“Servants are commanded to count their masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 1 _Tim._ vi.1. That they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. _Titus_ iii. 9. “The manner in which the duty of servants or slaves is inculcated, therefore, affords no ground for the assertion that the gospel authorizes one man to hold another in bondage, any more than the command to honour the king, when that king was Nero, authorized the tyranny of the emperor; or the command to turn the other cheek when one was smitten, justifies the infliction of violence by an injurious man.” Added to the foregoing, we find the following note: “I have retained the above paragraph, though I confess that the remarks of Professor Taylor, of the Union Theological Seminary of Virginia, have led me seriously to doubt whether the distinction, to which it alludes, is sustained by the New Testament.” Why then did he retain it? In his preface to the fourth edition, which is inserted in the present, after expressing his acknowledgments for the criticisms with which gentlemen have favoured him, he says— “Where I have been convinced of error, I have altered the text. Where I have only _doubted_, I have suffered it to remain; as it seemed profitless merely to exchange one _doubtful_ opinion for another.” We beg to know what _doubtful opinion_ would have been introduced by the deletion of this, which he acknowledges to be doubtful? Why did he not go to the Bible, and inquire of Jesus Christ and the apostles for advice in such a case? “And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” _Matt._ xiv. 31. In _Matt._ xxi. 21, we find that the doubting mind is destitute of Christian power; and the same in _Mark_ xi. 23. Jesus, speaking to his disciples, says to them, _Luke_ xii. 29, “Neither be ye of a doubtful mind.” Does any one imagine that Luke would have left any thing in his book that he thought doubtful? But we find in _Rom._ xiv. 1, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” This surely needs no comment. The poison of doubt is rejected in 1 _Tim._ ii. 8; and the apostle in _Rom._ xiv. 23, says, “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” How awful is the condition of him who shall attempt to preach a doctrine, and that an important one too, as the doctrine of the Bible, of which he doubts! A doctrine in which he can have no faith! Who shall say it would not be a palpable attempt to change the meaning and alter the sense of the Scripture from its true interpretation? “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you.” _Deut._ iv. 2.