Why, then, it may be asked, did not the apostles place themselves in more direct and obvious opposition to it while visiting the cities and countries of heathen nations? Why did they not everywhere denounce it and command the whole world to relinquish it? Now such questions betray a total ignorance of the whole circumstances of the case. Who were the apostles in the estimation of mankind in that age? They were men of no worldly influence, few, and poor, and des]iised. strangers wherever they appeared; and the effect of their entering into a band-to-hand fight with any of the institutions of society would have been to throw an insuperable barrier in the way of the progress of the (iospel. This course, moreover, would have mani- fested the folly of expecting to reap before the seed was sown. First of all, it was indispensable that men's moral notions should be rectified; that the principles of love and universal brotherhood should be inculcated upon them ; that they should discover in the one sac- rifice of Christ for rich and j)<)or, for bond and free, for men of all colors and climes, that (iod looked upon them all with equal favor; and not until these i<ieas were embraced by multitudes, and, iu fact, permeated the great mass of society, was it possible tiiat a system so rooted as slavery could be plucked up or even much changed.
The laws which the great Deliverer and Redeemer of mankind gave for the government of his kingdom were those of universal justice and benevolence, and as such were subversive of every system of tyranny and oppression. To suppose, therefore, as has been rashly asserted, that .Jesus or his apostles gave their sanction to the existing systems of slavery among the (ireeks and Itomans is to dishonor them. That the reciprocal duties of masters and servants (PovXoi) were inculcated admits, indeed, of no doubt (Col. iii, 22; iv, 1 ; Tit, ii, it; 1 Ret, ii, 18; Ephcs. vi, 5-!)). But the performance of these duties on the part of the masters, supposing
SLAVERY
"799
SLAVERY
them to have been slave-masters, would have been tan- tamount to the utter subversion of the relation. There can be no doubt either that '-servants under the yoke," or the slaves of heathens, are exhorted to yield obedi- ence to their masters (1 Tim. vi, 1). Hut this argues no approval of the relation; for (1) .Jesus, in an analo- gous case, appeals to the paramount law of nature as superseding such temporary regulations as the " hard- ness of men's hearts" had rendered necessary (see Wright [Rev. W.], Slavery at the Cape of Good IJope [1831], p. .58) ; and (2) Paul, while counselling the du- ties of contentment and submission under inevitable bondage, inculcates at the same time on the slave the duty of adopting all legitimate means of obtaining his freedom (1 Cor. vii, 18-20). We are aware that the application of this passage has been denied by Chrysos- tom, Photius, Theodoret, and Theophylact, who main- tain that it is the state of slavery which Paul here rec- ommends the slave to prefer. But although this in- terpretation is indeed rendered admissible by the con- text, yet the more received meaning, or that which counsels freedom, is both more easily connected with the preceding phrase, " if thou mayest he made free, use it' rather,'" and is, as Neander observes, "more in accordance with the liberal views of the free-minded Paul" (Bilroth, Commentary on Corinthians, in Bib. Cab.). Besides, the character of the existing slavery to which we now refer was utterly inconsistent with the entire tenor of the moral and humane principles of the pre- cepts of Jesus.
B\it it has been alleged that as Paul sent back Ones- imus to Philemon, he thus not only testified his appro- bation of slavery, but even countenanced the princi- ples of modern fugitive-slave law. This is one of the weakest arguments that could well be employed. Did Paul send back Onesimus against his will, bound hand and foot, and labelled as a piece of property ? On the contrary, he sent him as one brother to another — a con- vert, like his master, to Christianity ; and the whole epistle implies that Onesimus returned with his own free consent, because persuaded that he would now be more happy with Philemon than anywhere else. What countenance is there here for a fugitive -slave law to enforce the restoration of runawaj's? Can we imagine that Paul would have spontaneously acted upon the principle of such a law when it was in direct contra- diction to the religion he had been reared in, which ex- pressly forbade that anj' servant who had fled from his master should be sent back to him? This would have been not only to ignore the benign spirit of the Gospel, but even to fall below the lower platform of the pre- paratory dispensation. This would have been to follow the advice of the foolish counsellors of Rehoboam, and to exchange the whip of Solomon's gentle reign for the scorpion of intolerable oppression. The return of Onesi- mus to Philemon was the return of one friend to another with the congratulations of a common friend who was unspeakably dear to both. Slavery finds no support at all in the Word of God, and the attempt to deduce its principles from Scripture does the utmost dishonor to the benign and merciful spirit of the (iospel.