not only gives the notes of Henry and Scott, but also an original one from Dr. Jenks, which is worth transcribing.

"The sense," saith he, "is not clear. Chrysostom and all the old comtrs. (commentators) understand, 'You need care so little, that even if you can gain your freedom, prefer your servitude as a greater trial of Christian patience!' (So a religion of despotism counsels, contrary to the precept, 'Do not evil that good may come,' and to the prayer, 'Lead us not into temptation.' By what right can any man imbrute God's image, which Christ atoned for, to a mindless, will-less, soulless, rightless chattel! Yet) so Camer, Schmidt, Sparck, Estius, De Dieu, and the Syr. And this sense, they think, is confirmed by the following consolatory words, 'For he,' etc. It is also ably defended by De Dieu and Wolf. But there is a certain harshness about it to which necessity alone would reconcile me. What is detrimental to human happiness can not be promotive of virtue. The true intent seems that of Beza, Grot., Ham., and most recent comtrs. 'Do not feel a too great trouble on that account, as if it could materially affect your acceptance with God, and as if that were a condition unworthy of a Christian.' 'Grace knows no distinctions of freedom or servitude, therefore bear it patiently.' Grotius adds: ‘And above all, let it not drive you to seek your freedom by unjustifiable means.' And he remarks that a misunderstanding of the nature of Christian liberty had made many Christian slaves not only murmur at their situation, but seek to throw off all bondage. O just yet merciful God! enlighten the slave and his master in these United States, at once and always to do Thy will!"

Now this is a fair specimen of the rhetoric which has become so common, of late years, on the subject of slavery, taking it for granted that the slave must be made a brute, without mind, soul, will, or right, a mere chattel; although these gentlemen must know that among the ancients the slaves were often highly educated to be instructors of youth, that Esop was a slave, and Terence was a slave, and Epictetus was a slave, while amongst the slave population of the South, enough of their negroes have been taught and emancipated to plant the new State of Liberia, and of those who still remain with their masters, nearly five hundred thousand are reported as members of Christian societies, in good standing. These facts being perfectly notorious, one can hardly read such a display of our commentator's anti-slavery prejudice without desiring that he might study the Ninth Command

ment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," with a wholesome regard to personal application.

On the text quoted from Eph. 6: 5-9, Servants, be obedient to your masters, etc., the notes of Henry and Scott are repeated in this commentary, as I have already given them, and so are they likewise in the corresponding passage, Col. 3: 22: Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, etc.

And in that strong and most important precept delivered by St. Paul to the first bishop of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 6: 1–5, Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, etc., Henry and Scott are again employed in the Comprehensive Commentary. And the same authors meet us again, in the preface and notes to the Epistle to Philemon. Thus, in the preface we read as follows: "Philemon, one of note, and probably a minister in the Church of Colosse, had a servant named Onesimus, who, having purloined his goods, ran away from him and came to Rome, where Paul was then a prisoner for the Gospel, and providentially coming under his preaching there, was, by the blessing of God, converted by him; after which he ministered awhile to the Apostle in bonds, and might have been further useful to him; but he, understanding him to be another man's servant, would not, without his consent, detain him, but sends him back with this letter commendatory, wherein he earnestly sues for his pardon and kind reception."

V. 16. Not now as a servant, "that is," saith this commentary, "not merely or so much, but above a servant, in a spiritual respect, a brother beloved, one to be owned as a brother in Christ," etc.

แ "But why such concern and earnestness for a servant, a slave, and such a one as had misbehaved? Answer. Onesimus being now penitent, it was doubtless to encourage him, and to support him in returning to his master."

V. 18. Put that on my account. "Paul here engages for satisfaction. Whence observe, first, The communion of saints does not destroy distinction of property. Onesimus, now converted and become a brother beloved, is yet Philemon's servant still, and indebted to him for wrongs he had done, and not to be discharged but by free and voluntary remission," etc.

