LESSON I.

The inquirer after truth has two sources by which he can arrive at some knowledge of the will of God:—1st. By faith and revelation; 2d. By the observance of the facts uniformly developed in the material and moral world. The accuracy of his knowledge will be coincident with the accuracy of the mental perceptions and the extent of the research of the inquirer.

In the Bible he will find the declarations of God himself: some of them are express, and some of them implied.

In the second place, he may discover the will of God from the arrangement of his works as manifested in the visible world. Some call this the light of nature; others the laws of nature. But what do they mean other than the light and laws of God? Are not the laws of gravitation as much the laws of God as they would be if set down in the decalogue, although not as important to man in his primary lessons of moral duty?

Let us view the forest as planted by the hand of God: we see some trees made to push their tall boughs far above the rest; while others, of inferior stem and height, seem to require the partial shade and protection of their more lofty neighbours; others, of still inferior and dwarfish growth, receive and require the full and fostering influence of the whole grove, that their existence may be protected and their organs fully developed for use.

Let us view the tribes of ocean, earth, and air: we behold a regular gradation of power and rule, from man down to the atom.

LESSON II.

They who study even only such portion of the works of God as can, seemingly, to some extent be examined by the human mind, never fail to discover a singular affinity between all things, the creation of his hand. This, to us, would be proof, independent of inspiration, that one Creator made the whole world and all things therein.

So great is the affinity between the vegetable and animal kingdoms, that it is to this day a doubt where the one terminates or where the other begins. Naturalists all agree that they both spring from “slightly developed forms, perhaps varied, yet closely connected;” true, “starting away in different directions of life,” but ever preserving, it may be an obscure, yet a strict analogy to each other.

These analogies are sufficiently obvious to prove that one power, one and the same general law, has brought them both into existence. Thus the devout worshipper of God may, in some sense, view the vegetable inhabitants of the earth as his brethren.

The animal kingdom may be considered as divisible into five groups. The vertebreta, annulosa, (the articulata of Cuvier,) the radiata, the acrita, (in part the radiata of Cuvier,) and the molusca.

Each one of these groups will be found divisible into five classes. Let us take, for example, the vertebreta, and it is readily divided into the mammalia, reptilia, pisces, amphibia, and aves.

So each one of these classes is divisible into five orders. Let us take, for example, the mammalia; and it is readily divided into the cheirotheria, (animals with more or less perfect hands,) ferÆ, cetacea, glires, and ungulata.

So each one of these orders is divisible into five genera. Let us take, for example, the cheirotheria, and it is readily divided into the bimana or homo, the quadrumana or simiadÆ, the natatorials or vespertilionidÆ, the suctorials or lemuridÆ, the rasorials or cebidÆ.

So each one of these genera is divided in five species. Let us take, for example, the bimana or homo, and it is readily divided into the Caucasian or Indo-European, the Mongolian, the Malayan, the Indian or aboriginal American, and the Negro or African.

Thus we behold man in his relation to the animal world: true, far in advance as to his physical and mental development; yet the natural philosopher finds traces of all his mental powers among the inferior animals, as does the comparative anatomist those of his physical structure.

Does he feel degraded by the fact that God has been pleased to order this relation of brotherhood with the lower orders of creation? Or will he for ever suffer his pride to hedge up the way of progress by the impassable darkness of his own ignorance.

The uniformity of these penta-legal ramifications, which reach down from man through all the orders and groups of the animal world, gives evidence of a preconceived design—of an arrangement by Almighty power—of a God whose thought is law!—while the analogy of animal formation, the traces of affinity in the mental qualities found in all, in proportion as those qualities are more or less developed, and the apparent adaptation of each one to the condition in which it is found, demonstrate the unity of the law which governs their physical being.

These analogies, found to exist between all the individuals of the animal world, and particularly striking and more and more obvious as we proceed from a particular group to its genera and species, have led some philosophers to suppose that the more perfectly developed species have been progressively produced by some instance of an improved development, as an offshoot from the genera, and so on back to its original form of animal life, in obedience to the laws of the great First Cause. But we wish to disturb no man’s philosophy. We deem it of little importance to us what method God pursued in the creation of our species; whether we were spoken instantly into life, as was the light, or whether ages were spent in reproducing improved developments from the earlier forms of animal life.

In either case we see nothing contradictory to the inspired writings of Moses. Man is as much the creation of God through one means as another. The wisdom and power required are the same; for his existence alone demonstrates him to be the work of a God. The fact of the existence of these analogies is alone what we propose to notice. And we offer them merely as indications of a course of study that may lead to some important results in elucidation of the mental and physical relations between the different varieties of man.

In further illustration, let us for a moment look at the bovine species, from the genus ruminantia, from the order ungulata, and we find the ox, the bison, the buffalo, the elk, and the goat.

Like the five species of homo, we find the bovine species divided into a great number of families or varieties, of which we need take no further notice. Does any one fail to perceive the analogy between these species of the bos? Are they more obscure, more aberrant than are the relations between the species of man? Examine the high physical development of the most intellectual Caucasian; trace down the line to the diminutive and ill-formed cannibal savage of Africa, the habits and mental development of whom would seem rather allied to the lower orders of animals than to the Caucasian! How will it comport with the general laws manifested by the condition of the animal world and of the obvious inferiority and influence of one over another, in proportion to their apparent superiority in physical and mental development, to place the lowest grade of the African in equal power or in control of the Caucasian brother? Is there any manifestation of the Creator of an arrangement like this, even through the eternity of his own work?

On the contrary, through the whole animal race, we find power and control lodged everywhere in proportion as we find an advance towards perfection in the development bestowed.

In conformity to this law, God gave Adam “dominion” over every living thing that moved upon earth.

It is known to most men, that, under certain circumstances, the race of any animal will improve: so also, under adverse, they degenerate. We see these facts daily in the breeds of domestic animals. We see these changes even in the families of all the species of man. Nor is it a matter of the least importance to our inquiry, whether these species of the race have been produced by an upward movement from the lowest, or a downward degenerating movement from the most elevated. It is sufficient that they exist from some cause; for an individual having been, say an equal, but now degenerate, falls under the influence and control of his superior. And in conformity to this law, it was announced to Eve, the helpmate of Adam, that “he shall rule over thee.”

But if these particles of inspiration had never been proclaimed, man would have discovered this law from its constant operation, not only on the family of man, but on every branch of the animal world.

We can spend but little time with such infidel principles as lead some men to say, “Down with your Bible that teaches slavery.” “If the religion of Jesus Christ allows slavery, the New Testament is the greatest curse that could be inflicted on man.” “Down with your God who upholds slavery; he shall be no God of mine.” “Jesus Christ was himself a negro!” Our hearts bleed when we see such evidence of a destroyed intellect. The maniac in his ravings excites our extreme sorrow. We feel no harshness. He has sunk far below resentment. Can we administer to such mental deformity any relief? Will it be absurd to ask him to deduce from nature, as it is found to operate, that the various grades of subjection spread through the animal world exist in conformity to the natural law?

But, says the querist, “Your remarks have a tendency towards the conclusion,—upon the supposition that Adam was created with a perfect, or rather with a very high order of physical organization and mental development,—that the facts of the greater or less degeneration of the people of the world, since his fall, now exhibited by the different species of man upon the earth, had their origin in his transgression. Now, by parity of argument, we may conclude, if such high physical elevation was the original condition of Adam, that each genus of the brute creation also was originally created on a proportional scale. If so, their degeneration is quite as visible as that of man. Yet we have no account that they committed sin and ‘fell.’”

We do not say that such was the original condition of the first man. We say, the creation of the animal world was upon principles compatible with progressive improvement; and that as far as these principles are not obeyed, but changed or reversed by the practice of the animal world, that the effect is to remain stationary, or to retrograde and deteriorate.

