The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
Paul to the Corinthians does not justify slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be free use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: also he that is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God." 1 Cor. vii, 20-22. This text may refer to slavery, the persons here called servants, doulos, may have been slaves. It is not certain that they were slaves because they are called doulos; for this term is often applied to free persons who are merely in the employ of another. The fact is admitted that slavery did exist in that country, and that the word doulos might be applied to a slave, just as our word servant, is used to denote any one who serves, whether voluntary or involuntary, free or bond. This is all the concession candor requires me to make, and in this lies all the proof there is that slavery is involved in the case. The text upon its face contains several things which are unfavorable to the idea that the persons treated of were chattel slaves. I urge two grounds of defense against any conclusion drawn from the text, that slavery is or can be right. I. It is not clear that the persons were slaves, to whom the apostle wrote. This is a vital point and must be positively proved; inference or mere probability will not do in such a case. Here is a great system of human bondage, sought to be justified, and of course, no text can be admitted as proving it right, unless it be certain that it relates to this subject. Now, where is the proof that this text certainly speaks of slaves? 1. The use of the word, doulos, does not prove it, for that is applied to Jesus Christ, Paul and Peter, to all Christians, and to free persons who are in the employ of others, whether as public officers or mere laborers. 2. The general instruction given does not prove that the persons addressed were slaves. The general instruction is for all to abide in the same calling they were in when converted. The same principle is applied specifically to husbands and wives, as well as to servants. The general instruction therefore does not prove that slaves are meant. 3. The specific application of this instruction to servants by name, does not prove that they were slaves. It might be necessary to give such instruction to free or hired servants. The gospel was making inroads upon a heathen community, and it may be presumed that the greatest portion of the converts were among the lower classes and servants. If these servants were all to forsake their positions and the employ of all unconverted employers, so soon as they were converted, it would not only produce confusion and much inconvenience, but bring Christianity into discredit and provoke persecution. It would not only deprive many families of the requisite number of laborers, but would throw an equal number of laborers out of employ. 4. The exception which the apostle makes to the specific application of his general rule to servants, does not prove that they were slaves. The exception is this, "But if thou mayest be made free use it rather." This is doubtless the strongest point in support of slavery contained in the text, for those who must find slavery in it somehow, will at once say that it supposes that they might not be able to be free, in which case they must be slaves. This is plausible, but it is not a necessary conclusion, and therefore cannot be allowed as establishing the rightfulness of slavery. It may refer to contracts and relations voluntarily entered into for a limited term of years, and for a price stipulated. Such cases exist in every community, and where a considerable portion of an entirely heathen community, should suddenly embrace Christianity, some of the converts would be found sustaining these relations, and involved in these obligations to heathen parties entirely unfriendly to the spiritual interest of such converts. Now, though it would not be proper to violently rupture all such contracts on the conversion of one of the parties, though it would be a good general rule for every man to abide in his calling or occupation, yet where a release could be peaceably obtained in any such case, it would be best to improve it. This is all the text necessarily means, and this is rendered the more probable sense, from the fact that, if they were really slaves, and their state of slavery regarded as right in the light of the gospel, the probability of obtaining a release would hardly be great enough to constitute the basis of a special apostolic rule. Indeed, the exposition is more consistent with the whole scope of the apostle's reasoning than any exposition that can be based upon the assumption that chattel slavery was the thing with which the apostle was dealing. II. Allowing that the text does treat of slaves, that the person named as "called being a servant," was a personal chattel, it does not prove slavery to be right, or throw over it any sanction, not even by implication. The former exposition is doubtless the right one, upon the supposition that the persons were not slaves, but upon the supposition that they were slaves, that exposition is set aside, and one entirely different must be resorted to. No such exposition can be adopted as will make the text approve of slavery. 1. The direction, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is called," does not teach the duty of a voluntary submission to slavery, upon the supposition that the direction was given to slaves; and unless it teaches the duty of voluntary submission to slavery, it does not and cannot prove slavery to be right. The words, "If thou mayest be free, use it rather," are just as positive and binding as the words, "let every man abide in the same calling," and allowing the words to be addressed to slaves, they command every Christian convert, who is a slave, to obtain his freedom if he can; it leaves him no right to consent to be a slave, if he may be free; if he has power to be free. The word here translated mayest, is dunamai, and is translated in this case by too soft a term to do justice to the original in this connection. It is used to express a thing possible or impossible in the most absolute sense. It occurs in about two hundred and ten texts, and is uniformly translated can, and with a negative particle cannot, able and not able, and in very few cases, not over five in all, it is rendered may; once it is rendered might, and in only one case besides the text, is rendered mayest. That is Luke xvi, 2, "Thou mayest be no longer steward." Here a stronger word would do better justice to the sense. The word occurs in such texts as the following: "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matt. iii, 9. "A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid." v, 14. "Thou canst not make one hair white or black." 