conduct. Mr. Locke says: "Moral good and evil is the conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good or evil is drawn upon us from the will or power of the law-maker." But the doctrine of Dr. Channing seems to be, that this law is each man's conscience, moral sense, sense of duty, or the inward principle. If the proposition of Mr. Locke be sound logic, what becomes of these harrangues of Dr. Channing?

We say that the law, rule or power, deciding good or evil, must be from a source far above ourselves; for, if otherwise, the contradictory and confused notions of men must necessarily banish all fixed ideas of good and evil from the earth. In fact, the denial of the elevated, the divine source of such law, is also a denial that God governs-for government without law is a contradiction.

If the "conscience," as Dr. Channing thinks, or his other equiva lents, be the guide between right and wrong according to the law of God, then the law of God must be quite changeable. The minds of men differ; each makes his own deductions; therefore, in that case, the law of God must be what each one may severally think it to be; which is only a declaration, in other language, that there is no law at all: "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes" (Prov. xxi, 2), but "The statutes of the Lord are right" (Psalms xix, 8). The laws of God, touching the subject of slavery, are spread through every part of the Scriptures. Human reason may do battle against them, but the only result will be the manifestation of human weakness. The institution of slavery must, of necessity, continue in some form, so long as sin shall have a tendency to lead to death; so long as Jehovah shall rule and exercise the attributes of mercy to fallen, degraded man.

But let us, for a moment, view the facts accompanying the slavery, of the African race, and compare them with Dr. Channing's assertion, page 35, that every slave suffers "a grievous wrong," and, page 49, that every slave owner is a "robber," however unconcious he may be

of the fact.

So far as history gives us any knowledge of the African tribes, for the last four thousand years, their condition has been stationary; at least, they have given no evidence of advancement in morals or civilization beyond what has been the immediate effect of the exchange of their own slaves for the commodities of other parts of the world. So far as this trade had influence, it effected almost a total abolition of cannibalism among them. That the cessation of cannibalism was the result of an exchange of their slaves as property for the merchandise

of Christian nations, is proved by the fact, that they have returned to their former habits in that respect upon the discontinuance, by those nations, of the slave trade with them. Which is the greatest wrong to an African, to be continued a slave or to be butchered for food because his labor and person are of no value to his owner?

No very accurate statistics can be given of African affairs: the population has been computed at 50,000,000; and to have been about the same for many centuries; a population, of which, even including the wildest tribes, far over four-fifths have ever been slaves amongst themselves. The earliest and most recent travelers among them agree as to the facts: that they are cannibals; that they either are idolaters or have no trace of religion whatever; that, with them, marriage is but promiscuous intercourse; that little or no affection exists between husband and wife, parent and child, old or young; that, in mental and moral capacity, they are but a grade above the brute creation; the slaves and women alone do any labor, and they, often, not enough to keep them from want; that their highest views are to take slaves or massacre a neighboring tribe; that they evince no desire for improvement, or to ameliorate their condition; in short, that they are, and ever have been, from the earliest knowledge civilized nations have had of them, savages of a most debased character. The proofs of all these assertions have been previously given in another section of these studies.

Will any hesitate to acknowledge that, to them, slavery, regulated by law among civilized nations, is a state of moral, mental and physical elevation? A proof of this is found in the fact, that the descendants of such slaves are found to be, in all things, their superiors. If their descendants were found to deteriorate from the condition of their parents, we should hesitate to say that, to them, slavery was a blessing. Which would be considered by man the most like an act of mercy in Jehovah, to continue them in their state of slavery to their brother African and master, or to order them into that condition of slave. ry in which we find them in these States? Which state of slavery, to the savage or the civilized master, would be preferable?

The Hebrews, Medes, Persians, Chaldeans, Syrians, Greeks and Romans, have, on the borders of Africa, to some extent, amalgamated with them, from time immemorial. But such amalgamation has never been known to attain to the position, either physically, mentally or morally, of their foreign progenitors-perhaps superior to the interior tribes, yet often scarcely exhibiting a mental or moral trace of their foreign extraction. The thoughtless, those of slovenly morals, or those

of none at all, from among the descendants of Japheth, have commingled with them in the New World; but the amalgamation never exhibits a corresponding elevation in the direction of the white progenitor. The connection may degrade the parents, but never elevates the offspring. The great mass look upon the connection with abhorrence and loathing, and pity or contempt always attends the footsteps of the aggressor. These feelings are not confined to any particular country or age of the world. Are not these things proof that the descendants of Ham are a deteriorated race? Will the declaration of a few distempered minds as to their religion, feelings and taste, weigh in contradiction? What was the judgment of Isaac and Rebecca on this subject? (See Genesis xxvi, 35; xxvii, 46; also, xxviii, 1.) Since the days of Noah, where are their monuments of art, religion, science and civilization? Is it not a fact that the highest moral and intellectual attainment which the descendants of Ham ever displayed, is now, at this time, manifested among those in servile pupilage? The very fact of their being property gives them protection. What, he their "robber" who watches over their welfare with more effect and intensity than all their ancestry together since the days of Noah? By the contrivance of making them "property," has God alone given them the protection, which four thousand years of sinking degradation demands, in an upward movement toward their physical, mental and moral improvement their rational happiness on earth and their hopes of heavWhat, God's agent in this matter a "robber" of them?

en.