It is a matter of no importance to our argument what was the first condition of Adam. But allow it to be as querist has stated: We answer, the Bible was given to man for his moral government; not to teach him geology, chemistry, or other sciences. Such matters were left for him to attain by progressive improvement. A minute history of the brute creation, or any portion of it, from the earliest dawn of animal life up to the time of revelation, other than the announcement of their creation and subjection to him, was irrelevant. But man was the very head and governor of the whole animal race. Now, who is to say that the degeneration of the ruler will not produce a change of conduct in the ruled? Who is to say that the poisoned moral feeling of him in command, breaking forth in acts of violence on all around, will not produce a corresponding effect on the animate objects under him? Witness the effect, we need not say on children, but on domestic animals, of the rash, cruel, and crazy treatment of a wicked and inconsistent man?

The idea that the brute creation were injured in condition by the fall of man is put forth by St. Paul, in Rom. viii. 9–22, where the word “creature” is translated from the Greek term that implies the whole animal or the whole created world. But no answer to querist is necessary. The fact is sufficient that animals, under habits ill-adapted to their organization, do degenerate.

LESSON III.

However insensible individuals themselves may be of the fact, some men, and those of quite different character, find it unpleasant to submit themselves to the great Author of animal life. For they, in substance, make a continual inquiry, How is it to be reconciled that a Being so perfectly good should have admitted into the midst of his works, as a constant attendant of all his sentient creations, so large an admixture of what we call evil?

We might continue the inquiry by adding, Why, in a mere drop of water, do we find the animalculÆ manifesting all the agonies and repeating the outrages upon one another strikingly visible among the larger animal developments of the great ocean and of the land? Why such an admixture of pain and misery among men? Why the male of all animals making destructive war on their kind? Why exterminating wars among men? And why the numberless, nameless evils everywhere spread through the world?

And do we forget that the great Creator of animal life brought forth his works and sustains each thing by the unchangeable exercise of his laws? Laws which are found to have a direct tendency to progressive improvement? Will rational beings expect God to change their actions to suit their disregard of them? Will fire cease to burn because we may choose to thrust in the hand? And what if, even in all this, we shall discover his wisdom and goodness by making what we may call punishment for the breach of the law, a pulling back from deeper misery, a powerful stimulus for a change of direction from a downward to an upward movement in the path of progressive improvement? Do we find no satisfaction in this view of the constitution of nature, of the wisdom of God?

These men seem desirous that the works of God should have been on a different footing, or that every thing should have been at once perfect to the extent of his power. Would they then desire to be his equal too? But, at least as to man, the mind incapable of error, the body of suffering! It is possible that under such a dispensation, our mental enjoyments would have been on a par with a mathematical axiom, and our bodies have about as much sympathy for the things around them as has a lump of gold. And how do they know that the rocks, minerals, and trees, yea, the starry inhabitants of the firmament, are not the exact manifestations of what would have been creations of that order? We will not stop here to inquire how far the complaints of these men operate to their own mental and physical injury.

It is a great popular error to suppose all of our own species to be born equals. It involves the proposition that each one also possesses the same faculties and powers, and to the same extent. Even every well-informed nursery-maid is furnished with a good refutation. The grades of physical development are proofs of grades of mind.

Through the whole animal world, as with man, mental action takes place, providing for the sustenance and security of life; and the amount of mental power each one possesses is ever in proportion to the development of the nervous system and animal structure. Upon this earth, the highest grade of such development is found among the Caucasian species of man. Physiologists assert that the African exhibits, in maturity, the imperfect brain &c. of a Caucasian foetus some considerable time before its birth: so the Malay and Indian, the same at a period nearer birth; while the Mongolian, that of the infant lately born. See Lloyd’s Popular Physiology. The beard, among men the attribute of a full maturity, largest in the Caucasian, is scarcely found among the lower grades of the African.

Colour is also found darkest where the development is the least perfect, and the most distant from the Caucasian; and hence a philosopher of great learning makes the question pertinent, “May not colour then depend on development also? Development being arrested at so immature a stage in the case of the negro, the skin may take on the colour as an unavoidable consequence of its imperfect organization.” The different species and all the varieties of man are nothing but a short history of their different grades of organization and development. One fraction, by a long and more or less strict observance of the laws of nature, becomes, after many generations, quite improved in its organization. From an opposite course, another fraction has degenerated and sunk into degradation. It is now a well-known fact that Caucasian parents too nearly related exhibit offspring of the Mongolian type. So, a particular tribe of Arabs, now on the banks of the Jordan, from an in-and-in propagation have become scarcely to be distinguished from Negroes. This is only an instance, but is important when we notice the deteriorating influence such intercourse has among domestic animals. In short, every breach of the laws tending to the path of progressive improvement must have a deteriorating effect on the offspring. There was truth in the ancient adage, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

Every private habit and circumstance in life that enervates or deranges the physical system, or disturbs the balance of the mind, stamps its impress on the descendant. The moral and physical condition of the progeny, with slight exceptions the result of an elevating and upward movement, or a downward and deteriorating one, (as the case may be,) is the necessary result of the moral and physical condition of the parentage: and this influence is doubtless felt back for many generations.

But does God make man wicked? does he predestine to evil? These queries may seem pertinent to some, because we are in the habit of considering each individual by itself; whereas each individual is only a link in the chain of phenomena, which owe their existence to laws productive of good, and even of progressive improvement, but of necessity, in their breach, admit these evils, because such breach is sin. Our moral faculties are permitted to range in a wide field; but evil is the result of a disruption of the rules of action. It is the flaming sword elevated to guard our good, showing us the awful truth, the mere bad habit in the parent may become a constitutional inherent quality in the off spring.

We do not suppose these influences always very perceptibly immediate. Many generations are doubtless often required in the full development of an upward movement to a higher order of moral perception; and so in the opposite. Yet we cannot forbear to notice how often the immediate descendant is quite apt to prove its parentage.

Will the theologian object—“You contradict the Scripture. You make five species of man. Whereas they are all the descendants of Noah.” Have we not shown ample ground and time for their formation from his stock? Besides, we expect hereafter to prove by Scripture that Ham took a wife from the degenerate race of Cain; which, if so, would alone place his descendants in the attitude of inferiority and subjection.

No! but we advertise the theologian that we shall take the Scripture for our platform. We believe it, and hope to even hold him close to it.

But we now ask for the reflection of all, does not the degenerate man, degraded in constitution below the possibility of his emerging from the depth to which he has sunk, by any self-renovating power, still lingering about his reduced condition, require the aid of one of superior nature, of superior organization and mental development, to act as his adviser, protector, and master? Would not such a provision be a merciful one?

And may we not also inquire, whether the superior endowments here required do not also require to be exercised in bearing rule over the wayward energies of those more degenerate, as a necessary element in the school to a higher advance? And shall we not perceive that such a relation must produce a vast amount of improvement and happiness to both?

Children and inferior persons often show themselves, upon the slightest temptation, false and cruel,—often the inheritance of parental imperfection. Absolute command, sustained by physical force, has alone been found sufficient to eradicate these old, and to found new habits of truthfulness and humanity.

True, the Scripture asserts that all men are equal in the sight of God, just as a father feels an equal parental regard for all his children. The philosophic mind cannot well conceive otherwise than that God feels an equal regard for all parts of his creation; for “The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his work.” But this view reaches not the physical fact; for the father hesitates not to place a guardian over his wayward child, or disinherit the utterly worthless. So God “turneth man to destruction; and sayeth, Return, ye children of men.” And how gladly would the parent provide the fatted calf for the worthless son upon his return to honour and virtue! So there is more joy in heaven over the return of one sinner than over ninety-nine who have not gone astray.

The mercy of God shines upon the world in floods of celestial light; for Christianity, in its passports to heaven, judges all men by their own acts. Therefore, the most degraded nature, upon a sight of its deformity, may feel an unchangeable regret, and inherit its portion.

