LESSON IX.
We now propose to notice the scriptural use of the wordδουλος,doulos, and its derivatives, not only that its use may be compared with the Greek writers, but that it may be seen, as we believe is true, that its use in these carries with it abundant proof, even in the absence of all other, that “it means a slave,” and “that he to whom it was applied was a slave.”
Whenever a thing is made any part of discourse, it is necessarily placed in a position of commendation, reprehension, or of perfect indifference. One of these conditions must unavoidably attend its mention. A little reflection will enable us to perceive these distinctive positions. For instance, in the sentence, “Lay up treasures in heaven, where moth and rust doth not corrupt, nor thieves break through nor steal,” who does not feel the commendable position of the things, treasure and heaven, and the reverse of moth, rust, and thieves? Let us apply this view to the wordservant, selecting only those instances in the Christian Scriptures, where the word is translated from the Greek wordδουλος,doulos, and means nothing except what we mean by the wordslave.
St. Paul commences his epistle to the Romans, to the Philippians, and to Titus, with the appellation of servant. In the two first cases he calls himself the servant and apostle of Christ. In the last instance, he terms himself the servant of God and apostle of Jesus Christ. Peter, in his second epistle, styles himself aservantand apostle: Jude, the servant of Christ. In all these instances the word meansslave, and is used commendatively, but figuratively, to signify their entire devotedness to the cause in which they are engaged,—devoted to the cause wholly, as a good slave is to his master. And it may be here remarked, that the professing Christian is indebted to the institution for the lesson of humility and devotedness here plainly taught him, and without which, perhaps, he never could have been taught his duty in these particulars so pertinently and clearly. The humility and devotedness of the Christian are illustrated by this ordinance inJohnxv. 20: “Remember the words that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Lord.”
In the parable of the vineyard,Luke20 andMatt.21, theservant(δοῦλος,doulos, slave) is presented in a position evincing, the trustworthiness, devotion, and obedience implied in that character, clearly indicating the idea that these qualities inspire the mind of the proprietor with a confidence surpassed only by that in his son and heir. And it may be well remarked, that the position of the slave is one of great facility for the generating of such confidence in the mind of the master. Between the good slave and the good master there can be no dissimilarity of interest, but not so with thehired man, seeMatt.20; for the very moment those hired in the morning for a penny a day perceived that those who had not laboured the whole day received the same amount of wages, they commenced a quarrel with the proprietor.
This distinctive use of language we think also perceptible in the parable of the prodigal son,Lukexv. 17: “How many hired servants(πόσοι μίσθιοι,posoi misthioi) of my father have bread enough and to spare,”περισσεύουσιν ἄρτων,perisseuousin arton, an overflowing of bread.
He is not made to say that his father’s slaves had bread enough, but that even his hired men had enough. “Make me as one of thyhired servants,”μισθίων,misthion. He does not ask to be received as a son, not even to be accounted as a slave,—he feels unworthy of either. “But the father said to his servants,”δούλους,doulous, slaves, “Bring forth the best robe.” Having slaves, it would have been quite out of place to have called one of hisμίσθους,misthous, hired men. But the elder son “called one of the servants;” nor would it have been natural for him to have called ahired-man, nor yet one of thecommon slaves, but a confidential servant, whose position in the family would enable him to possess the information required, and so we find the fact by the expressionτῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ,ton paidon autou, his young confidential, favourite slave.
But the elder brother said to his father, “Lo, these many years do I serve thee;” the verb used isδουλεύω,douleuo, and expresses the faithful and devoted service of a good slave, not of ahired man, who would feel no real interest beyond his own personal benefit. And this word is put in the mouth of the angered son, whereby to show more forcibly his sense of his own merits.
While we cast reflection back upon the incidents of this parable, let us suppose the owner of slaves also to employ hired labourers: if from famine or other cause he finds himself unable to supply themall with bread, which would he turn away, his slaves, or hired men? or, if they refused to go, which would he feel disposed to put on small allowance?