Let us assure the disciples of Dr. Channing, that there are thousands of slaves, too accurate observers of truth to come to such a conclusion; who, although, from human frailty, may sometimes seem to suffer an occasional or grievous wrong, can yet give good reason, in proof, that slavery is their only safety.

Let us cast the mind back to a period of five hundred years ago. A Christian ship, intent on new discoveries, lands on the African coast. The petty chieftain there is about to sacrifice a number of his slaves, either to appease the manes of his ancestors, to propitiate his gods, or to gratify his appetite by feasting on their flesh. Presents have been made to the natives; it is thought their friendship has been secured; the Christians are invited to the fete; the participants are collected; the victims brought forward, and the club uplifted for the blow. The Christians, struck with surprise, or excited by horror, remonstrate with the chief; to which he sullenly replies: "yonder my goats, my village; all around my domain; these are my slaves!" meaning that, by the morals and laws that have, from time immemorial, prevailed there, his rights are absolute; that he feels it as harmless to kill a slave as a

goat, or dwell in his village. But the garments of the Christian are presented; the viands of art are offered; the food of civilization is tasted; the cupidity of the savage is tempted, and the fete is celebrated through a novel and more valuable offering. What, these Christians, who have bought these slaves, “robbers!"

Let us look back to the days of the house of Saul; when, perhaps, David, hiding himself from his enemy's face, amidst the villages of Ammon, chanced upon the ancestors of Naamah, the mother of Rehoboam, a later king of Israel; finding them about to sacrifice a child upon the alter of Moloch-"stay thy hand!" says the son of Jesse; "I have a message to thee from the God of Israel. Deliver me the child for these thirty pieces of silver;" and, according to the law of the God of his fathers, the child becomes his "bondman forever." What, was David a "robber" in all this? Suppose the child to have been sold, resold, and sold again; is the character of the owner changed thereby?

But it is concerning the rights of the descendants of these slaves, that we have now to inquire. See Luke xvii, 7-10 inclusive:

7. "But which of you, having a servant (dovλos, slave) plowing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him, by and by, when he has come from the fields, Go and sit down to meat?

8. "And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

9. "Doth he thank that servant (dovλov, slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

10. ""

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do!"

Suppose a proprietor, in any country, or at any age, receives into his employment an individual, who, thereafter, resides, and has a family upon, his estate. Upon the death of the individual, to his heirs, will any of the rights of the proprietor accrue, other than those granted, or those consequent to their own, or their ancestor's condition, or those that may accrue by the operation of law? Where is the politi cal enactment, the moral precept, the divine command, teaching an adverse doctrine?

Before we close our view of the Doctor's second proposition, we design to notice his use of the word "nature." He says that man has rights, gifts of God, inseparable from human nature; we confess that we are, somewhat, at a loss to determine the precise idea the Doctor affixes to this term. The phrase, "human nature," is in most frequent

use through these volumes. But in Vol. 1, p. 74, he says, "Great powers, even in their perversion, attest a glorious nature." Page 77, "to regard despotism as a law of nature." Page 84, "his superiority to nature, as well as to human opposition." Page 95, "We will inquire into the nature and fitness of the measures." Page 98, "The first object in education, naturally, was to fit him for the field." Page 110, "From the principles of our nature." Page 111, "Nature, and the human will, were to bend to his power." Idem, "He wanted the sentiments of a common nature with his fellow beings." Page 112, "With powers which might have made him a glorious representative, and minister of the beneficent Divinity, and with natural sensibilities," &c. Page 119, "traces out the general and all-comprehending laws of nature." Page 125, "which pleads the cause of our oppressed and insulted nature." Page 137, "the whole energy of his nature." Page 143," a power which robs men of the free use their nature," &c. Page 146, "Its efficiency resembles that of darkness and cold in the natural world." Page 184, "whose writings seem to be natural breathings of the soul." Page 189, "language like this has led men to very injurious modes of regarding themselves and their own nature." Idem, "A man, when told perpetually to crucify himself, is apt to include, under this word, his whole nature." Idem, "Men err in nothing more than in disparaging and wronging their own nature." Idem, "If we first regard man's highest nature." Page 190, "We believe that the human mind is akin to that intellectual energy which gave birth to nature." Idem, "Taking human nature as consisting of a body as well as mind, as including animal desire," &c. Idem, "we believe that he, in whom the physical nature is unfolded." Page 191, "But excess is not essential to self-regard, and this principle of our nature is the last which could be spared." Page 192, "It is the great appointed trial of our moral nature." Page 193, "our nature has other elements, or constituents, and vastly higher ones." Idem, "for truth, which is its object, is of a universal, impartial nature." Page 196, "is the most signal proof of a high nature which can be given." Idem, "It is a sovereignty worth more than that over outward nature." Idem, " Its great end • is to give liberty and energy to our nature." Page 198, "of our moral, intellectual, immortal nature, we cannot remember too much." Page 200, "the moral nature of religion." Page 202, "We even think that our love of nature." Idem, "For the harmonies of nature are only his wisdom made visible." Page 203, "that progress in truth is the path of nature." Page 211, "It has the liberality and munificence of nature, which not only produces roots and grains, but pours forth fruits