prudence remain. And hence I cannot doubt that the examples of barbarity must be exceedingly few, and ought to be regarded, not as the general rule, but as the rare exceptions. On the whole, indeed, I see no reason to deny the statement of our Southern friends, that their slaves are the happiest laborers in the world. Their wants are all provided for by their master. Their families are sure of a home and maintenance for life. In sickness they are kindly nursed. In old age they are affectionately supported. They are relieved from all anxiety for the future. Their religious privileges are generously accorded to them. Their work is light. Their holidays are numerous And hence the strong affection which they usually manifest towards their master, and the earnest longing which many, who were persuaded to become fugitives, have been known to express, that they might be able to return.

The third objection is, that slavery must be a sin, because it leads to immorality. But where is the evidence of this? I dispute not against the probability and even the certainty that there are instances of licentiousness enough among slaveholders, just as there are amongst those who vilify them. It would be a difficult, if not an impossible task, however, to prove that there is more immorality amongst the slaves themselves, than exists amongst the lower class of freemen. In Sabbath-breaking, profane cursing and swearing, gambling, drunkenness and quarrelling-in brutal abuse of wives and children, in rowdyism and obscenity, in the vilest excesses of shameless prostitution—to say nothing of organized bands of counterfeiters, thieves and burglars-I doubt whether there are not more offences against Christian morality committed in the single city of New York, than can be found amongst the slave population of all the fifteen states together. The fact would rather seem to be that the wholesome restraints of slavery, as a general rule, must be, to a great extent, an effectual check upon the worst kinds of immorality. And therefore this charge, so often brought against it, stands entirely unsupported either by positive proof or by rational probability. The fourth objection is advanced by a multitude of excellent people, who are shocked at the institution of slavery, because it involves the principle of property in man. Yet I have never been able to understand what it is that so disgusts them. No slaveholder pretends that this property extends any farther than the right to the labor of the slave. It is obvious to the slightest reflection that slavery cannot bind the intellect or the soul. These. which properly constitute the MAN, are free, in their own nature, from all human restraint. But to have a property in human labor, under some form, is an essential element in all the work of civilized society. The toil of one is pledged for the service of another in every rank of life; and to the extent thus pledged, both parties have a property in each other. The parent especially has an established property in the labor of his child to the age of twenty-one, and has the further power of transferring this property to another, by articles of apprenticeship. But this, it may be said, ends when the child is of age. True; because the law presumes him to be then titted for freedom. Suppose, however, that he belonged to an inferior race which the law did not presume to be fitted for freedom at any age, what good reason could be assigned against the continuance of the property? Such, under the rule of the Scriptures and the Constitution of the United States, is the case of the negro. God, in His wisdom and providence, caused the patriarch Noah to predict that he should be the servant of serv

y te prue

ants to the posterity of Japhet. And the same Almighty Ruler, who alone possesses the power, has wonderfully adapted the race to their condition. For every candid observer agrees that the negro is happier and better as a slave than as a free man, and no individual belonging to the Anglo-Saxon stock would acknowledge that the intellect of the negro is equal to his own.

There have been philosophers and physiologists who contended that the African race were not strictly entitled to be called men at all, but were a sort of intermediate link between the baboon and the human being. And this notion is still maintained by some, at the present day. For myself, however, I can only say that I repudiate the doctrine with my whole heart. The Scriptures show me that the negro, like all other races, descends from Noah, and I hold him to be a MAN AND A BROTHER. But though he be my brother, it does not follow that he is my equal. Equality cannot be found on earth between the brothers even in one little family. In the same house, one brother usually obtains a mastery over the rest, and sometimes rules them with a perfect despotism. In England, the elder brother inherits the estate, and the younger brothers take a lower rank, by the slavery of circumstances. The eldest son of the royal family is in due time the king, and his brothers forthwith become his subjects. Why should not the same principle obtain in the races of mankind, if the Almighty has so willed it? The Anglo-Saxon race is king, why should not the African race be subject, and subject in that way for which it is best adapted, and in which it may be more safe, more useful and more happy than in any other which has yet been opened to it, in the annals of the world?

