The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
Paul to the Ephesians has not sanctioned Slavery.
"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 God 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." Eph. vi, 5-9. This is another of the strongest texts urged by the advocates of slavery, in support of the terrible institution. On the examination of each of these texts, two principle questions are necessarily raised, viz: first, does the text treat of slaves, slaveholders, and slavery? and secondly, if so, does it sanction slavery as morally right? Unless both these questions are clearly and undeniably answered in the affirmative, the argument for slavery must fall. We say then of this text: 1. It is not certain that the persons here called servants, were chattel slaves; and that the persons called masters, were slaveholders. 1. It does not follow that slaves and slaveholders are treated of from the terms employed. The word here translated servants is douloi, the plural of doulos. That this word of itself does not prove that chattel slaves are meant, has been already sufficiently shown. The word masters is kurioi, the plural of kurios. It has been sufficiently shown that this word does not necessarily mean a slaveholder. I will however add two examples of its use. "The same Lord (Kurios), over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Rom. x, 12. Here the word is used to denote the supreme Ruler of all men. "Sirs (kurioi, plural of kurios), what must I do to be saved." Here the word is used as a mere title or sign of respect, and can mean no more than our English words, sirs, gentlemen, or mister. The use of the word therefore can not prove that slaveholders are intended. 2. The duties enjoined upon these servants does not prove that they were slaves. Not a word is said which will not apply as appropriately to free hired laborers as to slaves. (1.) The command to obey them that were their masters, does not prove the existence of chattel slavery. This must follow from two considerations. First, their obedience was limited to what was morally right. This is clear from the fact that their obedience was to be rendered, "as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." This limits obedience to the will of God, and makes the actor, the judge of what that will is, which is inconsistent with chattel slavery. Secondly, with this limitation, obedience is due to all employers, and all free persons who engage in the service of others, are bound to obey them, and carry out all their orders, according to the usages of the community, within the limits of the will of God, or what is morally right. Such a direction to a community, newly converted from heathenism, and still intermingled with the unconverted heathen, must have been necessary, and its observance essential to the reputation and future success of the gospel among them. It is clear then that the simple command that servants obey, does not prove that they were slaves. (2.) The qualifying words added to the word masters, "according to the flesh," do not prove the existence of the relation of owner and slave. The Greek word, sarkos, here rendered, flesh, literally signifies the human body in contradistinction from the spirit or mind. Matthew Henry construes it thus: "Who have the command of your bodies, but not of your souls: God above has dominion over these." Dr. A. Clarke thus: "Your masters in secular things; for they have no authority over your religion nor over your souls." Rev. A. Barnes, thus: "This is designed evidently to limit the obligation. The meaning is, that they had control over the body, the flesh. They had the power to command the service which the body could render; but they were not lords of the spirit. The soul acknowledges God as its Lord, and to the Lord they were to submit in a higher sense than to their masters." Allow either of these expositions, and there can be no slavery made out of the text. If there be a limit to the slave's obedience, and if the slave is judge of that limit, as he must be, for the language is addressed to him, to govern his conduct, then there is an end to slavery. But if we understand free men under contract to serve others, it is all plain. The limitation, "according to the flesh," must mean, obey them in secular matters only, and so far only as does not conflict with the spiritual or moral claims of Christianity. It left them no right to serve or to agree to serve beyond what was consistent with their obligations and duties as Christians. (3.) The manner of rendering the obedience required does not prove the existence of chattel slavery. The manner was, "with fear and trembling." The words, phobou kai tromou, fear and trembling, are capable of a great latitude of meaning, from absolute terror to a religious veneration, or the respect due to any superior. The same expression occurs in two other texts. The first is 2 Cor. vii, 15, where Paul says of Titus, "with fear and trembling, phobou kai tromou, ye have received him." The other text is Phil. ii, 12. