master, because by having an unlimited authority over | unmitigated slavery, without fear of contradiction. He

his slaves, he insensibly accustoms himself to the want of all moral virtues, and becomes fierce, hasty, choleric, voluptuous, and cruel." This is not slavery as it exists in this country, where it is protected by the laws, and is by the fundamental compact made an integral portion of the basis of federal representation. It is the abuse of slavery which is thus defined. And indeed the judicious observer will readily perceive, that the denunciations of slavery in all the writers upon natural law, apply only to the flagrant abuse of this institution, and have no reference to the qualified slavery or domestic servitude of the southern states.

M. de Montesquieu proceeds to state the various theories which have prevailed in relation to the origin of slavery, and condemns them all. But we will soon discover that its true origin has escaped his observation, and that it neither originated in despotism, nor tyranny, nor contract, nor war, nor conquest, nor by captivity. Its origin will be traced to the infancy of social institutions, and the necessities and condition of the human family in those primitive ages, when the whole world was an unsubdued wilderness, and the labor of the whole human family was absolutely necessary for the erection of the first establishments of man upon the face of the earth. If this be the true origin of slavery, then all other theories are false, and this condition is founded in the nature of man; and Montesquieu himself declares, that "slavery ought to be founded in the nature of things."

Elevating our minds then above the prejudices of the age in which we live, let us ascend to the early ages, and with a docile and sober spirit, seek for information of those primitive races by whom slavery was introduced, among whom it was firmly established, and from whom it has descended to us.

The inquisitive author of the Spirit of Laws says, that "Aristotle endeavors to prove that there are natural slaves, but what he says is far from proving it." To Aristotle, one of the most profound of the philosophers of antiquity, we confidently appeal, and with the more confidence, because in this iron age of utilitarianism, his material philosophy, fortified with all the powers of the "greatest, wisest, meanest of mankind,” has been preferred to the spiritual sublimity of the divine Plato. Aristotle has expressly declared, that "in the natural state of man, from the origin of things, a portion of the human family must command, and the remainder obey; that the distinction which exists between master and servant is a distinction at once natural and indispensable; and that when we find existing among men freemen and slaves, it is not man, but nature herself, who has ordained the distinction." "Naturâ plura quæ imperent, et quæ parent; natura aliter herus, aliter servus; esse igitur naturâ, hos quidem liberos, hos vero servos, apertum est." And Montesquieu himself, while, in blind obedience to the spirit of the age in which he lived, he denies the force of Aristotle's reasoning, boldly affirms that slavery did not originate in the abuses of despotism, nor by conventional compact, nor by human institution, but that it must be derived from the very nature of things-"de la nature même." And this enunciation of the natural origin of slavery, so revolting to the friends of the rights of man, so directly opposed to the prevailing notions of freethinkers, was made by Aristotle, in a period of

proclaimed it at the head of the wisest philosophers of antiquity, who lived in the midst of slavery; in the face of all Greece, which concurred in his opinion; he declared it to the nations of the earth, which, as well as Greece, possessed multitudes of intelligent slaves deeply interested in its refutation; it was advanced as an unquestionable fact, open to the observation of the whole world, which none could question, because it was the deliberate opinion of the age in which he lived. Now, it must be admitted that an assertion so positive, proclaimed without contradiction among a free people in an age of slavery, in the midst of a multitude of nations who held in slavery men who were learned in all the philosophy of the schools, and imbued with all the wisdom of the times, many of whom were distinguished writers, deeply interested in its denial,—that such an assertion, fortified with such testimony, is not without much weight in the investigation of the subject we discuss.

Having thus considered the force of this declaration of Aristotle, let us inquire whether we shall reject the testimony of all antiquity in its favor, and whether we can concur with M. de Montesquieu in the opinion, that the reasoning of the Stagyrite is inconclusive.

An attentive perusal of the first six chapters of Aristotle's political treatise will show, that this great philosopher has revealed the true cause of the necessity of slavery in the first ages of man. The first step of the primitive men in their march towards civilization, their first effort to subdue nature, was in the erection of a domestic establishment. And for that purpose, in that rude age, when nature herself was wild and unsubdued, were required multitudes of men, beasts of burden, and instruments and provisions of many kinds. In the very words of the philosopher: "Instrumentorum autem hæc sunt inanima, hæc autem animata; mansueta animantia propter cibum et propter usum, feræ autem cibi, et aliorum adminiculorum causa." Now, at the origin of things, in the infancy of man, when the first establishment was formed, to whom would necessarily appertain the right of controlling and directing these necessary agents? To the younger born-or to the father of the family alone? And while there was yet upon earth but a single establishment, the descendants of this family were compelled to remain with the parent, since it was impossible for them to establish themselves elsewhere, the labor of all being required to complete and maintain the first, before other establishments could be made. The authority exercised by the parent must necessarily have been absolute, and the nature of the services required of his descendants essentially servile. So that whatever the French philosophists of modern times may say of the natural condition of a people, it is evident that in the earliest state of society, the slavery of the after-born necessarily existed, and originated in the very nature of things, and in the primitive condition of man. Notwithstanding the objection of M. de Montesquieu to this declaration of Aristotle, we find in various passages of the Spirit of Laws, the cause of the indispensable necessity of slavery clearly indicated. In the thirtieth book we find this unquestionable and historical fact openly proclaimed: "que dans les premiers tems les enfans restaient dans la maison du père, et s'y établissaient"—that in the earliest times the descendants