I know that there may be exceptions, now and then, to this intellectual inferiority of the negro race, though I believe it would be very difficult to find one, unless the intermixture of superior blood has operated to change the mental constitution of the individual. For all such cases the master may provide by voluntary emancipation, and it is notorious that this emancipation has been cheerfully given in thousands upon thousands of instances, in the majority of which the gift of liberty has failed to benefit the negro and has, on the contrary, sunk him far lower, in his social position. But no reflecting man can believe that the great mass of the slaves, amounting to nearly four millions, are qualified for freedom. And therefore it is incomparably better for them to remain under the government of their masters, who are likely to provide for them so much more beneficially than they could provide for themselves.

The difference then, between the power of the Northern parent and the Southern slave holder, is reduced to this, viz., that the master has a property in the labor of his slave for life, instead of having it only to the age of twenty-one, because the law regards the negro as being always a child in understanding, requiring a superior mind to govern and direct him. But on the other hand, the slave has, just as really, a property for life in his master's support and protection, and this property is secured to him by the same law, in sickness and in health, in the helplessness of old age as well as in the days of youthful vigor, including, besides, a comfortable maintenance for his wife and family Can any rational judgment devise a fairer equivalent?

The fifth objection, which often meets the Northern ear, proceeds from the over-weening value attached, in our age and country, to the name of liberty, since it is common to call it the dearest right of man, and to esteem its loss as the greatest possible calamity. Hence we frequently find persons

who imagine that the whole argument is triumphantly settled by the question, "How would you like to be a slave ?"

In answer to this very puerile interrogatory, I should say that whether any condition in life is to be regarded as a loss or an advantage, depends entirely on circumstances. Suppose, for example, that the Mayor of New York should ask one of its merchant princes, "How would you like to be a policeman?" I doubt whether the question might not be taken for an insult, and some words of indignation would probably be uttered in reply. But suppose that the same question were addressed to an Irish laborer, with what feelings would he receive it? Assuredly with those of gratitude and pleasure. The reason of the difference is obvious. because the em ployment which would be a degradation to the one, offers promotion and dignity to the other. In like nanner, Slavery, to an individual of the AngloSaxon race, which occupies so high a rank in human estimation, would be a debasement not to be thought of with patience for a moment. And yet, to the Guinea negro, sunk in heathen barbarism, it would be a happy change to place him in the hands of a Southern master. Even now, although the Slaves have no idea of the pagan abominations from which their forefathers were taken, it is notorious that they usually value their privileges as being far superior to the condition of the free negroes around them, and prefer the certainty of protection and support for life, to the hazards of the liberty on which the abolitionist advises them to venture. How much more would they prize their present lot, if they understood that, were it not for this very institution of slavery, they would be existing in the darkest idolatry and licentiousness among the savages of Africa, under the despotic King of Dahomey, destitude of every security for earthly comfort, and deprived of all religious hope for the world to come! If men would reflect maturely on the subject, they would soon be convinced that liberty is a blessing to those, and only those, who are able to use it wisely. There are thousands in our land, free according to law, but so enslaved to vice and the misery consequent on vice, that it would be a mercy to place them, supposing it were possible, under the rule of some other will, stronger and better than their own. As it is, they are in bondage to Satan, notwithstanding their imaginary freedom; and they do his bidding, not merely in the work of the body, but in the far worse slavery of the soul. Strictly speaking, however, the freest man on earth has no absolute liberty, for this belongs alone to God, and is not given to any creature And hence, it is the glory of the Christian to be the bond servant of the divine Redeemer who bought us to Himself with his own precious blood. The service of CHRIST, as saith the Apostle, is "the only perfect freedom." All who refuse that service, are slaves of necessity to other masters; slaves to Mammon; slaves to ambition; slaves to lust; slaves to intemperance; slaves to a thousand forms of anxious care and perplexity; slaves at best, to pride and worldly decorum, and slaves to circumstances over which they have no control. And they are compelled to labor without ceasing under some or all of these despotic rulers, at the secret will of that spiritual task master, whose bondage does not end at death, but continues to eternity.

