Imágenes de páginas

primary, proper, and ordinary meaning of the word doulos, is slave.

It is important here to remark, that the Greek language has a word which does definitely signify a hired servant, viz., misthotosa word commonly used in this sense, both in the Septuagint and the New Testament; but this word is never used by the apostles addressing servants.

Having thus ascertained how the lexicographers understand the word doulos, I now invite your attention to a few quotations from the classics, showing that profane Greek writers uniformly used it to mean a slave.

Herodotus—"Rhodope was born in Thrace. She was the slave. (doule) of Jadmon—the fellow-slave (sundoule) of Æsop,” b. ii, sec. 134. Again—“Our affairs have come to this crisis, O lonians, that we must be either free (eleutheroi) or slaves, (douloi,'') b. vi, sec. 11. Again—" Argos was deprived of so many men, that the slaves (douloi) usurped the government. The expelled slaves (douloi) seized Terinthe. Cleander persuaded these slaves (doulois) to attack their masters, (despotais,) ib. sec. 83.

Plato~_“ As to the things connected with tame living an. imals, the rearing and managing of flocks embraces all except slaves, (doulous.") There remains, then, the class of slaves, (doulon,) and all other servants (hupereton.) What servants do you mean? Those that have been purchased or made property in any


whom we may unquestionably call slaves, (doulous.)

Harpocration, speaking of the Helots, says, "they were not naturally the slaves (douloi) of the Lacedemonians, but were the first of the inhabitants of Helos subdued." Pausanias

says, “ They were the first slaves (douloi) of the Lacedemonians.” Eustathius says, “ The Helots labored for the Lacedemonians, and were slaves (douloi).Julius Pollux says, “ They were not slaves, (douloi) but in a condition between slaves and free men, (eleutheron kai doulon.") Xenophon says, "Certainly, it is necessary, that a sufficiency of heat and cold, of food and drink, of labor and sleep, be allowed to

[ocr errors]

slaves, (doulois.") Cyrop, ch. vi, p. 423. Again,“ Or because we have now obtained slaves (doulous) shall we punish them, if they be dishonest ?" Again, " It is proper that there should be this difference between us and slaves (doulon) that, as slaves (douloi) unwillingly obey their masters, (despotais,) we, if we deem ourselves worthy to be free men, (eleutheroi,) should willingly do that which is most praiseworthy."— Ibid. ch. vii, p. 130.

I have read these quotations to prove to the unlearned, as well as to the learned, that the ancient Greek writers used the word doulos, as the proper word for slavc. And can any one doubt it, after hearing these passages from their writings?

I now proceed to prove, that the inspired writers used this word in the same sense in which it was employed by the Greek writers. For this purpose I will quote some passages in which it occurs. John viii, 31, “ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make

you free. They answered him, we be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage (dedoulcukamen) to any man: how savest thou, ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin, is the serrant (doulos) of sin. And the servant (doulos) abideth not in the house," &c. In this passage it is evident that the Saviour represents wicked men as the sla res of sin; and truly the service of sin and of the Devil, is a most degrading slavery.

In the same sense the word is used by Paul the Apostle. Rom. vi, 17, 18. “But God be thanked that we were the serrants (douloi) of sin: but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." In 1. Cor. xii, 13, it is used literally for silaces, thus: - For by one spirit are re all baptized into one body, trhether we be Jeurs or gentiles, ivhether we be band or free (eite delo, eite els there")—that is, whether we be cares or fener. We find the rord used in precisely the same sease, in Colis ,

11. “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free (dqulos, eleutheros) but Christ is all and in all.” Again, we find the word doulos in 1 Cor. vii, 21, where even the abolitionists admit, that it means slave: “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a scrvant (doulos,) care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” The last passage to which I shall now refer, in order to show the Bible usage of the word in question, is Rev. xiii, 16. 6 And he caused all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond ( eleutherous kar doulous) to receive a inark in their right hand, or in their foreheads."