Jesus Christ seems to have understood that if there was to be any deficiency of bread, the hired-men might be expected first to feel it. Our Lord and Saviour, in pronouncing this parable, has given us the most explicit assurance that he intimately understood the domestic relations of theslave, and has taught us the lesson by placing him side by side with thehired servant.
From the fact that the good slave was wholly devoted and faithful to his master, the idea was not only applied to Paul, Peter, and Jude, but also to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, and David, and others, to express these qualities in them towards Jehovah; and we find it so used in the Christian Scriptures: “He hath holpen his servant Israel,”Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ,Israel paidos autou,Lukei. 54. It is noticed that with the word “Israel” is associated the same term to meanslavewhich was applied to the slave called by the elder brother; and the reason seems to be because the nameIsraelis supposed to be in higher regard than the word Jacob,—the word in apposition should also be expressive of such elevated regard. Therefore, if the word Jacob had been used, the wordδοῦλοςwould have followed it. This wordπαῖς,pais, when applied to aslave, was a word of endearment, and hence was used in the case of the centurion’s servant. And we may here well remark that the case of the centurion is one in point, presenting an instance where slave-holding was brought to the immediate and particular notice of the Saviour, and the record shows his conduct and language upon the occasion.
“For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, (δούλῳ,doulo,slave,) Do this, and he doeth it.
“When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”Matt.viii. 9, 10.
“And as he was now going down, his servants (δοῦλοι,douloi,slaves) met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.”Johniv. 51.
LESSON X.
The Christian Scriptures use the institution of slavery figuratively, in illustration of the Christian character and duty, and also in happy illustration of the providences of God to man.
“Who is that faithful and wise servant, (δοῦλος,doulos,slave,) whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant (δοῦλος,doulos,slave,) whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. But if that evilservant(δοῦλος,doulos,slave) shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, (συνδούλους,sundoulous,fellow-slaves,) and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant (δούλου,doulou,slave) shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of.” “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, (δούλους,doulous,slaves,) and delivered unto them his goods.” “His Lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithfulservant, (δοῦλε,doule,slave,) thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” “His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, (δοῦλε,doule,slave,) thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed,” &c. “And cast ye the unprofitable servant (δοῦλον,doulon,slave) into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”Matt.xxiv. 45–50 xxv. 14, 30.
“And he called his servants (δούλους,doulous,slaves), and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants (δούλους,doulous,slaves) to be called unto him, to whom he had given money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.” “And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant (δοῦλε,doule,slave), because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.” “And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant, (δοῦλε,doule, slave.) Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking upthat I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow.”Lukexix. 13–28.
“Blessed is that servant, (δοῦλος,doulos,slave) whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. But if that servant (δοῦλους,doulos,slave) say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the men-servants (τοὺς παῖδας,male-slaves) and maidens, (τὰς παιδίσκας,female slaves,) and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant (δούλον,doulou,slave,) will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder.” “And that servant (δοῦλος,slave) which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.”Lukexii. 43–48.
Here is an instance when the most favourite slave, called by the term expressing such favouritism, when supposed to be disobedient, is immediately designated by the termδοῦλος,doulos.
“Blessed are those servants (δοῦλοι,douloi,slaves) whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching; and if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants,” (δοῦλοι,douloi,slaves.)Lukexii. 37, 38.
“And sent his servant (δοῦλος,doulos,slave) at supper-time,” &c. * * * “So that servant (δοῦλος,doulos,slave) came and showed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry, said to his servant,” (δούλῳ,doulo,slave.) “And the servant (δοῦλος,doulos,slave) said, Lord, it is done. And the lord said unto the servant, (δοῦλον,doulon,slave,) Go out into the highway,” &c.Lukexiv. 17–23.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free, (ἐλευθερώσει,eleutherosei,free.) They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, we were never in bondage (δεδουλεύκαμεν,dedouleukamen,slavery) to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin, is theservantof sin, (δοῦλος,doulos,slave.) And theservant(δοῦλος,doulos,slave) abideth not in the house for ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”Johnviii. 32–35.
