only means to give the time approximately, not precisely, "about the sixth hour."

When all these methods exist of reconciling the accounts of the evangelists, is it honest to charge them with contradicting one another, and to parade the fact as though such a reconciliation was impossible? This is the kind of fairness, however, which the enemies of the Bible are accustomed to employ. Though their objections have been answered and their misrepresentations corrected hundreds of times, they do not blush to repeat them again in as confident a tone as though they did not admit of confutation. Our readers will, no doubt, after the exhibition just made, be ready to agree with us, that bold and unsustained assertion, though found in the columns of the Westminster Review, weighs just as little as if it had been found anywhere else.

W. H. G.

THREE LETTERS TO A CONSERVATIVE.

LETTER III.

HISTORICAL VIEW OF ANTI-SLAVERY OPINIONS.

TO THE REV. C. VAN RENSSELAER, D.D.:

IN my former letters I have examined the two articles which make up the peculiar creed of the conservative, as he is called. In the present, I will ask your attention to certain facts in the history. of Anti-slavery opinions; and this, for the sake of the practical lesson which they teach.

Bishop Hopkins, in his "American Citizen," after briefly exhibiting the scriptural proof that slaveholding is not a sin, writes: "If we go on from the days of the Apostles to examine the doctrine and practice of the Christian Church, we find no other views entertained on the subject. Slavery continued to exist in every quarter. Slaves were held, without any reproach, even by the bishops and clergy. When the practice died out, as it did in many of the European nations, the change was gradual, through the operation of worldly causes, and without any suspicion that the institution, in itself, involved a violation of religion or morality. Hence its lawfulness with respect to the African and the Indians taken in war, was universally maintained by the Puritan settlers of New England, who claimed the closest adherence in all things to the teachings of the Scriptures. And it was not until the latter part of the eighteenth century that a doubt was expressed, on either side of the Atlantic, in relation to the perfect consistency of such slavery with the precepts of the Gospel."

"Since that time, indeed, public opinion, both in Old and New England, has undergone a great revolution. But this cannot be

attributed to the Bible, nor to the Church, nor to any new knowledge of the will of God, nor to the discovery of any unknown principles of moral action. All that belongs to these was perfectly familiar to the Christian world from the days of the Apostles. And therefore no intelligent and candid mind can be surprised to find that the most violent opponents of slavery in the United States are always ready to wrest the Bible and denounce the Church, because they cannot derive from either the slightest real supports in their assaults against the lawfulness of the institution." (pp. 129, 130.)

The correctness of this brief history of the progress of Antislavery opinions, no one, I presume, will seriously question. And the point to which I would, now, particularly call your attention, is that presented in the words-" it," i. e., this change, "cannot be attributed to the Bible, nor to the Church." It was not from the Bible these opinions originated; it was not in the Church they first saw the light.

Whence are they? I answer: They can be distinctly traced back to their origin in that infidel philosophy on the subjects of civil government and human liberty, which, becoming popular in the latter half of the last century, had its culmination, in the one direction, in the French revolution, and in the other, in the disastrous emancipation effected in the British West India Islands: a philosophy which substitutes for the Bible account of the origin of civil government in the family, the theory of the "civil compact," as it has been called; and confounds human liberty with unbridled license.

You are familiar with the classic story of the fall of Troy ;-how, concealed in a wooden horse, consecrated to Diana, the enemy found admission into that doomed city. In a way very similar has this infidel philosophy found admission into the Church of God. Of the mischief it has already wrought there, in rending the Church, in making enemies of those who should be friends, in prostituting the pulpit and desecrating the Sabbath by substituting the preaching of politics in the place of the Gospel, there is no need that I should tell you.

This heresy-for surely, I do it no wrong when I apply to it the name of heresy-has made its most insidious approaches, and gained its most dangerous advantages, by subtly mingling its errors with God's truths, in our popular expositions of Scripture. As it is here, in the permanent printed page, its progress can be traced with least danger of falling into error, let me ask you to compare the exposition of a passage of Scripture bearing on the subject of slavery, written before this infidel philosophy, "this science, falsely so called" obtained currency, with one written after it had begun to prevail, and another written in this, our day.

Let us take a part of the passage to which attention has been already turned in my first letter, viz., 1 Tim. 6: 2, "And they

that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort."

Turn now to Matthew Henry's Exposition, written early in the last century, and you will read: "Or suppose the master were a Christian and a believer, and the servant a believer too; would not that excuse him, because in Christ there is neither bond nor free? No, by no means, for Jesus Christ did not come to dissolve the bond of civil relation, but to strengthen it: They that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; for that brotherhood relates only to spiritual privileges, not to any outward dignity or advantage (those misunderstand and abuse their religion, who make it a pretence for denying the duties that they owe to their relations); nay, rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved. They must think themselves the more obliged to serve them, because the faith and love which bespeak men Christians, oblige them to do good; and that is all wherein their service consists. Observe, It is a great encouragement to us in doing our duty to our relations, if we have reason to think they are faithful and beloved, and partakers of the benefit, that is, of the benefit of Christianity. Again, Believing masters and servants are brethren, and partakers of the benefit; for in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3: 28.) Timothy is appointed to teach and exhort these things. Ministers must preach, not only the general duties of all, but the duties of particular relations.'

Here, all is plain, straightforward exposition of the text. The author evidently writes with a "single eye" to the exhibition of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" contained in the passage of Scripture he is expounding.

