A friendly reviewer replies to this, that the apathy of the early Christians to the intrinsic iniquity of the slave system rose out of “their expectation of an immediate close of this world’s affairs.  The only reason why Paul sanctioned contentment with his condition in the converted slave, was, that for so short a time it was not worth while for any man to change his state.”  I agree to this; but it does not alter my fact:  on the contrary, it confirms what I say,—­that the Biblical morality is not final truth.  To account for an error surely is not to deny it.

Another writer has said on the above:  “Let me suppose you animated to go as missionary to the East to preach this (Mr. Newman’s) spiritual system:  would you, in addition to all this, publicly denounce the social and political evils under which the nations groan?  If so, your spiritual projects would soon be perfectly understood, and summarily dealt with.—­It is vain to say, that, if commissioned by Heaven, and endowed with power of working miracles, you would do so; for you cannot tell under what limitations your commission would be given:  it is pretty certain, that it would leave you to work a moral and spiritual system by moral and spiritual means, and not allow you to turn the world upside down, and mendaciously tell it that you came only to preach peace, while every syllable you uttered would be an incentive to sedition.”—­Eclipse of Faith, p. 419.

This writer supposes that he is attacking me, when every line is an attack on Christ and Christianity.  Have I pretended power of working miracles?  Have I imagined or desired that miracle would shield me from persecution?  Did Jesus not “publicly denounce the social and political evils” of Judaea? was he not “summarily dealt with”?  Did he not know that his doctrine would send on earth “not peace, but a sword”? and was he mendacious in saying, “Peace I leave unto you?” or were the angels mendacious in proclaiming, “Peace on earth, goodwill among men”?  Was not “every syllable that Jesus uttered” in the discourse of Matth. xxiii., “an incentive to sedition?” and does this writer judge it to be mendacity, that Jesus opened by advising to OBEY the very men, whom he proceeds to vilify at large as immoral, oppressive, hypocritical, blind, and destined to the damnation of hell?  Or have I anywhere blamed the apostles because they did not exasperate wicked men by direct attacks?  It is impossible to answer such a writer as this; for he elaborately misses to touch what I have said.  On the other hand, it is rather too much to require me to defend Jesus from his assault.