The sixth objection arises from the fact that slavery separates the husband from the wife and the parents from the children. Undoubtedly it some times does so, from necessity. Before we adopt this fact, however, as an argument against slavery, it is only fair to inquire whether the same separation do

not take place, perhaps quite as frequently, amongst those who call themselves free. The laboring man who has a large family is always obliged to separate from his children, because it is impossible to support them in his humble home. They are sent to service, therefore, one to this master and another to that, or bound as apprentices, as the case may be, and thus the domestic relations are superseded by strangers, for the most part, beyond recovery. So among the lower orders, the husbands are separated from their wives by the same necessity. How many, even of the better classes, have left their homes to seek their fortune in the gold regions! How many in Europe have abandoned their families for Australia, or the United States, or the Canadas! How many desert them from pure wickedness-a crime which can hardly happen under the Southern system! But above all, how constantly does this separation take place amongst our soldiers and sailors, so that neither war nor foreign commerce could be carried on at all without it! All these are borne by freemen, under the slavery of circumstances. Is it wise to declaim against this necessity in one form, when we are forced to submit to it in so many other kinds of the same infliction?

There is only one other argument which occurs to me, requiring notice, and that is based upon the erroneous notion, that the laws of God, under the Mosaic dispensation, allowed polygamy as well as slavery; and, therefore, it is inferred that the legislation of the Old Testament is of no authority upon the subject, but as the Gospel did away the first, so also it should do away the other.

The facts here are misunderstod, and the inference is without any real foundation. Let us look at the matter as it is explained by the Saviour himself. "The Pharisees came to him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them: Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female; and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery." (Mat. xix, 3-9.)

Now, here our Lord plainly lays down the original law of marriage, referring expressly to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman, declared to be one flesh, and adding the command, What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder But it is evident that polygamy must, of necessity, interfere with this divine union. The twain can no longer be one flesh, when another wife is brought between them, because the new wife must deprive the former one of her exclusive rights and privileges, and the husband destroys the very unity which God designed in joining them together. The doctrine of our Saviour, therefore, restores the law of marriage to its original sanctity, and the apostles, accordingly, always speak of the wife in the singular number, in no instance appearing to contemplate the possibility of the Christian having more wives than one, while, in the case of a bishop, St. Paul specifies it as an essential con

dition, that he shall be "the husband of one wife." (1 Tim. iii, 2.)

But how had the chosen people been allowed for so many centuries to practice polygamy, and divorce their wives for the slighest cause? Our Lord ex plains it by saying that Moses suffered them to put away their wives "because of the hardness of their hearts." The special questions addressed to Him by the Pharisees, did not, indeed, refer to polygamy, but only to the liberty of divorce, for at that time it should seem that the practice of polygamy had well nigh ceased in Judea, and it is certainly not countenanced by the Jewish laws at this day. The principle, however, is precisely the same in the two cases. Dissatisfaction with the present wife and desire for another, were the cause of action in both; and when the husband did not wish to be burdened by the murmurs or the support of his old companion, he would naturally prefer to send her away, in order to make room for her successor. We see, then, how readily this facility of divorce became the mode in which the Jews of that day sought for the gratification of their capricious attachments, instead of the more expensive and troublesome system of polygamy. And hence our Lord applied the remedy, where it was specially required, by forbiding divorces unless for the weightiest cause, such as adultery Yet this was no change in the divine arrangement, which had been the same from the beginning. He expressly declares, on the contrary, that the latitude assumed by the Israelites was an indulgence granted by Moses, on account of the hardness of their hearts." And this is a very different thing from an authoritative decree of the Almighty.

It is surely therefore manifest, from his language of the Saviour, that God had never given any direct sanction to polygamy. Doubtless, as we must infer from many parts of the Old Testament, it had become common among the Israelites, who, supposing themselves justified by the case of Jacob, had probably adopted it in so many instances that Moses did not think it safe or prudent to put it down, lest worse evils might follow, unless he was constrained to do so by the positive command of the Almighty. All that can be truly stated, therefore, is, that no such positive command was given, and the Deity left the human lawgiver to use his own discretion in

the matter.