“But which of you, having a servant (δοῦλον,doulon,slave) ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when heis come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shall eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant (δούλῳ,slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants (δοῦλοι,slaves): we have done that which was our duty to do.”Lukexvii. 7–10.
In all these instances slavery is made a lesson of instruction, and always in the position commendable.
The Christian Scriptures recognise the force and application of the command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s man-servant, nor his maid-servant,” as applicable to slaves at the time of the apostles; and that the act of “coveting,” extended into action, becomes “stealing,” the property named in the command. “Now the end of the command is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly, and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, formen-stealers, (ἀνδραποδισταῖςandrapodistais,slave-stealers,) for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” 1Tim.i. 5–11.
It may be well remembered that the preceding third verse of this chapter beseeches Timothy to still abide at Ephesus, that he may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, &c.
The wordandrapodistais, of the original Greek text, here translatedmen-stealers, means the stealing, or enticing away from the possession and ownership of their masters, their slaves. St. Paul speaks of it as a part of the law,—speaks of the offence as one well known, and as too well known to be a part of the law to require any explanation. When we come to know that that act of the mind calledcoveting, indulged to action, becomes stealing,—that the crime in action includes the crime in mind,—we may readily perceive what particular law is referred to. Is it difficult to decide that property, which the law forbids us to covet, it also forbids us to steal, even if “thou shalt not steal” had not preceded?
The idea stealing was expressed by the Greeks by the wordκλέπτο,klepto, but the ideastealing slaveswas expressed by the word in the text. The formation isἀνὴρ,a man,ποῦς,a foot, and signifies the condition of slavery, as a man bound by the foot. A whole class of words of this formation, all including the idea of slavery, were in use by the Greeks, and found in their authors. When used to express the substantive, the idea of slavery is associated with the idea of some change of position or ownership; hence its use in this instance. The thing stolen involves the idea of a change of position, possession, &c. Yet in many instances it may be difficult to perceive this distinction, it rather appearing to have been often used as a synonyme ofdoulos, both as a verb and substantive.
In the 8th section of the 4th book of the Cyropædia, Xenophon uses this word to mean a slave, the quality growing out of the imputed change in the condition of the soldier, thus:Ὡς ὁ τοῦτο ποιῶν οὐκέτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ σκευοφόρος, καὶ ἔξεστι τῷ βουλομένω ἤδε χρῆσθαι τούτῳ ὡς ἀνδραπόδῳ. Which Ashley translates, “And as he that does this can no longer be reckoned a man, but a mere bearer of baggage, so any one that will is free to use him as a slave.” The Romans so understood this word. In the translation of Xenophon into Latin by Amelburnus, we find this passage:“Nam qui hoc facit non miles et vir est, sed sarcinarius calo; quem uti mancipium tractare cuivis licet;”nor can it be said that this learned man misunderstood his Greek, for we have before us the critical translations of Oxford and Cambridge, in which the sentence reads,“Nam qui hoc facit, non amplius vir est et miles, sed sarcinarius calo, atque hoc adeò uti mancipium licet.”They have made no change as to this word, nor as to the sense of the sentence.
Xenophon uses this word also in the 14th section of the 8thbook, to mean slaves, and in the same passage withδοῦλος, the adjective sense existing in the presumed unwillingness in the slaves to seek freedom, on the account of their happiness being probably better secured in a state ofslaveryto Cyrus than it would be in a state of freedom. We give it entire:
Ὃυς δ’ αὖ κατεσκεύαζεν εἰς τὸδουλεύειν, τούτους οὔτε μελετᾷν τῶν ἐλευθερίων πόνων οὐδένα παρώρμα, οὔτε ὅπλα κεκτῆσθαι ἐπέτρεπεν· ἐπεμελεῖτο δ’ ὅπως μήποτε ἄσιτοι μήτε ἄποτοι ποτὲ ἔσοιντο, ἐλευθερίων ἕνεκα μελετημάτων. Καὶ γὰρ ὁπόταν ἐλαύνοιεν τὰ θηρία τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν εἰς τὰ πεδία, φέρεσθαι σίτον εἰς θήραν τούτοις ἐπέτρεπε, τῶν δὲ ἐλευθέρων οὐδενί. Καὶ ὁπότε πορεία εἴη, ἤγεν αὐτους πρὸς τὰ ὑδατα ὕσπερ τὰ ὑποζύγια. Καὶ ὁπότε δὲ ὥρα εἴη ἀρίστου, ἀνέμενεν αὐτοὺς ἔστ’ ἂν φάγοιέν τι, ὡς μὴ βουλιμιῷεν· ὥστε καὶ οὗτοι αὐτὸν ὥσπερ οἱ ἄριστοι, πατέρα ἐκαλουν, ὅτι ἐπεμέλετο αὐτῶν ὅπως ἀναυφιλόγως ἀεὶἀνδράποδαδιατελοῖεν.