Here Christianity itself points the way to progressive improvement, and commands children to obey their parents, wives their husbands, and servants their masters.

The grace of God is as openly manifested in the welfare of the child or slave, when produced through the interposition of the parent or master, as if the interposition had been more immediate.

LESSON IV.

Intellect is not found to exist only in connection with a corresponding physical organization. In the family of man, if that which may appear a good organization is accompanied by an inferior intellect, we may suspect our nice accuracy of discernment, rather than a discrepancy in the operation of the general law; so also where we may seem to perceive a good intellect, but which produces inferior or unworthy results. We do not always notice the small steps of degeneration. Often the first notice we take is of the fact of a changed condition, as proved by the results: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

The idea that intellect and mental development can be independent of physical organization is an absurdity. A suppressed or incomplete organization must arrest a further enlargement of the mental faculties. These faculties may be improved, brought into action, or even their action to some extent suppressed, by government and culture. Such indeed are the guides to progressive improvement. Explanation:—Man has no organization by which he could build a honey-comb like a bee. Will any culture applied to him teach him? Man has no organization by which he can closely examine spiritual existences: his ideas about them are therefore variant and confused. Who will arrange their study into a science? Man has no organization by which he can fully comprehend God. Will he ever do so in his present state?

Are, then, the actions of the child, and of those persons whose mental development has been arrested at a very early stage, (as has been supposed the case with the lower orders of animals, and of those animals themselves,) the result of some faculty or mental power different from mind? The result of instinct? And what is instinct but mind in the early dawn of its development? Are not such actions as the chick breaking its shell, the young-born infant receiving its natural food, the necessary consequents of the state of their infantile organization, which the earliest development of mind could prompt and enable them to put forth; and will it be deemed beyond the reach of reason, to prove that with the difference of maturity in organization and development, the same general connection of mind and organization is found, through the entire of life as well as infancy?

Philosophers have, with indefatigable labour, endeavoured to enlighten the world on the subject of instinct. Can we be pardoned if we suggest that their theories on this subject signally prove they were but men? Des Cartes says—“Brutes are machines without sensation or ideas; that their actions are the result of external force, as the sound of an organ is the result of the air being forced through the pipes.” This is his “instinct.” If this be true, then it follows that every action in the material world is instinct. Then the thunder utters its voice, the earth quakes, and the telegraph works by “instinct.” Yet, his theory has found an advocate in that very classical Latin poem, “Anti Lucretius,” by Cardinal Polignac.

Dr. Reid sustains the mechanical nature of brutes, but classifies their actions into those of habit and those of instinct.

Dr. Darwin says that instinct is mental, and that the actions of brutes result from faculties, the same in nature as those of man, but extremely limited. Smellie takes the same view. Yet Darwin asserts that instinct is the reason; and Smellie, that reason is the result of instinct. Cudworth says that instinct is an intermediate power, taking rank between mind and matter, yet often vibrating from one to the other. Buffon contends that brutes possess an intellectual principle, by which they distinguish between pleasure and pain, and desire the one and repel the other. This is his instinct.

Reimar divides instinct into three classes: mechanical, such as the pulsation of the heart; representative, such as result from an imperfect kind of memory, and, so far as it is memory, in common with mankind; and spontaneous, the same as Buffon’s. Cuvier says that instinct consists of ideas that do not result from sensation, but flow directly from the brain! Dupont says that there is no such distinct faculty as instinct. His views are analogous to Darwin and Smellie.

Pope, Stahl, and others say, “It is the divinity that stirs within us.”

Cullen, Hoffman, and others say that instinct is the “vis medicatrix naturÆ.” Dr. John Mason Good says that “instinct is the law of the living principle,” that “instinctive actions are the actions of the living principle.” If so, instinct is as applicable to vegetables as to animals.

Dr. Hancock, in his work on the Physical and Moral Relations of Instinct, has evidently enlarged on the doctrine of Pope and Stahl. He says instinct is the “impulse,” “the inspiration of the Holy Spirit;” and, in his own words, “which we can only regard as an emanation of Divine wisdom.”

He asserts that the lower we descend in the scale of animal organization and mental development, the more active and all-pervading over the conduct of the animal is instinct! But, nevertheless, holds that “instinct is in such animals an unconscious intelligence.” We much admire why he did not think proper to cast off from the ancients the charge of a puerile idolatry, on the account of their worship of bulls, calves, alligators, snakes, beetles, and bugs, for they must have entertained a somewhat similar notion. But the doctor goes further, and says, that as the lower grades of the animal world have this quality, in which “the Divine energy seems to act with most unimpeded power,” so the holiest of men has it also, but consciously and willingly, and it then becomes his ruling principle, “Divine counsellor, his never-failing help, a light to his feet, and a lantern to his path.” (Page 513.) It is quite evident that the doctor’s instinct is the same with the “unerring conscience,” “the innate principle of light,” “the moral sense,” “the spiritual power,” “the Divine reason,” “the internal teaching,” “the perfect light of nature,” and “the Divine afflatus” of the theologico-abolition speakers and writers of the present day, which, they say, is the gift of God to every man. This strange error of some of these writers we have already had occasion to notice. But it is to be regretted, for the good credit of religious profession, that they did not acknowledge from whom they borrowed the idea; or, will they at this late day, excuse themselves, and frankly acknowledge they took it, not from Dr. Hancock, or any other modern, but as a deduction from the practices of ancient idolatry?

Since we have ventured an opinion on the subject of instinct, we trust forgiveness for the introduction of that of others.

Our desire is to present such considerations as lead to the conclusion that men are born into the world with different physical and mental aptitudes: in short, that their corporeal and intellectual organizations are not of equal power; or, if some prefer the term, that their instincts are not of equal extent and activity.

For substantially, upon a contrary hypothesis, are founded all those beautiful arguments in favour of the entire equality of man. Some whole systems of political justice are founded upon the proposition that there is no innate principle; and one class of philosophers argue that, as there is no innate principle, therefore all men are ushered into the world under the circumstance of perfect equality; consequently, all the inequality afterwards found is the result of usurpation and injustice.

Do they forget that organization itself is innate, and that different organizations must direct the way through different paths? But these philosophers still persist that there is no such disparity among the human race whereby the inferiority of one man shall necessarily place him in subjection to another. This doctrine is perhaps confuted by practice better than by argument. Counsellor Quibble saw his client Stultus in the stocks, on which he cries out, “It is contrary to law. The court has no such power. They cannot do it.” Nevertheless, Stultus is still in the stocks! But what would it avail, even if all men were born equals? Could they all stand in the same footsteps, do the same things, think the same thoughts, and be resolved into a unit? Who does not perceive the contrary?—but that from their birth they must stand in different footsteps, walk in different paths, think different things, and, in the journey of life, arrive at different degrees of wealth, honour, knowledge, and power?

Men organized into some form of government cannot be equal; because the very thing, government, proves the contrary: among perfect equals, government is an impossibility. If laws were prescribed, they could never be executed until some of these equals shall have greater power than those who infringe them. Man is never found so holy as to punish himself for his own impulses. Thus the idea of government among equals is a silly fiction.

Men without government cannot be equal, because the strong will have power over the weak.

The inequality of men is the progenitor of all civil compact. One man is strong, another weak; one wise, another foolish: one virtuous, another vicious: each one yielding himself to a place in the compact, all acquire additional protection, especially so long as all shall adhere to the terms of the compact. But the compact itself is the result of the proposition that the majority shall have more power than the minority, because they are supposed to have more animal force, and that they hold the evidence of a more lofty mental development. Here has sprung forth the doctrine that the good of the greater part is the good of the whole: hence, under this system, an opposing fraction is often sacrificed to the ruling power. We must here remark that this doctrine was changed at an early day into, “The good of the ruling power is the good of the whole.”

