slavery, and bondage, are synonymes; they "Are there any modifications of the principle express one general idea, but present it under of slavery which can in any cases render it different phases, and with various modifica- abominable?" the articles of my opponents tions. If, then, we point out this general would have served as a triumphant flourish idea, or social principle, we shall be able at of trumpets in honour of an affirmative reply. once to decide upon its morality or immo- It has been shown that the principle of rality, its justice or injustice (since the dif- servitude is the same as that of slavery. Is ficulties of moral science arise always in there, then, any propriety in the relation of particular applications only); this done, we superior and inferior, of master and servant? shall then have to decide on the effect of the Are such relations justifiable under any cirsuperadded modifications of the principle in cumstances? It can scarcely be supposed each of the three cases. Now the one general that any reader of the Controversialist will meaning of, or idea expressed by, these words, do otherwise than give an affirmative reply. is the subjection of personal freedom to the "L'Ouvrier" seems to have felt this, and will of another. In the case of servitude, therefore tries to throw dust into our eyes by this subjection is only partial, both in nature the roundabout manner in which he estaband duration, and can only be enforced by lishes the old absurdity," All men are equal.” negative or indirect means. Thus, my ser- Conscious of the inherent weakness of his vant must perform certain duties, during a position, he endeavours to compensate for it given time and within certain bounds: he or by a display of the outward apparatus of she must entirely ignore their own freedom strict syllogism, and (for what earthly object of body or of will, and follow my directions-it is introduced none but himself can tell) a the dictates of my will; and if they refuse so to act and submit, I may enforce my claims indirectly by the aid of my country's laws, or negatively by withholding those rewards or privileges which I should otherwise be compelled to grant. In slavery and bondage, on the other hand, the subjection is absolute, and the compulsion direct and positive. The latter term (bondage), I believe, merely implies aggravated slavery-the addition of needless cruelty and wanton oppression. Here, then, is the first grand distinction, a close attention to which will show the futility (as a philosophic question) of most of the current declamation against slavery.* Bondage can never be justifiable under any cirThis distinction between bondage and slavery the scriptural student will remember to be very strongly marked in our admirable translation of the Bible. The two terms, however, are carefully confounded by "L'Ouvrier" and G. F., who are thereby enabled to make a display, by attacking that which no one asserts, and which (as has been shown) is really excluded by the terms of the question. Had the question for debate been,

cumstances.

I have previously endeavoured to impress upon all readers that this debate is one on abstract principles; but, at the risk of a charge of tautology, I feel compelled to repeat the warning. To decry slavery by painting the horrors of bondage is a dishonesty as gross as that of one, who purposely confounds religion with superstition.

solitary axiom of "Euclid." The fearfullooking syllogism contains a gross petitio principii in the first or major premiss, and an equally gross error in the minor premiss. What can be meant by the preposterous assertion that "existences having the same nature and origin are naturally equal?" Are all the apples grown on the same tree "naturally equal?" I presume they all have the same "nature and origin!" Let me have the right of using these words in admitted acceptations, and I could prove black to be white. The next assertion is equally absurd,—“ All men have the same nature and origin!" If by nature "L'Ouvrier" means the possession of two legs and the absence of feathers, his assertion may pass. The truth is, the word "nature" has different meanings in the two premises. Here is an absurd argument, produced by a similar play on the word "sinful;" it may serve as an elementary lesson in logic for "L'Ouvrier:"-" Christianity teaches us to hate what is sinful. All men are sinful. Therefore Christianity teaches us to hate all men." The premises of the pretended syllogism being foolish, the conclusion may be fairly doubted. Let it be examined. "All men are naturally equal!" Nay, surely not! Are the Aztec Lilliputians physically equal to the gigantic Patagonians? Is the cannibal dancing round his horrible feast morally equal to John Howard, or even the generality of Englishmen? Are the generality

superior power. The whole object of society is to abridge the natural liberty or powers (rights) of the savage. He must no longer have an uncontrolled will; he must put his neck under the yoke. As a member of society, man must bow to its decrees. Obedience to human laws, where they do not absolutely clash with those of the Deity, is imperative, and strongly enforced by scripture:-"Submit yourself to every ordinance of man;" "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's;” “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers;" "Servants (i.e., slaves. See Cruden's "Concordance," in loc.) obey your masters," &c.

