Chapter XIX: Part 19

To the foregoing, digested from Hiempsal, as given by Sallust, we may add:—To this amalgamation was also adjoined, from time to time, large parties of adventurers from the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and from almost every part of Europe, which were all absorbed by the native masses; and between the years 850 and 860, large masses of the Scandinavian hordes were also absorbed into this general amalgam of the races of man.

The instances of slavery, and the laws and customs of the church regulating it, as presented in this study, with few exceptions, have pointed to the case where the white races have been enslaved or have enslaved one another; where no strongly marked physical impediment has branded amalgamation with deterioration and moral disgust; nor is it thought necessary to present an argument to prove that, under such a state of facts, the condition of Europe at the present moment is in strict conformity with the result produced by the unchangeable laws of God touching the subject.

God always smiles upon the strong desire of moral and physical improvement. Had Europe remained under deteriorating influences which determined her moral and physical condition two thousand years ago, her condition as to slavery could not have changed. Nor is it seen that she is yet in so highly favoured a condition as to call upon her the providence of God, charging her with the pupilage of the backslidden nations of the earth.

------------------

LESSON XXIII.

It has been heretofore remarked that the great mass of the African tribes are slaves in their own country,—that slavery there subjects them to death at the will of the master, to sacrifice in the worship of their gods, and to all the evils of cannibalism; and yet it has been seen that even such slavery is a more protected state than would be a state of freedom with their religion, and other moral and physical qualities. History points not to the time when their present condition did not exist, nor to the time when their removal, in a state of slavery, to the pagan nations of Asia commenced. Upon the adoption of Mohammedanism there, we find the black tribes of Africa succeeding to them in a state of slavery; and we also find, and history will support the assertion, that in some proportion as the slavery of these tribes was adopted by Christian nations, it was diminished among the Mohammedans; and also, that as the slave-trade with Africa was abolished by the Christians, it was increased there; and also, that in the proportion it has been extended among both or either of these creeds of religion abroad, it has been invariably ameliorated at home. The causes of this state of facts seem to have been these:—The African slave-owner found his bargain with the Christian trader more profitable than with the Mohammedan. He received more value, and in materials more desired by him: the labour of the slave was of more value in America than Asia; and the transportation to the place of destination was attended with less cruelty and hardship by sea than by land. The slave of the African owner was increased in value beyond any native use to which he could be applied, by reason of both or either trade: hence the slave in his native land became of greater interest and concern. The native owner ceased to kill for food the slave whose exportation would produce him a much greater quantity. His passions were curbed by the loss their indulgence occasioned. The sacrifice was stayed by a less expensive, but, in his estimation, a more valuable offering.

The object of our present inquiry is, whether the slavery of the African tribes to the followers of Mohammed is at all recognised or alluded to by the inspired writers. The fact exists, nor can it be contested, although the condition of the African slave is far more degraded among the Asiatics and Arabians than among the Christians, but that even there it is far more elevated than in his native land. “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.” _Gen._ ix. 26. The prophet Daniel was a captive the greater portion of his life, in the very region of country, and among the ancestors of the Mohammedans of the present day, and, of all the prophets, the most to have been expected to have been endowed with prophetic gifts in relation to that country and its future condition. It is proper also to remark that although there is in many instances among the Mohammedans of the present day a mixture of Japhanese descent, yet their main stock is well known to be Shemitic. It should also be noticed that the Shemites have at all times more frequently amalgamated with the descendants of Ham than those of Japhet, consequently more liable to moral and physical deterioration; and here, indeed, we find a reason why it was announced that Japhet should possess the tents of Shem.

_Dan._ viii. 9: “And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great towards the south, and towards the east, and towards the pleasant land. 10. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. 11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 12. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground, and it practised and prospered. 23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and holy people. 25. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”

_Dan._ xi. 40: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him, and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships, and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.”

Of the language used by this prophet, it is proper to remark that there are many variations from the more ancient Hebrew, both as to form of expression and the particular words used, among which Arabicisms and Aramacisms are quite common. Faber supposes that this remarkable vision relates to the history of Mohammedanism: no previous theory has been satisfactory to the Christian world, and it is now generally believed that he has suggested a correct interpretation. We may therefore be allowed to follow him in considering it as descriptive of the rise and progress of that religion.

