freeman who is a Christian can serve Christ with his Spirit, likewise also with his body. And the fact that he can render Christ effective service through his personal liberty, is ther weighty consideration why the Christian slave should embrace proffered freedom. The body of the slave is under the control of his master, who at any time may be cruel and unjust; but the Christian freeman is the servant of a divine Master, who can never require any duty in conflict with his true interests. A freeman escapes all the woes of a state of slavery, which Dr. Channing pronounced to be "every vice heightened by every meanness." If to each command the apostle had annexed its appropriate motive, the passage would have read as follows: Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it; for he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman. But if also thou mayest be free, take advantage of it; for he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. But in lieu of enforcing each command by its appropriate motive, he first groups the two commands and then presents the two motives to secure obedience. An illustration might put the sense of the passage in a clear light: Art thou called, being an ignorant man? care not for it; but if also thou mayest be learned take advantage of it; for he that is called in the Lord, being an ignorant man, knoweth God, (the knowledge of whom is the best of all knowledge;) likewise also, he that is called, being a learned man, can serve Christ with his learning, as well as with his spirit; or, to change the order: Art thou called, being an ignorant man? care not for it; for he that is called in the Lord, being an ignorant man, knoweth God, (whom to know is eternal life.) But if also thou mayest be learned take advantage of it; for he that is called, being a learned man, can serve Christ with his spirit, likewise also with his learning. The motive for the ignorant Christian to be contented, under unavoidable ignorance, is the fact that he has the knowledge of salvation. The motive for obedience to the command to take advantage of being learned, if providence opened the way to learning, is the fact that the Christian, who is also a learned man, can render important service to Jesus Christ with his learning. All the commentators I have examined declare that the second clause of verse 22 expresses a consideration which was intended to soothe the slave, and reconcile him to a state of bondage. He that is called, being free, is the servant of Christ. But what is there in the fact that all Christians are the servants of Christ, which is calculated to soothe a man in a state of involuntary servitude? Is there any possible analogy between slavery and the service of the Redeemer? The service of Christ is ennobling, and variously and indescribably blessed. The more perfectly any one serves Jesus Christ the more perfect and glorious his character, and the more ample his usefulness and fathomless his joy. The most abject slavery and obedience to the Son of God is the loftiest liberty; his most inexorable restraints the most rapturous and out-bounding freedom. What is there in such a service analogous to slavery? what is there in such a service calculated to reconcile a man to the craunchings of a system which Dr. Bushnell declares to be essentially barbarous? How can the fact that all Christians submit to the restraints which hold the immortal soul in blessedness, as it rolls along and up forever on the curve of moral excellence, soothe a man robbed of his manhood? how can it reconcile him to wrongs omnipresent to all his being, interests, and hopes? Such a statement from the lips of the unlearned would seem simply nonsense. But to regard the second clause of verse 22 as a motive for embracing proffered freedom affords most excellent sense. The idea of dovλos, in the clause, "he that is called, being free, is the dovλos of Christ," must be the same as the idea of dovλos in the clause, "he that is called in the Lord, being a dovλoç, is the Lord's freeman." In both clauses δοῦλος must refer to an identical thing. But dovλoç, in the clause, "he that is called in the Lord, being a dovλoç, is the Lord's freeman," manifestly means bodily service. The Christian slave gives to his master the service of his body, while to his Saviour he renders the service of his spirit. The word douλos, therefore, in the clause, "he that is called, being free, is the dovλos," can have no meaning but bodily service. That bodily service which the slave renders his master, the Christian freeman renders his Redeemer. The Christian freeman serves Christ with his spirit because he is a Christian, and he serves him with his body because he is the "dovλoç of Christ." The slave and freeman both render Christ spiritual service; but the Christian freeman gives to his Saviour the bodily service which the 66 Christian slave is coerced to give to his master. The idea which "duoiws" qualifies is bodily service, and the sense is that the Christian freeman serves Christ with his spirit, likewise also with his body. This pre-eminent advantage renders imperative the commands to embrace freedom, if it could be obtained without violence and sin. All the commentators I have seen fail to see the meaning of the twenty-third verse. They consider it an address to freemen; they regard it as an exhortation "not to submit to human opinions," "not to bow to needless customs," "not to sell themselves into slavery," "not to entangle themselves in the anxieties to be free." But such interpretations destroy the continuity of the apostle's thoughts. It is much more natural to consider it as a continuation of his address to slaves. Paul very well knew how oppression stupefies the conscience of the oppressor, and robs the oppressed of all his manly qualities. He knew how soon slavery took the spirit out of a man, and embruted him down to a mindless, willess, rightless chattel. Having just urged contentment upon those slaves who might be chafing under the wrongs of slavery, he now turns to those whom oppression had sunk down beyond the point of torment, down to indifference even at the loss of the rights and the dignities that inhere in human nature; such he exhorts by the most solemn consideration