of woolly-headed negroes intellectually equal to "L'Ouvrier;" or he, again, to the Astronomer Royal or Baron Humboldt? One other phrase only remains,―social equality. Now, "L'Ouvrier's" reasoning was to the intent that, all men being naturally (what is meant?) equal, therefore they ought to be socially equal. Borrowing this scheme, I may say, “All men being naturally (i. e., in their physical, moral, and intellectual natures) unequal, therefore they ought to be socially unequal." Look round on human society; are men socially equal? No, we say. The wife is subject to the husband, the child to the parent, class to class, subject to ruler, the apprentice to his teacher, the servant (ie, the half-slave) to his master; then why not, also, the slave to his owner? The only reply can be, that it is not necessary to the present condition of this age and country; in other words, circumstances may either justify or condemn it. It is relatively unjust, and not morally wrong in itself. Society is based, and depends for existence, on an admission of the principle of slavery: it is nothing but an orderly arrangement of ranks and classes, whose existence and interdistinction depend on the acknowledgment and practical use of the doctrine, that beings naturally unequal should be so socially, And why should we indulge this foolish longing after universal equality? Does not each star differ from all other stars in glory? Can we suppose that God's universe is a disjointed series of creations without connecting links-a number of isolated classes, where each class is but a multitudinous reproduction of the same type? Let the reader ponder on the fearful truths contained in those pithy and apposite remarks quoted by "Benjamin from the pages of Tupper. We need not follow "L'Ouvrier" any fur-fying to G. F.'s sympathies, as it is to all culther. “Benjamin" has exposed, with great force and clearness, that old absurdity, "natural rights," a remnant of the subtle cobwebs of the scholastic age, which has been cast aside by all the great modern writers on social ethics and jurisprudence-bas "been abandoned by all just thinkers." A "right" is solely a creature of law. The "rights" of a man in a state of nature are simply his natural powers to do what he pleases. It is very unfortunate that our language should confound "right," ie, "not wrong with “right,” i, e., a privilege granted by some

A few words with G. F.: we trust he is now in a calmer mood. With the true Pharisaic spirit he speaks of his "pious opponents... who garble scripture," by whom "holy writ is desecrated," who “fully display Jesuitism,” and “render apparent the selfishness and baseness of... their cupidity and injustice,” &c.! Not one word is addressed to X's arguments. No! "The Bible cannot (?!) defend slavery." There is the assertion; and X., who reasons against it, together with all future writers who might adopt the same course, were to be branded with infamy. Like certain Jews of old. G. F. stops his ears to our arguments, and rushes into the pages of the Controversialist, exclaiming, "Away with them! stone them! They are worthy to die!" I should be sorry to repay him in kind; prejudice is the worst word I will apply to him; to his arguments I can apply no other term than dogmatism, i. e., assertions without proof, conclusions without premises. The Bible cannot defend slavery;" therefore, slavery is not right. Such is the style of reasoning! The substance of his whole paper is, that cruel bondage is horri

tivated hearts; so G. F. runs off into one of those fits of virtuous indignation so admirably described in Macaulay's Essays" (that on Byron), and becomes a mere bull in the china-shop of arguments. He shuts his eyes and charges madly. The abuse of slavery is wrong and cruel; therefore its use is so also. G. F. falls into the same errors as "L'Ouvrier" as to human equality. I need reiterate their exposure. If his principles were carried out fully, society would be at an end. When unable to reconcile Christianity with slavery, let him remember that Paul directed

that masters should treat their servants (slaves) well. Like many other things, Christianity will soften the horrors of bondage; it does not pretend to gratify all the yearnings of our nature.