Mohammed was born at Mecca. His education was contracted, and his younger days devoted to commercial and warlike pursuits. By his marriage with the widow of an opulent merchant, he rose to distinction in his native city. For several years he frequently retired into the cave of Hera and cherished his enthusiastic sentiments, till, at the age of forty, he stated that he had held communication with the angel Gabriel, and was appointed a prophet and apostle of God. In 612, he publicly announced to his relations and friends that he had ascended through seven heavens to the very throne of Deity, under the guidance of Gabriel, and had received the salutations of patriarchs, prophets, and angels. This monstrous statement, however, did not succeed, except with a very few; and on the death of his uncle Abn Taleb, who had been his powerful protector, he was compelled, in 622, to seek security by flight to Medina. This henceforth became the epoch of Mohammedan chronology; his power was more consolidated, and his influence extended by a large accession of deluded, but determined followers. He very soon professed to have received instructions from the angel Gabriel to propagate his religion by the sword; and power made him a persecutor. In seven years he became the sovereign of Mecca, and this led to the subjugation of all Arabia, which was followed by that of Syria. In less than a century from the period of its rise in the barren wilds of Arabia, the Mohammedan religion extended over the greater part of Asia and Africa, and threatened to seat itself in the heart of Europe.

The unity of God was the leading article of Mohammed’s creed. When addressing the Jews, he professed highly to honour Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, and admitted, for the sake of conciliating Christians, that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, and will be the judge of all. This compromising policy is seen in the Koran.

Mohammedan morals enforce many principles of justice and benevolence, and inculcate a degree of self-denial, but, at the same time, permit the indulgence of some of the strongest passions of our nature. The representations given of paradise are adapted to gratify the sensuality of men,—and of hell, to awaken their fears of disobeying the Koran or the prophet. “Eastern Christendom,” says Mr. Foster, “at once the parent and the prey of hydra-headed heresy, demanded and deserved precisely the inflictions which the rod of a conquering heresiarch could bestow. The king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, well expresses the character of Mohammed and his religion.” “Mohammed,” says Gibbon, “with the sword in one hand, and the Koran in the other, erected his throne on the ruins of Christianity and of Rome. The genius of the Arabian prophet, the manners of his nation, and the spirit of his religion involve the causes of the decline and fall of the Eastern empire, and our eyes are curiously intent on one of the most memorable revolutions which impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe.”

His first efforts were directed against the Jews, who refused to receive Mohammed’s effusions as the revelations of heaven, and, in consequence, suffered the loss of their possessions and lives.

“When Christian churches,” says Scott, “were converted into mosques, the ‘daily sacrifice’ might be said to be taken away,” (viii. 11, 12,) and the numbers of nominal Christians who were thus led to apostatize, and of real Christians and ministers who perished by the sword of this warlike, persecuting power, fulfilled the prediction that he cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped on them. It is said that “a host was given him against the daily sacrifice,” (or worship of the Christian church, corresponding with the Jewish sanctuary,) “by reason of transgression.” A rival priesthood subverted the priesthood of a degenerate church. The imams of Mohammed assumed the place of the apostate teachers of Christianity. The event here predicted was to occur in the latter part of the Grecian empire, (ver. 23,) “when the transgressors are come to the full.”

History relates that the remains of the Eastern empire and the power of the Greek church were overthrown by Mohammedans. Their chief endeavoured to diffuse his doctrine, but found that it could not prevail by “its own power,” or the inherent moral strength of the system: it was requisite to support his pretensions by “craft” and “policy.” Mohammed sanctioned as much of the inspired Scriptures as he thought might tend to obviate the prejudices of the Jews, and incorporated as much of his own system with the errors of the Eastern church as might tend to conciliate Greek Christians.

