proper work of government. War, for purposes of aggression, on the contrary, is a perversion of its purpose; and yet as an established institution of man, he enjoined a faithful discharge of the moral duties, and the peculiar obligations which were connected with it. But it certainly does not follow from this fact that war is a divine institution, or that it met the approval of the Saviour.

The same principle appears in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians. He declares it to be unlawful for a Christian to marry a heathen. Yet if by the conversion of one party to Christianity, a Christian husband or wife is found to be united to a heathen, he does not enjoin separation. On the contrary, he recommends a continuance in that relation. "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman that hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband." (1 Corin. vii. 14, 15.) Here we see what may be called the sanctified common sense; the plain and practical wisdom of the ethics of Christianity. St. Paul forbids a certain relation; when, however, it is found. in fact existing, without the guilt which would have arisen from its voluntary adoption, he does not declare that it should be broken, but prescribes the duties which it involves. His injunction of the duties which belong to the relation evidently constitutes no sanction or approbation of the institution.

By the light of these principles we see the error of those who have considered that slavery has re

ceived the divine approbation, and is as really a divine institution as the family and the state. The Scriptures indeed prescribe the duties of this relation. St. Paul often enlarges on the reciprocal obligations of master and slave. But we have seen that it is not the divine mode of procedure to attack human institutions which are the expression or the stimulant of evil; but to correct the evil heart out of which they spring, and while they exist to prescribe the mutual duties which arise in them. God from the beginning has enjoined the union of one man and woman as alone lawful, and proclaims the marriage of a second wife to be adultery; and yet when among the Jews concubinage, or secondary marriage, became established, God at the same time leaves the law unrepealed, and yet forbears to denounce as evil all who have adopted this evil custom. David receives many divine directions; but none that I am aware of to the effect that he should repudiate all his wives but one. And there is one remarkable record in reference to King Joash, which seems to show that this toleration on the part of God of an evil when it became established, had led even a prophet to suppose that because it had not been condemned after it had been practiced, it might be lawful to originate the practice. In the same verses which declare that Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord; it is announced that two wives were selected for him. "And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoida the priest; and Jehoida took for him two wives, and he begat sons and daughters."

Wars are the outgrowth of human sin, and John the Baptist does not abolish the function, but pre

Christians should

scribes the duties of the soldier. not marry heathens; but if they find themselves in that relation it is not to be dissolved, but rather the new and sacred duties which arise from it are to be discharged. In like manner slavery, an existing institution, protected by the laws and part of the constitution of the state, though cruel in its origin and unjust in its very nature, is not denounced as that which must be at once destroyed; but on the contrary, it is described as a relation which involves reciprocal and solemn obligations. We cannot, from this divinely wise and practical spirit in which Christianity deals with human evil, organized into systems and institutions, conclude that they are approved of God; and much less can we infer that they are divine in origin and obligation. We cannot turn back to tolerated polygamy, and say that it was established. We cannot enroll war among the duties of man, because John the Baptist specifies the moral duties of the soldier whose profession is war. Nor, in like manner, can we infer slavery to be approved or enjoined because the master is exhorted to be just and merciful, and the slave to be faithful and obedient.

We may advance a step further. The absence of condemnation is not to be construed as approbation. St. Paul was at Rome when the cruel sports of the amphitheater-the slaughter of beasts and men in combat-was an absorbing passion with the Ro

mans.

Yet in his letter from Rome there is not a word of condemnation of this enormous sin. It is absurd to conclude that this bloody pastime met with his approbation. We cannot conclude therefore that because St. Paul did not specially condemn

slavery in his Epistles, that he regarded it as just and right.

In these two principles then, viz., that of not attacking evil institutions but the evil heart from which they come, and that of prescribing the duties of relations which are established, we find an explanation of St. Paul's treatment of slavery, and of Onesimus the slave.

I. In the Epistles which St. Paul wrote from Rome there are several exhortations to masters and slaves. "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve. the Lord Christ. "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." (Col. iii. 22-25.) Here Christian slaves are addressed as those who owe a duty to their masters; duty which should be rendered as unto the Lord and not unto men. They serve the Lord Christ; they shall receive from him reward; if they do wrong they shall be punished. Then follows an exhortation to masters. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." (Col. iv. 1.) Here the reciprocal obligation of justice on the part of the master, and fidelity on the part of the slave, are clearly enjoined.

The same exhortations, in words almost identical, are repeated in the Epistle to the Ephesians. (vi. 5-9.)

II. In precise harmony with these injunctions

was St. Paul's treatment of the case of the slave Onesimus. He belonged to Philemon, a member of the church of Colosse. He may have known of St. Paul in his master's house. He may have resorted to the Apostle for the relief of his destitution. However this may be, he came to him and was converted to the faith of Christ and confessed his sins against his master. St. Paul seems to have been strongly attracted toward Onesimus. It should be remembered in this connection that slaves were frequently persons of education and refinement. St. Paul, speaks of him as one who might be profitable to him in his work. He wishes to retain him in Rome as a fellow-helper. Yet he would not violate the law of the state which made him the property of his master. He would not assume, on the higher grounds of the religious obligations of Philemon, to decide for him that it was his duty to release his slave. He therefore sent him to his master with Tychicus, who was charged with the Epistle to the Colossians. It is in this very Epistle, which Onesimus, with Tychicus, carried to Colosse, that the most full exposition of the duties of master and servant contained in the New Testament are to be found. He intimated his wish to Philemon that Onesimus might be released for the sake of the church, but he left the decision of the question to his own sense of duty. The letter which he wrote by Onesimus is a model of delicacy, Christian moderation, and affection. A part of it, in the translation of Conybeare and Howson, I subjoin.

66

'Wherefore, although in the authority of Christ, I might boldly enjoin upon thee that which is befitting, yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, as