Although not a part of our study, we may turn aside here to remark that, from this monad in the composition of the doctrines of government, did emanate the idea of all those strange sacrifices that now deform the pages of ancient idolatry. In its aid the idol divinity vouched its influence, and the daughter of Ham yielded her new-born to the flaming embraces of her god. Even now the ancient sources of the Ganges still pour down their holy waters, are still drinking in an excessive population from the arms of the Hindoo mother. Nor is this idea only an ancient thought; it is not half a century since it was broached in one of the European parliaments to so hedge around the institution of marriage with thorny impediments, that none excessively poor could legally propagate. But to our minds these things strangely show forth the facts that prove “men are not equal.”

But even the lowest grades yield their obedience, and are protected from greater evils. Even though they may have been so low as to have not been able to take any part in the formation of the compact, yet they are as certainly benefited as the most elevated.

Such has been the condition of the race through all time, while falsehood has often mingled in her ingredients, adding misery to the degradation of man;—for it is truly observable that falsehood has for ever led to deeper degradation, to an increased departure from the laws of civil rule. So far as human intellect has threaded its way along the path of truth and through the mazes of human depravity, so far has man improved his condition by increasing his knowledge and power,—while a reversed condition has ever attended a retrograde movement. May not the conclusion then be had, such is the ordinance of God! But equality among men is a chimera, not possible to be reduced to practice, nor desirable if it could be. They never were so, nor was it intended they ever should be. Cain and Abel were not equal: God told Cain that if he behaved well, he should have rule over Abel; but if he did not, he should suffer the consequences of sin. “Who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour?” Rom. ix. 20, 21. “Who hath made thee to differ one from another?” 1 Cor. iv. 7. “And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb; and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the older shall serve (?????????ya?abod ya avod, be a slave to) the younger.” Gen. xxv. 23. See also Rom. ix. 12. Can the inequality of man be more strongly inculcated? And St. Paul seems to suggest that such inequality will exist hereafter. “There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for as one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.” 1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

The idea that the souls of men are unequal in a future state of existence seems to be consonant with the faith of most of the Christian churches. “And his lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that he hath; and cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. xxv. 21, 29, 30.

Some politicians say, government is founded on opinion. Be it so; yet opinion is predicated upon the very incidents of men’s conduct, which, when analyzed, are found to prove their inequality. So also, when, by the aid of the compact formed, one individual holds a part of the community in subjection, such extended rule is dependent on the same principles as the elementary case. The truth is, human society never recedes far from elementary influences, notwithstanding all the artificials in government that ever have or ever can be brought into use. The conditions to govern and to be in subjection necessarily imply superiority and inferiority: change these relative qualities, and the condition of the parties is changed also. But, upon the organization of society, in all countries and at all times, we find inequality in the conditions of men, growing out of their social state; distinctions between them, affecting their personal considerations, and often disposing of them for life. Thus, in one country a man is born a monarch, in another a priest of the Lord, a prince, a peer, a noble, a commoner, a freeman, a serf, a slave. This arrangement of the conditions of social and civil life, from long habit, may well be said to become constitutional, and necessary to the happiness of that society, although thereby one may seem forced to be a tinker and another a tailor. Hence we infer, inequality among men is the necessary result of the rules of civil life.

LESSON V.

Justice, as a general term, means all moral duty. One of its rules is, that we should “love our neighbours as ourselves.” Some men have construed this to include each individual of the human family. Such construction we deem to be error. The word “neighbour,” as here used, includes those virtues which render one good man acceptable to another and to God. “And who is my neighbour?” “And Jesus answered and said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him, and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee.” Luke x. 30–36.

Who has given a better definition of the word neighbour? And how shall we esteem him, who, instead of loving such an one as himself, shall treat him with ingratitude, fraud, and cruelty? “God is angry with the wicked every day.” Ps. vii. 2. If to “love our neighbour as ourselves” implies that we should love all men equally alike, it also necessarily will imply a subversion of order, and consequently lead to acts of injustice, because all men are not equal. “For if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Tim. v. 8.

It would be ungrateful and unjust to not save a parent from death in preference to a stranger—the life of him on whom the life and happiness of thousands depended, in preference to an obscure individual.

One man may be of more value to me, and to the public, than another, because he is further removed from being a mere animal. He has more knowledge, more power, and does dispense more happiness to his fellow-man.

A very evil man and a good one may be in the vicinity or elsewhere; but to regard them equally alike is a contradiction of Christian duty. When we love our neighbour as ourselves, we love the man, his acts, his character; but when we are taught to love our enemies, the mind reaches him as a creature of God, our erring fellow-mortal, our brother steeped in sin—and we look upon him with pity, forgiveness; and yet hate his qualities and conduct. The cases are quite dissimilar. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John ii. 15.

Virtue is always an appellant to justice. It is manifested by the acts of an intelligent being of correct and benevolent motives, contributing to the general good. Consequently an act, however benevolent may have been the motive of the actor, cannot be a virtuous act if it have an evil tendency. Ignorance can never be virtue: so, no man can be virtuous who acts from a wicked motive, however beneficial may be the result. The motive must be pure, and the effect good, before the act or the actor is virtuous. A man, may be virtuous, but in so low a degree as to not merit the appellation: we must compare what he does, with what he has the power of doing. The widow’s mite may be an example.

We submit the inquiry—Is not the deduction clear, that men are not equal—neither physically, religiously, mentally, or morally? Can they then be so politically? Will not the proposition be correct, that political equality can never exist with an inequality in these previous terms?

Raynal has said, we think correctly, “that equality will always be an unintelligible fiction, so long as the capacities of men are unequal, and their claims have neither guarantee nor sanction by which they can be enforced.” “On a dit que nous avions tous les mÊmes droits. J'ignore ce que c'est que les mÊmes droits, oÙ il y a inÉgalitÈ de talens ou de force, et nulle garantie, nulle sanction.” Raynal, Revolution d'Amerique, p. 34.

LESSON VII.

The rules of Christianity are always coadjuvant to those of justice. The least deviation from justice begins to mark the unchristian character. “Just balances, just weights, a just epha and a just hin shall ye have.” Lev. xix. 36. “But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have; that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Deut. xxv. 15. “Ye shall have a just balance and a just epha, and a just bath.” Ezek. xlv. 10.

“Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne; mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” Ps. lxxxix. 14.

“As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just.”

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on those things.” Phil. iv. 8.

But justice, as an act emanating from the rules of right, is wholly dependent on the law: with the abolition of all law, justice or its opposite would cease to exist.

We are aware there are a class who say that Christians have nothing to do with the law of God; that they believe in Christ, and are excused from obedience to the law; that they are not under the law, but the gospel; that the law to them is of none effect; that the laws of God as revealed to Moses have been repealed;—or rather they seem to have but a confused idea of what they do believe touching the matter, while they fashion a theory of Divine providence to suit their own fancies, and substantially, by their own hands, fashion Jehovah into an idol, although not of wood or stone, yet as much in conformity to their own notions; perhaps but little thinking that their notions may have arisen from pride or ignorance. We cannot promise any benefit by addressing such. He who dares take the character of Jehovah into keeping, selecting from among the manifestations of his providence, and decide this law to be repealed, or this only in force, would seem to be as far beyond the reach of human reason as his position is beyond the bounds of moral sense.

But let us, who claim not so high prerogative, who are able only to notice some faint emanations of the Divine mind, as He has seen fit to reveal himself to our feeble perceptions,—who have been taught by the exercise of faith to perceive them in the holy books of his record of what is past, and the present display of his power and rule in the government of the world,—take counsel together, and examine and compare the teachings they may give of the unchangeableness of, and our relation with, the laws of God.

The Creator of things may be deemed able to impose such relations between the things created as he may judge suitable to effect the object had in their creation. Such relations we call law; because, as we notice things, they are the rules by which they act or are acted upon. So far as human reason has been able to examine, such laws are as unchangeable as the Deity who imposed them. To such certainty and unchangeableness we give the name of truth, and hence we say God is truth, having reference to the unchangeableness of his nature and of his laws.

