followed, then heathen masters would revile the Gospel, on the ground that it taught their servants to be disrespectful and disobedient. But further; in case master and servant are both Christians, the latter is not on this ground to claim a release from his obligations as a servant, i. e. because they are Christian brethren and one in Christ, it does not follow that their civil and social relalations are changed. On the contrary, the masters are to be the more readily obeyed, because they are Christian brethren. To complete his directions, he enjoins it upon Timothy to teach these precepts, and to exhort those concerned to do their duty. But what if any man should teach abolitionism to the slaves, instead of Paul's doctrine? Then let him meditate awhile, and seriously too, on

verses 3, 4.

Again in the epistle to Titus (2: 9, 10), we have the same sentiments repeated with new additions.

(9) Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; (10) Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

Here servants are required to "please their masters well in all things," i. e. to show a ready and cheerful obedience, “not answering again," i. e. not contradicting their masters, or gainsaying their commands. Here too they are specially forbidden to purloin anything; a vice to which, as we may naturally suppose, they would be very prone. But the Apostle requires all good fidelity of them. And what if they obey him? Why then "the doctrine of God our Saviour is adorned in all things," i. e. even by these acts of cheerful and faithful obedience in servants. Servants are told that they can adorn this doctrine as really and truly as their masters, or as nobles and princes and kings. Obedience to the gospel, in their difficult and trying condition, will add another jewel to the Redeemer's

crown.

Thus far Paul. I need quote no more from him of the same kind as that already produced, although it might easily be done. But if what he has so many times repeated, is not worthy of credit, nothing would be added to it by the prolonged reiteration of the same senti

ments.

Let us turn now to another apostle, the confidential friend and

disciple of Jesus, on whom was bestowed the honor of laying the first foundation stone in the new and glorious edifice of Christianity. Did he agree in sentiment with Paul? Let us hear him:

1 Pet. 2: 18, Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. (19) For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. (20) For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. (21) For, even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.

What have we here? Paul again, through and through. Here, however, is one new circumstance added. Servants are to obey, readily and with reverence, " not only the good and gentle, but also the froward," (oxohiois, unjust, peevish). Why should they obey even such masters? Peter tells us; for he says to servants, that "if when they do well and suffer for it, and still take it patiently, this is acceptable to God. Christ did well, and yet suffered on our account, thus leaving us an example." Yes-a god-like example it truly What greater honor for servants than to imitate him? Why did not Peter tell them: When your master deals hardly with you, it is your duty to run away?' We hear this among us, even preached from the pulpit, at present, almost every Sabbath, and proclaimed on all sides by journals called Christian or religious. Where do they get the right of wearing such a name? They certainly do not deserve it, for they have no proper claim to the honor, while they treat with scorn the idea of obeying Peter.

was.

Thus much may suffice, in the way of precept from the New Testament, as to the duties of master and servant. Turn we now to that passage in Paul, whence our motto is taken. The whole passage (in 1 Cor. 7: 20-24) runs thus:

(20) Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. (21) Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. (22) For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. (23) Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (24) Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

When Paul wrote this, he had just been discussing the question whether circumcision or uncircumcision was of any consequence.

He says it is of no consequence, so that no one need to pay the least attention to it. Then he utters what has just been quoted. The reader should note especially the general proposition in v. 20. Paul advises every one to remain in the same condition in which he was, when he became a Christian. If he was uncircumcised, let him not seek circumcision; if circumcised, let him not seek uncircumcision. The full explanation of this last assertion would demand disclosures of some physical processes, not proper to be inserted here. But in passing from this matter to the consideration of slavery and freedom, Paul applies the same command or sentiment. He tells servants, that if they are called to be the Lord's freemen, while in a state of civil bondage, they need not have any solicitude about the matter μý σoi μɛhéro, do not care for it. If I dared to degrade Paul's pure and sober diction, by translating it into our vulgar and colloquial dialect, I might exactly and faithfully give the real sentiment of the original thus: "Do not make a fuss about it." This is advice, which is not listened to; as the eternal din and commotion on all sides, made too by those who are neither slaves nor in danger of becoming so, abundantly show. The advice is as completely ignored, as if it had never been uttered.