Which may be translated thus: “But in rearing up hisslaves, he never permitted them to practise the employment of the free, nor allowed them the possession of arms, but took care that they would never be without their meat and drink for the sake of the practices of the free; for when with their horses they drove out the wild beasts into the plains, he allowed meat and drink to be carried for the use of these people during the hunt, but not for the free; and when he was upon a march, he led them to water, as he did the beasts of burden; and when the time for dinner came, he waited till they had eaten something, that they might not be distressed with hunger; so that these people, as likewise the more elevated, called him their father; so he was careful, beyond a doubt, that they would always remain hisslaves,”ἀνδράποδα,slaves,i. e.they would have no desire to change their situation.
Amelburnus translates it thus:“Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad labores ullos liberales excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat: studiosèque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel potu carerent. Permittebat enimservis, quoties equitibus feras in campos adigerent, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent; ingenuorum verò nemini. Quando item faciundum erat iter, ad aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Quum prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent, ne furcilla sive fames acrior eos affligeret. Quo fiebat ut, nonaliter ac optimates, etiam hi Cyrumpatremappellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubiomancipiamanerent.”
The Oxford translation, which was published in 1737, has perhaps made the Latin more classical, but has strictly adhered to the same meaning of the wordsδουλεύεινandἀνδράποδα. We give their version also, that the curious may compare, and have no doubt about this matter. It reads thus:
“Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad se in laboribus ullis liberalibus exercendos excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat. Studiosèque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel potu carerent. Etenim his permittebat, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent, ingenuorum verò nemini: quando item faciendum erat iter, ad aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Et cùm prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent ne fames ingens eos invaderet; quo fiebat ut etiam hi, non aliter ac optimates, Cyrum patrem appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubiomancipiamanerent.”
We deem it proper to add a word concerning the use of this term, especially as some, who claim to be learned divines, also claim that Paul by its use totally forbid slavery. SeeBarnes, on Slavery, p. 355. He says? “‘The law is made formanstealers,’ἀνδραποδισταῖς, 1Tim.i. 9, 10. The meaning of this word has been before considered. It needs only to be remarked here, that theessentialidea of the term isthat of converting a freeman into a slave. Thus Passon defines the wordἀνδραπόδισμος,andrapodismos:Verwandlung eines freyen Mannes in einen Sklaven, besonders durch Varkauf, Unterjochung, U.S.W.: a changing of a freeman into a slave, especially by traffic, subjection, &c. Now, somehow this ‘conversion of a freeman into a slave,’ the sin forbidden in the passage before us, occurs essentially in the case of every one who ever becomes a slave.”
We know not why Mr. Barnes chose to go to a Dutch dictionary for his quotation, since he might have found the true signification in that of any schoolboy.
But we think it a singular argument that, becauseandrapodismosmeans the making or selling a slave,andrapodistaismeans the exact same thing. The truth is, the essential idea conveyed by this word isslave,slavery, &c. If I wish to say “stealing a slave,” I use one form of it; if “selling a slave,” another, and so on; but the stealing afreemanwith the view to makehim a slavewas not expressed by this word, or any form of it. The Greeks used thetermanthropokleptais, but the legal reduction of a man to slavery was quite a different matter. St. Paul’s animadversion comprehended the idea of slavery and stealing,—what? a freeman, or a slave? Had it been a freeman that occupied the objective case, it is presumable that his language would have had some analogy to that used in the Septuagint,Deut.xxiv. 7.