With the idea of the changeability of his laws, of necessity must be associated the idea of the changeability of God himself. The wickedness of such argument is announced in its tendency to the dethronement of Jehovah. It was the very argument used by the serpent in Eden.

The conclusion is, it is inconsistent with the Deity that his laws should be repealed; the same circumstance, under which his law has been noticed to manifest itself, reappearing, and it is again developed. They are the laws of eternity. They are the voice of God. The doctrine of the gospel is bold and plain upon this subject.

“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” Rom. vii. 12.

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for the law is the knowledge of sin.” “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. iii. 19, 20, 31.

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John iii. 4.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach so to do, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. v. 17, 19.

Another of the rules of Christian justice which will be found applicable to our subject, is, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matt. vii. 12.

The remarks made upon the first rule are in some measure applicable to this.

The desire of something to be done must be founded on good reason and conformable to justice. Folly ever marks an unreasonable desire; and that desire is always unjust which merely reaches to the taking from another without the corresponding desire to reciprocate. Such desires are changed instantly into the action of the mind called “coveting,” and are most strictly forbidden, for this good reason, that very action of the mind is a mental theft; and the moral wickedness in the individual “coveting” is the same as though he were practically a thief. But, further, the desire must be predicated upon a presumable condition: for, by the rule, it would be unjust to desire that which it would not be possible to have done to us; so it would be to desire any other impossibility. Suppose A. should desire that you would make him rich, does it follow that he must make you rich when he has no ability to do so? The case is not founded upon a presumable condition, nor, on good reason, upon a desire to reciprocate, consequently unjust.

But suppose A. feels anxious for your warm regard for his prosperity in his lawful understandings, here the desire reaches to nothing unjust, to no disorder in society, or beyond your power, and clearly within his power to reciprocate; he is then bound by the rule to feel a warm desire for your prosperity in all your lawful undertakings. And who does not perceive that if one desires your good wishes, he must of necessity feel good wishes for you. Whether the desire imply merely a mental or physical action, similar examples will illustrate. The rule is truly a golden one, and, so far as acted upon, binds society together in peace and good-will.

It is quite analogous to the twenty-fourth maxim of Confucius, which reads thus: “Do unto another as thou would be dealt with thyself; thou only needest this law alone: it is the foundation and principle of all the rest.” And is in spirit with the fifty-third maxim of the same philosopher: “Acknowledge the benefits by the return of other benefits; but never revenge injuries.” We trust the rule is none the less sacred because it was revealed to man at an early period.

Let us illustrate the correctness of these views by the inconsistency of those opposite. Others say that if we were in slavery we should wish to be made free, therefore we are bound by this rule to set free all who are in slavery now.

If this be true, in order that the whole circle of action may be consistent, there must be another link added to the chain; hence we find that the advocates of this interpretation say, also, “that same inward principle which teaches a man what he is bound to do for others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what others are bound to do to him.” Channing, vol. ii. p. 33. This proposition inevitably follows the preceding; for who is he that can say among men that that is a good rule which is not reciprocal.

This imaginary rule would perhaps be less obnoxious in case of universal equality. For, in that case, we may suppose an universal equality of desire, without which one wishes one thing and another its opposite. But so long as God rules, universal equality can only happen in case of universal perfection, in which case neither sin nor slavery can exist, and in which case the argument will not be wanted. But the rule as left by Jesus Christ was made for man in his fallen state.

But again, if the interpretation of our opponents be true, then the proposition may be resolved into this state:—A. is as much bound by the desire of B. as by his own, and the whole world is fully bound by both. But the whole world individually desire adversely to each other, yet each desire is to be harmoniously gratified. Let each one make out the examples; we think they will find them extremely ridiculous in the result. The doctrine involves plainly the most gross contradictions, and is therefore a naked nullity.

Again, if it be the law of God, that because we desire a thing, therefore we are bound to give that thing to another, it implies that the desire was the manifestation of God’s will; in short, that the desire was a portion of his revealed law; consequently, whatever any man desires is a portion of inspiration. Hence Channing says, (page as above,) “his conscience, in revealing the moral law, does not reveal a law for himself only, but speaks as a universal legislator.” Now it follows, that, as each man desires an opposite, therefore there are as many opposite systems of the laws of God as there are individuals who desire them; in other words, it would be making God’s law just what each one desired it to be. Thus making the law of God a perfect nullity.

But again, if the interpretation of the golden rule, as employed by them who use it to inculcate immediate emancipation, be true, then it contradicts the spirit of the command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife; nor his man-servant, (???????????we?abdÔ ve abeddo, male slave,) nor his maid-servant, (???????????wa?amatÔ va amatho, female slave,) nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Exod. xx. 17. Here the word “covet” is used to mean a strong desire without the wish or ability to reciprocate; therefore without good reason—consequently unjust. It is the same exercise of the mind that leads a man to acts of theft that is here forbidden: an exercise of the mind that leads to many disorders in society, and hence this command. The command does not extend to him who desires his neighbour’s house, man-servant, maid-servant, ox, or ass, upon the condition that the desire is founded upon good reason. The neighbour having the will and power to part with, and he who desires the power and will to reciprocate, these qualifications bring the desire within the purview of the golden rule, and remove all tendency to disorders in society. To buy and sell with the view to reciprocate gain, has a very strong tendency to bind society together in peace and good-will.

In the lesson of the golden rule, the Saviour gave a check to impetuous and improper desires,—to the wicked and improper hankering after the substance or condition of others,—by bringing to view the propriety of performing themselves such acts as they demanded of others: that they should prove themselves worthy of the solicited favour by a reciprocity of feeling and action.

This we think evident from what precedes: “If then ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father that is in heaven give good things unto them that ask him.”

The doctrine of the golden rule seems to be often misunderstood. We quote from the great Selden: “Guided by justice and mercy, do unto all men as you would have them do to you, were your circumstances and theirs reversed. If the prisoner should ask the judge whether he would be content to be hanged were he in his case, he would answer, No! Then says the prisoner, Do as you would be done to. Neither of them must do as private men; but the judge must do by him as they have publicly agreed: that is, both judge and prisoner have consented to the law, that if either of them steal, he shall be hanged.” Selden.

“If the wickedest wretches among yourselves, the most peevish, weak, and ill-natured of you all, will readily give good gifts to their children when they cry for them, how much rather will the great God, infinite in goodness, bestow blessings on his children who endeavour to resemble him in his perfections, and for that ask his grace and other spiritual and heavenly blessings;” but God grants these blessings alone upon this condition, that, “animated by his goodness, you study to express your gratitude for it by your integrity and kindness to your fellow-creatures, treating them in every instance as you would think it reasonable to be treated by them, if you were in their circumstances, and they in yours; for this is, in effect, a summary and abstract of all the human and social virtues recommended in the moral precepts of the law and the prophets, and it was one of the greatest ends of both to bring men to this equitable and amiable temper.” Doddridge.

Such are the comments of these men upon this subject.

But permit us to remark that the word man-servant, in the command just quoted, is translated from the Hebrew ??????ebed ebed, and means what we mean by the word slave. And let it be remembered that, in the decalogue, in one of the original laws of God the Father, delivered to Moses from Sinai, the slave is classed with the ox, the ass, in short, with all other property, as an article of possession; and that we are commanded not to have a desire to change the possession unjustly. And that, by a fair interpretation of the golden rule issued by the living lips of Jesus Christ, if we reasonably and justly desire to change the possession, we must honestly reciprocate the full value thereof.

Let the candid world, the truth-searching philosopher, and the humble Christian examine, and say whether these conclusions are not founded on reason, justice, and the laws of God.

