of participation.  They have given it exactly the sense of [Greek:  metalambanein,] (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of the more common words, [Greek:  metochoi, koinonountes], &c. (See Heb. iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause, ‘neither be partaker of other men’s sins.’  Had the verb in our text been used, it might have been rendered, ’neither be the part-taker of other men’s sins.’) The primary sense of [Greek:  antilambano] is to take in return—­to take instead of, &c.  Hence, in the middle with the genitive, it signifies assist, or do one’s part towards the person or thing expressed by that genitive.  In this sense only is the word used in the New Testament.—­(See Luke i. 54, and Acts xx. 35.) If this be true, the word [Greek:  euergesai] can not signify the benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, but the well-doing of the servants, who should continue to serve their believing masters, while they were no longer under the yoke of compulsion.  This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but once, (Acts iv. 3.) in relation to the ‘good deed’ done to the impotent man.  The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the commentators, is, that believing masters would not fail to do their part towards, or encourage by suitable returns, the free service of those who had once been under the yoke.”]

Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Prof.  Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves[A]—­the relation of “brethren,” which, excluding “the yoke,” and of course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience’s sake, the one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the correlative name, as is usual in such cases, under which they had been known.  Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as a Christian minister, to give.  Was it friendly to slaveholding?

[Footnote A:  Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.]

And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other?  On that of a “perfect religious equality."[A] In all the relations, duties, and privileges—­in all the objects, interests, and prospects, which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free as their master.  The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, and as high results, as the other.  Here, the relation of a servant to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, occasioned no injury.  All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in “perfect religious equality,” which the Princeton professor accords to servants in relation to their master.  Might the master,