being a servant? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman likewise also he that is called being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God."

The apostle here exhorts the Christian to abide in his calling. This evidently implies a power to change his calling if he had a mind to. But if the servant were a slave, he could have no choice in the matter. Besides slavery can hardly be said to be a man's calling" Art thou called, being a servant? care not for it." Abide in your calling. But if you are able to be or to become free, then do not go into service, for in that case freedom is to be chosen. This I take to be the true meaning of the apostle. He was addressing different classes of Christians at Corinth. He says to the unmarried, it is better that you remain single, unless remaining single would be a tempation to sin; to the wife or husband, do not leave your hus

band or wife; but if your unbelieving husband or wife depart, let him or her depart, for a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases; to the circumcised, he says, don't become uncircumcised; and to the uncircumcised, don't become circumcised; to the freeman he says, don't become a servant, and to the servant he says, abide in your calling. He was addressing classes who evidently had a choice of action. And he reminds them that they are all Christ's freemen, although they are his servants, and as Christ has bought them, (that is, with his blood,) whatsoever might be their condition in life, they are not to be the servants of men. They must all act in their various callings and conditions with entire regard to their free devotion to Christ's service. All this advice is so distinctly inapplicable to slaves, that it is surprising the passage should ever be referred to in justification of slavery.

How absurd it would be for a Southern minister to say to John, a slave, when he unites with the church, Now John, don't quit being a slave, but abide in that "call

ing!" Such advice would be ridiculous, for in the first place, John never was called into slavery, but was forced into it, and in the next place, he can have no choice whether to abide in service or not. He continues a slave at the will of his master. I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that slaves were not in the apostle's mind in thus addressing the Christians at Corinth. It is true, he says, " Ye are bought with a price," but from whom did Christ buy them? Evidently from themselves, for their allegiance to him was a perfectly voluntary one, and he recognizes them as freemen whilst he calls them servants. really do not know how this conclusion can be avoided, viz: that the servants addressed were not slaves.

Corinthians ix. 19. 2 Corinthians iv. 5.

I

"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more."

"For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Paul certainly did not make himself a

slave. He indeed alludes to a reward for his services, evidently having in his mind a servant entitled to wages.

Galatians iv. 1-7.

"Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."

Assuredly a child differs very widely in his condition and liabilities from a slave. The apostle therefore did not mean a slave, but a servant entitled to certain rights, such as a son under age would be entitled

to. Although in bondage, it is an allusion to such a "bondage" as was admissible under the Mosaic law, as is evident from the apostle's reference to the custom of redeeming servants.

Ephesians vi. 5-9.

"Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service as to the Lord and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

I do not apprehend that the persons here addressed were slaves, because it implies too much freedom of action to be consistent with the idea of slavery. It is true, the term "bond" is employed in the