In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages—­of how it must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery.  For between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages he approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony.  Otherwise we impute to God what we must abhor in man—­practice at war with principle.  Does the Savior, then, lay down the principle that our standing in the church must depend upon the habits, formed within us, of readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and permit us in practice to invade the rights and trample on the happiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery.  Does he, in principle and by example, require us to go all lengths in rendering mutual service, comprehending offices the most menial, as well as the most honorable; and permit us in practice to EXACT service of our brethren, as if they were nothing better than “articles of merchandize?” Does he require us in principle “to work with quietness and eat our own bread;” and permit us in practice to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their unrequited toil?  Does he in principle require us, abstaining from every form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only to provide for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; and permit us in practice, abstaining from every form of labor, to enrich and aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing?  Does he require us in principle to regard “the laborer as worthy of his hire;” and permit us in practice to defraud him of his wages?  Does he require us in principle “to honor ALL men;” and permit us in practice to treat multitudes like cattle?  Does he in principle prohibit “respect of persons;” and permit us in practice to place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the poor?  Does he in principle require us to sympathize with the bondman as another self; and permit us in practice to leave him unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? In principle, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” in practice, is slavery the fruit of the Spirit? In principle, Christianity is the law of liberty; in practice, is it the law of slavery?  Bring practice in these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes of slavery?  And if, where the divine government is concerned, practice is the expression of principle, and principle the standard and interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained and must be asserted.  In studying, therefore, fragments of history and sketches of biography—­in disposing of references to institutions, usages, and facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony between principle and practice in the government,