If by these "servants," and "handmaidens," are to be understood slaves, then the text only confirms what God elsewhere teaches, that he is no respecter of persons, and that slaves are as much entitled to be ministers of the Gospel as any other people. But the passage of course cannot be quoted in vindication of slavery, and it is unnecessary to dwell upon it.

Acts x. 7.

"And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually."

There is nothing in the text or the context to imply that the servants of Cornelius were slaves. On the contrary the very mission with which they were intrusted, and their association with the devout soldier, imply a familiarity and a confidence not ordinarily attached to a condition of slavery. Peter too treated them as his equals.

Acts xvi. 16-19.

"And it came to pass as we went to

prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination, met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: the same followed Paul and us, and cried saying, These men are the servants of the Most High God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the market place unto the rulers."

Perhaps this was a slave. But let it be noticed she is not called a servant, although she had masters, whilst she calls Paul and Silas servants of the Most High God. I do not know that I am correct in supposing she might have been a slave; still I would concede it if it were claimed that she was. But if she was a slave, then Paul did not much regard the property relation of the masters, for he took the liberty, without the "masters' consent," to "destroy the hope of their gains," a liberty

that was no more tolerated in Pagan Phillippi, than it would now be in Christian (!) America.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE EPISTLES.

Romans vi. 16-23.

"Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey: whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being thus made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men, because of the infirmity of your flesh for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield yourselves servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Here the apostle, by a figure drawn from the condition of servants, elucidates his subject. He speaks of servants becoming free. He was, too, addressing the church at Rome, a city where slavery existed in all its enormity, and with all its legal sanctions. Did he, in this figure mean slaves, when he said servants? He did not. For although he speaks of being "made free," yet he distinctly shows that he did not have slaves in his mind, inasmuch as he asks "What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?" Thus having reference to the pay the servant receives for his services; and yet more distinctly he says, "The wages of sin is death." Therefore, it was not slaves he had in his mind, but servants, who served for wages. And this is the

more to be noticed because, in the next two chapters he changes the figure, and making allusion to a condition of bondage, and to being "sold under sin," and in "captivity to the law of sin," and to being "delivered from the bondage of corruption," he nevertheless does not employ the term "servant" to represent such a state of "bondage" and "captivity."

Romans xiv. 4.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth: yea, he shall be holden up for God is able to make him stand."

Did the apostle intend to liken the people of God to slaves? Assuredly not. But in this reference to a servant and a master, he evidently meant a condition corresponding with the relation subsisting between Christians and Jesus Christ. And he employs a word which Greek readers know applies to house servants.

1 Corinthians vii. 20-22.

"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called,