t. No other passages need examination; for
all consist with these positions. So far as that sacred volume gives
light, the world are bound by the laws and have equal right to the full
blessings of three divine institutions, whose foundations were laid in
Paradise, and whose complete and glorious proportions will encompass the
universal, millennial felicity.

The defence of slavery from the New Testament now demands brief notice.
We desire to allow it full force, while we ask the reader's candid
judgment of the conclusion.

Of course, the New Testament sanctions now what it sanctioned in the
days of its authors. That must have been _Roman, not Hebrew_, slavery;
for they lived and wrote to men under Roman law. Besides, there is
reason to believe, as Kitto states, that the Jews at that time held no
slaves. In point of historic truth, it appears that the Mosaic law,
finding slavery in existence, practically operated as a system of
gradual emancipation for its extinction. "There is no evidence that
Christ ever came in contact with slavery." This sufficiently explains
why he did not give a "new law" concerning it in specific terms. The
occasion did not arise, as it did arise in regard to polygamy and
divorce, with which he did come in contact. Furthermore, there was no
need of new law, other than was actually given.

The argument from the New Testament for the rightfulness of slavery is
twofold, being built on the instructions given to masters and servants.
It fails on both sides.

For, first, the precepts addressed to servants convey no authority to
national rulers or to private individuals to set aside the institution
of Jehovah by reducing men to the condition of slaves. These precepts
simply enjoin the conduct which Christianity required in their actual
situation. They do not vindicate the law and usage by which they were
held as property. This is abundantly evident in the texts themselves,
and more emphatically, when they are compared with the parallel cases.

Christ promulgated these rules. "I say unto you that ye resist not evil;
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloak also." Does this empower States to legalize fraud
and violence? Does it transmute all the _evil_ which Jesus' disciples
have endured into _righteousness_ of those who have inflicted the evil?
Does it wash the crimsoned hands