culcates this duty of servants to their masters: the manner in which they are to be subject to them is with all fear, with reverence to their persons, strict regard to their commands, faithfulness in any trust reposed in them, diligence in the discharge of their duty, and all this not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, the ill-natured, morose, and rigorous," etc.

I have been thus copious in my extracts from the exposition of Dr. Gill, not only in consideration of his acknowledged learning, but because the various societies of the Baptist denomination, of which he was the most eminent oracle for a very long period, form the largest Christian body on our continent, and deserve a proportionate measure of respectful attention. But now I shall hasten onward to my remaining authorities, which can be satisfactorily dispatched with greater brevity.

CHAPTER XXI.

RIGHT REVEREND BROTHER: Before I return to the Episcopalian commentators, there is one name deservedly high in the estimation of our Presbyterian brethren, and of many amongst ourselves, whom I may not pass by-that of the Rev. Dr. Doddridge. From his wellknown and greatly esteemed Paraphrase, therefore, I quote the following passage on Eph. 6: 5.

"There is yet another relation between masters and servants, concerning which I shall proceed to advise you. I would exhort you who are servants, whether of the meanest rank, such as bondmen and slaves, or in the station only of hired servants, that ye be subject and obedient to those who are your masters and proprietors, though they be only so according to the flesh."

And to this I shall add his Introduction to the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon, which agrees with the preceding commentators precisely: "Philemon," saith Dr. Doddridge, I was an inhabitant of Colosse. He seems, from several hints given in the Epistle, to have been a person of distinction, particularly from the mention made of the Church in his house, (v. 2,) and his liberal contributions to the relief of the saints, (v. 5, 7,) and the general strain of the letter shows that the Apostle held him in very high esteem, and looked upon him as one of the great supports of religion in that society."

"The occasion of the letter was this: Onesimus, Philemon's slave, had robbed his master, and fled to Rome, where, happily for him, he met with the Apostle, and by his instructions and admonitions was converted to Christianity, and reclaimed to a sense of his duty."

"St. Paul seems to have kept him for some considerable time under his eye, that he might be satisfied of the reality of the change, and when he had made a sufficient trial of him, and found that his behavior was entirely agreeable to his profession, he would not detain him any longer for his own private convenience, but sent him back to his master. And as Philemon might well be supposed to be strongly

prejudiced against one who had left his service in so infamous a manner, he sends him this letter, in which he employs all his influence to remove his suspicions, and reconcile him to the thoughts of taking Onesimus into his family again."

The next commentary, and one of much reputation amongst Episcopalians, is that which is known as Hammond's Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament. And here we have the same doctrine repeated in plain terms. Thus the paraphrase on 1 Tim. 6: 1 is as follows, viz.:

"Those Christians that are bondmen to heathens must perform all service and obedience to them which belong to them by the law of servants among the heathens; that the profession of Christianity and the doctrine of the Gospel be not looked upon by the heathens as that which makes men worse livers than they were, neglecting their moral duties for being Christians."

"And those Christians that have Christian masters must not withdraw any of that obedience which is due to them upon the plea that they are Christians, and so their equals or brethren; but think themselves the more obliged to serve them, because the faith and love that constitute men Christians consist in helping to do good, and consequently the performing due service to them is a very Christian thing, and that which Christianity doth not less but more oblige them to. These are things of such a nature, so much required by the Christian religion, and the contrary at this time, so taught by the Gnostic heretics, that it is necessary for thee to give these admonitions to all." The celebrated Locke, as you know, wrote a commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, which obtained considerable reputation in our mother Church of England. And there is a note appended to his remarks concerning the text in 1. Cor. 7: 28, worthy of your attention. It is in these words, viz. :

"Slaves were bought

1 Cor. 7:23. Ye are bought with a price. and sold in the market, as cattle are, and so, by the price paid, there was a property acquired in them. This, therefore, is a reason for what he advised that they should not be slaves to men, because Christ had paid a price for them, and they belonged to Him. slavery he speaks of is civil slavery, which he makes use of to convince the Corinthians that the civil ties of marriage were not dissolved by a man's becoming a Christian, since slavery itself was not, and in

The

any man's

general, in the next verse, he tells them, that nothing in civil estate or rights is altered by his becoming a Christian."

