Study V.

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 henceThat 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’sEssay.

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’sEssay.

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 ustake, 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 throughone 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, inRom.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.

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; whilethe Mongolian, that of the infant lately born. SeeLloyd’s Popular Physiology. Thebeard, 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 anin-and-inpropagation 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 sightof 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.

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 ofthe 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 Darwinasserts 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 anintellectual principle, by which they distinguish between pleasure and pain, and desire the one and repel the other. This is hisinstinct.

Reimar dividesinstinctinto 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; andspontaneous, the same as Buffon’s. Cuvier says that instinct consists of ideas that do not result fromsensation, 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.”

“And reason raise o’er instinct as you can,

In this ’tis God directs, in that ’tis man.”

Cullen, Hoffman, and others say thatinstinctis 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 “instinctis in such animals anunconscious intelligence.” We much admire why he did not think proper to cast off from the ancients the charge of apuerile idolatry, on the account of their worship ofbulls,calves,alligators,snakes,beetles, andbugs, 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 thisquality, in which “the Divine energy seems to act with most unimpeded power,” so theholiest 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 ofreligious 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 theirinstinctsare 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? Couldthey 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 thestrongwill have power over theweak.

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 thatthe 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 thismonadin 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 legallypropagate. 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?” 1Cor.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 shallserve(יַֽעֲבֹ֥דyaʿăbōdya avod,be a slave to) the younger.”Gen.xxv. 23. See alsoRom.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.” 1Cor.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 thouinto 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.

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, whichstripped 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.”Lukex. 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.” 1Tim.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.” 1Johnii. 15.

LESSON VI.

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.

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 justephaand a justhinshall 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 Lordthy 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.” 1Johniii. 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.

Back to Index Next