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, phobou kai tromou." In this text fear and trembling means deep solicitude or apprehension. The Greek word phobou, which is the genitive singular of phobos, is defined thus: "Fear, dread, terror, fright, apprehension, alarm, flight, rough." If it be understood in its mildest sense, as fear in the sense of anxiety, reverence or respect, or apprehension, in the sense of uneasiness of mind, lest by failing to obey, they should injure the reputation of the gospel, it is all perfectly consistent with the position and duties of free hired servants. And this is all that the word necessarily means. The same word is used to express the respect which wives are required to manifest toward their husbands. "Wives be in subjection to your own husbands; that if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear." 1 Peter iii, 1, 2. Here the same word is used in the original translated fear. If the words, phobou kai tromou, be understood in any higher sense, which renders it inapplicable to free hired laborers, as dread, terror, or fright, it renders the whole matter inconsistent with a Christian brotherhood, and makes the Scriptures contradict themselves. No Christian can be justified in holding his brother Christian under his own reign of terror, which makes him afraid and causes him to tremble at the sound of his footsteps, or the tone of his voice, or the flash of his eye. "Fear and trembling," in such a sense, is inconsistent with what is said to the masters. This will be clearly seen hereafter. It is only necessary at this point to remark that slaves would not be likely to fear and tremble before masters, who were not allowed even to threaten them. It would make the Scriptures contradict themselves, for it is written, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear hath torment." 1 John iv, 18. Such are the difficulties, if we understand the language, "fear and tremble," in the sense in which slaves fear and tremble in the South; but if we understand it in the milder sense in which I have explained it above, and in which sense it is applicable to free laborers, and to wives as shown, the whole matter will appear plain. It must appear from what has been said that there is nothing in the duties enjoined which proves the existence of slavery.1543. The discrimination between bond and free, does not prove the existence of slavery. As an encouragement to faithful servants, Paul says, "Whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free." This does not add the slightest force to the argument, for the word that is rendered bond, is the same that is rendered servant in the 5th verse. It is doulos; doulos eite eleutheros; bond or free. "Whether he be servant or free," would be a translation more in accordance with common usage. The word doulos, servant, occurs over one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament, and in every instance is translated servant, save seven in which it is rendered bond. Four of the seven exceptions occur in the writings of Paul, and the text under consideration is the only one which can be supposed to justify slavery in any sense. The other three are as follows: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." 1 Cor. xii, 13. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond or free." Gal. iii, 28. "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free." Col. iii, 10, 11. If the word doulos, rendered bond, in these texts, means a chattel slave, the thing cannot exist among Christians, and the gospel abolishes the relation of master and slave as soon as the parties are converted. The other three cases in which the word doulos is translated bond, are in Revelation. They need not be examined as they have no important bearing on the question. We see from the above the discrimination between bond and free does not prove the existence of chattel slavery, because it is perfectly appropriate to distinguish between men who are the servants of others, as hired laborers, and those who are not. It only has the force of the word servant in contradistinction from one who is an employer, or who labors for himself. 4. The obligations imposed upon the masters do not prove that they were chattel slaveholders, or that their servants were their chattel slaves. I know not how to reconcile what is said to the masters with the possibility that chattel slavery is involved. This however is not my part of the enterprise; my work is to show that what is said does not prove that slavery existed, and if in doing this, I prove that it did not exist, it will be the result of the nature of the facts I have to deal with. Two things are commanded for which a reason is assigned. (1) Masters are commanded to "do the same things unto them," that is to their servants. What is here meant "by the same things?" It certainly does not refer to what had been said to servants. It will not admit of a strict literal construction, for that would require the master to obey the servant with fear and trembling; it would be to put the servant and the master upon an exact equality in all things. This we know the apostle did not mean, and to attempt to ground an argument upon such a literal sense, would be to appear uncandid. "The same things," in the connection, literally means just what he had been telling the servants to do, but from this we must depart, but we are not allowed to depart from the literal sense only so far as to reach a sense which will be in harmony with the general scope of the subject. Let us try it. Suppose we understand by "the same things," that Paul merely meant to command masters to act toward their servants, upon the same principles upon which he had commanded the servants to act toward them; or in other words, that Paul meant to command masters to pursue a course of conduct toward their servants, which corresponds to the conduct which he had commanded the servants to pursue toward them. This strikes me as not only a fair and liberal view, but as the only true view. A slaveholder cannot deny the fairness of this construction of the words. Now let me apply the principle. It will run thus: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters." Masters give no oppressive, unreasonable, or morally wrong