This word, or some form of it, is of most frequent occurrence in the Greek authors. We need quote but a few passages to show their use of the term, whether it included the idea of a freeman, or only that of a slave. Thucydides, Leipsic edition, 1829:
Οἱ δ’ Αθηναῖοι οὔτε τἄλλα ὑπηκουον, οὔτε τὸ ψήφισμα καθῄρουν, ἐπικαλοῦντες ἐπ’ ἐργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερᾶς, καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου, καὶἀνδραπόδωνὑποδοχὴν τῶν ἀφισταμένων.
“But the Athenians listened to none of these demands, nor would revoke the decree, but reproached the Megarians for tilling land that was sacred, land not marked out for culture, and for giving shelter to runaway slaves.”
Vol. ii. p. 138.Αἱ δέ νῆες περίεπλευταν, τα ἀνδράποδα ἀγοῦσαι.
“But the vessels came back along the coast, on board of which were theslaves.”
Idem.Καὶ τὰ ἀνδράποδα ἀπεδόσαν.
“And here they offered theslavesfor sale.”
P. 118.Ἀνδράποδα Ὑκκαρικὰ—“Hyccarianslaves.”
P. 201.Καὶ ἀνδράποδων πλέον ἢ δύο μυριαδες ηὐτομοληκέσαν.
“And more than twenty thousand slaves had deserted.”
P. 314.Καὶ σκεύη μὲν καὶ ἀνδράποδα ἀρπαγὴν ποιησάμενος, τοὺς δὲ ἐλευθέρους πάλιν κατοικίσας, ἐπ’ Ἄβυδον ἦλθε.
“He gave up all the effects and slaves to pillage, and after establishing such as were free people in their old habitations, he went against Abydos.”
The instances of the use of this word are so frequent that we know not whether more of them should not be given; but may we not presume that those who read the language have some knowledge of the matter? and we therefore ask them to relieve us from that burden. We think it no hazard to maintain the fact thatἀνδραποδίζω, itscognatesandderivatives, bothnounsandadjectives,are never used in the Greek language unassociated with the idea of slavery. If so, then it follows that the ideastealing, as it existed in the mind of St. Paul, was not associated with the idea “man,” but “slave,” and that he used the termἀνδραποδισταῖς,andrapodistais, to express the idea “slave-stealers.”
But as the verbἀνδραποδίζω,andrapodizo, and its conjugates, are sometimes used to express the action of subjecting to slavery, it is asked, how are we to know whether Paul did not mean such subjugation? It was surely in the compass of the Greek language for Paul so to have used the proper mood and tense of this verb, with other suitable words, and effectually forbid the subjecting of others to slavery. But is it probable he could have consistently done so? Such forbidding would have been forbidding what the law prescribed. It would have been a rebellious teaching against the laws of the land, as well as against the laws delivered to Moses for the civil government of the Israelites. “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, thou shalt proclaim peace unto it; and it shall be, if it make answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee,” (וַעֲבָֽדוּךָwaʿăbādûkāva abaduka, be slaves to thee—and they shall be slaves to thee.) “But if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take to thyself.”Deut.xx. 10–14.
Such, substantially, was the law of all nations at the very time Paul wrote to Timothy. The verb proposed the making of aslavein a legal manner, reducing to the condition alluded to by the prophet. “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive restored?”Isa.xlix. 24. The verbandrapodizoexpressed a lawful act. If individuals, without law, had seized upon the others with the view to make them slaves, such act would have been called by a different name. It would not have been a name formedfromἀνὴρandποῦς, (anerandpous,) unaccompanied by explanations. We have an example before us inDeut.xxiv. 7: “If any man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him, then that thief shall die.” Here the individual stolen was not a slave, either by the laws of God or man: and hence we find that the Septuagint uses no word to signify slave. The passage reads thus:
Ἐαν δὲ ἁλῷ ἄνθρωπος κλέπτων ψυχὴν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν ὑιῶν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ καταδυναστεύσας ἀυτὸν αποδῶται, ἀποθανεῖται ὁ κλέπτης ἐκεῖνος.
