amily ; that all alike were His sons and His daughters; that,
vhatever conventional distinctions human society might set
ip, the supreme King of Heaven refused to acknowledge any;
hat the slave notwithstanding his slavery was Christ's freed-
man, and the free notwithstanding his liberty was Christ's
slave ; when the Church carried out this principle by admitting
the slave to her highest privileges, inviting him to kneel side
by side with his master at the same holy table; when in short Ὁ
the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither bond nor
free’ was not only recognised but acted upon, then slavery was
doomed. Henceforward it was only a question of time. Here
was the idea which must act as a solvent, must disintegrate
this venerable institution, however deeply rooted and how-
ever widely spread. ‘The brotherhood of man, in short, is the


ὅ9ξ


καὶ... μᾶλλον χρῇσαι is parenthetical.
In this latter case its motive is to


(i) Such a recommendation would be
alien to the spirit of a man whose


correct misapprehension, as if the
Apostle would say, ‘When I declare
the absolute indifference of the two
states in the sight of God, I do not
mean to say that you should not avail
yourselves of freedom, if it comes in
your way; it puts you in a more ad-
vantageous position, and you will do
well to prefer it’. Such a corrective
parenthesis is altogether after St
Panl’s manner, and indeed instances
occur in this very context: e.g. ver.
tr ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ x.7.d., Ver. 15
εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται κιτιλ. This

passage is an exact parallel, for
the γὰρ of ver. 16 is connected imme-
diately with ver. 14, the parenthesis
being disregarded as here.