Here, my Right Reverend Brother, I shall close for the present my extracts from the commentators of the nineteenth century, having proved that notwithstanding their occasional exhibitions of anti-slav

ery prejudice, yet their explanations of the Bible are usually the same with the rest, the exceptions being very few, and those, as I shall show by and by, being of no importance to the general argument. Dr. Clarke rages most wildly indeed in one place against the institution of slavery, and Dr. Scott is very zealous for the abolition of the slave-trade, in which we all agree. But none of them can be found denying the main facts, or imputing it as a sin in any Christian man to own a slave, provided it be in accordance with the law of the land, and the slave be treated with kindness and with justice, in obedience to the precepts of the Gospel. None of them denounces the right of property in the master, nor the duty of obedience and fidelity on the part of the slave. None of them maintains the doctrine of the ultraabolitionist, that the slave ought to run away, and that if his master should reclaim him, he may be justified in forcible resistance even unto death, in the pursuit of his liberty.

I shall now, however, revert to the commentators of the eighteenth century, by whom I maintained that the original doctrine of the Church was still preserved in its primitive integrity; and after I shall have gone through this list, the way will be clear for the remaining portions of my undertaking.

CHAPTER XX.

RIGHT REVEREND BROTHER: The Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. Gill, is one of the most learned and highly esteemed works of modern times, in the judgment of very many, and holds the first rank in the Baptist denomination. I shall next take up this, and quote its authority on the texts in question.

On the prophecy of Noah, Gen. 9: 22, our commentator saith: "It may seem strange that Canaan should be cursed, and not Ham, who seems to be the only transgressor by what is said in the context; hence one copy of the Septuagint, as Ainsworth observes, reads Ham, and the Arabic writers, the father of Canaan, and so, as Aben Ezra relates, Saadiah Gaon supplies it, and the same supplement is made by others. But as both were guilty, and Canaan particularly was first in the transgression, it seems most wise and just that he should be expressly named, since hereby Ham is not excluded from a share in the punishment of the crime he had a concern in, being punished in his son-Canaan only, and not any of the other sons of Ham, were guilty he, and not Ham by name, is cursed, lest it should be thought that the curse would fall on Ham and all his posterity, wheras the curse descends on him, and very justly proceeds in the line of Canaan-the father of the accursed race of the Canaanites, whom God abhorred, and for their wickedness, was about to drive out of their land, and give it to his people for an inheritance," etc.

According to this learned author, therefore, the curse descended on Ham, and proceeds in the line of Canaan. And in his notes upon the line of Canaan, whose children are named in the fifteenth verse, he saith that as the families of the Canaanites increased, they spread themselves farther every way,” although his elaborate attempt to trace their course, like all similar efforts, amounts to nothing, because there is no history to guide us, beyond the outline given by Scripture, and all that can be done must be limited to probable conjecture,

With respect to Abraham's servants, Gen. 14: 14, Dr. Gill saith that they were “born in his own house, of his servants, and so were his property, and at his disposal and command; their number was three hundred and eighteen- a large number for servants, which showed how great a man Abraham was, what possessions he must have to employ so many," etc.

On Gen. 16: 3, he saith, that Hagar was "the secondary wife or concubine" of Abraham. That this did not change her condition as a slave is plain, because, when she ran away, "she acknowledged Sarai to be her mistress," and the angel of the Lord commands her accordingly, “Return to thy mistress and submit thyself to her hands; go back to her, acknowledge thy fault, do her work, bear her corrections and chastisements, and suffer thyself to be afflicted by her, as the word may be rendered; take all patiently from her, which will be much more to thy profit and advantage than to pursue the course thou art in."

In his notes on Gen. 17: 12, where circumcision is commanded for those who were born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, not being of Abraham's seed, Dr. Gill quotes from Maimonides the following rules: "A servant born in the power of an Israelite, and another that is taken from heathens, the master is bound to circumcise them, but he that is born in the house is circumcised the eighth day, and he that is bought with money is circumcised on the day that he is received; even if he received him on the day he is born, he is circumcised on that day. If he receives a grown servant of heathens, and the servant is not willing to be circumcised, he bears with him a whole year; but more than that he is forbidden to keep him, seeing he is uncircumcised, but he must send him again to the heathens."

On Exod. 20, our commentator saith, in his notes on the Fourth Commandment, thy man-servant and thy maid-servant, "this is to be understood, according to the Jews, not of hired servants, concerning whose rest from labor a man was not bound, but of such as were born in the house and bought with their money, and of such men-servants as were circumcised, and in all things professed to be proselytes to the Jewish religion."

And in his comment on the Tenth Commandment, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his man-servant nor his maid-servant, etc., he saith, this " serves to explain the Eighth Commandment,