do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that ter also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

In the 9th, the

Servants then, in the Apostle's view, are bound to be obedienteven with fear and trembling, i. e. with a high sense of reverence for their masters. In singleness of heart, i. e. with sincerity. As unto Christ strongly expresses the high sense of duty which they should cherish. The sixth verse has made this idea intense, by precluding all mere show or pretence of obedience, and requiring an obedience like that due to Christ, i. e. an obedience of the heart such as God requires, and because such service is the doing of God's will. Verse 6th requires all this to be done with good will, i. e, heartily, cheerfully, not grudgingly and with morose feelings. The 8th verse encourages such obedience by promise of reward. masters are taught their duty. The clause do the same things unto them is somewhat obscure and difficult. Same as what? Surely not the same as the obedience required of the servant; for this would make no sense. I do not see anything in the preceding context with which same may be compared, excepting the clause: "Whatsoever good thing any man doeth." The servants were to do good by ready, hearty, and cheerful obedience. The masters to do good to the servants, by kindness, lenity, and forbearance. So the next clause appears to explain it, "forbearing threatening." Paul would have servants rendered obedient by kindness which would win them, not by severe looks, threatening words, and a rod held over them. I believe there is many a master at the South, who honestly aims at obedience in this particular. Those who do not, should ponder well the last part of verse: "There is no respect of persons with God." In his sight, an obedient servant is as good as his master, even if his master is kind and gentle; unspeakably better, if he is severe and rigid in his exactions.

If such were Paul's injunctions, in respect to master and slave, how do the language and conduct of most Abolitionists accord with them? They do not scruple to tell the slave, that he owes no duty to his master, and that he ought to escape from his service if possible. They hesitate not to furnish him with all the means of escape, which are in their power. It has been publicly declared in this place, by one of the most distinguished orators of the anti-slavery party, that a servant would have as good a right to cut his master's

throat, if it were necessary in order to make his escape, as he would have to take away his life in defence of his own, when he was assailed with a deadly weapon. And this—all this — what is it, compared with Paul's view of the subject? And how is conscience, that mighty arbiter of all questions - how is it to be disposed of, on the present occasion? This question must be met; it must be met fairly and honorably. No evasion will answer the purpose. Nor is this passage to be ignored. Men, ministers of the gospel, politicians, Christians, are bound to meet it, face to face. If not, then let Paul be abjured. This is the only honest course, when we refuse to hearken to him. It is hypocrisy, if we profess to acknowledge him as an inspired teacher, and then flout at his doctrines, and ridicule and contemn those who inculcate obedience to him. The time has come when this matter is to be met directly and honestly. Tergiversation will not do. If Paul is cast off-that is one thing. An honest deist, if such a rarity can be found, might consistently ignore Paul. But this will not do for Christians. Many say, that to be the master of a slave, proves the want of Christianity, an unfitness for Christian fellowship. In what part of the New Testament is that found? On the other hand, one may with very much more reason say, that a refusal to obey Paul, an ignoring of what he has taught respecting slavery, and a vilification of all who plead for the duty of obeying him, is unspeakably stronger evidence of the want of Christian principle.

The Ephesian church was not the only one to whom Paul preached after the same tenor, in regard to slavery. To the Colossians (3: 22-25 and 4: 1) he says:

(22) Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: (23) And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; (24) Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. (25) But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he has done: and there is no respect of persons. 4: 1, Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal: knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

As these words are mostly identical with those already commented on, much need not be said. One sentence only, in respect to servants, needs to be noticed. It is this, which is addressed to servants: "But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath

done; and there is no respect of persons." In other words: The servant who does the wrong of withholding hearty and cheerful obedience, shall be punished; for God will punish the wrong-doing slave, as well as the wrong-doing master. One other declaration respecting masters, needs some notice, specially since it has so often been misinterpreted and abused. It is this: "Masters, give to your servants what is just and equal." The shade of meaning in the original is not given by our translation. It stands thus in the Greek: "Show to your servants justice and equity," viz., in your dealings with them, and in your requirements of service from them. All excessive and rigorous demands are forbidden by this passage; and nothing more is meant by it. The Greek word (ioórηra) means literally, when applicable to objects of sense, equality. But in the moral sense, (which is plainly the one here intended), it means equity. Many a time has this passage been produced to show, that masters are bound to make their servants equal to themselves, i. e. to make freemen of them. If so, then how could the Apostle insist, as he does in the preceding verses, on the sincere and thorough obedience of the servants to their masters? How could they be bound to obedience, after they became freemen? No-such an exegesis is felo de se. It is absolutely preposterous. On the other hand, that masters should be charged not to make unjust and inequitable demands on their servants, and that they should treat them with gentleness and lenity, was a doctrine worthy of him who preached it.

In 1 Tim. 6: 1-4, Paul has again given us his views very graphically:

(1) 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. (2) And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. (3) 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, (4) He is proud, knowing nothing.

Here comes before us an injunction on servants to "count their masters as worthy of all honor," i. e. to treat them with high respect, and ready obedience. But why so? "In order that the name of God and his doctrine [the Gospel] be not blasphemed." In other words: 'If a course of conduct the opposite of this should be

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. plete 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.

To com

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," (oxolios, 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.