Dr. Thomas Scott wrote his Commentary about the close of the last century; the first edition was published in 1796. Let us look, now, at his exposition of this passage; and, I select the Commentary of Scott, because the unquestioned piety of the man, and the general excellence of his work, render the peculiarity to which I would direct attention, all the more conspicuous.

"And such of them," i. e., ' servants,' as enjoy the privilege of believing masters,' ought by no means to despise them, or withhold from them due respect and obedience; because they were brethren in Christ, and so upon a level in respect of religious privileges; but rather to do them service' with double diligence and cheerfulness, because of their faith in Christ, and their interest in his love, as partakers of the inestimable benefit of his salvation. This shows that Christian masters were not required to set their slaves at liberty."

Thus far, all is plain, straightforward exposition of what Paul has written. If any man will gainsay it, his controversy is not

with Dr. Scott, the expositor, but with inspired Paul, the author. But Scott adds, "though they were instructed to behave towards them in such a manner as would greatly lessen and nearly annihilate the evils of slavery." Here the influence of this false philosophy begins to appear;-and I object to this statement, not simply on the ground that it is not in the text, but mainly, because it is a partial statement of truth, and thus, practical error. Paul never uses such paltering terms as "greatly lessen" and nearly annihilate," when dealing with the master respecting his "behaviour" toward his slaves. That we may see how Paul does deal with this subject, turn to Col. 6: 1, and read-" Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." See also Eph. 6: 9. Paul is here enjoining their relative duties upon masters and servants, along with husbands and wives, parents and children, and he enjoins these duties upon all alike, as Christians, by Christian motives. But he knows well that the natural affections do not afford as efficient protection to the slave as they do to the wife and the child, and hence-when he comes to deal with the master, he cites him at once before our common "Master in heaven," and in that awful presence, he charges him, in view of the solemnities of the judgment "give unto your servants that which is just and equal"-ALL, "that is just and equal." Now let this Christian master go back to his house or plantation again, and he will not be satisfied to "greatly alleviate," or "nearly annihilate❞ any evil which concerns his "behaviour" to his servants; he will seek to remove it altogether.

Scott adds, yet further-"It would have excited much confusion, awakened the jealousy of the civil powers, and greatly retarded the progress of Christianity, had the liberation of slaves by their converts been expressly required by the apostles: though the principles of both the law and the Gospel, when carried to their consequences, will infallibly abolish slavery." Here, this philosophy shows itself more distinctly. There is nothing of all this in the text. Taking the most favourable view of the case for the expositor, we say It is not Paul's truth, it is Dr. Scott's opinion. And yet, appearing where it does, most readers will take it all as if it were the teaching of Scripture.

And it places the teaching of Christ and his apostles on the subject of slavery altogether in a wrong light. The amount of this apology which Scott offers for this conduct, is well stated by Dr. Hodge (see his "Essays and Reviews," pp. 488, 489), in the words-"It amounts to this. Christ and his apostles thought slaveholding a great crime, but they abstained from saying so for fear of the consequences. The very statement of the argument, in its naked form, is its refutation." Thus has the Commentary of so excellent a man as Dr. Scott been, here, "spoiled through his philosophy." (Col. 2 : 8.)

Turn we now to an Exposition written in our day, when this philosophy has "run to seed;" the "Notes on the New Testament" by Rev. A. Barnes; and that I may do him no injustice, I shall give so much of his "Notes" as I quote, just as I find them printed, italics, punctuation, and all. My edition is that of the Harpers, 1853.

"2. And they that have believing masters. Masters who are Christians. It is clear from this, that Paul supposed that, at that time, and under those circumstances, a man might become a Christian who had slaves under him. How long he might continue to hold his fellow men in bondage, and yet be a Christian, is, however, quite a different question.'

Dr. Barnes's "at that time, and in those circumstances," is a bowshot beyond Dr. Scott's "greatly alleviate and nearly annihilate," and yet there is a family likeness between them, that strikes you at a glance.

"And yet be a Christian." Had Dr. Barnes been a professed Arminian, I should have understood him here, as referring to a threatening probability of "falling from grace:" but, as he claims to be a Calvinist, I see not how I can fairly interpret his language, unless I understand that these Christian slaveholders were only a sort of quasi Christians, after all; admitted into "the kingdom of God" in some such way as "mourners" are admitted into the Methodist Church-on probation-and not to be allowed to continue there unless they shortly renounced their slaveholding. Perhaps Dr. Barnes would say-such quasi Christians would answer"at that time and under those circumstances"-and certainly, all will agree with him, that this might just as well be, as that Christians should come into that kingdom at all, holding on to a sin worse than "piracy and murder."

"Because they are faithful, that is because they are believers or are Christians-pistoi; the same word which in the beginning of the verse is rendered believing. It does not here mean, that they were faithful to their servants or their God, but merely that they were Christians."

A strange sort of Christians these Ephesians must have been, who were not "faithful" to, i. e., "believers" in-for so Dr. Barnes interprets the word faithful as used by Paul; and his marking it here with quotation marks, requires us to understand him as taking it from Paul's writing-their servants or their God. I do not know that I get exactly Dr. Barnes's idea-but a man who did not "believe in servants, or in God," I should call an Abolition atheist. Now, if these Ephesians, while they were slaveholders, were at heart Abolition atheists-the wonder is, not that they could enter the "kingdom of God" on no better terms than probationers, but that they could enter that kingdom at all.

But, enough-though there are some eight pages of these Notes