in Babylon, the free population amounted to forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, and the slaves to seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven, (Ezra 2 : 64–5,) that is, about one slave to every six persons, women and children included. And he also knew that when David ordered Joab to number Israel, it was found that the men who were fit for war amounted to one million three hundred thousand, which, computing that these could not have been more than one fourth of the whole population, reckoning both sexes and all ages, would bring the sum total to five million two hundred thousand souls. Now, if we allow only the moderate proportion, of onc sixth, which was the actual number of the slaves when the Jews returned from Babylon, we shall have eight hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-six slaves as the aggregate in the reign of David. And as the tribe of Levi was not numbered, we can not seriously err if we compute the number of slaves to nearly a million. But our commentator saith that we read but little concerning them. Do we read any more, or even as much, of the hired servants? How plainly do we see here the strong bias of his mind, which could not allow him to deal fairly by the positive text of the sacred Scriptures when slavery was in question!

แ

But we shall find this commentator more faithful in the Epistolary portions of the New Testament. Thus, Eph. 6:5: Servants, be obedient to your masters," etc. "The Apostle," saith our commentator, "next exhorts servants who had embraced Christianity to be obedient to their masters, according to the flesh, that is, to whom they were subjected in temporal matters. In general, the servants at that time were slaves, the property of their masters, and were often treated with great severity, though seldom with that systematic cruelty which commonly attends slavery in these days." (Where did Dr. Scott find his authority for this statement? The testimony of history is altogether against him.) "But the apostles were minis ters of religion," continues he, "not politicians; they had not that influence among rulers and legislators which would have been neces sary for the abolition of slavery. Indeed, in that state of society as te other things, this would not have been expedient: God did not please miraculously to interpose in the case, and they were not required to exasperate their persecutors by expressly contending against the lawfulness of slavery. Yet both the law of love and the Gospel of grace tend to its abolition as far as they are known and regarded; and the

universal prevalence of Christianity must annihilate slavery, with many other evils, which, in the present state of things, can not wholly be avoided. In the wisdom of God the apostles were left to take such matters as they found them, and to teach servants and masters their respective duties, in the performance of which the evil would be mitigated, till in due time it should be extirpated by Christian legislators."

On 1 Tim. 6:1: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, etc. "The Apostle next," saith our commentator, “directed, that Christians, who were under the yoke of slavery, should quietly attend to the duties of their lowly situation, counting their own masters entitled to all the respect, fidelity, and obedience, which that superior relation demanded; and not supposing that their religious knowledge, privileges, or liberty, gave them a right to despise their heathen masters, to speak or act disrespectfully to them, to disobey their lawful commands, or to expose their faults to their neighbors. And such of them as enjoyed the privilege of believing masters, ought by no means to despise them, or withhold from them due respect and obedience, because they were brethren in Christ, and so upon a level in respect of religious privileges; but rather do them service, with double diligence and cheerfulness, because of their faith in Christ, and their interest in his love, as partakers of the inestimable benefit of his salvation. This shows that Christian masters were not required to set their slaves at liberty, though they were instructed to behave towards them in such a manner as would greatly lessen and nearly annihilate the evils of slavery. It would have excited much confusion, awakened the jealousy of the civil powers, and greatly retarded the progress of Christianity, had the liberation of slaves by their converts been expressly required by the Apostles: [though the principles of both the law and the Gospel, when carried to their consequences, will infallibly abolish slavery.] These things Timothy was directed to teach and enforce as matters of the greatest importance, and if any persons taught otherwise, and consented not to such salutary words, which were indeed the words of Christ 'speaking by him,' and an essential part of the doctrine according to godliness, he must be considered as a self-conceited ignorant man, who, being puffed up with an opinion of his own abilities, was ambitious of distinction and

applause, though entirely unacquainted with the real nature and tendency of the Gospel."

"It is not absolutely certain," continues Dr. Scott, "to what set of men the Apostle referred; but as many of the Jews deemed it unlawful to submit to heathen governors, it is probable some of the Judaizing teachers inculcated that the worshipers of God ought not to obey heathen masters, and so paid their court to servants, by persuading them that they ought to assert their liberty. But there might be others also who disregarded and despised those practical instructions, while their attention was taken up with curious and nice speculations and distinctions. Such persons, however, were to be considered as doting or talking wildly, like sick and delirious persons, about hard questions and disputes of words, names, forms, or notions, which had no connection with the power of godliness. Indeed, these questions and disputes tended to excite envy and competition between one and another, angry contests for victory and preeminence, mutual reviling and calumnies, injurious suspicions and jealousies, and absurd, obstinate, and violent controversies, betwixt men of corrupt and carnal minds, who were destitute of the real knowledge of the truth and its sanctifying efficacy, and who only sought their own secular advantage; supposing religion to be valuable, in proportion as it tended to enrich them, as if gain and godliness had been but two names for the same thing. Thus they wanted to persuade the Christian servants that the recovery of their liberty was to be considered as a Christian privilege of great value, which they ought to claim, whatever the consequence might be. From such men, Timothy was exhorted to withdraw himself, and neither have acquaintance with them, nor spend his time in disputing with them."