commands. Then must the servant be left free to serve his God, and discharge all the domestic duties of a husband, father, wife, mother, son, or daughter. This would make an end of chattel slavery. Servants obey with fear and trembling, that is with all due respect for superiors. Masters, treat your servants with all the gentleness and kindness that is done from a superior to an inferior. This even cannot be reconciled with chattel slavery. Servants, serve in singleness of heart, as unto Christ. Masters, conduct yourselves toward your servants with entire honesty, and pay them for their labor as doing it unto Christ. Servants, serve "not with eye-service as man pleasers, but as the servants of Christ." Masters, do not treat your servants in the presence of others with apparent kindness to secure a good name, and then abuse them when there is no one to see or hear; but treat them with the same honesty and purity of motive with which you serve Christ. Servants, obey as doing the will of God from the heart. Masters, command and claim nothing which is contrary to the will of God. There is certainly no slavery in all this, but much which appears inconsistent with slavery. It would not be sufficient to say that it might refer to slavery, or that it might be reconciled with slavery; it must positively mean slavery beyond a doubt to be admitted as proof of the rightful existence of slavery in this land and age, for that is the real question. (2.) Masters are commanded to forbear threatening. This does not prove that Paul was treating of chattel slaveholders and slaves. This forbids all punishment, all chastisement. No construction can be put upon the words which will make them less restrictive. The Greek word aniemi, here rendered forbearing, has a variety of significations and shades of meaning, among which are the following. "To remit, forgive, forbear; to dismiss, leave, let alone; to desert, forsake; to let slip, omit, neglect." The word occurs but four times in the New Testament as follows: Acts xvi, 29, where it is translated loosed. "Every one's hands were loosed." Acts xxvii, 40; it is again translated loosed. "They committed themselves unto the sea, and loosed the rudder-hands, and hoisted up the mainsail to the wind." Heb. xiii, 5, it is translated will leave, being accompanied with a negative never. "He hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." The only remaining case is the text under consideration, where it is translated forbearing, threatening. There is seen to be nothing in the use of the word in other texts to make it mean less than a command not to threaten at all. He who threatens in any degree does not forbear threatening. The word threatening denotes the act of making a declaration of an intention to inflict punishment. It is used in no other sense. It occurs but four times in the New Testament. Acts iv, 17. "But that it spread no further among the people, let us strictly threaten them." The Greek words are, apilee, apilesometha, a literal translation of which would be, "Let us threaten them with threatening." In the twenty-ninth verse it is said, "And now Lord behold their threatening." The other text where the word occurs is Acts ix, 1. "And Saul yet breathing out threatening," apilee, threatening. It is clear then that the word forbearing, as used in the text, means not to do, or refrain from doing; and the word threatening means the making a declaration of a purpose to inflict punishment. The two words therefore, as connected in the text, amount to a command not to threaten punishment. This by the most certain implication forbids the punishment itself. It would be absurd to suppose Christian slaveholders were allowed to inflict a punishment, which they were forbidden to threaten. It is certain then in the case of the masters and servants here treated of, the masters were not allowed by the law of Christianity to inflict any punishment upon their servants, for they were not allowed even to threaten them. This principle carried out would make an end of chattel slavery, such is human nature, under every modification yet known, that chattel slavery can be maintained only by physical force, which holds the slave in constant dread of punishment, and which amounts to a constant warfare, not only upon his skin, but upon his life. 5. The reason assigned for the commands given to the masters is very far from proving that they were slaveholders, or that their servants were chattel slaves. This reason is thus stated: "Knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." The word, Master, here is the same as in the direction, only here it is singular, kurios, and there it is plural, kurioi. Translate it slaveholder and it would read thus: "Ye slaveholders, do the same things unto them; knowing that your slaveholder also is in heaven." Or more correctly, "ye owners, do the same things unto them; knowing that your owner also is in heaven." Every one must know that this does not express the true sense of the apostle. The meaning is, that they were to conduct themselves justly and kindly toward their servants, or inferiors, because they were the servants of God, to whom they must render an account for their conduct. Now the word kurios not only means God as a name of the Supreme being, but it also signifies a ruler. It is derived from kuros, authority. Translate it by ruler and the whole connection will be consistent. "And ye rulers do the same things unto them; knowing that your ruler is in heaven." It would be a good translation to render it lord, thus, "And ye lords, do the same things unto them; knowing that your Lord also is in heaven." It is so translated in