The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
Paul to the Colossians does not justify Slavery. "SERVANTS, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart fearing God; 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." Col. iii, 22-25. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Col. iv, 1. These texts, though quoted from different chapters, constitute but one subject. The first verse of the fourth chapter belongs to the third chapter, and should not have been separated from it. We have then before us the direction of Paul, both to servants and masters in the same connection, and will examine the subject and see if it contains an endorsement of slavery. The same questions are involved that have been discussed, in relation to other texts, viz., does the text treat of slavery at all? and if so, does it prove it to be right? This text is so nearly like Eph. vi, 5-9, in its language, which has already been examined, that on several points it will only be necessary to refer the reader to what was said upon that text. There can be no doubt from the similarity of the two passages, both being written by the same hand, that they both relate to the same class of persons. If slaveholders and slaves were treated of in the former text, they are in this. On the other hand, if I succeeded in proving that the former text does not treat of slaveholders and slaves, and that it does not justify slavery, upon the supposition that chattel slavery is involved, the same conclusion must follow in regard to the text now under consideration. It would therefore now be safe for the argument, to leave this text to be understood in the light of the argument advanced upon the former. But as there are a few expressions found in this, not contained in that, I will examine it, after first naming those points which were fully explained while examining the former passage: 1. The terms, servants and masters have been sufficiently explained. It has been shown that no reliable conclusion can be drawn from the use of these terms in support of chattel slavery. 2. The qualifying adjunct, "according to the flesh," was there fully explained. The reader has only to apply the remarks there made on this expression to this text, and he will realize its force. 3. The expression, "not with eye-service as men-pleasers," was there explained. 4. The duty here enjoined, of obeying "in singleness of heart," and of doing their duty "as to the Lord and not unto men," was there sufficiently discussed, and the argument need not be repeated here. 5. The declaration here found, that both, the wrong and the right, shall be rewarded at the hand of God, and that with him "there is no respect of persons," was sufficiently explained in the former text, and shown to be irreconcilable with chattel slavery. On all these points the reader can refer to the exposition already given of the preceding text, better than to have the matter repeated here. This leaves but a few points, where the language varies, to be examined, to which I will now attend. I. It is not clear that the text was addressed to slaves and slaveholders. 1. It is not proved by the direction given to the servants. "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." This is the only point of difference between this and the former text, and it adds no force to the argument in support of slavery. To obey "in all things" can mean no more than to do every thing which is commanded, which does not conflict with the law of God, which is not a violation of the rules of the gospel. To understand the words without this limitation, would hold servants under divine obligation to commit murder at the command of the master, to be the tormentor of father or mother, or to submit to a base violation of person and purity. Such cannot be the case, and hence the command to obey in all things, must be limited by what is right; and those to whom belongs the work of obedience, and not those who claim obedience, must belong the privilege of judging what is right, or how far the commands of masters can be obeyed without sin against God. This limitation of the servant's obligation to obey must destroy chattel slavery. The smallest reserve of the right of judgment, on the part of slaves, must destroy the foundation work of slavery. This was shown in the examination of the preceding text, and need not be further pressed in this place. It is clearly seen that no command to servants, to obey their masters, can prove the existence of chattel slavery, which is not absolute, and without any reserve on the part of the servant, of the right of judging for himself what he may do and what he may not do. If the servant may say, I will not sin when my master commands me to, or I will pray to God when my master commands me not to, there is an end of chattel slavery. That such a limitation is implied in this text is clear. Without this limitation, without this reserved right on the part of the servant, there could be no such thing as right and wrong with the servant between him and God; the will of the master would be his only law, and he could have no right to act with reference to God. But Paul here commands these very servants to act with reference to God, to act, "as to the Lord and not unto men," and assures them that "of the Lord" they should "receive the reward," if they do right, and that "he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done." This proves that God did claim the right to govern, reward and punish these servants, and hence that they were to obey their masters only so far as was consistent with their higher duty to God, and the conclusion is irresistible that the directions of the apostle not only fail to prove that they were chattel slaves, but actually strike a blow at the very foundations of the system. The directions contain a principle which, like a consuming fire, must burn up and consume chattel slavery where ever the principle is applied. This principle is direct accountability to God, which the apostle here asserts, concerning these servants. Direct accountability to God, supposes a right to know the will of God, a right to judge of what that will requires, and a right to do that will. All this is implied in the words of the apostle when he commands them to act "as to God and not unto men," and assures them that they will162receive of the Lord for the good or evil they do. It is clear therefore that the apostle's directions to these servants do not prove the existence of slavery, but overturn its very foundation principle. 