And had St. Paul merely in his mind the ideaman-stealing, unconnected with slavery, he would have used analogous language. In the passage in Timothy, he might well have used the termἀνθρώποκλεπταις,anthropokleptais, which would have expressed the same thing,—an unlawful act, an act forbidden in the passage just quoted,—the act of stealing a freeman, with an intention of making him a slave, contrary to law; and Paul would have probably added this offence, if the Ephesians had been guilty of the crime. But Paul did not use a word even conjugated fromἀνδραποδίζω,andrapodizo, but a cognate substantive, used almost technically to mean those who stole slaves, notfreemen.
The word used by Paul is translated into Latin, in the Vulgate, by the wordplagiariis, which also means those who stole slaves. It is formed fromplagiger,one born to be whipped, (the Romans were cruel to their slaves,) andareo,to be parched up,to be thirsty, and henceplagiarius, from the notion that he who stole slavescovetedthe slave with such intensity that he thirsted for the slave, and appropriatedhimto himself as a thirsty man does water. It originally was a mere cant word. But it expressed the contempt the Romans entertained for the act of slave-stealing. Hence has come our wordplagiary; only used now to mean the act of appropriating the literary property of another, but still retaining, to some extent, the expression of contempt. The learned men who translated the New Testament into Latin well knew that Paul told Timothy that the law was made against those who stole slaves: and so we find it,Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not evencovetthy neighbour’sslave. (SeeExod.xx. 15, 17; alsoDeut.v. 19, 20.) Had Paul used the wordandrapodizo, or some form of it, and had he really intendedto have told Timothy that he or others should no longer, under any circumstances, subject others to slavery, or under the Christian dispensation he should not; that Christianity forbid it; yet he could not have been so shallow as to have added the sentiment that it was against the law, for such addition, such part of his instruction, Timothy would have at once known to be not true; and we trust but few will entertain a position so full of gross consequences. This discourse to Timothy was founded upon the fact that “some had swerved” from the end of the law, and turned to vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm,—probably teaching doctrines that led essentially to the crimes here exposed. Paul’s object, in part, was to expose their ignorance and wickedness, to sustain the supremacy of the law, and by his counsel to warn him against a shipwreck of faith, as in the case of Hymeneus and Alexander.
Can it be supposed that under such circumstances he would have undertaken to have repealed a law, or to have asserted that the law prohibited what it sustained? In such case, he would have done the very act himself for which he condemned Hymeneus and Alexander, and have proved himself one of the lawless and disobedient, for whom the law was made.
There is another consideration, which to our mind is of moment in the review of this subject. The religion of Jesus Christ never undertook to meddle with the civil institutions of the law. Its object was to make its devotees happy under and resigned to its adjudications, whatever they may have been, by reason of the greater considerations of a hereafter; nor do we recollect an instance where either Christ or his apostles even suggested any repeal. His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore his followers could not act in reference to the things of this world. Peter in his zeal smote off the ear of the slave of the high-priest, but Christ immediately rebuked the act and restored the injury done. Had Paul intended to have suggested that the subjecting to slavery, as that subject then existed and ever had from the time of Moses, was no longer to be countenanced, then, it seems to us, he would have travelled beyond the mission of an apostle, the precepts of his Master, and out of his kingdom into the problematical questions of civil government.
Paul, in the passage before us, enumerates a class of the breaches of the law which came within the view of Timothy, which breachesof the law he pronounces to be “contrary to sound doctrine,” and “to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust,” having previously notified him “that the law was good if a man use it lawfully.” Now, one of the plain and well-known laws on the subject of slavery was, “Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are around about you; of them shall you buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bond-men for ever.”
Under such a state of facts can any thing be conceived more inconsistent, than that Paul should, under such circumstances, design to slip in a word repealing in fact this law, and directly producing all the other ill effects which he so pointedly complained of in others. Whoever can believe such a thing, surely, whatever he may pretend, can have no respect for the character of Paul, nor for his religion.
