Study VII. (continued 2)

But the elder brother said to his father, “Lo, these many years do I serve thee;” the verb used is δουλεύω, douleuo, and expresses the faithful and devoted service of a good slave, not of a hired 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 them all 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 the slave, and has taught us the lesson by placing him side by side with the hired 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, Luke i. 54. It is noticed that with the word “Israel” is associated the same term to mean slave which was applied to the slave called by the elder brother; and the reason seems to be because the name Israel is 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 word δοῦλος would have followed it. This word παῖς, pais, when applied to a slave, 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.” John iv. 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 evil servant (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 faithful servant, (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 up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow.” Luke xix. 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.” Luke xii. 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 term δοῦλος, 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.) Luke xii. 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. Luke xiv. 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 the servant of sin, (δοῦλος, doulos, slave.) And the servant (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) abideth not in the house for ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” John viii. 32–35.

“But which of you, having a servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave) ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is 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.” Luke xvii. 7–10.

In all these instances slavery is made a lesson of instruction, and always in the position commendable.

LESSON XI.

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, for men-stealers, (ἀνδραποδισταῖς andrapodistais, 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.” 1 Tim. 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 word andrapodistais, of the original Greek text, here translated men-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 called coveting, 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 word κλέπτο, klepto, but the idea stealing slaves was expressed by the word in the text. The formation is ἀνὴρ, 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 of doulos, 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 8th book, to mean slaves, and in the same passage with δοῦλος, 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 of slavery to Cyrus than it would be in a state of freedom. We give it entire:

Ὃυς δ’ αὖ κατεσκεύαζεν εἰς τὸ δουλεύειν, 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 ἀεὶ ἀνδράποδα διατελοῖεν.

Which may be translated thus: “But in rearing up his slaves, 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 his slaves,” 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 enim servis, 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, non aliter ac optimates, etiam hi Cyrum patrem appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio mancipia manerent.”

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 words δουλεύειν and ἀνδράποδα. 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 dubio mancipia manerent.”

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. See Barnes, on Slavery, p. 355. He says? “‘The law is made for manstealers,’ ἀνδραποδισταῖς, 1 Tim. i. 9, 10. The meaning of this word has been before considered. It needs only to be remarked here, that the essential idea of the term is that of converting a freeman into a slave. Thus Passon defines the word ἀνδραπόδισμος, 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, because andrapodismos means the making or selling a slave, andrapodistais means the exact same thing. The truth is, the essential idea conveyed by this word is slave, 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 a freeman with the view to make him a slave was not expressed by this word, or any form of it. The Greeks used the term anthropokleptais, 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, καὶ ἀνδραπόδων ὑποδοχὴν 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 the slaves.”

Idem. Καὶ τὰ ἀνδράποδα ἀπεδόσαν.

“And here they offered the slaves for sale.”

P. 118. Ἀνδράποδα Ὑκκαρικὰ—“Hyccarian slaves.”

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 that ἀνδραποδίζω, its cognates and derivatives, both nouns and adjectives, are never used in the Greek language unassociated with the idea of slavery. If so, then it follows that the idea stealing, as it existed in the mind of St. Paul, was not associated with the idea “man,” but “slave,” and that he used the term ἀνδραποδισταῖς, andrapodistais, to express the idea “slave-stealers.”

LESSON XII.

But as the verb ἀνδραποδίζω, 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,” (וַעֲבָֽדוּךָwaʿăbādûkā va 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 a slave in 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 verb andrapodizo expressed 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 formed from ἀνὴρ and ποῦς, (aner and pous,) unaccompanied by explanations. We have an example before us in Deut. 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 idea man-stealing, unconnected with slavery, he would have used analogous language. In the passage in Timothy, he might well have used the term ἀνθρώποκλεπταις, 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 from ἀνδραποδίζω, andrapodizo, but a cognate substantive, used almost technically to mean those who stole slaves, not freemen.

The word used by Paul is translated into Latin, in the Vulgate, by the word plagiariis, which also means those who stole slaves. It is formed from plagiger, one born to be whipped, (the Romans were cruel to their slaves,) and areo, to be parched up, to be thirsty, and hence plagiarius, from the notion that he who stole slaves coveted the slave with such intensity that he thirsted for the slave, and appropriated him to 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 word plagiary; 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 even covet thy neighbour’s slave. (See Exod. xx. 15, 17; also Deut. v. 19, 20.) Had Paul used the word andrapodizo, or some form of it, and had he really intended to 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 breaches of 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 word andrapodistais, 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.

LESSON XIII.