36. "No man can serve two masters." vi, 24. "But are not able to kill the soul." x, 28. "From which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts xiii, 39. "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom. viii, 8. "To him that is of power to stablish you." xvi, 25. The word is supposed to be derived from deinos, powerful, and hence in the expression "If thou mayest be free," the sense is, if thou hast power to be free, if thou hast strength to be free, if thou art able to be free, if thou canst be free, "use it rather." There can be no doubt of this position, that the text leaves those concerned no choice between slavery and liberty; if it refers to slaves, it requires them to take and use their liberty if they can get it, leaving no right to remain in the condition of slaves any longer than up to the time they can be free. This is very important in two points of light. 1. It is a most clearly implied condemnation of slavery as unfriendly to the development of Christianity in the heart and life. This of itself proves that the text does not and cannot justify slavery. 2. This positive command requiring the slave to146take and use his liberty, whenever he can get it, necessarily qualifies and limits what is said of abiding in the condition wherein they were called. "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called, being a servant? Care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." The sense must be that the slave was to abide in slavery as a Christian, until he could be made free, rather than to give up his Christianity on the ground that a slave must first be made free before he could be a Christian. The obligation was to be a Christian while he was compelled to remain a slave, rather than to remain a slave one hour after he could be free. To abide in the same calling wherein he was called, means that he should remain a Christian in that condition, until he can get out of it rather than waiting until he can get out of it before he undertakes to be a Christian. The fact that the slave is commanded to use his freedom if he can be made free, forbids any other construction than that which I have put upon the words. The command to use his liberty if he can be made free, limits the command to abide as he was called, to the sense of submitting to slavery as an unavoidable evil, until he can get out of it in a manner consistent with the laws of Christianity. This is all the obligation that is imposed upon the slave, and this is not the slightest justification of slavery, for there is not a Christian anti-slavery man in the country, even the most ultra, who would not now give the same advice to all the slaves in the land, could they speak in their ears. Advice or a command to submit to a wrong which we have not power to prevent, is no justification of that wrong. "But I say unto you that ye resist not evil," is no justification of evil. The fact that "charity beareth all things," and "endureth all things," does not prove that all things thus borne and endured are right. So no command, were it ever so plain, to submit, ever so quietly to slavery, as a condition from which we have no power to escape, could be a justification of slavery. It strikes me that we are compelled to this explanation of the text to save the apostle from confusion and self-contradiction, if we admit that he was really treating of chattel slavery. We cannot suppose that the apostle uses the same word in two or more different senses in the same most intimate connection, without giving any intimation of the fact; if therefore we render the word doulos, slave instead of servant, we must preserve this rendering through the whole connection. In that case the text will read thus: "Let every man abide in the same calling where he was called. Art thou called being a slave, care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord being a slave is the Lord's freeman; likewise, he also that is called being free is Christ's slave. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the slaves of men." This makes the apostle assert that a converted slave is a slave of man, and God's free man at the same time. This is impossible, for if the obligations of slavery are morally binding on the slave, he cannot be free to serve God; but if the slavery be an entire unmixed moral wrong, imposing no moral obligation on the slave, but only a physical restraint, then can the slave be God's free man, just as clearly as he whose feet and hands should be paralyzed, could still be God's free man, his head and heart being still sound. Again, the assumption that the apostle is treating of chattel slavery, as the text is above rendered, makes him assert that the converted slave is God's free man, and that the converted free man is God's slave. If by servitude a voluntary state is meant, in which case there is no chattel slavery; or if chattel slavery be understood, as a human crime, inflicted upon them by force, imposing no moral obligation, then the whole is consistent. Finally, the idea that chattel slavery is involved, and that slaves are under moral obligation to submit to it, as per corresponding moral right on the part of the slaveholder to hold them as slaves, makes the apostle command them to abide in slavery and not to abide in it; to be slaves and not to be at the same time. The sense must run thus,—"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is called," that is, if a man is called being a slave, let him remain a slave; but as "ye are bought with a price, be not ye the slaves of men." A more direct and palpable contradiction could not be perpetrated. But allow that there is no justification of slavery, that slaves are only directed to submit to it and bear it as a physical necessity which they have no power to escape, and the whole is plain and consistent; then may they be required to abide in it and endure all its wrongs as Christians, until providence shall open a way for them to escape from it. I have bestowed full attention to the above text, because it is believed to be one of the strongest in support of slavery, and because it is the first of the class with which I have undertaken to grapple. In disposing of it, I have settled some principles, which can be applied in the consideration of other texts, without having to be again discussed at length.