD SERIES, VOL. IV. NO. 2.

7