We suppose all Christians will agree that God is a Spirit eternal and infinite, unchangeable and unaccountable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, most wise, most true, most holy, and most good, without beginning or without end. Such from eternity were his qualities, and such to eternity they will remain.

In contemplation of these characteristics of Jehovah, we are led to deduce that God must originally and essentially within himself be eternally happy. “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Isa. xlvi. 10. If it is proper to say that God has desires, then it must be his desire that his “counsel shall stand,” because it is inconsistent with happiness to be unable to gratify desire or fail in counsel; besides, it would prove some deficiency of power. Before God created some other being or thing, he existed alone. Can it be said he had wants? For what purpose then did he create other things? What object had he in view? The object must have been worthy of calling forth his action. What other object could have been worthy of his action than himself? Because his work must in all its parts reflect his power, his every quality, we must therefore conclude God is the sole and ultimate end of every thing he does. If all the labours of Deity were not solely for himself, then of the greatness and rectitude of many of his providences and acts, perhaps none could ever be comprehended or even perceived by mortals. For God legislates not merely for a city, a tribe or nation, but for the universe: not for an hour, a day or a thousand years, but for eternity. “I know that whatsoever God doeth it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it; and God doeth it, that men shall fear before him.” Eccl. iii. 14.

If God himself is the ultimate end of all things, then that moral philosopher, a poor, ignorant man, a worm of but momentary existence, mistakes, who teaches in substance that true religion, that is, worship of God, consists in an advantageous, successful, and well-directed selfishness in favour of himself; for, upon that principle the vilest enemy may take shelter under the cloak of his adversary,—but will he be the more worthy? If God is the supreme object of creation, then this righteous selfishness must be in extreme opposition to God. There are important deductions emanating from these reflections, which we are unwilling to deprive others the pleasure of drawing out for themselves. The use God makes of his creations proves the end for which he made them. We might rest here; but we have heard some say that God’s object in creation was the happiness of all his sentient creatures. If so, then they all would be happy; which is not the fact. Human misery is the first object we behold everywhere. True, man can never have a very competent idea of God. His powers of thought are too low; his associations too trivial. But if the object God had in creation was the development of his own glory, then there can be no greater conformity unto God than there is knowledge of his character. Hence, where we see, hear, and learn the most of God, we become the most pure and holy. Holiness depends on a knowledge of God. The reason is obvious: a holy man is a more perfect exhibition of the Divine character. If so, then the happiness of man depends upon his perception of God. Therefore man can never be happy only in proportion as he is holy. But if the glory of God is the ultimate end of creation, and if the happiness of his rational creatures depends upon their perception of him, then the ultimate end secures in the highest possible degree their happiness.

The great cause of human misery will be found to proceed from the unquenchable desire in the unregenerate man to rebel against God—to set up a government of his own, more wise than he conceives the government of God to be; in fact, he does not perceive his government, for he has no perception of him.

We might deduce an argument in proof that a perception of God is happiness to man, from the formation of his mental powers. To whom does it not give deep distress to behold what we call talent and virtue hid in obscurity and bowed down beneath oppression and want? To whom does it not give great delight to perceive a lucid manifestation of these qualities? The great object in the individual creation of man is his improvement; his advance towards an approximation of being able to see God as he is. The business of angels and saints in heaven is to intensely seek after a more full knowledge of God.

If the happiness of man is thus dependent upon his perception of the greatness and power of God, then we may conclude that a continued manifestation of it is essential to him in producing before his mind an increasing brilliancy of view of the great Jehovah.

The order and gradation in the power bestowed on the different objects his hand has made, displaying his foresight in the work of creation, from the seraph down to the veriest mite, would seem an arrangement that might furnish the mind of man or an angel with never-ending study, with a never-ending employment to find out God.

If the wide and permanent diversity of character and condition in the present world, and in that which is to come,—if the relations we find between man and man,—if the great sacrifice for sin and the redemption wrought therefrom,—if the eternal wrath of Jehovah against the incorrigible sinner, all in combination manifest the greatest display of the power and perfections of God;—in short, if the providences of God collectively, as we see them manifested in the world, are the true developments of his character, then it will follow that they all, in combination, terminate in the greatest good, and, in their external consequences, subserve to the greatest extent of happiness to which the human mind, in the pursuit of its only legitimate employment, is now or ever will be susceptible.

The first deduction is that sin must always be accompanied with misery, but that holiness is as surely accompanied with happiness, no matter what may be the physical condition. It may not be improper here to advert to one of the characteristics of our intellectual constitution, which is this: whatever is presented to the mind calling on its energy and our physical action can never be approached by us with any tolerable degree of perfectedness unless by constant and long-continued repetitions; whence we say, “practice makes perfect.” Whereas, whatever is presented wherein we are wholly passive, repetition and familiarity are in constant action to diminish, weaken, and wash out the impressions first made. Examples in proof of the first position are found in the necessary and long-continued exertions before we become adepts in the arts and practices of civilized life. In the African savage, often, many generations of constant exertion in the same direction are required before that race is found to have attained such a state of perfectibility in these things as is required to sustain a position in civilized life; and it is to this they owe their state of pupilage among the civilized races.

Examples of the second position are found in the ready and quick adaptation of ourselves to the condition in which we are placed: even our senses, from constant repetition and familiarity, often cease to loathe that which was obnoxious. The mind to which the starry firmament is first unfolded will be filled with astonishment and wonder; but the familiarity of a constant gaze does not even excite an emotion.

This characteristic of the human intellect gives strong proof of the power and wisdom of God. For through its means, all in civilized and Christian life and practice, from the king upon the throne down to the slave, are rendered equally happy and contented with their condition. Therefore he is not a correct philosopher who measures the happiness of a lower grade in life by his own feelings.

LESSON X.

From consideration of our previous lesson, we should make the deduction that Christianity is incompatible with savage life. The Christian can no longer be a savage, notwithstanding the habits of civilization may be yet too weakly established to guaranty against lapses to former habits. The habits of the savage must be changed so as to approximate civilized life before Christianity can be successfully taught him. Hence one error into which the missionary and the teacher of the Negro sometimes fall. They confine their labours to instructions concerning the more abstruse doctrines of Christianity; but the savage has no capability to comprehend them: his mind has never been prepared for their reception.

The child can never comprehend the laws of astronomy till he has first learned mathematics. The savage must first be made to comprehend the necessity that individual wants must be supplied by individual labour, and all the consequent attendants of such a state of things, before the possibility can exist that he will comprehend the higher moral duties. Because, without that, he remains passive under such teachings; and in such case, the more familiar such lessons are made to him the less they affect him. Instances are not wanting where such a state of facts exists in circles of society where it would seem they should be the least expected! and from whence the great truth is deducible, that mental and physical idleness is a most deadly poison to good morals and intellectual improvement, and the conduct of such men is always found searching the way back to a deteriorated condition.

The animal propensities require to be forced into habits contributive to the relations and duties of civilized and Christian life. The mind must be made to comprehend what our relative duties are, both experimentally and habitually, and also the impossibility of their being dispensed with, before it will be able to perceive the laws which bind our action to their performance. And it may be here remarked, that a perception of these laws sufficiently strong to influence the conduct of a man will at least place him in the position of Agrippa before Paul. The history of man does not point to an instance where an individual has regenerated himself from the depth of human degradation, except under the pupilage and control of a superior wisdom.

Upon this state of facts was founded the necessity of a Saviour for the children of men.

LESSON XI.