2. The existence of slavery is not proved by what the apostle commands masters to do: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal." This does not prove that the apostle was addressing slaveholders. Here are persons called masters, and the first question in issue is, were they chattel slaveholders? but a command to give to their servants "that which is just and equal," cannot prove it, for the same thing is required of all men toward all other men, with whom they have any deal or intercourse. It is only an application of a universal principle to a specific class, and it is just as applicable to hired laborers and apprentices, as it is to bond slaves. The very thing required does not, and cannot exist in a state of chattel slavery. Justice and equality are required, and they cannot exist in harmony with slavery, as will fully appear under my next argument. How perfectly clear is it then that Paul could not have been addressing slaves and slaveholders, and giving directions for the regulation of their conduct as such, when he ordered that which is absolutely inconsistent with the relation of slave owner and slave owned. Having now shown sufficiently clear that there is no sufficient proof that the text under consideration has any reference to chattel slavery, I will proceed to the second general branch of my argument. II. If it were admitted that the text was addressed specifically to slaves and slaveholders, it would not follow that slavery is right, inasmuch as it contains no justification of slavery. Waiving all that has been said, let me now examine the text upon the supposition that it was addressed to men owners and men owned, and see if there is any thing in it which can be tortured into a justification of the system. 1. The justification is not found in the command to obey. This has been fully explained and demonstrated in preceding arguments. It might just as well be argued that when Christ says, "If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also," he justifies the suing, and the taking of both the coat and the cloak, as to argue that slavery is right, because slaves are required to obey. It has been shown that the obligation to obey is limited to what is right in itself, and obedience, so far as it can be rendered without a violation of the law of God, is the best course a slave can pursue, until such time as an opportunity presents for him to obtain his liberty. 2. The justification is not found in what the masters are commanded to do. Here I meet the point, effectually. If real slavery did exist there, the apostle commanded its abolition. This he did in these words: "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal." They were then first, to give their servants that which is just. The Greek word, dikaiou, the neuter of dikaios, is truly rendered by our English word just; it signifies just, upright, righteous. If then slavery existed the apostle interdicted it, unless it be first proved to be just, upright or righteous. To assume that the apostle did not condemn slavery, much more to assume that he justified it, when he commanded slaveholders to give their slaves that which is just, is to beg the whole question in debate. The command to give them that which is just, does not define what is just and what is not, hence, it cannot prove that slavery is right, until it first be proved that slavery is just. But if liberty be the just right of every individual, then Paul commanded the master to give them their liberty. If slavery existed, it must follow that the apostle commanded its abolition, unless it can first be proved that slavery is just. This can never be done; it cannot be just that one man should own another man, or that one man should be compelled to serve another man all life long, without his consent and without pay. To deny that the apostle commands the liberation of the slaves, if slaves they were, is to beg the whole question in dispute, by taking it for granted that slavery is just, the main point which should be proved. Allow that they were slaveholders and slaves, and that the apostle commands the slaveholders to give to their slaves that which is just without intimating what that is, for he lays down no rule to determine what justice requires in the case, and the fairest assumption in the world is that all forced service is unjust, and that justice requires all masters to desist from compelling service against the will of the servant. But secondly, the apostle commanded them to give their servants that which is equal. The Greek word isoteeta, which is the accusative case of isotees signifies equality. It is derived from isos, which signifies equal, on a level, equal to or an equivalent; hence isoteeta which is derived from it, signifies equality, parity, equity, impartiality. The word here used occurs in but one other text in the New Testament. It is 2 Cor. viii, 14, in which it occurs twice in the same verse, and is translated equality in both cases. If the reader refers to the Greek Testament, he will find