“Did you ever notice,” said I, “with what words Christ concludes his enunciation of the golden rule?  They are a remarkable answer to our modern infidels, who impugn the Old Testament as far behind the New in its moral standard.  After declaring that the rule by which we should treat others is self-love, the Saviour says,—­’for this is the Law and the Prophets.’  So there was nothing in the Law and Prophets inconsistent with the golden rule.  The golden rule therefore marks the history of divine legislation from the beginning; and if God appointed slavery, he ordained nothing in connection with it which was inconsistent with equal love to one’s self and to a neighbor.

“This deserves to be considered by those who, finding slavery in the Old Testament appointed by God, begin, as it were, to exculpate their Maker by saying that the Hebrews were a rude, semi-barbarous people, and that divine legislation was wisely accommodated to their moral capacity.  Now it is singular, if this be so, that the Mosaic code should be the basis, as it is, of all good legislation everywhere.  The effort to make the Hebrew people and their code appear inferior, in order to excuse slavery, is one illustration of the direful effect which anti-slavery principles have had in lowering the respect of many for the Bible, and loosening its hold upon their consciences.  Now it is to me a perfect relief on this subject of slavery in the Old Testament, to know that God appointed nothing in the relation of his people to men of any class or condition which his people in a change of circumstances, might not be willing should be administered to them.  If slavery was ordained of God to the Hebrews, it must, therefore, have been benevolent.  If we start with the doctrine that ‘Slavery is the sum of all villanies,’ no wonder that we find it necessary to use extenuating words and a sort of apologetic, protecting manner of treating the divine oracles.  After all it is evidently hard work, with many anti-slavery men to maintain that reverence for the Old Testament and that confidence in God which they feel are required of them.  So they lay all the responsibility of imperfection in the divine conduct, to the ’semi-barbarous Hebrews!’—­a people by the way, whose first leader combined in himself a greater variety, and a higher order, of talent, than any other man in history.  As military commander, poet, historian, judge, legislator, who is to be named in comparison with the man Moses?

“We must come to the conclusion,” said I, “that the relation of ownership is not only not sinful, but that it is in itself benevolent, that it had a benevolent object; for its origin was certainly benevolent.”

“What was its origin?” said Mrs. North; “I always had a desire to know how slavery first came into existence.”

“Blackstone tells us,” I replied, “that its origin was in the right of a captor to commute the death of his captives with bondage.  The laws of war give the conqueror a right to destroy his enemies; if he sees fit to spare their lives in consideration of their serving him, this is also his right.  Thus, we suppose, slavery gained its existence.