not willingly to be the slaves of men. By the most sacred of all considerations he would arouse consciences stupefied by inhumanity: Ye are bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men. But But many of the commentators reply that the apostle does not use the verb to be in this passage. He does not say, Be ye not the slaves of men; but he says, Become not the slaves of men. From this fact they infer that the apostle, in verse 23, addresses freemen and not slaves. But if, in addressing slaves, he had used the verb to be, “un 101,” Вe ye not the slaves of men, it would have been in direct conflict with his command in the 21st verse. It would have urged slaves not to remain in slavery, but to chafe at the restraints of bondage. Having commanded them to submit quietly to unavoidable slavery, he could not exhort them to take their liberty at all hazards. If he had used the verb to be, he would have taught them to throw off the yoke of slavery, and to do it violently if necessary. Such a command would have authorized unjustifiable insurrection. Such a command could have had no other signification. The lynx-eye of the oppressor would have seen its force. He would have made it the ground of persecuting the apostle and opposing the religion he was introducing. If freedom had depended absolutely on the simple will of the slave, then, doubtless, the verb to be would have been used by the apostle. But as freedom depended on the will of the master and the arrangings of divine providence, he could not use that verb without doing wrong, harm, and producing violence. He commands the slave to profit by liberty, if sinlessly it could be obtained, because in a state of freedom he could serve Christ likewise also with his body. Now, if liberty is proffered you, liberty with you is optional; and if liberty is optional, then in the order of thought you are free, and from that point do not consent to become again a slave. Do not choose, from any consideration of ease, of habit, of freedom from care, to become a bondman; do not allow any unmanly or groveling tendencies, or any fear to go forth relying upon your own resources, to incline you to remain in slavery. On no consideration consent to be a slave if thou mayest be free; "for you are not your own, you are bought with a price." Let every Christian escape, if possible, a state which Edmund Burke declared "is so improper, so degrading, so ruinous to the feelings and capacities of human nature that it ought not to be suffered to exist." Let him break away from an institution which Franklin declared "as an atrocious debasement of human nature," and which Baron Humboldt affirms is opposed to all the principles of morality. But if the fact that in verse 23 he uses the verb "yiveate" is proof that the apostle does not here address slaves, then the fact that he uses yivɛole when he says, "Be not children in understanding," is proof that he does not address children in understanding. But if those whom he addresses are not children in understanding, why does he say in the same breath to the same persons, Be perfect in understanding? Evidently he addresses those whom he regards as children in understanding, and commands them, Be not children in understanding. So in the passage before us the apostle addresses slaves, and commands them with the divine authority of inspiration to grasp at liberty, if in any way it could be obtained without sinning against God. Now, while the above interpretation is natural, simple, consistent, in violation of no principles of grammar, philosophy, theology, or common sense, it is in direct opposition to very many of our ablest critics. ART. IX.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. PROTESTANTISM. GREAT BRITAIN. THE ANNIVERSARIES.-The great religious societies of England, as was to be expected, have suffered, as well as those of America, from the distress which is caused in both hemispheres by the Yet sevcontinuance of our civil war. eral of them, as the British and Foreign Bible Society, could report an increase of their receipts, and all a vigorous prosecution of their operations. For some time it was feared that the bi-centenary agitation might lead to a rupture between evangelical Churchmen and Dissenters, and to a withdrawal of the former from the religious societies in which hitherto both have been fraternally united. Several lecturers of the Nonconformists having charged the evangelical clergy of the Established Church with dishonesty for remaining in a Church, part of whose liturgy they desire to be altered, the Rev. Dr. Miller, of Birmingham, retired from the local committee of the Bible Society. The apprehension that his example might be extensively followed was dispelled by the meeting of the British and Foreign Bible Society, which was, as usual, presided over by the Earl of Shaftesbury, and participated in by a number of bishops, who emphatically declared their continuing adhesion to the catholic platform of this great national society of Protestant England. THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.-The efforts made for fully restoring to the Established Church of England the right of synodical action and self-government continue to be successful. In the Convocation of Canterbury, on motion of the Bishop of Oxford, the House of Bishops unanimously resolved to request the President of the House (the Archbishop of Canterbury) to address to the Arch bishop of York an earnest desire that no means forgotten, and that even a closer union of the colonial Churches with that of England has been taken into consideration. Important resolutions relative to the reorganization of the Established Church have also been passed by the English Church Union, an influential association of High Churchmen. They demand that the highest court of appeal in ecclesiastical matters should be the Upper House of Convocation, with the understanding that the bishops exercise the power of calling to their assistance as assessors theologians and laymen learned in the law; and, with regard to any bill on ecclesiastical subjects in Parliament, that, previous to the introduction into the legislature of any bill for the amendment of ecclesiastical discipline, both the English and |