master's estate, though they were held in a kind of servitude, being required to render some rude service, such as was required of the peroika [resident strangers] to whom, in some respects, they were inferior.

Now when we consider that the Attic Greek is substantially the language in which the New Testament was written, it seems quite probable, that its writers did not, in using this word, depart from the sense above given.

(3.) This word was used sometimes by St. Paul, to designate a kind of servitude which he himself condemned, 1 Cor. 7: 21, 23, Philemon, 16.

(4.) The other word, rendered servant in the New Testament is from οικέτης, ÖLKOS, a house; a domestic, a servant, a house servant or slave. This word occurs but four times in the New Testament. Acts, 10:7. Rom. 14: 4. 1 Pet. 2: 18, and Luke, 16: 13.

In the last passage here given, the reader will see at once, that it could not have been used to signify one who was the entire property of another.

But, admitting that this word is used in one place (1 Pet. ii. 18.) to signify those servants who were held as slaves, it by no means follows from this fact, that the Apostle meant by using it, to justify the claim of the slaveholder in that case. He directs those servants or slaves, how to suffer the injuries which might be inflicted upon them, but he does not direct the slaveholder how to inflict them. When he addresses masters, he commands them to render unto their servants that which is JUST and EQUAL, and which command is a direct condemnation of slavery.

Were the masters mentioned in the New Testament Slaveholders!

5. But we are told again, that the words used by the Apostle, in speaking of masters, necessarily imply such as held slaves.

1. The word κύριος lord or master, is used in the Bible as a title of authority or respect, but never to signify the owner of human beings. Gen. xviii. 12: 1 Cor. viii. 5: Acts xvi. 30.

2. The classical meaning of deaπorns, is a despot, a sovereign, a master of slaves. But in the New Testament it does not invariably bear this signification.

It occurs in ten different passages; in six of them it is applied to Jesus Christ, or God. Luke ii. 29: Acts iv. 24: 2 Tim. ii. 21: (compare verse 19, and Heb. iii. 6.) 2 Pet. ii. 1: Jude 4: Rev. vi. 10.

In four places it is used to signify earthly rulers or masters. 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2: Titus ii. 9: 1 Pet. ii. 18.

This word is sometimes used to signify the head or ruler of a family, as the reader will see by turning to the following places:-Matt. x. 25, and xxiv. 43: Mark xiv. 14: Luke xii. 39 : xiii. 25: xxii. 11.

Servants under the Yoke.

But in 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2, it has been supposed to signify such as held servants as their absolute property.

"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 blas phemed.

"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."

That there are two kinds of servants spoken of in the verses above quoted, we think is evident from a number of considerations :

1. The peculiar phraseology of the passages determines this fact. Those servants who were claimed and treated as property, or absolute slaves,

are said to be "under the yoke;" those who were not claimed and held in this state, had "believing masters."

"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.

"But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;-but rather do them service, because they are faithful partakers of the benefit."

That de, in this second verse, is an adversative conjunction, and should be rendered but, is well known, as this is not the word which is generally translated and, in the New Testament. This is a matter of fact, which no person at all acquainted with the original language of the New Testament will dispute. Hence we say, that the manner of the apostle's speaking here proves that two kinds of servants are meant; first, he refers to such as were claimed and held by their heathen masters as their absolute property, and tells them what he wishes them to do, and the reason why they should do it; and then he speaks of another class, by saying"But those who have believing masters," and who, consequently were not claimed, held, and treated as property, and who are thus put in opposition to such as were "under the yoke.”

2. Look at the different motives by which these two classes of servants are exhorted to perform certain duties. Those "under the yoke" are exhorted to obedience, upon the consideration that their disobedience would bring a dishonor upon religion. Not so with those who had "believing masters;" these were exhorted not to forsake their masters, because they were brethren, and which exhortation is plainly based upon the supposition, that they might forsake them if they chose. But to interpret the second verse as referring to one and the

same kind of servants, and also to one and the same kind of masters as those mentioned in the first verse, so far as the act of slaveholding was concerned, at once destroys the evident distinction made here by the apostle. This is so plain, that we see not how any one can deny it.

3. But suppose the apostle, instead of saying "believing despotes," had said converted idolater, or converted Jew, should we understand him as meaning by these terms, a real, practical idolater, or a real practical Jew? Not at all; no more than when a man speaks of a converted infidel-we are to understand him as meaning to designate one who had never embraced the Christian religion. And thus one might speak of a converted slaveholder, using the term slaveholder, not to describe his present relation, but to designate his former character; and precisely in this sense we believe the apostle used the term "despotes" in 1 Tim. vi. 2.

Specific Directions of the New Testament.

Another argument drawn from the New Testament, is generally stated thus: The apostles, by their specific directions to masters and servants, did, de facto, justify the relation which existed between the slaveholder and his slave. To this we an

swer:

(1.) This argument takes for granted, what has never been proved, viz. that all the servants and masters mentioned in the New Testament, were slaves and slaveholders.

(2.) But, admitting that the apostles did mean to justify the "relation" which existed between master and slave, when that "relation" gave the master the body of the slaves as his absolute property, then it follows as an undeniable consequence that the holy apostles did mean to justify all the "rights"

to which this "relation" entitled the master. If they justified such a "relation," they justified and approved all the parts of which it was composed.And hence it would follow that the apostles justified, approved, and sanctioned a relation which authorized every master to commit theft, adultery and murder. Those Romans who held slaves in that relation, had a right in virtue of it, not only "to box" them or "to cuff" them "on the ear," but they were authorized and empowered by this relation to torture them, to maim them, and to put them to death in any way they chose, and according to Dr. Taylor's "Elements of Civil law," those slaves could not be injured in any way. And a relation which authorized and justified such cruelties, such horrible, and we may add, diabolical injustice as all this, many professing Christians and Ministers of the Gospel pretend to believe is "authorized," "permitted," and "sanctioned by the Bible!!!"

CHAPTER VIII.

JEWISH SERVITUDE UNLIKE AMERICAN

SLAVERY.

Peculiarities of the Jewish Economy.

1. A Hebrew was permitted to kill a man who had murdered his friend, (Num. xxxv. 19;) and he might do this without the process of a trial. And upon the same ground, the Jews were permitted to commence and carry on exterminating wars, against the idolatrous nations around them. Hence, we suppose, that it is as really wrong for any man in this age of the world, to take away the liberty of his innocent neighbor, or to withhold it from him in any way, without an express permission from