must discard the social contract of Rousseau, the bewildering sophisms of philosophists, and the delirious ravings of the Jacobins. With the social and political rights of man in the eighteenth century, we have at present no concern. We desire to ascend to the dawn of civilization, to the first races of men, and contemplate them, not with relation to subsequent theories, but simply as we find them when they first walk forth to tame and to subdue the wilderness. We are not to speak of wild and uncultivated nature as of a settled and productive clime-of the earth, before man erected upon its face his first dwelling, as of a land covered with habitations and cities. In our age, when the whole earth is subdued, and arts and sciences, trades and manufactures, agriculture and commerce, have attained a high degree of excellence, a parent finds little difficulty in establishing his children independently as soon as they attain the age of manhood. But in the first ages of man this was evidently impossible. Let us revert to the primitive age, and contemplate the first occupant who enters upon a waste and uncultivated territory. To subdue it, he will require the constant labor of a numerous progeny-he must have beasts of burden, flocks, and all necessary provisions; he has neither tents, nor houses, nor manufactures, nor mills, nor granaries, nor enclosures, nor arms, nor ploughs. But to erect the first habitation he must have many of these, and numberless other necessary agents. And can the modern philosopher tell, how many ages of toil and improvement will be required to erect this first

remained and settled themselves in the establishment which we derive from the present state of things. We of their parent. And why did they so settle themselves? From the very necessities of their situation, for Montesquieu himself states, that in those rude and early ages, all nature being yet an unsubdued wilderness, the "great labor necessary to clear the face of the earth required beaucoup de serfs”—a multitude of slaves. Now as in those primitive times the earth was wild and unproductive, and as in that rude age unaided by the arts and sciences, the subjection of the earth to tillage required the whole labor of the whole human family, and as this labor was of the most servile kind, and must necessarily have been that of the descendants directed and governed by the father of the family; it follows that slavery, as it now exists, and as it has existed in every age of the world, is coeval with the first social institutions, and originated in the nature and necessities of man. But even if Aristotle had never proclaimed, and Montesquieu had never denied the true origin of slavery; if all the revolutionary writers of the last century, in their wild speculations upon the nature and rights of man, had been silent on this subject; reason alone would have fully established this truth, fortified as it is by the whole current of history. All will admit that in the earliest times the descendants of the first family must have remained a long time under the authority and in the dwelling of the father, before they could erect a separate establishment; that Moses, notwithstanding his distinguished abilities and mental superiority, watched for many years the flocks of Jethro, his father-in-law; that Jacob, even after his marriage, remained a long time in the service of Laban; and that | establishment among this primitive and unlettered peothe twelve sons of Jacob continued long in the service of their father, before they were able to erect separate establishments. And why were they unable to erect these separate establishments? Because in that rude age, and in the unsubdued and unproductive state of the earth at that time, immense power and resources were requisite for the erection of a new establishment; and because the parent himself, however anxious to erect separate establishments, was unable to do so, since men multiplied on the face of the earth much more rapidly than those establishments possibly could. And if there were such difficulty in the erection of new establishments in those early ages among a pastoral people, who required only tents for their dwellings, how much more slowly must they have progressed among the tillers of the earth, whose establishments must have been so much more expensive and laborious? And if the father of the family, invested with supreme authority and possessed of such extensive means, found it for a long time so entirely impossible to establish | independently his immediate offspring, who would naturally occupy his first attention, how could he emancipate the remoter generations and their descendants? Reason itself teaches this impossibility. And as these descendants and their generations thus subjected to servile employment, could neither live independently of their parent, nor labor for themselves, it follows that Aristotle is right when he asserts, that in the primitive condition of the human family, slavery was necessarily the natural state of the people : esse igitur natura, hos quidem liberos, hos vero servos, apertum est." In discussing the state of society among the primitive races of men, we must carefully avoid all impressions

ple? We know that it is exceedingly difficult to divest our reason and reflection of all the circumstances which surround us in this age of civilization and refinement, and to contemplate with a calm and philosophic mind the rudiments of society. Yet such discipline is required, before we can arrive at truth. It forms no part of our design to trace the gradual improvement of the races of the human family, and the slow degrees with which they advanced to that state, when the rigorous bonds of primitive slavery were relaxed, and their descendants were emancipated.

