Whole gangs of slaves were mere tools of capitalists, and were numbered like cattle, with no moral relationship to the owner; young women of beautiful person were sold as articles of voluptuousness.

Of course every such fact was looked upon by Christians as hateful and dreadful; yet, I say, it did not lead them to that moral condemnation of slavery, _as such_, which has won the most signal victory in modern times, and is destined, I trust, to win one far greater.
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.