Now so far as these extracts are commentaries, they are just and true, agreeing with the previous authors whose language I have quoted. The fault is that Dr. Scott interlards them with what is not a commentary on Scripture, but his own notions about the reasons which influenced the divine mind to have nothing said which could excite commotion, provoke the civil government, or hinder the progress of the Gospel. But while I object to the error of confounding the notions of Dr. Scott with the real authority of an inspired Apostle, I am willing to accept them so far as this, viz.: that they apply with all their force to the attacks of ultra-abolitionism upon the Constitu.

tion and the laws of the Union at the present day. It is sufficient for my purpose, however, to have the testimony of this commentator to the fact, that Christian masters were not required to emancipate their slaves by the Gospel, as St. Paul expounded it. Of course, the Apostle could not have supposed that slaveholding was a sin, and I contend that until it pleases God to send us a new revelation, by inspired men, able, like the Apostles, to prove their divine commission by miracles, the Church is solemnly bound to set forth the same doctrine that St. Paul commanded Timothy to teach; and if she dares to authorize the contrary doctrine, she becomes, so far, an apostate, and a rebel against the Word of the Almighty.

In the preface to the Epistle to Philemon, Dr. Scott pursues the same track with the other commentators, and in his note on verses 12-16, he saith as follows:

"Onesimus was Philemon's legal property, and St. Paul had required and prevailed with Onesimus to return to him, having made sufficient trial of his sincerity; and he requested Philemon to receive him with the same kindness as he would the aged Apostle's own son according to the flesh, being equally dear to him as his spiritual child. He would gladly have kept him at Rome, to minister to him in his confinement; but he would not do any thing of this kind without his master's consent, lest he should seem to extort the benefit, and Philemon should appear to act from 'necessity,' rather than 'from a willing mind.' He had, indeed, hopes of deriving benefit from Onesimus's faithful service, at some future period, by Philemon's free consent, yet he was not sure that this was the Lord's purpose respecting him, for perhaps he permitted him to leave his master for a season in so improper a manner, in order that, being converted, he might be received on his return with such affection, and might abide with Philemon with such faithfulness and diligence, that they should choose to live together the rest of their lives, as fellow-heirs of eternal felicity. In this case he knew that Philemon would no longer consider Onesimus merely as a slave, but view him as ‘above a slave, even as a brother beloved.' This he was become to Paul in an especial manner, who had before been entirely a stranger to him: how much more, then, might it be supposed that he would be endeared to Philemon, when he became well acquainted with his excellency, seeing he would be near to him, both in the flesh, as one of his

domestics, and in the Lord, being one with him in Christ, as a believer!"

Now, my Right Reverend Brother, while I can not close my eyes to the manifest bias in favor of abolition which is so apparent in many parts of Scott's Commentary, I have shown that he does not differ, substantially, from any of the rest. He tells us indeed, frequently, that the law of love will eventually annihilate slavery. But this law of love was proclaimed by Moses, and our Lord recognizes the fact, (Luke 10: 26-7) when He said to one of his tempters: "What is written in the law? how readest thou ?" And he answering said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself.” The Gospel added nothing to this law of love, because any enlargement of it was impossible. But He alone fulfilled it to perfection, and gave us a glorious example, and a new motive for our obedience, according to the declaration of the Apostle, (1 John 3:16:) "Hereby we perceive the love of God, because he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." If, then, the law of love was set forth by the Almighty from the beginning, and the sanction of slavery was also given, both under the law and under the Gospel, how shall it be believed that there is any thing in the relation of master and slave which is inconsistent with love?

For what is this relation? That one man shall belong to another, and serve him as his master. Is this hostile to love? Suppose the slave to be free, and he would be a hireling to his employer. Does that relation secure love? Is it not manifest that my love for any thing becomes increased by making it belong to me, since now it is a part of myself, and my attachment to it is insured by that very reason ?

Why do I love my children better than all others? Simply because they belong to me. Why do I love my wife better than all other women? Because she belongs to me. Why do I love my house better than any other habitation? Because it belongs to me. So far is ownership from preventing love, that it secures and increases love beyond any other principle of human action. And if so, why should not the same law operate in the relation of servitude? For while the servant is only my hireling, and may depart from me at any moment, I am not disposed to look upon him with any stronger affec