What then becomes of slavery—­a system of arrangements in which one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing—­a chattel—­an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in any disposition which may be made of it;—­a system which is built on the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature—­in which man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself?  The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other.  If one stands, the other must fall.  The one strikes at the very root of the other.  The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION ITSELF, in which slavery consists.  It lays its demands upon every thing within the scope of human action.  To “whatever MEN DO.” it extends its authority.  And the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the work of human hands.  It is what men have done to each other—­contrary to nature and most injurious to the general welfare.  This RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns.  Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated.  Mutual service and slavery—­like light and darkness, life and death—­are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other.  The one the Golden Rule cannot endure; the other it requires, honors, and blesses.

  “LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR.”

Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment—­“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”  “A certain lawyer,” who seems to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the meaning of the word “neighbor” ought to be confined.  “And who is my neighbor?” The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every man whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for ourselves.  Consistently with such obligations, can slavery, as a RELATION, be maintained?  Is it then a labor of love—­such love as we cherish for ourselves—­to strip a child of Adam of all the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright?  To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his immortality?—­To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the heart of his heart?—­To thrust him out of the human family, and dispose of him as a chattel—­as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under the lash of a driver?  All this, apart from every thing incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such, consists.  All this—­well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or “tears be his meat night and day,” fondly cherished or cruelly murdered;—­all this ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE RELATION ITSELF, by which every slave, AS A SLAVE, is set apart from the rest of the human family.  Is it an exercise of love, to place our “neighbor” under the crushing weight, the killing power, of such a relation?—­to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals of his humanity?