But we have not done with the passage. The next clause runs thus: ἀλλ ̓ εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, lit. "but even if thou canst become free, rather make use of ". . . The reader of Greek will see that the verb zoñoa, make use of, is left without a complement or Acc. case. Then comes the question, how are we to supply the deficiency? Or, (which is the same question), what does the ambiguous it of our translation mean? One and all of the native Greek commentators in the early ages, and many expositors in modern times, say that the word to be supplied is dovλɛía, i. e. slavery, bondage. The reason which they give for it is, that this is the only construction which can support the proposition which the apostle is aiming to establish, viz., 'Let every man abide in statu quo.' Even De Wette, (who for his high liberty-notions was banished from Germany), in his Commentary on the passage, seems plainly to accede to the force of this reasoning; and with him many others have agreed. No man can look at the simple continuity of logic in the passage, without feeling that there is force in the appeal. But still I am not satisfied with this exegesis. We have full surely another and different noun, offered by the context, which we may

supply: “If thou canst become ¿hɛv✪egos ( free), use inɛv&ɛqiα (freedom) the rather," that is, rather than be a slave. This is certainly the most facile philology; although plainly not so congruent, at first sight, with the apostle's sentiment before and after this verse. What follows this? The apostle subjoins: "He who is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman ;" and therefore he need not be concerned about his civil bondage. So "he who is called, being a freeman, is the Lord's servant." In v. 24 Paul again recapitulates, at the close, the proposition with which he had begun: "Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God." The meaning of the last clause is: 'Let each one, whether a servant or freeman, continue in his calling, so demeaning himself as to preserve his alliance with God.' I am disposed to regard the clause: "But if thou mayest be free, use it rather," as a parenthesis thrown in en passant. So taken, it would serve to qualify the rest of the passage, respecting the general duty of servants. The opportunities to become free were not very frequent. The case of those who had not that opportunity, (by far the most frequent), was the one first to be provided for; and Paul has given his advice so as to make the servants contented and happy in their then present condition, if they will hearken to him. But to suppose that he gravely advises servants, to whom has been offered their freedom, rather to remain slaves than accept the offer, sounds strange, at least to our ears. So it did to Calvin's. I believe, however, that he was the first commentator of any note, who supplied λevegia (freedom) after the verb zoñoaι (use, make use of). This seems to have been the spontaneous prompting of the spirit of liberty, that beat high in his bosom. From him came the first germs of the Puritan principles in England, in respect to civil liberty. I cannot help agreeing with him here, although it is difficult to put aside the suggestions of the older commentators, which seem to rest upon the general course of thought, viz. "let each abide in his own calling." But I must on the whole think, that the clause which we are discussing is a parenthetic one, designed to make that case, in which a servant should have the opportunity of being free, an exception to the general rule. And I find in the άllά (but, emphatic) a philological reason for this opinion. If we interpret with the ancients, we are obliged to translate allá si xai by even if, a version which it will not well bear. In case, however, we make the but both disjunctive and adversative,

which is its proper meaning, then the interpretation which Calvin gave the passage, is a necessary one.

Only one verse remains for explanation: "Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servants of men." That this cannot refer to civil bondage is very plain; because Paul had just advised servants to remain contented in that bondage, one case only excepted, viz. opportunity to become free. Plainly the verse in question refers to the preceding one, and was called forth by it. Verse 22 represents bond and free, who belong to Christ, as equal in a spiritual respect, and as equally regarded by him. What follows? "Ye are bought with a price,” i. e. you are all Christ's servants, because he has paid for you the price of his blood. And what naturally follows this? Plainly, that because they belong to him and are his spiritual servants, they are not to serve, i. e. hearken to and obey, men who enjoin upon them to do anything which would forfeit their relation to him. "His service" [so named] "is perfect freedom." They must not lose this freedom, by following the dictates of any one, who requires them to commit sin, and forfeit his favor and their privileges. Such is the view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, and of De Wette; and in this view I fully concur.

What have we, then, on the whole? Plainly this, viz., that servants are not to be anxious and uneasy and discontented, because they are servants. If they can easily and peaceably obtain their liberty, then they should accept the boon. But they are forbidden to be fractious, and querulous, and uneasy merely because they are in bondage. It should suffice, that they are the Lord's freemen.

Certainly this is not much like the advice or the conduct of most of the Abolitionists among us. They excite slaves in every possible way to change their condition, at all hazards and in all relations. They set the whole country in commotion, to accomplish this. Omnia coelum, terra, miscentur! They pour forth vituperation and contumely on every man who ventures to admonish them of the sentiments of Paul. And if the great apostle himself were to reappear on earth, and come now into the midst of us, and preach the doctrine contained in his Epistles, he would unquestionably incur the danger of being mobbed; at all events, we should have a multitude of indignation meetings got up against him, like those which have recently appeared in the great metropolis of our country. Alas! holy and blessed apostle, how little do such men know or partake of thy peaceful spirit!