Such is the aspect of this question, according to the statement of our Lord, which must be conclusive to every Christian. And hence we may perceive, at once, that the case is in no respect parallel to that of slavery. For here the Almighty caused His favored servant Noah to predict that the posterity of Ham should be the servants of servants, under the descendants of shem and Japhet. He recognized the bondman and the bondmaid in the Ten Commandments. He laid down the positive law to Israel that they should buy the children of the heathen that were round about them, and of the strangers who dwelt in their land, to serve them and their families forever. The Saviour, when He appeared, made no allusion to the subject, but plainly declared that He had not come to destroy the law. The first church of believers in Jerusalem were all "zealous" for the law. And St. Paul preached obedience to the slaves among the Gentile churches, and sent a converted slave back to his Christian master.

Where, then, is the resemblance between these cases? In the matter of divorce and polygamy, the Deity is silent, leaving them to the discretion of Moses, until the Messiah should come. But in reward to the slavery of Ham's posterity, He issues

His commands distinctly. And the Saviour disclaims the intention to repeal the laws of His heavonly Father, while He asserts the original design of marriage, and his inspired apostle gives express sanction to slavery, and speaks of the one husbard and the one wife, in direct accordance with the word of his divine Master. Here, therefore. it is plain that the cases are altogether unlike, and present a contrast, rather than a comparison.

We know that the doctrine of the primitive church was in harmony with this, for polygamy was never permitted, nor divorces for trifling causes, while slavery was allowed, as being perfectly lawful, so long as the slave was treated with justice and kindness. The ancient canons sometimes advert to the mode in which slaves might be corrected. Bishops. and clergy held slaves. In later times, bondmen and bondmaids were in the service of convents and monasteries. And no scruple was entertained upon the subject until the close of the last century, when the new light burst forth which now dazzles the eyes of so many worthy people, and blinds them not only to the plain statements of Scriptures, but to the interests of national unity and peace.

Thus, then, I have examined the various topics embraced in your first inquiry, and the conclusion which I have been compelled to adopt must be sufficiently manifest. The slavery of the negro race, as. maintained in the Southern States, appears to me fully authorized both in the Old and the New Testament, which, as the written Word of God. afford the only infallible standard of moral rights and obligations. That very slavery, in my humble judgment, has raised the negro incomparably higher in the scale of humanity, and seems. in fact, to be the only instrumentality through which the heathen posterity of Canaan have been raised at all Out of that slavery has arisen the interesting colony of Liberia, planted by slaveholders, to be a place of refuge for their emancipated bondmen, and destined, as I hope, to be a rich benefit, in its future growth and influence, to Africa and to the world I do not forget, and I trust that I do not undervalue, the missionary work of England and our own land, in that benighted continent. But I believe that the number of negroes Christ anized and civilized at the South, through the system of slavery, exceeds the product of those missionary labors, in a proportion of thousands to one. And thus the wisdom and goodness of God are vindicated in the sanction which His word has given, and the sentence originally pronounced on Canaan as a curse, has been converted into a blessing.

It only remains that I should answer your other question, on the present crisis which agitates our country.

The political right of the South to the peaceful enjoyment of their domestic institutions, is fully recognized by the Constitution, the laws and the judicial decisions of the United States. And as every citizen is bound by his allegiance to submit to these, it results that no man can be justified in opposing them. But unhappily they have been opposed for a series of years throughout the Northern States, with systematic. zealous and increasing hostility, arising from the modern and popular doctrine that Slavery is a monstrous sin against the equality of man, and the Spirit of the Gospel. This hostility has been exhibited in every conceivable shape. By legislative action, designed to obstruct the execution of the laws of Congress for the recovery of the fugitive slave. By mobs, resolved to rescue him, and threatening the master and even the officers of justice with personal violence. By the irritating and insulting language