11. "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free (doulos, eleutheros) but Christ is all and in all." Again, we find the word doulos in 1 Cor. vii, 21, where even the abolitionists admit, that it means slave: "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (doulos,) care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." The last passage to which I shall now refer, in order to show the Bible usage of the word in question, is Rev. xiii, 16. "And he caused all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond (eleutherous kar doulous) to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads."

Thus it is clear, that the word doulos is used in the New Testament, as it is in the writings of the ancient Greeks, to signify a slave. It is the appropriate Greek word by which to designate a common slave. If the Apostles, then, in the passages I have read, had been addressing hired servants, they would undoubtedly have used the word misthotos, which properly means a hired servant, as distinguished from a slave. Indeed, there is no controversy amongst learned men concerning the meaning of doulos. All agree, that its literal, ordinary and proper meaning is slave. I challenge the gentleman to disprove this statement. But perhaps, all men of learning are timid, as he says, afraid to utter their real sentiments!—though he has not informed us of whom they are afraid.

We will now turn to a passage, in which, the Abolitionists themselves admit, slaves and slave-holders are spoken of, viz: 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." Here we have not only servants under the yoke, admitted to be slaves, but the word despotes, admitted to be the appropriate word to designate a master of slaves; so that the exhortation would literally read thus: Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their owners or masters worthy of all honor. These, however, it is said, were heathen masters;

but here abolitionism gets into trouble, for in the second verse we read, "And they that have believing masters, (despotas,) let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." Here, we have not only despotai, owners of slaves, but believing slave-holders, that is, pious slave-holders-Christian slave-holders— "faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." And the slaves, who are also believers, are exhorted not to despise their masters, because as Christians they are brethren, but to serve them the more faithfully. These servants are admitted to be slaves, and the word translated masters, is admitted to mean slave-holder; and Paul, the inspired apostle, acknowledges them as believers, as faithful Christians.

How do you suppose, abolitionists attempt to escape the force of this argument? Why, they say, the phrase "believing master," is understood just as the expression, "reformed drunkard." And as the latter phrase means a man who has ceased to be a drunkard, though he has been such; so the former means a believer, who, before he became such, was a slave-holder, but has since liberated all his slaves? Truly, the cause must be sorely pressed, which cannot be sustained but by resorting to such perversion of the plainest language. No one can misunderstand such a phrase, as reformed drunkard; but suppose we should read of a reformed husband, would we understand by such language a man who had been, but was no longer, a husband? We read in 1 Cor. vii, 14, of "the unbelieving husband," and the "unbelieving wife," and by these phrases every person of common sense understands a real husband or wife, who is an unbeliever; and the phrase, "believing husband," would, of course, mean a husband who is a believer-a Christian. It is equally obvious, that when the apostle speaks of "believing masters," or slave-holders, he means real masters who are believers or Christians. Accordingly, the slaves are addressed as those who "have," not have had, believing owners, and are exhorted not to despise them because they are breth

ren-on an equality as Christians-but to serve them the more faithfully; and the reason why they should do so, is plainly given, viz.: "because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit."

Yet, this language, according to abolitionism, means nothing more than we mean when we speak of reformed drunkards! Is this its obvious meaning? Was it ever so understood until the rise of modern abolitionism? Was there ever the least controversy on this subject? Has not the phrase," believing masters," been universally understood to mean, real masters, who are pious men.

But let us look again at the text I quoted from the first epistle of Peter. "Servants-(oiketai)-be subject to your masters, with all fear: not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." Oiketai means household slaves; it is so understood even by abolitionists; and the word here translated masters, is DESPOTAI-which, as already remarked, the abolitionists say, is the proper word to designate owners of slaves. In the passage just examined, we found "believing masters," ""faithful and beloved:" here we find "good and gentle" masters. Is it possible?-good and gentle robbers!-good and gentle man-stealers!-believing murderers!-faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit!!! Should he not have written-partakers of the plunder? What?-a good and gentle slave-holder? The word good, as used in the Bible, expresses moral quality; and the word translated gentle, is used by Paul to express one of the moral qualifications for the ministerial office (1 Tim. iii, 3). It is used to characterize the wisdom which is from above (James iii, 17); and to express Christian moderation (Phil. iv, 5). Will the gentleman say, that a kidnapper, a man-stealer, a robber, can possess moral qualities which fit a man to be a minister of Jesus Christ? In the mind and mouth of abolitionists, it is synonymous with the vilest monsterone who lives in "kidnapping stretched out"-who holds his servants "by a kidnapper's title"-and whose existence on the earth is among the strongest proofs of the necessity

of a hell! Yet he is here called good and gentle." -fatihful and beloved.” Ought a true believer, a man faithful and beloved, good and gentle, to be excommunicated from the church?

I have proved, as I think, that the word kurios, which signifies literally owner, possessor, when used in connection with servants, means a real master. It uniformly conveys the idea of one possessing absolute authority; and in this sense it is used as a name of God. It is also used for the head of a family. But the argument does not depend upon the word kurios; for the apostle spoke of masters as despotai—a word which, even abolitionists admit, means slaveholders.

The abolitionists, however, ask us, with an air of triumph, whether, when Christ is called Kurios, Lord, we are to understand that he is a slave-holder, and that all his people are slares? Not so fast, gentlemen; you forget, that the word despotes, which, as you admit, means a slave-holder, when used with reference to men, is applied also to God. Good old Simeon, as he held in his arms the infant Saviour, said— "Now Lord (Despote) lettest thou thy servant depart in peace," &c. As applied to God, both kurios and despotes express his ownership of men, and his absolute authority over them. As applied to the master of servants, they mean the owner of slaves-a man who has authority to control them.

I think, I have now proved, that the word doulos, translated servant, means, in the New Testament, what it means in the writings of the ancient Greeks—a slave, and consequently that the servants addressed by the apostles, were slaves; and that the kurioi and despotai were slave-holders. The conclusion is inevitable, that the apostles of Christ did receive slave-holders into the churches organized by them, as worthy and faithful Christians, and did not require them to liberate their slaves, but to treat them with all kindness. Yet we are called upon to exclude such men from the church, and are denounced because we refuse to do so!

Our abolitionist reformers, it seems, are better than the Bible-more holy and faithful than the apostles of Christ! Nay, they are more benevolent, if we are to credit their professions, than the Son of God! A centurion came to Jesus, in Capernaum, told him that his servant, (doulos, slave,) "who was dear to him," was very ill, and besought him to heal him. What was the Saviour's reply? Did he denounce him as a man-stealer, a robber? No-he not only complied with his request, but said to those who followed him, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Ah, our modern abolitionists would denounce such a man as a hypocrite, and have him out of the church without delay! Verily, we have fallen on glorious times! We are likely soon to have the church so pure, that the very best of men cannot live in it. [A laugh.] [Time expired.

Monday, 4 o'clock, P. M.

[MR. BLANCHARD'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Gentlemen and Ladies, FellowCitizens:

My argument on the New Testament view of servitude will be the opening speech to-night. I have received a letter from Mr. J. R. Alexander, a respectable man, complaining that I did Dr. Stiles injustice in my remarks of yesterday: I would remark that Mr. Alexander is mistaken as to what I said. If the moderators will give me time after recess, I will show him his mistake, but it does not belong to the present argument.

Dr. Rice has told you that the word "servant" comes from the Latin "servus" which originally meant slave, and did so at the time the Bible was translated. This is an entire mistake, as you can all see from the fact that our translators do use the word slave in two places. The first is in Jer. ii, 14, where we read, "Is Israel a servant? is he a home born slave? and the second is in the 18th chapter of Rev. where