The lowness of individual condition, in relation to our fellow men, or to human society generally, is not incompatible with the humility of the Christian in the performance of our duty to man or God, because the Christian is not required to display intellectual powers which he does not possess, nor possessions not his own. If he has but one talent, its occupation alone is required,—the desire to bestow one mite marks his character. It is therefore a very great error which some of the abolitionists seem to suppose, that, because a man is a slave, he is thereby prevented from being a Christian or hindered from the worship of God. On the contrary, so essential is humility to the Christian character, that Jesus Christ, in a lesson to his disciples, says, “Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant,” d?????, doulos, slave; a figure, a sentence, which the Divine Being could never have pronounced, if slavery was inconsistent with his doctrine, either as to the condition of the slave or that of the master. With great similarity of figure and sameness of the humility in the worshipper of God, David addresses Jehovah: “O Lord, truly I am thy servant,” (??????????abdeka abedeka, thy slave,) “I am thy servant (??????????abdaka abedeka, thy slave) and the son of thy hand-maid,” ????????????ben-?ateka amatheka, thy female slave,) “thou hast loosed my bonds.” Compare with John viii. 36, also 1 Cor. vii. 22.

LESSON XII.

The institutions of slavery and Christianity can never be antagonistic. Slavery enforces obedience in the inferior to a superior power, for the reciprocal benefit of both. Any deviation from the law of God pertinent to the case, to some extent lessens the benefit and diminishes what should have been the quotient of the general good. Slavery is therefore, however rude in its obedience or commands, an attempt at civilized life; and we may therefore judge of the amount of its abuses by its greater or less success in the cultivation of those virtues incident to that condition. True, this result is scarcely perceptible where the most elevated are still deeply degraded, as is for ever the case in all those regions where the light of Christianity has never been diffused. And it is from these facts we find the providence of God to be that slavery, in such regions, is always seeking abroad for a more enlightened master.

LESSON XIII.

The path of the Christian is described as strait and narrow; in it there are no broad provisions for licentiousness, immorality, crime, or sin of any kind, nor, at suitable distances, are there private apartments prepared, wherein cunning expediency may change her apparel; nor will the poor traveller be perplexed with ambiguous directions, whereby any thing is to be performed contrary to the plain understanding of the law. But each step therein must be in conformity to the directions of him who made, knows, and governs all.

How feeble then shall prove the man, swelled with the pride of his own supposed holiness, who shall attempt to straighten, alter, and make better this highway to heaven! “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things!” Rom. xi. 34–36. On every step of this footway to heaven, made for poor sinners to walk in, for the slave as well as for the crowned head, are engraven, in letters of the light of God himself, directions for the poor traveller, so that “the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.” Isa. xxxv. 8. And let us now read some of these records, and see how they comport with the doctrine of universal equality as involved in the labours before us:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.

“But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

“Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

“For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

“Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” Rom. xiii. 1–8.

LESSON XIV.

Before we close our present Study, let us survey for a moment the position of the truly Christian character. Let us see and examine a position, whether filled by lord, subject, or slave, that seems so surrounded with hope, so particularly the focus of all the irradiations of heaven, that the distinctions and miseries of human life, even wrongs done us, are blotted out by the brilliancy of their illumination.

But let us view it in connection with man in an unchristianized state, under the control of the appetites, passions, and influences of an unredeemed world; and it may be we shall behold with wonder the operation of that redemption by which his felicity is made steadfast.

The uncertainty and vanity of human pursuits have for ever been a subject of remark.

And, if we examine the motives of human conduct and see the fallacious objects of human hope, we always perceive the constant attendance of pain, misery, and woe.

As the visions of early life are relinquished, we transfer to the future that confidence which has been for ever betrayed by the past, and as these illusions are successively dispelled, new objects continue to fill the imagination, till the very moment when all our prospects are involved in the darkness of the tomb. Nor think ye that the miseries that flow from ambition, avarice, voluptuousness, and open crime, are the only ones that attend us. Each refinement of life is accompanied with its own peculiar symptom. Besides, there are sufferings that no foresight can foresee, which no excellence can elude.

The imperfection of a master, or of him placed in power, may bring to his slave or other dependant unutterable wo!

The lassitude of sickness, the agony of its pain, the distresses, the imperfections of our friends, their alienation from us, and our final separation from the objects of our tenderest regard, would transform paradise itself into a wilderness of wo, did not the light of God keep it for ever illumined.

Even could we escape from all the external causes of wo, yet the waters of bitterness would continue to flow from the never-ceasing sources of sorrow that lie deep in our own bosoms buried.

We are therefore constrained, forced to conclude, that the balance of our moral constitution has been destroyed; and by the derangement of a system once harmoniously attuned, our principles of action, no longer in unison, are thrown into perpetual collision: maintaining no longer their original or their relative strength, they lead us into perpetual error, and by their conflicts produce a moral discord incompatible with the happiness of man. “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.” “Because the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage (d???e?a?d???e?a?, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. viii. 20.

Had we been made acquainted merely with the fall of man and its effect upon his moral constitution, we should have still been bewildered in the perplexities of our condition. A consciousness of guilt would have filled our minds with apprehension, and the fear of the Divine displeasure would have mingled its bitterness with every gratification, would have seized upon every hope. Like Cain, we should have cried out, “Our punishment is greater than we can bear,” and solicited the black mark of slavery as an antidote to threatened and instant death.

But the mercy of God, which always tempers even the natural events to the delicate sensibilities of our physical perceptions, concealed from our view the desolation of our condition, till, in the maturity of his counsels, he saw fit to blend with the discovery the bright visions “of the glory about to be revealed.” Rom. viii. 18.

The heathen nations, although painfully alive to the brevity of human life, and deeply impressed with the vanity of our hopes, were equally ignorant of our fallen nature, and of the holiness of that God before whom we are to be adjudged. Their conception of an existence after death was cheerless and indistinct, although, even at this late day, among the most lofty intellects of their time, we can now perceive a longing desire after something to them unknown, a hankering for the proof of a spiritual immortality. Thus, while there was but little in their anticipations of a future state to excite their apprehension or alarm, there was but little to stimulate their hope.

The vulgar were sometimes alarmed by the majestic terrors of the Thunderer, and the philosopher was sometimes penetrated by those perfections which he was led to ascribe to the mighty Mind.

Yet the wisest sages of antiquity do not seem to have perceived in human guilt an internal malignity, which no penitence can expiate, nor blood of dying victims wash away.

If some glimpses of the miseries and dangers in which sin had involved us were disclosed to the favoured few, yet visions of prophecy dispelled the gloom; for, “where there is no vision the people perish.” Prov. xxix. 18.

It was not till our Saviour had sealed the charter of our hope, that our condition, with a full view of its desolation, was proclaimed to a fallen world. A knowledge of the disease and the remedy has in mercy kept pace with each other. If we learn that the “creature was made subject to vanity,” we also learn that he was made so in hope.

Now, when we behold our condition, although we see evidences of our fallen state, of the degradation of our intellectual and moral faculties, yet we see also a provision of mercy by which the creature may be delivered from “the bondage (d???e?a?, slavery) of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

Viewed in connection with this sublime truth, the value of human interests, the pain of human sufferings, and the grief of human wrongs disappear; yea, vanish from the eye of the true believer. The grandeur of his future prospects dignifies his present state, however humble. His present evils, which might overwhelm him if attached to his ultimate condition, lose all their bitterness when converted by redeeming love into mere lessons of moral discipline. The pain is softened by the endearment of paternal tenderness, and he feels and knows that they will only accompany the mere infancy of his being.

The poor, humble, but Christian slave, hears constantly the lessons of Titus, and is happy in his obedience to his own master, that he may please him well in all things, watchful to not contradict, nor purloin from any one, and careful to show all good fidelity, that he may adorn the doctrine of God. He feels that no one has a deeper interest in that grace; for it hath equally appeared to all men.

He remembers his fellow-slaves of Colosse, and while with singleness of eye he heartily serves his earthly master, he feels that the act is ennobled, and is transferred to be an act of devotion and obedience to the great Jehovah.

Sympathy carries him back to his Corinthian brethren, in common with whom he feels no anxious care to change the condition in which he was called, for while he is content to abide where God has placed him, he knows that he has been purchased by the blood of Christ, and promoted to the rank of a freeman of the Lord.