But the character of Paul remains consistent, his religion unblemished and spotless, and the preaching of Jesus Christ in relation to the matter vindicated and supported, by giving to the wordandrapodistais, as here used by Paul, its plain, legitimate, and usual meaning,slave-stealers, persons who steal, or entice away from the possession of their masters, individuals who according to the law are slaves.
The inquiry naturally occurs, how happened it that St. Paul found it necessary to instruct and inform Timothy that the law forbid the stealing or enticing away other men’s slaves. By an examination of his writings and letters to the Gentile churches, the fact is plainly proven that there had grown up among them some new doctrines, which his office as apostle made it his duty to reprehend. What these doctrines were we are enabled in some measure to discover, by examining the 7th of the1st Corinthians, which commencesthus: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,” disclosing the fact that the Corinthians had written to him for advice and counsel, whom he now answers with instructions against the abolition of marriage, and against the abolition of slavery, &c.
Some of the Gentile churches advocated the doctrine that if a man or a woman of the faith were married to one not of the faith, that such marriage should be abolished; so also, that a slave of the faith should be set free, and especially from his believing master; so also, the believing child should be discharged from the authority of the unbelieving parents. The promulgation of these doctrines filled society with disorder there, and the church with confusion.
In his lesson toTimothy, he complains of the doctrines taught by Hymeneus and Alexander, asblasphemous. Now, in this same lesson, he applies this epithet to these new abolition doctrines, leaving us plainly to infer that these doctrines were also taught by them, and for which he “delivered” them “unto Satan.” And here we have a connecting link between this lesson to Timothy and his whole instruction to the Gentile churches on this subject. But these doctrines, as taught by Hymeneus and Alexander, or others analogous, have found advocates ever since; for folly has never been so foolish nor wickedness so wicked as not to find followers. These new doctrines Paul reprehended in many other places, and touching the subject of our present inquiry, let us examine how he treated the matter during the time of his apostleship.
“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant, (δοῦλος,doulos,slave,) care not for it; but if thou mayest bemade free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, (δοῦλος,doulos,slave,) is the Lord’sfreeman; likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ’sservant, (δοῦλος,doulos,slave.) Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servant (δοῦλος,doulos,slave) of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” 1Cor.vii. 20–24. And this is consistent with his introduction to the subject in the 17th verse: “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all churches.” Compare this with his instruction toTitus: “Exhort servants (δούλος,doulous,slaves,) to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things. Not answering again, not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.”Titusii. 9–15.
And to theColossians: “Servants, (δοῦλοι,douloi,slaves,) 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 (δουλεύετε,douleuete,ye slave yourselves to) the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. Masters, give unto your servants (δούλοις,doulois,slaves) that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”Col.iii. 22, 25; iv. 1.
And to the Ephesians: “Servants, (δοῦλοι,douloi,slaves,) 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(ὀφθαλμοδουλείαν,ophthalmodouleian,slavery to the eye) as men-pleasers; but as the servants (δοῦλοι,douloi,slaves) of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service (ουλεύοντες,douleuontes,slaving yourselves) 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 bebond(δοῦλος,doulos,slave) orfree(ἐλεύθερος,eleutheros,a freeman). And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master is also in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with him.”Eph.vi. 5–9.
And, finally, to Timothy: “Let as many servants (δοῦλοι,douloi,slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be notblasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren; but rather do them service, (δουλευέτωσαν,do them slave-labour,) because they arefaithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1Tim.vi. 1–14.
From the arguments here presented to Timothy in support of the doctrine which Paul invariably taught in relation to slavery, we may well suppose he felt a deep interest, even anxiety, to prevent these new doctrines from affecting Timothy’s mind in their favour; and we cannot but notice, that while, with the dignified authority of an apostolic teacher, his instructions are full, distinct, and certain, yet they are accompanied with a courteousness of explanation consolatory even to the slave, the subject of them, and with a solemnity of attestation that fathoms the very foundation of the Christian faith.