The space I have already occupied compels me to pass over many interesting topics, or I might have shown that in some ages and circumstances of the world slavery has been an absolute necessity, and a boon even to its subjects; and that at others it has proved a powerful agent of civilization. I must, however, confine myself to a very brief notice of the most important phase of the question. X. has pointed out sufficient instances in the Old Testament to show that slavery was admitted and approved by God. Nor has the Gospel brought in any new doctrine: it specifically commands mas

ters to treat well their servants, and servants
to obey, &c., their masters; and every one
who has any knowledge of the social con-
dition of those days will be aware that their
servants were slaves. Servus, a slave, is one
of the first scraps of knowledge picked up
in the Latin grammar. Moreover, we find
Paul writing an epistle to Philemon, and
sending it by the hand of a fugitive slave
(Onesimus), and entreating him to forgive
that slave's offence. Very strange, this, if
slavery is intrinsically evil and unjust! Now
the question comes, Can anything which has
been approved by God under certain circum-
stances be really unjustifiable under all? In
other words, Is God unjust? I leave the
opposition to the consideration of this fearful
dilemma.
H. B.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

WHEN we saw this question proposed on | pretend to find that the Bible sanctions the the wrapper of the Controversialist, we at holding of their fellow men in involuntary once supposed that there would be no debate servitude. The advocates of slavery rest upon it. But, however, the reverse is the their defence of the system on the servitude case, and it appears that this. iniquitous which existed among the Jews, and many of system, like others, has its defenders. The them assert that the patriarch Abraham January number of the Controversialist was a slaveholder. But it is quite clear contains a pro-slavery article by X., in which, that no defence of modern slavery can be after declaring that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is based on the Jewish system of servitude; an untruthful book, he attempts to prove and we maintain that Jewish servitude was that the Bible sanctions slavery. He is not slavery, and that such a system can find followed by "Benjamin," in the February no support in the Bible. number, who maintains, that in the practice of slavery, no moral principle is violated. With reference to "Uncle Tom's Cabin" being an untruthful book, we just refer X. to the "Key," lately published by Mrs. Stowe, where he will find all the characters and incidents supported by real facts; and we will proceed to show that no part of the inspired volume contains an approval of the system of slavery, and that it is morally wrong. Can our readers suppose that God, who in the moral law commanded his people to love their neighbours as themselves, or that our Lord, who came breathing "peace on earth and goodwill towards men," could sanction such a system of oppression and injustice as this! Our opponents do not appeal to the New Testament to prove their arguments. They shrink from its glorious light, and hide among the dark shadows of the Mosaic Dispensation; and here they

The

In modern slavery, the slave is the absolute property of his master, who can barter or sell him like any kind of merchandize; but in Jewish servitude, he was not considered as a slave, but as a servant. servant, by voluntary act, bound himself for a sum of money to serve his master, who did not regard him as a piece of property that could be bartered or sold, but allowed him many privileges, and after his time of service, set him at liberty. In support of this assertion, we quote the following, by the Rev. J. Symington:-" It will greatly assist us in our inquiry, and remove a fallacy thrown around the question, to ascertain at once the meaning of the Hebrew word, on the use of which some apologists rest their allegation that Abraham was a slaveholder. And notwithstanding the insinuations of learned Hebraists, that the word 'eved' is more cognate to the word slave than to

K

The fearful plagues with which God afflicted Egypt, are at once a proof of his divine displeasure and disapproval of slavery. During the reign of that Pharoah who advanced Joseph, the Israelites were contented and happy in the land. But we are told that "another king arose who knew not Joseph," and who reduced the Israelites to slavery. "Their cry came up to God by reason of the bondage, and God heard their groanings," and he commanded Pharoah to emancipate them. On his refusal, God sent grievous plagues upon him, and finally destroyed him with all his host in the Red Sea. This is a standing monument which shall always bear witness that slavery is an accursed thing that God hates.

The Inquirer.