nd slavery. "Art thou called," says he, "being a slave?
care not for it." Art thou, indeed, the Lord's freeman and _as such_
destined to reign on a throne of glory forever? Oh, then, care not for
the paltry distinctions of the passing world!

Now, whom shall the Christian teacher take for his model?--St. Paul, or
Dr. Channing? Shall he seek to make men contented with the condition in
which God has placed them, or shall he stir up discontent, and inflame
the restless passions of men? Shall he himself, like the great apostle,
be content to preach the doctrines of eternal life to a perishing
world; or shall he make politics his calling, and inveigh against the
domestic relations of society? Shall he exhort men not to continue in
the condition of life in which God has placed them, but to take his
providence out of his hands, and, _in [Greek: ]direct opposition to his
word_, assert their rights? In one word, shall he preach the gospel of
Christ and his apostles, or shall he preach the gospel of the
abolitionist?

"Art thou called, being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest
be made free, use it rather." The Greek runs thus: [Greek: _all' ei kai
dunasai eleutheros genesthai, mallon chresai_],--literally, "but even if
thou canst become free, rather make use of." Make use of what? The Greek
verb is left without a case. How, then, shall this be applied? To what
does the ambiguous _it_ of our translation refer? "One and all of the
native Greek commentators in the early ages," says Stuart, "and many
expositors in modern times, say that the word to be supplied is [Greek:
_douleia_], i. e. _slavery, bondage_. The reason which they give for it
is, that this is the only construction which can support the proposition
the apostle is laboring to establish, viz.: 'Let every man abide in
_statu quo_.' Even De Wette, (who, for his high liberty notions, was
banished from Germany,) in his commentary on this passage, seems plainly
to accede to the force of this reasoning; and with him many others have
agreed. No man can look at the simple continuity of logic in the passage
without feeling that there is force in the appeal." Yet the fact should
not be concealed, that Stuart himself is "not satisfied with this
exegesis of the passage;" which, according to his own statement, was the
universal interpretation from "the early ages" down to the sixteenth
century. This change, says he, "seems to have been the spontaneous
prompting of the spi