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 the 1st Corinthians, which commences thus: “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 to Timothy, he complains of the doctrines taught by Hymeneus and Alexander, as blasphemous. 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 be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, (δοῦλος, doulos, slave,) is the Lord’s freeman; likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant, (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.” 1 Cor. 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 to Titus: “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.” Titus ii. 9–15.

And to the Colossians: “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 be bond (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) or free (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 not blasphemed. 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 are faithful 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.” 1 Tim. 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.

LESSON XIV.

Jesus Christ announced to the Jews that whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) of sin; that the servant (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) abideth not in the house for ever, but the son abideth ever, &c.; therefore, if the son make them free, they shall be free indeed, &c. Of the doctrine here inculcated by the Saviour himself, it seems to us St. Paul has given a full and happy illustration; and, by his using the institution of slavery as a principal medium of his illustration, and by referring to facts well-known in the history of the institution of slavery, has not only recognised its existence, but also that it existed in conformity with the ordinances of God: and we deem his illustration not the less valuable, because it explains what is meant by, and how we are to understand, the Christian equality of all in that church. In addition to what we have already read from his writings, we may also notice, “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have come by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. iii. 21–29.

“Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage (δεδουλωμένοι, dedoulomenoi, a state of slavery) under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, (δοῦλος, doulos, slave,) but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service (ἐδουλεύσατε, edouleusate, did slave yourselves) unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” (δουλεύειν, douleuein, to be in slavery.) Gal. iv. 1–9.

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, (παιδίσκης, paidiskes, a favourite female slave,) and the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman (παιδίσκης, paidiskes, a favourite female slave) was born after the flesh, but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai in Arabia, which gendereth to bondage, (δουλείαν, douleian, slavery,) which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage (δουλεύει, douleuei, slavery) with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Gal. iv. 21–26.

“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman (παιδίσκην, paidisken, favourite female slave) and her son: for the son of the bond-woman (παιδίσκης, paidiskes, favourite female slave) shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, (παιδίσκης, paidiskes, favourite female slave,) but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,” (δουλείας, douleias, slavery.) Gal. iv. 29–31, v. 1.

In these lessons of Paul we not only find the Greek use of the word “doulos,” but we find also the doctrine that slavery is the quotient of sin. It is true he often uses the word figuratively to illustrate the devotion and obedience of the humble followers of Jesus Christ; but in him who spurns obedience to the laws of God, and rejects the faith of the gospel, the character is fixed and permanent, as is the course of conduct that gives it.

While in this portion of our present Study, we desire to bring to mind the word doulos and its cognates, as used in the ancient Greek Scriptures, with the design that it may be easily compared with its use by the classical authors in that language. We shall be happy if successful in the attempt to present it in such form that the mind may acknowledge the doctrine inculcated to be consistent with the justice of Divine providence and the mercy of a redeeming love; that the deduction shall be evident; that slavery is a creation of Divine justice upon the model of mercy, every way adapted to benefit the most degenerate and wicked races of mankind; and that its whole action manifests the principle, that he whom the Father loveth, him he chasteneth;—and such, indeed, is the object of our entire study.

LESSON XV.

From the writings of St. Paul, we deem the deduction clear, that he considered slavery to be a consequent of sin, and plainly set it forth in his address to the Romans. “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. For until (ἄχρι, achri, as far as—see Iliad, xvii. 599) the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” Rom. v. 12–24.

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants (δούλους, doulous, slaves) to obey, his servants (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) 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 (ἐδουλώθητε edoulothete, ye enslaved yourselves) to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants (δοῦλοιes) of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then, in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now, being free from sin, and become servants (δουλωθέντες, doulothentes, slaving yourselves) to God, ye have fruit unto holiness, and in the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. vi. 16–23.

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage (δουλείας, douleias, slavery) again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon, that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage (δουλείας, douleias, slavery) of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now: and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Rom. viii. 14–23. “So then, with the mind I myself serve (δουλεύω, douleuo, slave myself to) the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” Rom. vii. 25. “For they that are such serve (δουλεύουσιν, douleuousin, slave themselves to) not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly.” Rom. xvi. 18.

The word “doulos” is used by Peter in a similar manner: “For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God,” (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves.) Idem: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants, (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,” (δεδούλωται, dedoulotai, is he enslaved.)