“Although Mohammedism did not first spring up in the Macedonian empire, yet it now spread from Arabia to Syria, and occupied locally, as well as authoritatively, the ancient dominion of the he-goat.” (_Scott._) It has been remarked, however, by Mr. Foster, (Mohammedism Unveiled,) that the part of Arabia which included the native country of Mohammed, composed an integral province both of the empire of Alexander and of the Ptolemean kingdom of Egypt. Ptolemy had Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Cælo-syria, and Palestine. The sovereignties of Egypt and Syria, before called the king of the south and the king of the north, disappeared when they were absorbed in the Roman empire, and the new power, or the Saracen and Turkish empires, that succeeded, are now brought to view. But let it be observed, that the Saracens became masters of Egypt, the original territory of the king of the south, and the Turks possessed Syria, or the kingdom of the north, and still retain it. “The king of the south shall push at him.” The power of Rome was overthrown in the east by the Saracens. This was the first wo of the revelation, which was to pass away after three hundred years. The Turks then came, a whirlwind of northern barbarians, and achieved a lasting conquest, in a day, of the Asiatic provinces of the Roman empire. The line of march was along the north of Palestine, and the Turkish monarch entered only to pass through and overflow: “he entered into the glorious land;” for, as Gibbon has stated it, the most interesting conquest of the Seljukian Turks was that of Jerusalem, which soon became the theatre of nations. “But Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon escaped out of his hand.” Even when all the regions round owned the Turkish sway, these retained their detached and separate character, and even received tribute from the pilgrims as they passed to the shrines of Mecca and Medina. Thus they have escaped and maintained their independence of the Porte. A race of monarchs arose to stretch out their hand upon the countries. Othman, Amurath, Bajazet, and Mohammed conquered nation after nation, and finally fixed the seat of their empire at Constantinople. The land of Egypt “did not escape;” it was indeed the last to yield; but, though its forces had vanquished both Christians and Turks, it was at length subdued by Selim I. in 1517, and came into possession of the Ottomans. (_Cox, on Daniel._) And it may be here remarked, as a fact of well-known history, that the countries known as Libya and Ethiopia have, at all ages of the world, supplied this country with slaves, whoever may have borne rule, and still continue to do the same. Thousands from the interior of Africa are yearly transplanted from the slavery of their native land into those countries now under Mohammedan rule. And it may be well here for the Christian philanthropist to notice, that so far as the slave-trade with Africa has ceased with Christian nations, to the same extent it has substantially increased with Mohammedan countries.

“And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps,”—a form of speech as clearly indicating the condition of slavery as though ever so broadly asserted. The Hebrew word here translated “at his steps,” בְּמִצְעָדָיו _in his footsteps_, &c., i. e. attached or subjected to his interests as slaves, is cognate with the Arabic word مِصعادٌ _metsuad_, and means the chains by which the feet of captive slaves are bound, and in Hebrew form this word is used in _Isa._ iii. 20, צְעָדוֹת֙ _tseadoth_. The whole passage is strictly an Arabicism, and is to be construed, with reference to that language, _chain for the legs_. Of this passage, Adam Clark says, “_Unconquered Arabs_ all sought their friendship, and many of them are tributary to the present time.” Some commentators seem to understand this passage to mean only that Libyans and Ethiopians would be in courteous attendance, &c. If so, the Hebrew would have read, as in _Judg._ iv. 10, רֶגּל _regel_. “And he went up with ten thousand men _at his feet_.” This passage, foretelling the slavery of the Ethiopians to the Mohammedans, may well be compared with _Isa._ xlv. 14, announcing the slavery of the same people to those of the true religion. “Thus saith the Lord, the labour of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of 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, and they shall fall down unto thee; they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God” _beside_.

------------------

LESSON XXIV.

In reflection upon the leading ideas that present themselves in the review of the subjects of this study, we may notice that slavery has been introduced to the world as a mercy in favour of life. That, in its operation, its general tendency is to place the weak, deteriorated, and degraded under the control and government of a wisdom superior to their own; from whence the intellectual, moral, and physical improvement of the enslaved, to some extent, is a consequence as certain as that cause produces its effect.