With his fellow-slaves of Ephesus, he may tremble with fear lest his obedience to his master shall not be performed with good-will and singleness of heart, as unto Christ himself, for he knows that God has not required of him merely eye-service; yet he also knows that Christians, whether bond or free in this world, will hereafter be remembered of God for whatever good they do. Yea, he yields himself to the exhortations of Timothy, and accounts his own master worthy of all honour and obedience, that the name of God and his doctrine should not be blasphemed; nor does he feel the less reverence for his believing master, but rather does his service with alacrity as to a brother, and with heart-felt joy, because he is a faithful and beloved partaker of the benefits of his labour.

And when he hears men, whose ignorance of God has caused them to be puffed up with the idea of their own importance and purity, evidently filled with pride, as though they could teach God a more holy government, attempting to exhort and teach them a different doctrine, he feels, he knows that such are not only evil and bad men, but ignorant ones, such as dote about questions, and strifes of words, which have no other tendency than to fill the mind with envy, strife, railing, and evil surmises, such as are among men of corrupt minds, among men who are destitute of the truth, and among men who suppose that gain is godliness. He will view such men, however thoughtless they may be of their true position or sincere in their belief, as standing in the position of the serpent in Eden. Their lessons to him are disobedience to God. From such he will withdraw himself; yea, he will fly from them as from a deadly poison, because disobedience to God for ever ends in ruin and death. But from Timothy he learns contentment, for, as he brought nothing into the world with him, and as he can most certainly carry nothing out, so, having food and raiment, he will be content, and especially so as contentment and godliness are great gain.

And finally he hears as it were a trumpet sounding from the very gates of heaven, and looking, he beholds Peter standing there; he hears a still small voice, the voice of Jesus Christ, saying, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Matt. xvi. 18, 19. And then Peter, raising his arm in the direction of the Gentile nations, says to the slaves: “Be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward: for this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable to God. For even hereunto were ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously; who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep gone astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”

LESSON XV.

From the immense disproportion between our finite minds and the infinite objects of future hope, our conceptions of the disimbodied spirit must necessarily be feeble. But while we anticipate the promised freedom of the celestial world, the disenthralment of our intellectual faculties, and the deliverance of our moral powers from all corruption, the mind becomes more and more habituated to the scenes thus disclosed, and even reaches to prospects of resplendent beauty; to visions of unclouded truth; to the solution of the little difficulties of our own earthly trials; to the evolutions of the Divine character in connection with our little planet, and even to that infinitude that mocks the bounds of time and space.

Thus the pious Christian, who meditates upon God and the heavens, the work of his hand, feels a divine influence spread over his soul, while the active and the retired, the ardent and the timid, the philosopher whose mind is illumined by the varied lights of science, and the pious slave, whose researches are confined to the sayings of some unlettered expositor, will each cherish anticipations congenial to his peculiar state of mind. Yet all will grow in grace; all will rise above the level of temporal delights; and all will embrace in their expanding conceptions the mighty import of that glorious promise, that “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him,” 1 Cor. ii. 9, till elevated so far above earthly associations, that each can say, “I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness.” Ps. xvii. 15.

What degree of moral likeness will gradually be produced by a near contemplation of unveiled perfection is reserved for eternity to disclose. But the time will at length come when to every sincere Christian and true disciple, dazzled by the refulgence that will break upon his astonished sight, Jesus Christ will address the language of affection, as he did to Martha: “Said I not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe thou shouldst see the glory of God?” John xi. 40.

“Then we all, with open face, beholding, as in a glass, the glory of God, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory.” 2 Cor. iii. 18.

Such, then, is the picture and such the prospect of the Christian character; and well may Christians, even the slave, “Reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed.” Rom. viii. 18.

From the monarch down, viewed from the distance of eternity, man occupies but a point. All earthly distinctions become so small that nothing short of the eye of omnipotence can see them. The same language describes, and the same God will prepare their rest.

The Christian slave feels exalted even while on earth, for he is well persuaded “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor power, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God.” Rom. viii. 38.

If for a few days the afflicted Christian and slave “wander in the wilderness in a solitary way;” if “hungry and thirsty, their souls faint in them,” he is yet “hastening to a city of habitations.” Ps. cvii. 4, 5, 7.

If even the sun of his earthly hopes be set, yet he is hastening to a country where “thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.” Isa. lx. 20.

With such views the heart is elevated above the pains and miseries of this transitory world to the contemplation of hope celestial.

The mere philosopher, who views the mutilated structure of the moral world, sees no renovating principle to reorganize its scattered fragments. He mourns with unavailing sorrow over the ruins of his race, and chills with horror at the prospect of his own decay. But the Christian sees a fairer earth and a more radiant heaven. And should the poor slave, forgetful of this high destiny of his Christian character, and of his ultimate home, feeling, like Hagar, the slave of Sarah, the hand of his mistress dealing hardly by him, and, like her, attempt a remedy by flight; like her, he will hear the voice of God, saying, “Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hand.” Gen. xvi. 9.

Like her, in humble submission, he obeys the command, and prays, “O Lord, correct me,” for “I know that the way of man is not in himself it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Jer. x. 23.

In the miseries and vanities with which he is surrounded, the Christian only sees proofs of a fallen, not of a hopeless state. He, like old Æneas, is seeking and looking for a home in a foreign land, and, like him, constantly requires the interposition of some friendly providence to warn him that he is still distant from the destined shores.

Like the Israelites, he has pitched his tent in a wilderness of sin, and feels grateful for those afflictions that reiterate the admonition: “Arise and depart, for this is not your rest.” Micah ii. 10.

He knows that “this corruptible will put on incorruption, that this mortal will put on immortality, and that as he has borne the image of the earthly, he shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” See 1 Cor. xv. 49, 53.

Why then should our hearts sink in sadness, because, as we have seen, sin has destroyed the balance of moral power among men,—even the foundation on which their universal equality could exist, whence some races of men have gone deep down in the pit of human degradation, until the man and the brute are found in the same animal tenement.

Such is the poisonous nature of sin, that the heart that deviseth wicked imaginations always finds “feet running swiftly to ruin.” See Prov. vi. 18.

But God hath promised that the remnant of Israel shall not speak lies: “Neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth, for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.” Zeph. iii. 12, 13.

But the ways of God are not as the ways of man; he makes his enemies build his throne.

Therefore, be ye not deceived, for “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Pet. ii. 1.

Study and pray to improve the powers that God hath given, while you compare the things that be with the causes and designs of Providence; and while you note that “the evil bow before the good, and the wicked at the gates of the righteous,” note also that “the way of the ungodly shall perish.” They shall be “like the chaff which the wind driveth away.” For “the hand of the diligent shall bear rule; but the slothful shall be under tribute.” “He that hath not sells himself to him that hath.” Therefore, “the borrower is servant to the lender,” and wherefore, “wisdom is better than rubies;” for “by me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honour are with me: yea, durable riches and righteousness.”

But God hath promised that “the whole earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” Isa. xi. 9. Therefore, so long as the tares and the wheat shall grow together, “Wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I will rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms to pour out upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language that they may all call on the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, (????????????bat-pÛ?ay Bath Putsi, the daughter of Phut, the most degraded of the African tribes,) shall bring mine offering.” Zeph. iii. 8–10.

The slavery of the African tribes to those of the true faith is here clearly announced, and the great benefit of their conversion to the worship of the true God proclaimed as an abundant reason.

Thus Isaiah, speaking of the house of Israel, the prototype of the church of God, says—“Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, they shall fall down unto thee; they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Verily, God is in thee, and there is no God” beside. Isa. xlv. 14.

And these people, in a state of pupilage, are thus referred to by Zephaniah: “I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord.”

God ever requires of the powerful the protection of the weak, of the more learned the instruction of the ignorant, and of the more wise the government of those who cannot govern themselves.

“For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” Acts xiii. 47.