But it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of Dr. Fisk and Prof.  Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and instructive.  “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrines be not blasphemed.  And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they 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 in the term “as many,"[A] which sets apart the class now to be addressed.  From these he proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[B] whose natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different subject.