ment, such as existed at that time among the Jews. Here is the steward appointed over the house-hold. It is just a copy of the steward of Abraham's house-hold. The eldest servant of Abraham ruled over all that he had. So here the faithful and wise steward is made ruler over the house-hold to give them their portion of meat in due season. And this chief servant had under his direction the men-servants and maidens of the house-hold. It is just the picture of a family of slaves with a steward appointed over them, not only to give them their food in due season but to assign to each his proper employ

ment.

Again Math. xxv. 14.-"For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods and to one he gave five talents, to another two and to another one, to every man according to his several ability, and straitway took his jour ney." Here the reference is clearly to a slave establishment. In the first place, it is expressly said that they are his own servants, they belong to him, they are his property. In the next place, the whole frame work of

the parable shows that they are his property. They are not asked whether they are willing to receive these talents. They are distributed to them and they are required to receive them. Not only this, they are required to improve them, and return them again to their master with all the increase, that resulted from such improvement. And the individual, who chose not to act according to directions, was severely punished for dereliction. of duty. Now is this the way to treat freemen? What rich man about to journey would have a right to come and thrust his money upon free labourers require them to employ it for his benefit and at his return require them to pay over the original sum not only, but all that had been made out of it? And if one of these free men should not choose to leave his own business and employ himself for the benefit of another what right would that other have, to call him to an account and punish him because he saw fit to mind his own business? Verily on the supposition that these were freemen the whole representation is absurd. But they were not free men. They were the bond-servants of this lord, and they were under obligation to

receive, and improve the property, which he entrusted to their care, and he had a right by existing laws to call them to an account, and punish them for a failure in their duty. This view of the subject makes the whole structure of the parable consistent and appropriate, and a striking illustration of the important truth which our Lord designed to convey to the mind.

occupy till I come.

Once more in Luke xix. 12, 13. we have the institution of slavery again referred to for the purpose of illustration. A certain nobleman about to go into a distant country, to receive to himself a kingdom, and to return, calls his ten servants and delivers to them ten pounds, and says to them At his return he calls them to an account, and punishes the servant, who had failed to obey his directions. This whole representation is utterly at variance with the idea, that these was merely hired servants that they were their own masters, and could do as they pleased. They evidently were not. They were slaves, who were under obligations to do the bidding of their master. If they obeyed his will they secured his approbation, and obtained such rewards for their good

conduct as was usual for faithful and trustworthy bond-servants. If they failed in obedience they were liable to such punishment as their master saw fit to inflict upon them. No other relation in the social and civil condition of man, than that of a bond-servant to his master, could furnish so striking an illustration of the absolute supremacy of God over all human beings, and of their obligations to render to him the whole service of their heart and lives. Jesus Christ found bond-service existing among the Jews, as a civil institution, and he frequently referred to it as an apt and striking illustration of God's dominion over us, and of our obligation to him. But the mere fact that our blessed Lord referred to slavery as an existing institution, for the purpose of illustration, is no evidence that he approved of slavery, any more than his commendation of the prudence of the unjust steward, is evidence that he approved of his injustice and fraud, or that he approved of the moral character of the scribes and pharasees when he commanded his disciples to observe and do all whatsoever they bid them, or that he approved of all the principles of the Roman govern

ment, when he said "render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," or that he approved of the spirit and usages of war, when he referred to it for the purpose of illustrating truth. From the spirit, and tendency of the gospel, which he preached, we have a right to infer that our Saviour did not approve of slavery, or war, or any evil, incident to the civil institutions of men. The gospel is calculated and designed to heal all the evils in the civil condition of man, not by any direct interference with human laws, and long standing usages, but by rectifying the heart, and indirectly through the heart, regulating all intercourse in the relations of life, according to the principles of righteousness. The nature, and design, and tendency, of the gospel are fully expressed in the angelic annunciation: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will to men." Wars will cease from under heaven, slavery will be done away, and every other evil that affects the race. But these evils will only be reached through the medium of a renovated and sanctified heart. The gospel does not propose to reach them in any other way.— First make the heart right with God, and then