Further instances of the use of the word “doulos” in the original Greek Scriptures will be found as follows:—“But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, (δουλαγωγῶ, doulagogo, and guide it as in slavery,) lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1 Cor. ix. 27. “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, whether we are bond (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit.” 1 Cor. xii. 13. “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond (δοῦλος, doulos, slave) nor free.” Col. iii. 11. “As ye also learned of Epaphras, our dear fellow-servant” (συνδούλου sundoulou, fellow-slave.) Col. i. 7. “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage (δεδούλωται, dedoulotai, is enslaved) in such cases.” 1 Cor. vii. 15. “For ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage,” (καταδουλοῖ, katadouloi, reduce you to slavery,) &c. 2 Cor. xi. 20. “For he that in these things serveth (douleύsei, douleusei, shall slave himself to) Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men.” Rom. xiv. 18. “It was said unto her, the elder shall serve (δουλεύσει, shall slave himself to) the younger; for it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Rom. ix. 12, 13. “And behold, one of them which were with Jesus, stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave) of the high-priest, and smote off his ear.” Matt. xxvi. 51. “And one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote a servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave,) of the high-priest, and cut off his ear.” Mark xiv. 47. “And one of them smote a servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave) of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear.” Luke xxii. 50. “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high-priest’s servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave,) and cut off his right ear. The servant’s (δούλῳ, doulo, slave) name was Malchus.” “One of the servants (δούλων, doulon, slaves) of the high-priest (being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off) saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” John xviii. 10, 26. “And the servants (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, (for it was cold,) and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them and warmed himself.” John xviii. 18.

There are several instances where the word is used figuratively, as a submissive epithet, as an example of which we cite Acts iv. 29: “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants (δούλοις, doulois, slaves) that with all boldness they may speak thy word.” “And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, (δουλώσουσιν, doulosousin, should enslave them,) and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage (δουλεύσωσι, douleusosi, to whom they shall be enslaved) will I judge, said God.” Acts vii. 6, 7. “Not now as a servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave,) but above a servant, (δοῦλον, doulon, slave,) a brother beloved,” &c. Philem. 16. “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant (δοῦλον, doulon, slave) depart in peace.” Luke ii. 29.

LESSON XVI.

The English words servant, to serve, service, servile, servilely, serving, &c. have descended into the language from the Latin word servus, a slave, and these words, when first introduced into the language, as distinctly carried with them the idea of slavery as does now our present term, and will continue to do so wherever the English language and slavery prevail. In no slave-holding country will the word servant be applied to a freeman as a legitimate term of description, but in non-slaveholding communities these words are sometimes used in a somewhat different sense, yet erroneously, because they are then used without adherence to their derivation and analogy. These words, when found in the received translation of the Christian Scriptures, are in the most of instances translated from some Greek word that signified or included the idea slavery. But notwithstanding the obvious error in giving the word servant, &c. as the translation of a word that did not carry with it the idea which was in unison with the original of these words, yet we find some few instances of such error. We give a few examples.

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” John xviii. 36.

Here servants is translated from ὑπηρέται, huperetai, and signifies a subordinate. In English it sometimes requires attendants, assistants, inferior officers, &c., but never associates with the idea of slavery.

“Peter followed him afar off unto the high-priest’s palace, and he sat with the servants, (ὑπηρετῶν, attendants, &c.,) and warmed himself at the fire.” Mark xiv. 54. “And the servants (δοῦλοι, douloi, slaves) and officers (ὑπηρέται, huperetai, attendants, inferior officers, &c.) stood there, who had made a fire of coals, (for it was cold,) and they warmed themselves.” John xviii. 18.

That the word here used never conjugates with the idea slavery, we quote it as used in Luke iv. 20, in proof: “And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister,” (ὑπηρέτῃ, huperete, attendant, inferior officer, &c.) Also, Acts xxvi. 16: “But rise and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister (ὑπηρέτην, hupereten, attendant, assistant, minister, &c.) and a witness both of those things which thou hast seen and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.”

Here the requisites of the character required are totally incompatible with the character of the doulos, proving with the greatest certainty that these two words have no analogy whatever. For we may well here remark, that human learning has never arrived at a more nicely distinct and definite perfection in the use of language than is even now manifest in the sayings of Him “who spoke as never man spake.”

Besides, in the case of John xviii. 18, servants, douloi, and officers ὑπηρέται, huperetai, being used consecutively and coupled together by a conjunction, is a strong proof that the idea appropriated here severally to these terms could not be expressed by either term alternately by substitution, and that these terms were by no analogy synonymous.

The word servant has also in error been rendered from other terms: see Hebrews iii. 5: “And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant,” (θεράπων, therapon.) We have not in English any single term that fully expresses the idea conveyed by this. It means an associate or companion who is voluntarily under the direction of one whom he takes and acknowledges to be his superior. The old Roman umbra, when applied to an attendant, conveyed the idea more exactly than any one term of ours. Thus, the warrior was called the therapon of Mars, and of the muses and kings of the gods generally. Thus, Menelaus is called the therapon of his chief, &c. &c. (See Iliad, viii. 113, xviii. 244, xix. 143.)

