from ȧvp and оus, (aner and pous,) unaccompanied by explanations. We have an example before us in Deut. xxiv. 7: “If any inan 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:

Ἐὰν δὲ ἁλῷ ἄνθρωπος κλέπτων ψυχὴν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ, καὶ καταδυναστεύσας αὐτὸν ἀποδῶται, 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 ȧvSρáлоxλεлταιs, 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 ȧvdρалodí¿w, 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 wellknown 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 com

mences 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, (Sov205, 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, (dov2os, doulos, slave,) is the Lord's freeman; likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant, (Sov205, doulos, slave.) Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servant (Sovλos, 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 (Sov2ovs, 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, (Sov2o1, 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 (dovλevɛTE, 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 (Souλois, 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, (dov2o1, 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 (òp0a2μodov2ɛíav, ophthalmodouleian, slavery to the eye) as men-pleasers; but as the servants (Sovλo, douloi, slaves) of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service (dov2evovτes, 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 (Sov205, doulos, slave) or free (ελev0ɛpos, 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 (Sov2o1, 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, (SovλevέTwoav, do them slave-labour,) because they are