What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden Rule decides against?—­which the second great command condemns? It can not but be wicked, whether newly established or long maintained.  However it may be shaped, turned, colored—­under every modification and at all times—­wickedness must be its proper character. It must be, IN ITSELF, apart from its circumstances, IN ITS ESSENCE, apart from its incidents, SINFUL.

“THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER.”

In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects around us, from the right post of observation.  Our stand we must take at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental precepts, the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, of primitive Christianity.  Otherwise, wrong views and false conclusions will be the result of our studies.  We can not, therefore, be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent spirit of the New Testament institutions and arrangements.  For to what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our inquires under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians!  That, for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?—­That those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very bottom of society?  Or, what if we should think and speak of the primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?—­as if they were as remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor?  Or, as if they had as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and literature?—­having directly or indirectly, the control over the high places of learning and of power?

If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments—­if we should explain words and interpret language—­under such a bias, what must inevitably be the results?  What would be the worth of our conclusions?  What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we might undertake to furnish?  And is not this the way in which the advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which primitive Christianity has upon it?  They first ascribe, unwittingly perhaps, to the primitive churches, the character, relations, and condition, of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language and explaining the usages of the New Testament!