the first occurrence of the word in the 13th verse, as the first half of the 14th verse in the English version, is attached to the 13th in the Greek. The apostle then commands slaveholders to give to their slaves equality, or parity. This certainly must destroy the chattel principle, and secure to the laborer a just compensation for his labor. There is no equality, parity, equity, or impartiality, in one man's owning another, and receiving his labor without compensation. The apostle therefore commands what cannot be reconciled with chattel slavery, and of course he did not justify it. But waiving all criticism, the simple words of the English text, "that which is just and equal," can mean no less than that which is right, that which is fairly their due, and this of itself would destroy slavery at once and forever. I will here quote from Rev. A. Barnes' notes on the text, as his remarks fully cover this point. He says: "They were to render them that which is just and equal. What would follow from this if fairly applied? What would be just and equal to a man in those circumstances? Would it be to compensate him fairly for his labor? to furnish him an adequate remuneration for what he earned? But this would strike a blow at the root of slavery, for one of the elementary principles is, that there must be unrequited labor. "If a man should in fact render to his slaves that which is just and equal, would he not restore them to freedom? Have they not been deprived of their liberty by injustice? and would not justice restore it? What has the slave done to forfeit his liberty? If he should make him equal in rights to himself, or to what he is by nature, would he not emancipate him? Can he be held at all without a violation of all the just notions of equity? Though, therefore, it may be true that this passage only enjoins the rendering of what was just and equal in their condition, yet it contains a principle which would lay the axe at the root of slavery, and would lead a conscientious Christian to the feeling that his slaves ought to be free." The above extract is decisive, for if it be admitted, consequences must follow fatal to slavery. Let us look at it upon the assumption that the text justifies slavery, and see what a harmony of all kinds of contradictions it will produce. To obey it, a man would have to restore his slaves to freedom. If, then, the text justifies slaveholding, it justifies disobedience to its own command. They were deprived of their liberty by injustice, and justice would restore it. Then if the text justifies slaveholding, it justifies injustice. Slaves cannot "be held at all without a violation of all just notions of equity." Then if the text justifies slaveholding, it justifies a violation of all the just notions of equity. It contains a principle which would lay the axe at the root of slavery. If then it justifies slavery, it lays the axe at the root of the thing it justifies. It "would lead a conscientious Christian to feel that his slaves ought to be free." If then it justifies slaveholding, it justifies men in acting contrary to their conscientious feelings. Such are the contradictions involved if we in the light of Mr. Barnes' notes, allow that the text justifies slaveholding. I may at this point claim that I have disposed of another of the supposed strong texts in support of slavery, and will dismiss it with what has been said. Paul to Timothy does not justify slavery. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine 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." 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2. This text has been supposed by some the most difficult one in the New Testament, for an anti-slavery expositor to dispose of. If, however, the reader will keep his mind on the real issue, the text will furnish no very hard task. The question is, does the text prove American slavery to be right? I am not bound in this issue, to prove that slavery is wrong; the advocate of slavery is bound to show that the text justifies slavery, that it contains principles which are not only applicable to American slavery, but which, when applied, prove it to be right. I am bound in a fair reply, to prove no more than that it contains no such justification of slavery. That will not be a hard task. But I will be generous and do more than the issue demands of me. I. It is not sufficiently certain that the text treats of slaves and slaveholders, so as to render it a conclusive argument in support of the rightful existence of slavery. The whole ground has been gone over in the examination of other texts, with the exception of two additional points which this text presents, viz., that some servants were under the yoke, and some had believing masters. If slavery is not found in one or the other of these points, it is not found in the text, all other points having been already examined. The first question, then, is, does being under the yoke imply slavery? It certainly is not sufficiently clear that the yoke implies slavery to justify a reliance upon it to prove the fact that slavery existed. 1. The Greek word zugon, here rendered yoke, does not mean slavery. It literally means the yoke by which oxen, horses, and mules are coupled together for draught. Hence, it means anything that joins two things together. It may be used in a metaphorical sense. The use of a word in a metaphorical sense, cannot determine what the thing is to which it is applied, since the known character of the thing to which it is applied, alone can determine in what metaphorical sense the word is used. If it were first proved that the servants were slaves it would follow that yoke, as applied to them, means slavery; but that is so far from being the case, that the application of the word yoke to them, is relied upon to prove that they were slaves, and the whole argument must fail. It is reduced to a circle, thus: They were slaves because they were under the yoke, which means slavery. The term yoke means slavery, as applied to them, because they were slaves. Such arguments prove nothing. 