several texts. It is thus rendered in the parable of the talents, Matt. xxiv, 14-30. "After a long time the lord of those servants cometh." Many other cases might be cited where it is thus rendered. In the reason then, so far as regards the fact that they have a Master in heaven, slavery gets no support. But what is affirmed of the Master in heaven, as an additional reason for the command, does not favor slavery. "Neither is there respect of persons with him." These masters were admonished to conduct themselves properly toward their servants, because there was no respect of persons with their Master in heaven. It appears to me this reason destroys the idea of slavery, and proves that no such unequal relation can rightfully exist among Christians. The expression, respect of persons, comes from the Greek word, prosopolepsia, the clear and undeniable sense of which is, that God, their Master in heaven, regarded the two classes of persons here named, masters and servants, just alike, giving them equal rights, and governing them on equal principles. It means that God does not favor one more than another. It means nothing less and nothing more, and nothing else. The word is thus briefly defined, "an excepting of or respect of persons, partially." It appears to me that God cannot sanction chattel slavery, without being a respecter of persons, or being partial. The charge does not lie against other distinctions and differences which exist among men. One is poor, and another is rich, but they all have the same right to seek and gain riches, and the riches on the one hand and the poverty on the other, are often the result of human actions which God condemns. But if slavery be right, men are made slaves prospectively before they are born, by a rule of God's moral government, and without any reference to their prospective conduct, and they are born into the world without the right to seek for themselves the common advantages of life. If God be the author of this; if he has conferred upon one class of persons the right to lay their hands upon another class as they come into the world, and appropriate them to their own use and behoof there is respect of persons with God, the very thing which Paul denies in addressing masters, as the ground of the commands he gives them. Thus it is seen that the reason which the apostle assigns for his directions cuts up the foundation principle of chattel slavery, and destroys the system root and branch. I have now shown that the text under consideration does not contain slavery, that it is not clear that it treats of the thing at all, and I will pass to notice briefly the second point. II. If it were admitted that the text treats of slavery, it does not follow that slavery is right, for it in no sense justifies the necessary assumptions of a chattel slaveholder. 1. The directions given to the servants are no more than might be given to chattel slaves as a means of promoting their own interests, without the slightest endorsement of the master's right to hold them. Suppose a man to be held wrongfully as a slave, without the power to escape from the grasp of his oppressor, what would a friend advise him to do? Just what the apostle has commanded in the case before us. I would say, obey your master in every thing that the law of Christianity will allow you to do, and obey with visble155fear and trembling, for such a course is the only means of securing such treatment as will render life endurable. Self interest would not only dictate such a course, but duty to God would demand it. Christians are bound to pursue a course, within the limits of what may and may not be done, as will render their own lives most peaceful and comfortable, and enable them to be most useful to their fellow creatures in leading them to embrace the same blessed Christianity. With a slave, unable to escape from his chains, such a course would be just the one pointed out by the apostle in the text under consideration. And it is a very striking fact that the apostle makes no appeal to the master's rights as a reason for his directions, but appeals exclusively to the duty they owe to God. He even goes so far as to exclude all together the master with all of his supposed rights from the considerations and motives that are to govern them in their obedience. They are not to do it as men-pleasers, but as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord and not to men. If they were not to do the service as to men, it must follow that man had no rightful claim on that service, and the obedience is commanded not because slavery is right, but because under the circumstances, it was necessary to promote their own comfort and the interests of Christianity. Upon the supposition that there was real chattel slavery involved, there is not the slightest endorsement of the system found in the directions given to the servants. And surely it should be found in the directions given to the servants, if any where. If slavery be a heaven-ordained institution, it might appear necessary to teach the slaves that it is right, and that they owe service to their masters, but it would hardly be necessary to teach masters that they had a right to hold their slaves, lest they should let them go. I say therefore that if there is any justification of slavery, it should be found in the directions given to the servants, and yet there is not the slightest intimation that they owe their masters service, but they are forbidden to do service as to men, but are required to do it as to God. The fact then that there is not the slightest justification of slavery in the directions given to the servants, renders it quite clear that the apostle did not design to justify slavery. 