On the thirty-second page of your book, you say, “Masters cannot, according to the command of Christ, render to their slaves that which is just and equal, if you abolish the relation; for, then they will cease to be masters.”  Abolish any of the relations for which regulations are provided “in the New Testament, and, in effect, you abolish some of the laws of Christ.”  But, we have just seen that Paul was in favor of abolishing the relation of master and slave; which, as you insist, is a relation for which regulations are provided in the New Testament.  It is, therefore, irresistibly deduced from your own premises, that he was in favor of abolishing “the laws of Christ.”  It would require but little, if any, extension of your doctrine, to make it wrong to remove all the graven images out of a nation.  For, in that event, the law of God against bowing down to them would have nothing left to act upon.  It would thenceforth be inoperative.

4th.  Another reason for believing, that the Apostles did not approve of the slavery modification of servitude, is found in Paul’s injunction; “Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them.”  I admit, that it is probable that others as well as slaves, are referred to in this injunction:  but it certainly is not probable, that others, to the exclusion of slaves, are referred to.  But, even on the supposition that slaves are not referred to, but those only who are tenants of prisons, let me ask you which you would rather be—­a slave or a prisoner, as Paul probably was when he wrote this injunction?—­and whether your own description of the wretched condition of the Roman slave, does not prepare you to agree with me, that if the Apostle could ask sympathy for the prisoner, who, with all his deprivations, has still the protection of law, it is not much more due to the poor slave, who has no protection whatever against lawless tyranny and caprice!

But to proceed, if slaves are the only, or even a part of the persons referred to in the injunction, then you will observe, that the Apostle does not call for the exercise of sympathy towards those who are said to be suffering what you call the abuses of slavery; but towards those who are so unhappy as to be but the subjects of it—­towards those who are “in bonds.”  The bare relation of a slave is itself so grievous, as to call for compassion towards those who bear it.  Now, if this relation were to be classed with the approved relations of life, why should the Apostle have undertaken to awaken compassion for persons, simply because they were the subject, of it?  He never asked for sympathy for persons, simply because they were parties to the relations of husband and wife, parent and child.  It may be worthy of notice, that the injunction under consideration is found in Paul’s letter to the Jewish Christians.  This attempt to awaken pity in behalf of the slave, and to produce abhorrence of slavery, was made upon these, and not upon the Gentile Christians; because, perhaps, that they, who had always possessed the Oracles of God, could bear it; and they who had just come up out of the mire of heathenism, could not.  If this explanation be just, it enforces my argument for ascribing to causes, other than the alleged sinfulness of the institution, the Apostle’s omission to utter specific rebukes of slavery.