2. There is no other instance in the New Testament in which the word is used to denote anything like slavery. It is used in only six instances. In one, Rev. vi, 5, it is used with strict reference to its literal sense. It is here translated a "pair of balances," because the two parts are fastened together by the beam. In every other case it is used metaphorically. Christ uses it twice, Matt. xi, 29, 30, "Take my yoke upon you." "My yoke is easy." Here it means the moral obligations of the gospel. As though he had said, take the profession and duties of my religion upon you. There is no slavery in this, though there are obligations which bind them to Christ. The same word is found in Acts, xv, 10, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the necks of his disciples?" Here it means the obligations of the Mosaic law, not slavery. The other text is Gal. v, 1, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Here the yoke of bondage is the obligations of the Mosaic law. Yoke means obligation, and bondage means service. It would be just as good a translation to render it, "be not entangled again with the obligation of service." Apply these facts to the text under consideration, and there will be no slavery in it. "As many servants as are under the yoke," understand obligation by yoke, for it means anything that binds or couples together, and it will be plain. "Let as many servants as are under obligation." But the Greek word hosos, rendered, "as many as,"—for these three words in the English text come from the one in Greek—is not translated in its only admissible sense. Dr. McKnight renders it, whatever. "Whatever servants." It often has this sense, but this does not exhaust the meaning. The following are the principal senses in which the word is used: Of size, as great as; of quantity, as much as; of space or distance, as far as; of time, as long as; of number, as many as; of sound, as loud as. It is used of time in six texts in the New Testament, Matt. ix, 15, "Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them." Mark ii, 19. "As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast." Rom. vii, 1. "The law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth." 1 Cor. vii, 39. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth." Gal. iv, 1. "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant." 2 Pet. i, 13. "I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up." Give the word the same sense in the text under consideration, and it will read, "As long as servants are under obligation let them count their own masters worthy of all honor." There is certainly but little slavery in the text in this form, and it is perfectly clear that there would never have been any in it, had not the translators and readers first originated slavery in their own minds, to make zugon mean the yoke, that is, the bondage of chattel slavery. If, then, there is no slavery in the yoke or in being under the yoke, was there any in the fact that some had believing masters? Surely not, for if the unbelieving masters were not chattel slaveholders, it cannot be pretended that the believing masters were. If the servants of the unbelieving, blaspheming masters were not slaves, it cannot be supposed that the servants of the believing masters were. II. If the above argument be all thrown aside, and it be admitted that the servants under the yoke were chattel slaves, it will not follow that slavery is right. There is no justification of slavery in the text, upon the supposition that slavery is the thing treated of. Let it be borne in mind that I must not now reason upon the principles of any exposition of the text given above, that is based upon the assumption that there was no slavery in the case. In admitting that slavery existed, and that Paul treated of it, for the sake of the argument, I must set that exposition aside and fall back upon the pro-slavery glass. Where, then, I demand, is the proof that slavery is right, that Paul sanctioned it? 1. It is not found in the fact that Paul commanded the servants under the yoke to count their own masters worthy of all honor. The only reason assigned for the command, is that "the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." There is no intimation that the masters had a rightful claim upon them, but they were wicked men, who, if their Christian servants did not render to them obedience and respect, would blaspheme the name of the Christian's God and oppose Christianity. But why did not Paul command these wicked masters to emancipate their slaves, if he condemned, or did not mean to sanction, slavery? The answer is plain. (1) He was not writing to them, but to Timothy concerning the church. (2) He had no power or influence over these wicked heathen masters to command them. (3) Such a command, concerning them, would have produced the very thing his direction concerning servants was designed to prevent. It would have been an occasion of their blaspheming the name of God and his doctrine. Such a command, issued by Paul to Timothy, concerning these wicked blaspheming masters, might have led to the destruction of the infant church in that place. It was better therefore not to meet the question by a specific rule, only so far as to instruct servants so to conduct themselves toward their masters, as to provoke their wrath and opposition as little as possible, and leave the matter to the action of the gospel which would abolish slavery as fast as men were brought under its influence.