I shall next proceed to quote some portions of the well-known work of Rev. George D'Oyly, B.D., and Rev. Richard Mant, D.D., domestic chaplains to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was published under the direction of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in England, and republished, with some additional notes, by the eminent Bishop Hobart, as being well adapted for our American Church, in A.D. 1818. It belongs, therefore, to the present century, though several years anterior to the emancipation of the slaves in Jamaica by the British Parliament.

I commence with a statement of the learned Dr. Hales, which is placed in the notes on Gen. 10:1: "The following curious and valuable commentary," saith he, "which records the primitive settlements of the three families, is furnished by Abulfaragi, in his history of the Dynasties. In the one hundred and fortieth year of Phaleg the earth was divided, by a second division, among the sons of Noah. To the sons of Shem was allotted the middle of the earth, namely, Palestine, Syria, Assyria, Samarra, (a town of Babylonian or Chaldean Irac,) Babel, Persia, and Hegiaz, (or Arabia Petræa.) To the sons of Ham, Teman, (or Idumæa, Jer. 49 : 7,) Africa, Nigritia, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, Scindia, and India, on both sides of the Indus. To the sons of Japheth also, Garbia, (the North,) Spain, France, the countries of the Greeks, Sclavonians, Bulgarians, Turks, and Armenians."

Now here the allotment gives a large range to Ham, but Palestine is expressly included as belonging to Shem, and therefore the portion of the Canaanites who obtained possession of it were not the original owners of the soil.

This fact would only add another reason for bestowing the land on the Israelites, who were of the posterity of Shem, and had the right to claim it, as belonging to them by express allotment.

This original distribution of the earth is regarded by learned and thoughtful men as of very high importance. For thus our commentary proceeds: "It was made," saith Joseph Mede, "in an orderly manner, and not by a confused, irregular dispersion, wherein every one went and seated himself where he thought good." And Bryant saith that "This distribution was by the immediate appointment of God. We have full evidence of this in that sublime and pathe

tic hymn of Moses, Deut. 32: 7, 8, 9. From this we may see that the whole was by God's appointment, and that there was a reserve for the people who were to come after. St. Paul likewise speaks of it expressly as a divine ordinance, Acts 17: 26. This is taken notice of by many of the fathers. Eusebius in particular mentions 'the distribution of the earth,' and adds that it happened in the two thousand six hundred and seventy-second year of the Creation, and in the nine hundred and thirtieth year of the patriarch's life. Thus it was that Noah, by divine appointment, divided the world between his three sons. It is remarkable that "the Grecians," saith Bryant, "had some traditions of this partition of the earth, which they supposed to have been by lot, and between Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto."

It is further worthy of note, as "Sir William Jones has demonstrated, that three great branches of language are sufficient to account for all the varieties now extant." (Calmet's Dictionary, Supplement.)

That Melchizedek was a “Canaanitish prince" was the opinion of Dr. Hales, because he was the king of Salem, "the most ancient quarter of Jerusalem," and the name of Canaan is supposed, though erroneously, to have been given to that land in the time of Abraham, Gen. 12: 5. But even if this supposition were correct, I could not conceive that Melchizedek belonged to the race of that Canaan, whose posterity had been doomed to a curse by the patriarch Noah. Nothing was more common at that time, and nothing is more common in our own day, than to find the same name given to men and to places. This coïncidence, of itself, would therefore be entirely insufficient to prove that Melchizedek was a Canaanite with respect to his genealogy. We read, indeed, in the next verse, that "the Canaanite was then in the land. But by this," as the commentator saith, "is meant, not all the posterity of Canaan, or all the Canaanitish tribes, but only one particular tribe of them." This tribe may have been living there, and Sodom and Gomorrah may have been built by them, and become petty principalities long before, without interfering with the king of Salem, Melchizedek.

I consider it altogether more reasonable, therefore, to regard this priest and king as of the race of Shem, in whom the prophecy of Noah had placed the high prerogative of belonging specially to the Lord God, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem." For to this "king