are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and
beloved, partakers of the benefit."[A]

[Footnote A: 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.]

1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, with
instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one class and
the other, in Prof. Stuart's eye, were _slaves_. This he assumes, and
thus begs the very question in dispute. The term servant is _generic_,
as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends all the various offices
which men discharge for the benefit of each other, however honorable, or
however menial; from that of an apostle[B] opening the path to heaven,
to that of washing "one another's feet."[C] A general term it is,
comprehending every office which belongs to human relations and
Christian character.[D]

[Footnote B: Cor. iv. 5.]

[Footnote C: John xiii. 14.]

[Footnote D: Mat. xx. 26-28.]

A leading signification gives us the _manual laborer_, to whom, in the
division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his exertions
the bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as belong to man
in common with mere animals--his sphere has generally been considered
low and humble. And as intellectual power is superior to bodily, the
manual laborer has always been exposed in very numerous ways and in
various degrees to oppression. Cunning, intrigue, the oily tongue, have,
through extended and powerful conspiracies, brought the resources of
society under the control of the few, who stood aloof from his homely
toil. Hence his dependence upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries
which have fallen so heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages
from one degree to another, till at length, in the case of millions,
fraud and violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record
of _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away to toil
among the cattle. _Here you find the slave._ To reduce the servant to
his condition, requires abuses altogether monstrous--injuries reaching
the very vitals of man--stabs upon the very heart of humanity. Now, what
right has Prof. Stuart to make the word "_servants_," comprehending,
even as manual laborers, so many and such various meanings, signify
"_slaves_," especially where different classes are concerned? Such a
right he could never have derived from humanity, or philosophy, or
hermeneutics. Is it his by sympathy with the oppressor?

Yes, different classes. This is implied i