« AnteriorContinuar »
the flesh of captains, &c., and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." Rev. ix, 12. Again, 66 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, &c., Gal. iii, 26. Away with such quibbling. Everybody knows, that a bondman is a slave. When, therefore, our translators rendered the word eved by the English word bordman, they employed as strong a term as the word slave.
Still, the gentleman insists that eved does not mean slave. I have asked him, when the Hebrews talked about a slave, what word they used? It is a fair question: I have put it to him again and again. He has not answered. I ask him once more, when the Jews wished to speak of slaves, did they use the word eved, or not? If not, will he please to tell us what word they did use. I hope he will give us some light upon this subject. I must insist upon his answering the question. I have paid due attention to the gentleman's replies, and now, according to promise, I enter upon argument
from the New Testament. And here I cannot but express my regret that the discussion of the whole of the remaining scripture evidence, is confined to so short a time as the remaining hours of this day. Late as it is, in the afternoon of the last day of the debate, we have heard no Bible argument from our friend. Mark that.
1. In the commencement of this argument I state it as a fact, admitted by the abolitionists, as well as all others conversant with history, that in the days of Christ and his apostles, not only did slavery exist every where, but the slaves were as numerous throughout the Roman empire, as the freemen. My brother will not deny this.
[MR. BLANCHARD. I admit that they were as numerous, and more so.]
Very well. In some instances from one hundred to ten thousand slaves were owned by a single man.
2. And I state it as a second fact, that the piety of a man was never called in question by the apostles because he was
a slave-holder, but slave-holders were freely admitted to membership in the primitive church ; and though professing Christians were required to treat their slaves with all kindness, they never were called upon to set them free; as they certainly would have been, had slave-holding been in itself sinful.
This is our ground; and if it is true, we are forced to the conclusion, that either the doctrine of abolitionists is untrue, or the apostles of Jesus Christ did admit to the communion of his church, and that without reproof, or requiring them to quit their sin, the most heinous and scandalous offenders, men (according to our brother) chargeable with the greatest abomination of heathenism.
The proof of this fact rests on a few passages of the New Testament, familiar, as I presume, to most of those who hear me. I will read, in the first place, from Ephesians,
6 Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of 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."
Again: Colossians, 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
shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth
shall receive for the wrong which he hath done : and there is no respect of persons."
I read again from 1. Timothy, vi, 1, 2:
“ 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."
Once more: 1. Peter, ii, 18;
“ Servants be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully."
Now the question arises, were the “masters" here referred to, slave-holders ? The word kurios, translated master, signifies possessor, owner, master. When used, as here, in connexion with servant, it means “owner or possessor of servants, or slaves.”
In its proper sense it always implies authority, arising from an existing relation. Let me read you a brief quotation from an article in the Biblical Repository, from the pen of Professor Stuart, pages 737, and 1741.
In his remarks on the meaning of the word kurios in the Septuagint, he says—“1. Kurios, then, means, owner, possessor ; e. g. Ex. xxi, 28, and xxi, 29, 34. 2. It signifies husband, lord, in the sense of being the head of a family; e. g. Gen. xviii, 12, &c. 3. It is used as an appellation of respect and civility. 4. Kurios is very frequently employed to designate the relation of a master to his servants or slaves ; e. g. Gen. xxiv, 9, 10, 12, 14, &c. In this sense the word is employed many scores of times in the Septuagint; as may be seen in Tromme's Concordance. Indeed, so far were the Seventy from recognizing the usual classic distinction between despotes and kurios, as stated by Passow, that they have scarcely used despotes at all in the sense to which I now advert, &c. 5. It is employed, in numberless instances, to designate the only living and truc God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, as the supreme ruler, governor, master,
owner, and rightful lord and possessor of all things, having them all under his control," &c.
Professor Stuart, one of the ablest critics and most learned expositors in this country, or in any other, says,
“ As used in the New Testament, the word kurios has the following meanings: 1. It designates the owner or possessor of any thing; as Matt. xx, 8, &c. 2. It signifies the head or master of a family or household; e. g. Mark xiii, 35, &c.
3. It is used as an appellation of respect and civility; Matt. xviii, 21, &c. 4. It is employed as designating the relation of a master to a servant or slave; Matt. xxiv, 45, 46, 48, 50, Eph. vi, 5, 9, Col. iv. 1, iii, 32, and often elsewhere."
Abolitionists tell us, that despotes is the proper Greek word to signify an owner of slaves, but that kurios has not commonly this meaning. Professor Stuart, however, who is one of the ablest critics in our country, states, that the authors of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, do not make any distinction between these words, but that they almost uniformly use the word kurios, when they mean the master of slaves. On page 758 he says—“I proceed to note a few other instances, in which Paul used the word kurios in the common secular sense, as denoting the master of servants. Thus Rom. xiv, 4, Eph. vi, 5, and vi, 9, Col. iii, 22, and iv, 1, are, plain instances of this na
and I may add, these are among the very numerous class of examples in the Septuagint and New Testament, which go to show that the classical distinction made between despotes and kurios was not at all regarded by the Hellenistic writers.'
It appears, then, that the Hellenistic writers-of whom were the apostles of Christ—did not make a distinction between the words kurios and despotes, but that they generally used kurios to signify a master or owner of slaves. In the Septuagint translation, Potiphar is called Joseph's kurios or master. Will the gentleman inform us, whether Joseph was Potiphar's slave?
Ilobertson, who is a lexicographer of standard authority, defines kurios thus: " lord, master, owner-generally as the possessor, owner, master, of property; Matt. xx, 8, xxi, 40, &c. The master or possessor of persons, servants, slaves; Matt. x, 24, xxiv, 45, &c."
It is clear, then, that the word kurios, translated master, does commonly signify an owner of slaves. And now I proceed to prove, that the corresponding word, doulos, translated scrvant, means a slave; or that the persons
addressed by the apostles as servants, were slaves.
To satisfy the minds of the unprejudiced on this point, I will refer to some standard authorities; for I pretend not to such learning as to expect the audience to depend upon my assertions.
Robertson defines doulos—"a slave, a servant--spoken of involuntary service, e. g. a slave in opposition to eleutheros, free.” Douleia, he defines, slavery, bondage. Douleuoto be a slave or servant, to serve. Douloo—to make a slave, to bring into bondage.
Bretschneider, one of the most learned German lexicographers, defines doulos servus, qui sui juris non est, cui opponitur ho eleutheros; 1 Cor. vii. 21”.
-a SLAVE, one who is not unäer his own control, to which is opposed HO ELEUTHEROS, free. Douloo—to make a slave, reduce to slavery.
Donnegan defines doulos, "a slave, a servant, as opposed to despotes--a master. Douloo, to reduce to slavery," &c.
Groves defines doule, a female slave; doulos, a slave, a servant; douloo, to enslave, reduce to slavery.
Greenfield defines doulos, a man in a servile state, male slave, or servant. Douloo—to reduce to servitude, enslave, oppress by retaining in servitude.
Such are the definitions of doulos, and its cognate terms, given by lexicographers of standard authority; men who, though regarded by the gentleman as weak and timid, may, nevertheless, be supposed to have some considerable acquaintance with the Greek language. They all agree, that the