ot been done to its sacred pages.

Conybeare and Howson suppose that the words in question are intended to
caution the Corinthians against "their servile adherence to party
leaders." Bloomfield, in like manner, says: "The best commentators are
agreed," that they are "to be taken figuratively, in the sense, 'do not
be blindly followers of men, conforming to their opinions,' etc." It is
certain that Rosenmueller, Grotius, and we know not how many more, have
all concurred in this interpretation. But be the meaning what it may,
_it is not_ an exhortation to slaves to burst their bonds in sunder,
unless the apostle has, in one and the same breath, taught
diametrically opposite doctrines.

Yet, in direct opposition to the plain words of the apostle, and to the
concurrent voice of commentators and critics, is he made to teach that
slaves should throw off the authority of their masters! Lest such a
thing should be deemed impossible, we quote the words of the author by
whom this outrage has been perpetrated. "The command of the 23d verse,"
says he, "'be not ye the servants of men,' is equally plain. There are
no such commands uttered in regard to the relations of husband and wife,
parent and child, as are here given in regard to slavery. _No one is
thus urged to dissolve the marriage relation. No such commands are given
to relieve children from obedience to their parents_," etc.[174] Nor is
any such command, we repeat, given to relieve slaves from obedience to
their masters, or to dissolve the relation between them.

If such violence to Scripture had been done by an obscure scribbler, or
by an infidel quoting the word of God merely for a purpose, it would not
have been matter of such profound astonishment. But is it not
unspeakably shocking that a Christian man, nay, that a Christian
minister and doctor of divinity, should thus set at naught the clearest,
the most unequivocal, and the most universally received teachings of the
gospel? If he had merely accused the Christian man of the South, as he
has so often done in his two stupid volumes on slavery, of the crimes of
"swindling," of "theft," of "robbing," and of "manstealing," we could
have borne with him well; and, as we have hitherto done, continued to
pass by his labors with silent contempt. But we have deemed it important
to show in what manner, and to what extent, the spirit of abolitionism
can wrest the pure word of God to its antichristian purpose.

We shall conclude