2. There is no justification of slavery found in the directions given to the masters, upon the supposition that they were chattel slaveholders. What they are commanded to do was undoubtedly right, but there is not a word said in these commands which implies that it is right to hold a fellow being as a chattel slave. The argument for slavery does not depend so much upon what is said to the masters, as upon what is not said, and upon assumed facts. The argument is this: they were slaveholders and members of the church, and the apostle wrote to them, giving rules for the regulation of their conduct as masters, and did not command them to emancipate their slaves, or forbid them to hold slaves. This, it is insisted, is an implied endorsement of slavery. This is the strongest form that can be given to the argument, and in this shape I will meet it in this place. (1) The argument is unsound because it takes for granted the main point to be proved, viz: that they were really chattel slaveholders. The words do not prove that to be a fact. It is first taken for granted that slavery existed, and then the words are construed in the light of this assumption. As the words do not prove the existence of chattel slavery, it should be proved that it did exist, before it can be affirmed that the apostle did treat of slavery, or that slaveholders were members of the church. This, on my part, is a falling back upon a previous argument, which I do to make the argument entire in this place, and not to make it the main issue, as the reader will soon see. I have shown that there is no proof found in the text that it treats of chattel slavery. This renders the assertion that slaveholders were in the church, and hence that the apostles wrote to slaveholders, and gave them directions how to conduct themselves as such, mere assumptions, a begging of the question. But I will waive this, and meet the issue upon the assumption that it was chattel slavery of which Paul treated. (2) If it be admitted that slaveholders were members of the church at the time this epistle was written, it will not follow that it is right. Many wrong practices found their way into the church, and many persons were acknowledged members of the church who did not conform in all matters to the doctrines and precepts of Christianity. It is to be borne in mind that the best of the members were fresh converts from heathenism, with all its darkness and corruptions; that there was not pervading the community outside of the church, that general religious light that now pervades the community outside of the church in this country, and that there were not there as many sources of light as there are now among us, and not the same general prevalence of education, and Christian libraries containing the well defined fundamental principles of morality and human duty. Under such circumstances, the church drawing her recruits from amid the dark corruptions of heathenism, by sudden conversions, she could not but be liable to a constant influx of darkness to be enlightened, and corruption to be purged out. If it could be proved that slaveholders were in the church, under such circumstances, it would not follow that it is right without a specific endorsement of the thing itself, since many persons got into the church who were very wrong in some of their practices. In writing to the Corinthian church, "unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus;" Paul said, "Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." 1 Cor. xv, 34. Other texts might be cited to show that there were bad men connected with the church, and men who were partially enlightened, and but partially reformed of their heathen practices. The fact then that a slaveholder should be found in connection with such a church, would not prove slaveholding to be right without a specific endorsement. This compels the advocate of slavery to fall back upon the actual words of the apostle for proof that slavery is right, leaving no ground to infer that it is right, because he finds it in the church. But I have already proved that the words of the apostle contain no endorsement of slavery; that in addressing servants concerning their duty, he sets up no claim of rights on behalf of the master, and that he only urges the rights of God; and that in addressing masters, he makes no allusion to their rights as masters, but urges, on the ground of their accountability to God, a course of conduct entirely inconsistent with chattel slavery. If these slaveholders got into the church, so did other wrong doers get into the church, while Paul, in addressing these slaveholders as a specific class, commanded them to pursue a course which amounted to an entire abolition of chattel slavery. Where, then, is the proof that slavery is right, upon the supposition that slaveholders were in the church? It is not found in the fact that they were in the church, because persons were in the church who practiced what is wrong; and it is not found in the nature of the directions the apostles gave these slaveholders, for he directed them to pursue a course which was an abandonment of all coercive slavery. If, then, slavery is not proved to be right by the fact that it was in the church, nor yet by the apostle's directions on the subject, there is no proof in the text that it is right, allowing slavery to be the subject treated. I have now disposed of another of the strong texts claimed by the advocates of slavery, by proving, first, that it is not clear that it treats of slavery; and secondly, that if it does treat of slavery, it contains no endorsement of the practice of slaveholding.