The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus Part 249

'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 Professor 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. Professor 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." [44]

[Footnote 44: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this pa.s.sage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:--

"This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause 'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component preposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather than the _connection of partic.i.p.ation_. They have given it exactly the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb.

iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause, 'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text been used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the _part-taker_ of other men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is _to take in return_--_to take instead of, &c._ Hence, in the middle with the genitive, it signifies _a.s.sist_, or _do one's part towards_ the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only is the word used in the New Testament,--(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx.

35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, but the _well doing_ of the servants, who should continue to serve their believing masters, while they were no longer under the _yoke_ of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the '_good deed_' done to the impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the commentators, is, that believing masters would not fail to do their part towards, or encourage by suitable returns, the free service of those who had once been under the yoke."]

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 Professor 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[45] opening the path to heaven, to that of was.h.i.+ng "one another's feet."[46] A general term it is, comprehending every office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.[47]

[Footnote 45: Cor. iv. 5.]

[Footnote 46: John, xiii, 14.]

[Footnote 47: Mat, xx, 26-28.]

A leading signification gives us the manual laborer, to whom, in the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his exertions the bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as belong to man in common with mere animals--his sphere has generally been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning, intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away to toil among the cattle. _Here you find the slave_. To reduce the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether monstrous--injuries reaching the very vitals of man--stabs upon the very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make the word "_servants_," comprehending, even as manual laborers, so many and such various meanings, signify "_slaves_," especially where different cla.s.ses are concerned? Such a right he could never have derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by sympathy with the oppressor?

Yes, different cla.s.ses. This is implied in the term "as many,"[48]

which sets apart the cla.s.s now to be addressed. From these he proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[49] whose natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different subject.

[Footnote 48: [Greek: Ochli] See Pa.s.sow's Schneider.]

[Footnote 49: [Greek: Dd.] See Pa.s.sow.]

2. The first cla.s.s are described as "_under the yoke_"--a yoke from which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if possible.[50] If not, they must in every way regard the master with respect--bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his interests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.[51] And this, to prevent blasphemy--to prevent the pagan master from heaping profane reproaches upon the name of G.o.d and the doctrines of the gospel. They should beware of rousing his pa.s.sions, which, as his helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or withstand.

[Footnote 50: See 1 Cor. vii, 21--[Greek: All' ei kai dunasai eleuphoros genesthai].]

[Footnote 51: See 1 Cor. vii, 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos anthroton].]

But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "_under the yoke_"[52]--an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These he distinguishes from another cla.s.s, who instead of a "yoke"--the badge of a slave--had "_believing masters_." _To have a "believing master," then, was equivalent to freedom from "the yoke_." These servants were exhorted not _to despise_ their masters. What need of such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of them as "articles of merchandise." But this was not consistent with believing. Faith, "breaking every yoke," united master and servants in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a relation which, excluding the yoke,[53] placed them side by side on the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. [54]

Instead of this, they should be, as emanc.i.p.ated slaves often have been, [55] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and usefulness--especially as their masters were "worthy of their confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing.

[Footnote 52: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.]

[Footnote 53: Supra p. 44.]

[Footnote 54: See Mat. vi. 24.]

[Footnote 55: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master"

James G. Birney.]

Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Professor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves [56]--the relation of "brethren," which, excluding "the yoke," and of course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the correlative name, _as is usual in such cases_, under which they had been known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as a Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding?

[Footnote 56: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.]

And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On that _of a "perfect religious equality."_[57] In all the relations, duties, and privileges--in all the objects, interests, and prospects, which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free as their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, and as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarra.s.sments, occasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in "_perfect religious equality_," which the Princeton professor accords to servants in relation to their master. Might the _master_, then, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was created and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his acquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources--with his prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his _servants_.

Was _he_ at liberty to "study to approve himself to G.o.d," to submit to his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of affection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty to sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the "solemn a.s.sembly?" So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So were _they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they might use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve their opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in glorifying G.o.d, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied.

Such equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit of slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment?

[Footnote 57: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.]

In the epistle to the Colossians, the following pa.s.sage deserves earnest attention:--"Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing G.o.d: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.--Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye have a Master in heaven."[58]

[Footnote 58: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.]

Here it is natural to remark--

1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the principles of the divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the _master_ to hold himself responsible. _Both the one and the other were of course equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, by which they were to be governed and judged_.

2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, was _righteousness_--strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,--the dust of the balance not so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, where nothing of "respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for.

There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings.

3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY the _standard of his conduct_. Under the authority of such instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It is flagrantly at war with the government of G.o.d, consists in "respect of persons" the most shameless and outrageous, treads justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in their "respect of persons" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the least regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely at the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in the relation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one hand, and the chattel principle on the other, are naturally subversive of each other--proof clear and decisive that the correlates, masters and servants, cannot here be rendered slaves and owners, without the grossest absurdity and the greatest violence.

"Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of G.o.d from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether _he be_ bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."[59]

[Footnote 59: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.]

Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition of kindred pa.s.sages, it may be sufficient to say:--

1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master, was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment.

Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an affectionate service.

2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had its soul in _good-will_, mutually cherished and properly expressed.

Hence "THE SAME THINGS," the same in principle, the same in substance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of the master and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth by the one and the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual service. Do we here find the chattel principle?

3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, unfaithful. Of course, the master must "FORBEAR THREATENING."

Slavery without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is of necessity a _system of threatening_, injecting into the bosom of the slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and torment him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it derives from "threatening," and you annihilate it at once and forever.

4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the principles of the divine government, where "RESPECT OF PERSONS"

could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with, and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery is developed in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once obeyed, would be sure to confer.

"The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is recognized in "the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."[60]

Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks; otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject--with the slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to.