cism in his way, and he was so pressed with the difficulty, that he could not, and did not, attempt to meet it in any other way than by roundly, repeatedly, and flatly denying, that the master here spoken of was the object of the servant's fear; contending that when Paul says, "Servants, be subject to your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling ;" and that Peter, when he said, "Servants, be subject unto your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward," had reference to God, and to God only, as the object of their fear. And after making one of his longest and strongest efforts to establish this garbling, by arguing that man was not to fear his fellow-man, proceeded to prove that God was the object of fear spoken of in these passages, by the following quotations: "Be not afraid of him that can kill the body, and after that hath no more that he can do; but fear him, that after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him;" and, "The fear of man bringeth a snare;" passages as irrelevant as the gloss was unjustifiable; and, on his part, an act of daring presumption on the ignorance and gullibility of the audience, unsurpassed in the history of such discussions. For a school-boy, ten years old, capable of understanding the ideas conveyed by plain language, could and would tell you, that in those passages the master, and not God, is the object of the servant's fear.

But furthermore, this garbling involves, necessarily, the following very gross absurdity, namely, that there are many Gods of opposite character. "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear," that is, (according to the Rev. E. Smith,) to God; "not only to the good and gentle Gods, but also to the froward Gods; for this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience

toward (some other) God endure grief, suffering wrongfully." Now this extended application of the gloss, while it appears to us to be legitimate, renders the interpretation what it is in truth, supremely ridiculous. And it may well excite our wonder, how a man of his acknowledged abilities, and large pretensions, for he told us in the discussion, that he had more books than any Methodist preacher he ever knew-that his library would weigh over a ton; and made some remarks about his head, as being equal to his number of books, and the weight of his library; (big words from a large man, in a tall way, for intimidation and effect,)—could possibly embrace, announce, and labour long and hard to prove a doctrine, so manifestly at war with the plain common-sense understanding of the language used, and so ruinous to the essential character of the God of the Bible. The difficulty would have been fully solved to the reader had he been present, and heard the Rev. brother give the history of his becoming an abolitionist.

He had been in all thirty years a preacher of the gospel. Twenty years of that time he had been a good anti-slavery man; the last ten years an abolitionist. So that during the space of twenty years studying and preaching the gospel, with all the advantages of his number of books, the weight of his library, and the head God had given him, he could only get light enough to see that slavery was wrong, and thus become an anti-slavery man. Some abolition documents, according to his own showing, were the honoured instruments of his conversion. And so easy was his faith, and ready the disposition of his heart to receive from this source what he had failed to learn from the Bible during the space of twenty

years reading and studying it, that before he had read the half of them he was converted out and out. So that, from his own account, it mattered but little whether the unread half of those documents had been a mere rehearsal of the wondrous exploits of Robinson Crusoe, or Sinbad the Sailor: he was fully brought over, and ready to face to the music of their teachings.

This docile state of mind preparing him to embrace the system;-his new-born zeal as a recent convert; his loss of fraternal feeling for his former brethren ;—his firmness, or strong in his own way; together "with fancy's airy flight" of large success attending the new movement, with which the "Lion of the West" would be honourably connected; all conspired to commit him fully. And he appears to be so absorbed with the importance of the subject, that we would say, he takes all for granted without examination; and seems to think, that all the world has to do on this subject, is to hear and receive the law at his mouth, and act accordingly. The next passage to found in 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2. "Let as many servants 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, because they are faithful and beloved; partakers of the benefit." Here the obligation of the servant " under the yoke,” (a form of expression decisive of the slavery relation,) to obey both heathen and Christian, or believing masters, is not only distinctly and clearly stated, but argued to vindicate the divinity, practical utility, and 3*

which we call attention, is

excellence of the doctrines of the gospel they were to teach, "that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." And also the Christian character of the believing master is fully endorsed, " as brethren faithful and beloved," and as having stronger claims on their fidelity,-"rather do them service,"—from this very consideration.

So that it unquestionably appears from this passage, (if the relation here spoken of be that of slavery,) that the apostolic practice was to take both believing master and servant (or slave) into the Church, as the rightful partakers of its common privileges and blessings. And that such is its import, appears to us to be so very clear and conclusive from its face, as not to admit of rational quibble or doubt; and which, in our next chapter, we will show to be the opinion and interpretation of the most learned and accredited lights of the Church and the world.

And this view of the subject derives no inconsiderable degree of strength from the language of the apostle Peter, when he speaks of "good and gentle masters," in contradistinction from "froward masters." For when we reflect on the very discriminating use made of words and phrases in the Christian revelation, it is not fairly to be presumed that the apostle used this phraseology in that loose sense which would exclusively apply to those traits of character which we sometimes witness in men, apart from the converting grace of God.

Another argument of great weight, in favour of the interpretation we have here given of the import of these various passages, is, that the obligation, or duty of servants to obey their masters, is nowhere in them urged from considerations of right, but from principles of moral

goodness, etc. For the proof or correctness of this position, the reader is referred to the section containing the argument against the Divine right of slavery, as drawn from the law of revelation. Now, if this view of the subject be correct, the language of those various passages cannot well be understood as applying to hired service or apprenticeships. In these relations there is a principle of right involved. If I stipulate with a man for so much wages, for a certain amount of labour to be performed; or take an indented apprentice for a specified time, to teach him my art or profession, whatever it may be; they are responsible, on principles of right, to be faithful. Now a law enforcing their obligation to fidelity, that did not involve this principle of right, would be too loose to meet or cover the case, and therefore, in a civil sense, of no practical utility. Such we claim to be the fact in relation to the question before us; and for this reason, that those passages of Scripture in controversy do not relate to these civil relations, but to that of slavery. Mark! it is not intended to be said that they can have no application to those relations; but, for the reasons above stated, that they were not originally intended to, and do not, exclusively apply to them.

Now, from the very clear, distinct, and unequivocal manner in which this subject is presented, in the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, it is somewhat difficult to conceive how a contrary opinion ever obtained, especially among men of sober and mature reflection, who, from the heart, implicitly receive the Holy Scriptures as a revelation from God. That superficial minds, which, on this subject, jump at conclusions, without the labour of examining it in