Volume II Part 64 (2/2)
[Footnote C: Verse 21.]
Now how must all this have been understood by the church at Colosse?--a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church at Corinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life. Many of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted the bitterness of the servile condition. Would they have been likely to interpret the apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly to slavery!--And put the slaveholder's construction on its contents! Would their past experience or present sufferings--for doubtless some of them were still ”under the yoke”--have suggested to their thoughts such glosses as some of our theological professors venture to put upon the words of the apostle! Far otherwise. The Spirit of the Lord was there, and the epistle was read in the light of ”_liberty_.” It contained the principles of holy freedom, faithfully and affectionately applied. This must have made it precious in the eyes of such men ”of low degree” as were most of the believers, and welcome to a place in the sacred canon.
There let it remain as a luminous and powerful defense of the cause of emanc.i.p.ation!
But what with Prof. Stuart? ”If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for life.”[A]
[Footnote A: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 8.]
”Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.” By what process? Did the apostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him before some heartless and perfidious ”Judge,” for authority to send him back to Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence of the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the lash to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the apostle been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, as a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a preacher of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented thus to subserve the ”peculiar” interests of a dear slaveholding brother. But the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under bonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He wrote a letter to the church at Colosse, which was accustomed to meet at the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous disciple, and sent them by the hand of Onesimus. So much for _the way_ in which Onesimus was sent back to his master.
A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in the parish of the Connecticut doctor, who once gave public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of his fellow men.[B] Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian convert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the gospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him return, staff in hand, to the ”corner-stone of our republican inst.i.tutions.” Now, what would any Caesar do, who had ever felt a link of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_, should we be surprized to hear him say to himself, What, return of my own accord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my mother's bosom!--for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat of unrequited toil!--whose violence so often cut my flesh and scarred my limbs!--who shut out every ray of light from my mind!--who laid claim to those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer only are ent.i.tled! And for what am I to return? To be cursed, and smitten, and sold! To be tempted, and torn, and destroyed! I can not thus throw myself away--thus rush upon my own destruction.
[Footnote B: ”Why should I care?”]
Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American oppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could persuade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had escaped? And must we believe this of Onesimus!
”Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon.” On what occasion?--”If,” writes the apostle, ”he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on my account.” Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would ”restore” whatever he ”had taken away.” He would honestly pay his debts. This resolution, the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at whatever expense, to help his young disciple in carrying it into full effect. Of this he a.s.sured Philemon, in language the most explicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon.
If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Mr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should return to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York, containing such an a.s.surance, how would the reverend slaveholder dispose of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? ”If Cato has not been upright in his pecuniary intercourse with you--if he owes you any thing--put that on my account.” What ignorance of southern inst.i.tutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between a slave and his master! _The slave himself, with all he is and has, is an article of merchandise_.
What can _he_ owe his master?--A rustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck of oats which he had permitted it to win.
But who in sober earnest would call this a pecuniary transaction?
”TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!” From what part of the epistle could the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants--so revolting to every man who loves his own nature? From this? ”For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever.”
Receive him how? _As a servant_, exclaims our commentator. But what wrote the apostle? ”NOT _now as a servant, but above a servant_, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” Who authorized the professor to bereave the word '_not_' of its negative influence? According to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus '_not_ as a servant;'--according to Stuart, he was to receive him ”_as a servant!_” If the professor will apply the same rules of exposition to the writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and them must in his view presently vanish away. The harmonizing process would be equally simple and effectual. He has only to understand them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what they affirm.
Suppose that Prof. Stuart had a son residing at the South. His slave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He fled to Andover, to find a refuge among the ”sons of the prophets.” There he finds his way to Prof. Stuart's house, and offers to render any service which the professor, dangerously ill ”of a typhus fever,” might require.
He is soon found to be a most active, skillful, faithful nurse. He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself useful to the venerable sufferer. He antic.i.p.ates every want. In the most delicate and tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He fastens himself strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his care. Touched with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the submissive frame, which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a Christian. A new bond now ties him and his convalescent teacher together. As soon as he is able to write, the professor sends by Archy the following letter to the South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq.:--
”MY DEAR SON,--With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you, on a subject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, which my acquaintance with you, and your strong obligations to me, will, I can not doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a request, though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the principles of the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, boldly demand, what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous, magnanimous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will ”do even more than I say”--I, your own father, an old man, almost exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and my country, and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the affection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have begotten in my sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be an _Isaac_ to me; for how often did not his soothing voice, and skillful hand, and unwearied attention to my wants, remind me of you! But I chose to give you an opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of your heart; as, if I had retained him with me, you might seem to have been forced to grant what you will gratefully bestow. His temporary absence from you may have opened the way for his permanent continuance with you. Not now as a slave. Heaven forbid! But superior to a slave. Superior, did I say?
Take him to your bosom, as a beloved brother; for I own him as a son, and regard him as such, in all the relations of life, both as a man and a Christian.--'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you from complying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without adverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my comfort with you may require, you will make without much delay, when you learn, that I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the journey,' to make you a visit.”
And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should publicly declare that Prof. Stuart of Andover regarded slaveholding as lawful; for that ”he had sent Archy back to his son Isaac, with an apology for his running away” to be held in perpetual slavery? With what propriety might not the professor exclaim: False, every syllable false.
I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, _but recognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every relation, civil and ecclesiastical_. I bade my son receive _Archy as myself_. If this was not equivalent to a requisition to set him fully and most honorably free, and that, too, on the ground of natural obligation and Christian principle, then I know not how to frame such a requisition.
I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough fully to ill.u.s.trate the case to which it is applied. Prof. Stuart lacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of a church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of what the world regard as the dregs of society--”the offscouring of all things.” Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such barbarous usages, such horrid laws as disgrace the South.
But it is time to turn to another pa.s.sage which, in its bearing on the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of Dr. Fisk and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and instructive. ”Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of G.o.d and his doctrines 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, partakers of the benefit.”[A]
[Footnote A: 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.]
1. The apostle addresses himself here to two cla.s.ses of servants, with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one cla.s.s and the other, in Prof. Stuart's eye, were _slaves_. This he a.s.sumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term servant is _generic_, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends all the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each other, however honorable, or however menial; from that of an apostle[B] opening the path to heaven, to that of was.h.i.+ng ”one another's feet.”[C] A general term it is, comprehending every office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.[D]
[Footnote B: Cor. iv. 5.]
[Footnote C: John xiii. 14.]
[Footnote D: Mat. xx. 26-28.]
<script>