3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to procure a nurse or employ a physician.
4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement so vigorous and heartbreaking as the law allows theirs to be continually and permanently.
5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively, STRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free inst.i.tutions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even?
Alas, it is the _negro_ only, who may not strike his roots into our soil. Every where we have conspired to treat him as a stranger--every where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the scenes of business and in the scenes of amus.e.m.e.nt--even in the church of G.o.d and at the communion table, he is regarded as a stranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted and horror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with the citizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them have entered into a conspiracy to send him off "out of sight," to find a home on a foreign sh.o.r.e!--and justify themselves by openly alleging, that a "single drop" of his blood, in the veins of any human creature, must make him hateful to his fellow citizens!--That nothing but banishment from "our coasts," can redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which his "stranger"
blood has reduced him among his own mother"s children!
Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst,"
but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and the smallest drop of water?
Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of clothing?
Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of procuring medicine or sending for a physician?
Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life, is under the control of merciless masters and cruel keepers!
Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest courtesies of life--who is treated as an alien in his native country?
There is one point in this awful description which deserves particular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the Judge, are not charged with inflicting _positive_ injuries on their helpless, needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often called _negative_ character. What they _had done_ is not described in the indictment. Their _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT _done_, was the ground of their "everlasting punishment." The representative of their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they gave him no meat, thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and they took him not in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in prison and they visited him not. In as much as they did NOT yield to the claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert themselves to bless the meanest of the human family, they were driven away in their wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was a hungered and ye s.n.a.t.c.hed away the crust which might have saved me from starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the "cup of cold water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I was a stranger and ye drove me from the hovel which might have sheltered me from the piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me to my task; in prison and you sold me for my jail-fees--to what depths of h.e.l.l must not those who were convicted under such charges be consigned! And what is the history of American slavery but one long indictment, describing under ever-varying forms and hues just such injuries!
Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure of their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past history. The charges which he brought against them, they heard with great surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away from his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to poverty, insult, and oppression? Never. And as to that poor friendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his own representative, they never once supposed, that _he_ had any claims on their compa.s.sion and a.s.sistance. Had they known, that he was destined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they would have treated him as a human being, in despite of any social, pecuniary, or political considerations. But neither their _negative virtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could shield them from the penal fire which their selfishness had kindled.
Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions and authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our position in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and usages of the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority.
The latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the former. But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed?
Placing themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out of the _corruptions_ of Christianity, they make these the standard by which the gospel is to be explained and understood! Some Recorder or Justice. without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury, consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints, Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some "priest" or "Levite," "pa.s.sing by on the other side," quite self-possessed and all complacent, reads in reply from his broad phylactery, _Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! Yes, echoes the negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing"
together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; _Yes--Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned with noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen this of the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the sacred Scriptures?
Of the particular pa.s.sages in the New Testament on which the apologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon first demands our attention.
1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of Jesus Christ" at Rome.
2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their a.s.semblies, and who owed his conversion, under G.o.d, directly or indirectly to the ministry of Paul.
3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave; as, in that case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could not also have "owed him ought."[31] The American slave is, according to law, as much the property of his master as any other chattel; and can no more "owe" his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis of all pecuniary obligations lies in some "value received." How can "an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain commercial relations to its owner? There is no _person_ to offer or promise. _Personality is swallowed up in American slavery_!
4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine.
He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms.
The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of G.o.d upon the exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and repentance.
5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he became painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon.
He longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full rest.i.tution. Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he knew not how to appear in his presence. Under such embarra.s.sments, he naturally sought sympathy and advice of Paul. _His_ influence upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an apostle.
6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the apostle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and thanksgiving as the good character and useful life of Philemon naturally drew from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of the letter. He admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service of Philemon; not in running away, for how they had parted with each other is not explained; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to pay the debts[32] which he had contracted. But his character had undergone a radical change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness would be his aim and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary obligations which he had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon to put them on his account.[33] Thus a way was fairly opened to the heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask?
7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not as a _servant_, but above a _servant_."[34] How much above? Philemon was to receive him as "a son" of the apostle--"as a brother beloved"--nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive Onesimus as he would receive _the apostle himself_.[35] _So much_ above a servant was he to receive him!
8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of merchandise," CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a "brother beloved," SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon consistently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle! Never. As if, however to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to the dignity of a brother beloved, "BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE LORD;"[36] as a man and Christian, in all the relations, circ.u.mstances, and responsibilities of life.
[Footnote 31: Philemon, 18.]
[Footnote 32: Verse 11, 18.]
[Footnote 33: Verse 18.]
[Footnote 34: Verse 16.]
[Footnote 35: Verse 10, 16, 17.]
[Footnote 36: Verse 16.]
It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "_brother_". It describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the _servile_.
It is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject "above" the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with the master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood side by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, spiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, but in every way, "both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter deserves particular and earnest attention. It sheds a strong light on other lessons of apostolic instruction.
9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the apostle clearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things--a thing which _ought_ to be done.[37] On this account, he might have urged it upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic authority and with great boldness.[38] _The very nature_ of the request made it obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full equality with himself--to treat him as a brother both in the Lord and as having flesh--as a fellow man. Thus were the inalienable rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority.
10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, on the ground of CHARITY.[39] He would give Philemon an opportunity of discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this impulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield.
How could he do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request respecting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under G.o.d, he was under the highest obligations.[40] That benefactor, now an old man, and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender interest in the matter and had the strongest persuasion that Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result, as he was soon to visit Collosse, and had commissioned Philemon to prepare a lodging for him, must come under the eye of the apostle.
The request was so manifestly reasonable and obligatory, that the apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong word "_obedience_."[41]
[Footnote 37: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson"s New Testament Lexicon; "_it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought_." In what sense King James" translators used the word "convenient" any one may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.]
[Footnote 38: Verse 8.]
[Footnote 39: Verse 9--[Greek: dia taen agapaen]]
[Footnote 40: Verse 19.]
[Footnote 41: 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 defence of the cause of emanc.i.p.ation!
But what saith Professor 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."[42]
[Footnote 42: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 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 a 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 of Divinity, who once gave public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of his fellow men.[43] 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 my Caesar do, who had ever felt a link of slavery"s chain? As he left his _spiritual father_, should we be surprised 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 cannot thus throw myself away--thus rush upon my own destruction.
[Footnote 43: "Why should I care?"]