The world never has, nor will it ever witness a case where the moral, intellectual, and physical superior has been in slavery, as a fixed state, to an inferior race or grade of human life. The law giving superior rule and government to the moral, intellectual, and physical superior is as unchangeable as the law of gravitation. No seeming exception can be imagined which does not lend proof of the existence of such law. The human intellect can make no distinction between the establisher of such law and the author and establisher of all other laws which we perceive to be established and in operation, and which we attribute to God. No one has ever yet denied that obedience to the laws of God effects and produces mental and physical benefits to the obedient, or that their disregard and contempt are necessarily followed by a deterioration of the condition of the disobedient; nor can any one deny that the neglect of obedience to the laws of God, which, in its product, yields to the disobedient mental and physical deterioration, or any one of them, is sin,—and in proportion to its magnitude, so will be its consequent degradation. To be degraded is sin, because the law is improve. No one will pretend that the relation of master and slave is not often attended with sin on the part of the master, on the account of his disobedience to the law of God in his government of his slave; or on the part of the slave, on the account of his disobedience to the same law in his conduct towards his master. Therefore, such master is not as much benefited, not the slave as much improved by the relation, as would otherwise be the case. It is therefore incumbent on the master to search out and exclude all such abuses from the intercourse and reciprocal duties between him and his slave. Placed upon him is the responsible charge of governing both himself and his slave. The responsibility of the master in this respect is of the same order as that of a guardian and that of a parent.

The want of a less affectionate regard in the master towards the slave is supplied and secured to the safety of the slave by the increased watchfulness of the master over the slave from the consideration that the slave is his property. For where affection cannot be supposed sufficiently strong to stimulate a calm and wise action, interest steps in to produce the effect.

That every mind will see and comprehend these truths, where prejudice and education are in contradiction, is not to be expected. The influences of a false philosophy on the mind, like stains of crime on the character, are often of difficult removal. Some forbearance towards those who honestly entertain opposing ideas on this subject, can never disgrace the Christian character,—and we think it particularly the duty of the men of the South, towards the men, women, and children of the Northern States, especially of the unlearned classes. For even among ourselves of the South, we sometimes hear the announcement of doctrines that declare all the most rabid fanatic at the North need claim, on the subject of immediate abolition. We refer to and quote from Walker’s Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, at the June term, 1818, page 42: “Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature.” This false and suicidal assertion, most unnecessarily and irrelevantly introduced, still stands on the records of the Supreme Court of that State, and is an epitaph of the incapacity and stupidity of him who wrote it and engraved it on this monument of Southern heedlessness. We were at first surprised at the silence of the reporter, but, at that day, any criticism by that officer would have been contempt. Yet we may infer that the ingenious and talented gentleman contrived to express his most expunging reprobation, by wholly omitting all allusion to the point in his syllabus of the case.

If in the course of these Studies we shall not have shown that slavery as it exists in the world is commanded by “reason” and the laws of “nature,” we shall have laboured in vain; and even now an array of battle is formed, and our enemy has chosen human “reason” for the “bolt of Jove,” as wrought from strands of Northern colds, Southern heats, and Eastern winds; in their centre, bound by cloudy fears and avenging fires; for their ægis, “_the laws of nature_” supply Minerva’s shield, upon which fanaticism has already inscribed its government over thirty States, far exceeding in purity, they think, that of the God of Israel. And we have come up to the war!—armed neither with the rod of Hermes nor the arrows of Latona’s son; but with a word from him of Bethlehem: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.”

------------------------------------

Study V.

------------------

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.

Whether with reason or with instinct blest,
All enjoy that power that suits them best:
Order is Heaven’s first law; and this confess’d,
Some are, and must be, greater than the rest—
More rich, more wise; but who infers from hence
That such are happier, shocks all common sense.
Heaven to mankind impartial we confess,
If all are equal in their happiness;
But mutual wants this happiness increase.
All nature’s difference, keeps all nature’s peace:
Condition, circumstance, is not the thing;
Bliss is the same, in subject, or in king!
POPE’S _Essay_.

------------------

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 fœtus 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.”

“And reason raise o’er instinct as you can,
In this ’tis God directs, in that ’tis man.”

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.