A similar error is occasionally found in the use of the terms to serve, served, service, &c., as if they were legitimately derived from some form of doulos. Thus, Luke ii. 37: “But served God with fasting and prayers night and day,”—“served,” λατρεύουσα, latreuousa, from latreuo. The more appropriate term is “to worship,” &c.

The term was used by the Greeks, “to worship” the gods by sacrifices and offerings. (See Euripides, Electra, 131; Iphagenia in Tauris, 1115.) So in Acts vii. 7: “And after that shall they come forth and serve me in this place,”—“serve,” λατρεύσουσι, latreusousi. It should have been, “and worship me in this place.” Rom. ix. 4: “And the service of God, and the promises,” λατρεία, latreia, worship, &c. So also Heb. ix. 1: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service,” λατρείας, latreias, worship. So also Heb. xiii. 10: “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle,”—“serve,” λατρεύοντες, latreuontes, who are worshipping in the, &c. &c.

Διάκονος, diakonos, is also sometimes erroneously translated servant, service, to serve, &c. An instance occurs, John ii. 5: “And his mother saith unto the servants,” διακόνοις, diakonois, from diakonos: as a verb, it means to minister unto, to wait upon, to manage affairs, to perform some function to another; and hence, in English, we may occasionally require some other term of cognate meaning. From this term our word “deacon” has been legitimately derived. The word is of less elevated import in Greek than therapon (see Aristophanes, Ornithes, line 1322, ὡς βλαχιχῶς διαχονεῖς,) but never consorts in the least degree with the idea slavery. “Saith unto” them who ministered, who waited upon the guests, &c. So also John ii. 9: “But the servants which drew the water knew,”—servants, διάκονοι, diakonoi, “they who ministered unto.” See also Rom. xvi. 1: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church,” &c., διάκονον, diakonon, one who ministers unto, &c. So also John xii. 26: “If any man serve,” διακονῇ, diakone, wait upon, minister unto me. “And where I am there shall my servant be,” διάκονος, diakonos, one who waits upon, who ministers unto; “him will my Father honour.” It is not always in English easy to select a phrase distinctly the best adapted to express the precise difference between the words diakonos and huperetes, but it may be remarked that the huperetes was of an employment more of public character: hence those who in the ships held certain banks of oars were called by that name; also those of a particular rank in the army, or in civil government; but the word diakonos was used as a term more applicable to domestic, personal, or private life. Keeping this distinction in mind, the same word may often, in English, give the sense of either; yet huperetes will often appear in Greek where diakonos would be ill used. A more correct use of this word than the preceding will be found in Matt. iv. 11: “Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him,” διηκόνουν, diekonoun, ministered unto, attended to.

Matt. xx. 26: “But whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister,” διάκονος, diakonos, minister, &c. And here is shown the distinction between this word and doulos, a slave; for he proceeds, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant,” δοῦλος, doulos, slave. Also, Luke viii. 3: “And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others which ministered unto him of their substance,” διηκόνουν, diekonoun, ministered, &c. We have deemed it proper to notice these inaccuracies in our translation, to prevent the word servant, &c., when used to mean slave, &c., being confounded with its use when given in translation as above; and it may be proper also to notice that the hired labourer, a freeman hired into the employ of another, is never described by any term implying slavery, or even having any analogy with it, as examples will show:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers (μισθώσασθαι ἐργάτας, misthosasthai ergatas, to hire labourers) into his vineyard.” “They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us,” (ἐμισθώσατο, emisthosato, hath hired.) “So when the evening was come, the Lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, call the labourers and give them their hire,” μισθὸν, misthon, wages, &c. “And when they had received it, they murmured against the good man of the house.” Matt. xx. 1, 7, 8, 11. “And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants (μίσθιοι, misthioi, hired persons) of my father’s have bread,” &c. Luke xv. 17. “But he that is a hireling, (μισθωτὸς, misthotos, a person hired,) and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf, &c. and the wolf catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. The hireling (μισθωτὸς, misthotos, a person hired) fleeth because he is a hireling (μισθωτὸς, misthotos, a person hired,) and careth not for the sheep.” John x. 12, 13. “For the labourer is worthy of his hire,” τοῦ μισθοῦ hire, wages, payment, &c. Luke x. 7. “Behold, the hire (ὁ μισθὸς, payment for being hired) of the labourers (τῶν ἐργατῶν, ton ergaton, the labourers, not slaves) who have reaped down your fields.” James v. 4.

He who is seeking to obtain a correct view of the truth will perceive the propriety of keeping in mind the distinction between the different characters thus in our version called by the same name, “servants,” and not suffer his mind to be governed, or even influenced, by any bias which has been produced by an incomplete examination of the whole gospel of God.