servant. His saying, "If thou mayest be made free, use it rather," may apply to a hired servant whose worldly condition might require him to occupy the station of a servant. If it should be contended that the term in the original is applicable to a slave rather than to a hired servant, the apostle's admonition, "If thou mayest be made free use it rather," will go to condemn slaveholding. Because if it is just to retain a person in a state of slavery, that person has no power of choice, neither could it be his duty to attempt to be free, more than for a minor or an apprentice to attempt to obtain freedom from his lawful guardian or master; but if this or any other apos. tolical admonition relative to servants should be so construed as to require slaves to obey their masters, it can mean no other than a patient submission to an unlawful yoke, while they could have no prospect of immediate relief.

Eph. vi. 5-9: "Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh; 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 unto the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free." The original word translated servants is douloi, which will signify either slaves or voluntary servants, as appears from the very next verse where the same word is used to express the condition of true believers who are called the douloi, the servants of Christ. It would sound rather harsh to call believers the slaves of Christ; that the term may signify either slaves or voluntary servants is evident from the promiscuous use of it in the Scriptures, where it is often applied to hired servants, as in Luke xv. 22; Matth. xiii. 27, 28; xviii. 23, 28. That the word here means voluntary servants, is further evident from the duties enjoined upon masters. Eph, vi. 9: “And ye masters do the same things unto them forbearing threatening, knowing that your master is in heaven. Neither is there respect of persons with him." Three things are inculcated in these words. The first is, the duty of paying wages to servants after he had directed

509640

servants to be faithful in serving their masters, he imme. diately directs masters to do the same things unto them, which cannot mean the same forms of service, but it must imply just and equitable returns to them for their service, or equitable wages. A second thing inculcated in these words, is, that masters should forbear threatening, which may be done in the government of hirelings, but not in that of slavery. The third thing is, impartiality in their behavior towards them, signified by the last clause of the verse" Neither is there respect of persons with him." But to hold men in a state of unmerited bondage, is the utmost extreme of partiality.

That all apostolical directions to servants to be obedient to their masters respected voluntary servants, and not slaves, is manifest from one special reason. That is, that in general, where obedience to masters is enjoined upon servants, obedience in children to their parents is also enjoined, which shews that the servants specified in those injunctions were voluntary servants, and not slaves, for if all children without exception are bound by command of God, to obey their parents, and all parents are in duty bound to instruct and govern their families, it is impossi ble that the authority of the slaveholder can be lawful, when it of necessity contravenes the authority of the slave parents to command, and the power of the slave children to obey. That the reader may perceive the force of this argument, let him read the verses which precede the words we have had under consideration. Col. iii. 22: "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." That these directions have a strict relation to the common servants and not to slaves, is evident from his classing the duties of servants with the natural duties of husbands and wives, parents and children. That command which binds children to obey their parents in all things as a duty wellpleasing in the sight of the Lord is incompatible with slavery ; therefore the words in the 22d verse cannot

have a respect to slaves, without contradicting the obligations laid upon parents and children in the preceding verses. That the apostle's injunction refers to voluntary servants and not to slaves, is further evident from his injunction upon masters in the beginning of the next chapter. Verse 1: "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you have a master in heaven." Masters are here commanded to give unto their servants that which is just; that is, a reward for their labor; and equal, which requires the wages to be proportionate to their labor. If these servants were even slaves, and rendered incapable by the Roman laws of being made free, this command would have bound the masters to pay them wages equal to their labor.

1 Tim. vi. 1: "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." The expression, servants under the yoke, may signify hired servants, or any persons that are under any bond or obligation to serve others; yet con. sidering that slavery in the apostle's time was universal throughout the world, the duties inculcated in the text, may relate to slaves, without contradicting anything that has been advanced against the practice of slaveholding. This will appear from two general reasons. The first is that all the subjects of the Roman empire were in a man. ner slaves, their lives and property so completely under the power of the emperor and other subordinate tyrants that none were free; so that the state of common slaves could have hardly been worse than that of their masters.

Secondly.-The apostle knew well the obstacles which would have prevented a general emancipation of slaves, to wit, the Roman law. He also knew that few masters would be disposed to keep slaves, pay them wages, and be responsible for their conduct, longer than the laws of the empire would admit of their freedom. Therefore, he more immediately enjoined upon Christians the duty of paying them just and equitable wages, than to liberate

them, in direct contradiction to the laws of government. The reason which is added to excite servants to be obe. dient to their believing masters, is properly opposed to slavery, because they are faithful; which intimates faith. fulness in paying them wages, as well as beloved for their humane treatment, and partakers of the benefit, that is, of the profits arising from their labor. A servant that receives wages may be faithful and diligent in his master's service, and the benefits redounding to his master from his labor may be a motive of encouragement to greater diligence and faithfulness; but we can hardly expect that a person who receives no compensation for his labor, can view the prosperity of his master, and the profits arising from his labor as motives of encouragement.

What Paul writes to Philemon respecting Onesimus, is so far from countenancing slavery, as some would have it, that it operates against it. That Onesimus was a ser. vant of Philemon, was evident; but whether he was a hireling, a servant for debt, or a minor, is not said. That he could not be a slave, is manifest from Paul's speaking of him as being then free from any obligation to be subject to Philemon in the character of a servant, and admonishes him to receive him, not as a servant, but as a son. If it is a moral duty to keep men in a state of slavery, a slave becoming a convert to Christianity cannot lay the master under an obligation to set him free, more than a minor or son, professing Christianity, will loose him from his obligation to serve and obey his father. Gal. iv. 1: "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant." If it is true, that a master must emancipate his slave upon his professing Christianity, while previous to that, the moral law made it his duty to keep him in perpetual bondage, it will suppose that Christ came to destroy the law, or which is the same thing, to loose men from its obligation. Phil. 18: "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account." The insinuation, if he hath wronged thee, is a plain intimation that Paul did not consider him as a slave who had departed from his master; for if Philemon had held him as his lawful slave, his departure could be no matter of hesitation whether he had wronged him by run

ning away; therefore, when Paul said, "If he hath wronged thee," he insinuates that there might have been some part of his time that, as a servant, he had not fulfilled. "If he oweth thee aught." This is another insinuation that he could not be a slave, for slaves are not apt to owe sums of money to their masters. His saying, "Put that on mine account," is a further evidence that Onesimus was not a slave, for we have no reason to think that Paul, who was then a prisoner, could have where with to purchase his freedom.

CHAPTER IX.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SLAVERY.

The arguments in favor of slavery are mostly drawn from four resources.

First.-From the Scriptural accounts we have of bond. men and bond maids, servants under the yoke, and the obedience which is so strictly and repeatedly enjoined upon them. All this no person denies, but it in no respect affects the matter in dispute. It is involuntary, unmerited, hereditary slavery which we condemn, and which no Scripture will justify, as has already been shown; and further, if slavery had never been practised in the world since the creation, all these texts which enjoin the duties of servants to their masters, could have their full and direct application to minor servants and hirelings, to such as might be subject to bondage for their crimes or for debt. Then, can any one of them be taken for a vindi. cation of slavery?

Secondly.-Some plead for slavery from the decrees of God and his foreknowledge. But to attempt to prove any doctrine or practice on that principle, would justify the Jews in crucifying Jesus Christ. The moral law is our rule of duty, and not any thing pertaining to the secret will or foreknowledge of God.

Thirdly. Some plead for slavery from Noah's curse pronounced upon the posterity of Ham, but it is not unfavorable to the cause of freedom that the prophetic curse