Thus it is clear, that the word doulos is used in the New Testament, as it is in the writings of the ancient Greeks, to signify a slave. It is the appropriate Greek word by which to designate a common slave. If the Apostles, then, in the passages I have read, had been addressing hired servants, they would undoubtedly have used the word misthotos, which properly means a hired servant, as distinguished from a slave. Indeed, there is no controversy amongst learned men concerning the meaning of doulos. All agree, that its literal, ordinary and proper meaning is slave. I challenge the gentleman to disprove this statement. But perhaps, all men of learning are timid, as he says, afraid to utter their real sentiments !—though he has not informed us of whom they are afraid.

We will now turn to a passage, in which, the Abolitionists themselves admit, slaves and slave-holders are spoken of, viz: 1 Tim. 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.” Here we have not only servants under the yoke, admitted to be slaves, but the word despotes, admitted to be the appropriate word to designate a master of slaves; so that the exhortation would literally read thus: Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their owners or masters worthy of all honor. These, however, it is said, were heathen masters;

but here abolitionism gets into trouble, for in the second verse we read, “And they that have believing masters, (despotas,) let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” Here, we have not only despotai, owners of slaves, but believing slave-holders, that is, pious slave-holders—Christian slave-holdersis faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” And the slaves, who are also believers, are exhorted not to despise their masters, because as Christians they are brethren, but to serve them the more faithfully. These servants are admitted to be slaves, and the word translated masters, is admitted to mean slave-holder ; and Paul, the inspired apostle, acknowledges them as believers, as faithful Christians.

How do you suppose, abolitionists attempt to escape the force of this argument? Why, they say, the phrase "believing master," is understood just as the expression, "reformed drunkard.” And as the latter phrase means a man who has ceased to be a drunkard, though he has been such; so the former means a believer, who, before he became such, was a slave-holder, but has since liberated all his slaves ? Truly, the cause must be sorely pressed, which cannot be sustained but by resorting to such perversion of the plainest language. No one can misunderstand such a phrase, as reformed drunkard ; but suppose we should read of a reformed husband, would we understand by such language a man who had been, but was no longer, a husband? We read in 1 Cor. vii, 14, of “the unbelieving husband," and the “ believing wife," and by these phrases every person of common sense understands a real husband or wife, who is an unbeliever; and the phrase, “ believing husband," would, of course, mean a husband who is a believer-a Christian. It is equally obvious, that when the apostle speaks of "believing masters," or slave-holders, he means real masters who are believers or Christians. Accordingly, the slaves are addressed as those who have," not have had, believing owners, and are exhorted not to despise them because they are breth


ren-on an equality as Christians—but to serve them the more faithfully; and the reason why they should do so, is plainly given, viz.: because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit."

Yet, this language, according to abolitionism, means nothing more than we mean when we speak of reformed drunkards! Is this its obvious meaning ? Was it ever so understood until the rise of modern abolitionisrn? Was there ever the least controversy on this subject ? Has not the phrase,“ believing masters,” been universally understood to mean, real masters, who are pious men.

But let us look again at the text I quoted from the first epistle of Peter. “Servants—(oiketai)—be subject to your masters, with all fear: not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” Oiketai means household slaves; it is so understood even by abolitionists ; and the word here translated masters, is DESPOTAI—which, as already remarked, the abolitionists say, is the proper word to designate owners of slaves. In the passage just examined, we found " believing masters,

," "faithful and beloved :" here we find “good and gentlemasters. Is it possible ?---good and gentle robbers !--good and gentle man-stealers !-believing murderers!—faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit !!! Should he not have written--partakers of the plunder? What? good and gentle slave-holder ? The word good, as used in the Bible, expresses moral quality; and the word translated gentle, is used by Paul to express one of the moral qualifications for the ministerial office (1 Tim. iii, 3). It is used to characterize the wisdom which is from above (James iii, 17); and to express Christian moderation (Phil. iv, 5). Will the gentleman say, that a kidnapper, a man-stealer, a robber, can possess moral qualities which fit a man to be a minister of Jesus Christ? In the mind and mouth of abolitionists, it is synonymous with the vilest monsterone who lives in “ kidnapping stretched out”-who holds his servants “by a kidnapper's title”-and whose existence on the earth is among the strongest proofs of the necessity

« AnteriorContinuar »