ing to the Jewish law. The relation, as well as the law continued to the time of our Savior. In his excellent commentary on the Gospel of John, Prof. Tholuck says, John xviii. 18, "the servants (douloi) are the domestic slaves of Caiaphas the high priest." The maid, also, to whom Peter denied his Lord, was a slave. This law as has been shewn, defined the slave to be a perpetual property, and as such, gave the master authority to compel his service by necessary correction; to recapture him if he fled, and to dispose of him by gift, or devise, or sale, as other property. It need scarcely be added that the slave could be attached and sold for debt by the master's creditor. Even the debtor's children could be sold. See 2 Kings iv. 1.

The slaves were either bought with money from the heathen, and the stranger, or captives in war, or which was the most prized and trusted class, the children of slaves, those "born in the house." David makes a beautiful allusion to the intimacy of the latter relation between master and slave. Psalms lxxxvi. 16-" give thy strength unto thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid." Cxvi. 16-"O Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid;" thy eved, the son of thine Ama; not an eved bought with money, but an eved born in the house. Does infant baptism involve this same principle?

The question, whether the relation of master and slave, be in itself sinful, has now been abundantly answered; at least to all who believe the Bible, and accord to its author the privilege of explaining his own law. It can not be an offence against God; for it is acknowledged as a lawful relation in the first table of the decalogue, which comprises all the duties we owe to God: neither is it necessarily an offence against man, for in the second

table, comprising all the duties we owe to man it is also recognized. We cannot suppose that in laws for the Jews, nor for the world, God could introduce or countenance, what is in itself sinful.

It remains for us to examine the and learn whether it forbids this Christians.

New Testament relation among

In establishing the Christian Church our Savior and his Apostles taught that they did not found a Church essentially new. Christ came to break down the middle wall of partition, that "the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles." The covenant, and the law, and the promises, were made the common property of the world. From this identity of the two churches, it necessarily follows, that the institutions and ordinances of the Jews belong also to the Christian Church; unless they have been expressly altered or abrogated. This inference is so obvious and legitimate; was so fully admitted by the Apostles, and is so essentially involved in all that belongs to Christianity, that I shall not attempt to prove it by argument.

Is it not a reasonable supposition that the ancient christians would regard the law which authorized the relation of master and slave in the Jewish church, as also authorizing it among christians. I cannot imagine how they could form a contrary opinion. It was a part of the laws of Jehovah. The Savior, and Prophets, and Apostles had declared the whole system to be perfect, holy, just and good. How could they, if they had the spirit of Christ and his Apostles dwelling in them, condemn it as unholy, or on their own responsibility, place it among the repealed ordinances. It is frequently as

*If the reader desires such proof he will find it in the very able treatise on infant baptism, by the Rev. Dr. Woods of the Theological Seminary, Andover.

serted, that, although this relation is not forbidden in words, yet the whole spirit of the gospel condemns it. We must, in charity, hope, that not a few, who make this assertion, are utterly unsuspicious of its bearing upon the law, and its author. The moral purity of the law is the moral purity of the Gospel, and both are the purity of God himself.

But the New Testament best explains its own spirit. Does it recognize the relation of master and slave, among the the relations authorized in the Christian Church?.

The first answer to this question is, the history of the Centurion at Capernaum. Luke vii. 2, "And a certain Centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick." The word, here translated servant, is doulos. The meaning, among the Greeks, was the same with eved among the Hebrews, a slave. In all its compounds and formations, (and they are some twenty or thirty) it retains this essential meaning; so that there is no word in any language whose meaning is more accurately fixed. It would seem scarcely possible to question, whether the Apostles use it in its proper sense. When it was necessary for them to express an idea, unknown to the Greeks, or one peculiar to the Hebrews, they, as our Missionaries now do, would either form a new word, in accordance with the idiom of the language, or use a familiar word in a modified sense. But every principle, of common sense, and every law of speech, would require that, in expressing an idea common to both languages, they should use the word appropriated to that idea in the language in which they spoke or wrote. The slave was familiar to both Greek and Hebrew.The Greeks also had their appropriate word for hireling misthios. Yet it has been denied that the Apos-,

tles used doulos, in its appropriate sense.

With what foundation, such denial is made, a very slight examination will show. When the Apostles present the contrast between freeman, eleutheros, and its opposite, doulos is invariably used.

Rom. vi. 20-"For when ye were (douloi) the servants of sin, ye were (eleutheroi) free from righteous

1 Cor. vii. 21-"Art thou called, being (doulos) a servant,”---“but if thou mayest be made (eleutheros) free.” Verse 22-"For he that is called in the Lord, being (doulos) a servant, is the Lord's (apeleutheros) freed

man."

Gal. iii. 28—“There is neither (doulos) bond nor [eleutheros] free."

Coloss. iii. 11-"Where there is neither [doulos bond, nor [eleutheros] free."

See also Eph. vi. 8--Rev. vi. 15 and xiii. 16, and xix. 18.

In a conversation with the Jews, John viii. 30, 40, our Saviour said, "The truth shall make you free" [using the verb formed from eleutheros.] The Jews at once replied, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage, [literally, never rendered the service of slaves] to any man. How then sayest thou ye shall be made free." They at once seized the contrast. How can we be made eleutheroi if we were never douloi?The Saviour replied, "Whosoever committeth sin, is [doulos] the slave of sin."

These examples make the meaning of doulos in the New Testament, sufficiently plain. It is used as eved was used in the Jewish Church, to express the servitude of the Christian to his heavenly master. A doulos of God, is one who is not his own master; who has

been bought with a price. He, his family, his property, his time, his body and his spirit, belong to God; and he lives, and labors not for himself, but for him, whose property he is. It is true, that no one is, in this sense, the doulos of God, but he, who has voluntarily chosen him as his master.

Doudos is used, not to express the mode in which this relation was constituted: but the nature of the relation itself. The angels, who remain as they were created, are the douloi of God, as really as penitent men.

The Greeks had other words, expressing some modification of the general idea of slavery, as house-slave, footman, &c. They also used the word pais (boy) as the word boy is now frequently used in Slave-holding States. But the genuine idea of slave, both in classic Greek, and in the New Testament, is expressed by doulos.

This Centurion, of whom our Saviour said, "I have not found so great faith, not in all Israel," was then a master. Cornelius, "a devout man, who feared God, with all his house," was also a master. Acts x. 7, "and when the angel was departed, he called two of his household servants." The word here used, is oiketesa house-slave. The same word is used, Luke xvi. 18, "No servant can serye two masters."

Acts xii. 12, 13-When Peter knocked at the gate of Mary, the Mother of John, Mark, "a damsel came to hearken, whose name was Rhoda.”

The word here translated damsel, is pardiske, a female slave. It is used in the Septuagint, as the translation of ama, a bond-woman. It is used in Gal. iv. 22, 30, 31, and is there translated bond-woman. It is the word used in Acts xvi. 16-A certain damsel brought her master much gain-Also in Luke xii. 45, “And