Much has been said by modern philosophists about the state of nature, or the savage state of man, unsophisticated, unrefined, and uncultivated. "All men are by nature born free and equal," is their motto. And yet, slavery is no where so oppressive as among the savages in their state of nature. There are no people upon the face of the earth among whom the chiefs are more despotic, the rulers more cruel, or the heads of families more exacting, the lower classes more debased, or the women more miserable. Indeed, such is the servile degradation of these latter, that mothers not unfrequently destroy their female children as soon as they are born, to relieve them from this horrible destiny. Such is the tendency of the human understanding to be influenced and warped by the circumstances which surround us, that whenever, in our fertile territories, where every thing is cleared and improved, slavery is tolerated, we denounce it as a tyrannical usurpation of power, and demand in the pride of our hearts, if man was born to be a slave? To this voice of ungovernable pride, we would reply, that in the primitive state of society it could not in the nature of things have been

otherwise. From the subjection and slavery of the first | ing, these slaves considered it as one of the most ter

men, have sprung all those improvements, have been developed the germs of all those resources, which have since enabled their descendants to ameliorate the condition of the serf, and not unfrequently to admit him to a fraternity of freedom. It is not by the declamations and theories and systems of philosophists, reasoning from the present state of things, that an uncultivated and waste desert can be subdued and peopled with cities. Society could not have originated in any other manner than we have shown, neither could slavery have had any other origin than in the nature of things and the primitive condition of man. And if, in the present advanced state of society, it requires so much time and labor, and expense, to establish firmly a few colonies on the coast of Africa, although their founders are armed with all the powers and resources of the most refined nations of the earth, and are stimulated by all the enthusiasm of philanthropy, and all the hopes of religion, how much and how great labor was necessary in the primitive and rude age of man, to lay so broadly and deeply the foundations of that society which now flourishes upon the face of the earth?

rible chastisements, which their masters could inflict upon them. Thus, when to appease the jealousy of Sarah, Abraham was compelled to send forth his bondwoman, Hagar, into the wilderness, how emphatically does the sacred historian express the affliction of Abraham and Hagar, of the master and the slave? “And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his son. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him, a good way off, as it were a bow-shot; for she said, let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of the Lord called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, what aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not, for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thy hand, for I will make him a great nation."

In the first establishment, common to all, they pos sessed every necessary of life; beyond it there was nothing, not even the necessary instruments of labor, and for supporting life. In imposing upon the primi tive race the stern necessity of union, the Author of nature could have proposed to himself nothing but their happiness. If on the contrary, in the origin of society, he had permitted them to exercise this much boasted natural right of wandering away from their father's house in search of this ideal freedom-the bond of society would have been ruptured, the father would have refused to toil for the son, and the son for the father, the first generation for the second, and the se cond for the third, because their labors being liable to

If the position which we have taken be correct, and the labor of the whole family at the first institution of society was absolutely necessary for the erection of the first establishment, and that until its completion no further establishment could be made, then were they all deeply interested in its completion, and each of those engaged in it must have known, that a premature liberty, far from being useful or desirable, would have been for them the most helpless and miserable of all conditions. Let us suppose some one of our modern philoso phists, filled with enthusiasm for the natural rights of man, should find himself cast by a tempest among a people thus occupied in the first rudiments of society, and impelled by hunger, should present himself at the door of this first establishment, and after having been refreshed, should arise, full of indignation at the subjec-interruption, could never be completed. And this ele tion of the multitude around him, and thus address them: ment of confusion, this principle of freedom, would "Senseless creatures! why do you, who compose so have prevented the reduction of the earth, or the civilivast a multitude, thus tamely submit to the tyranny of zation of man; and as the first habitation could never a single man? Remember that in a state of nature all have been completed, the foundations of social institu men are born free and equal. Fire this habitation; burn tions could never have been laid. It is fortunate for it to the earth! Arise in your strength-break asunder mankind, that the philosophy of the eighteenth century your fetters on the head of your oppressor! Awake was not broached, until society was so firmly built, that arise from your enslaved condition, and resume your it could only shake the edifice. Slavery, then, com natural rights!" &c. &c. How would this harangue be menced with the social institutions of man, and it orireceived by this people? They would reply: "You ginated in the great and united labor of the human speak of primitive men and natural rights. You behold family requisite to subdue the earth. And although them in us, since there have been none before us. You in the subsequent ages, men may have been reduced exhort us to fire this common dwelling, which contains to slavery by debt, despotism, and conquest, yet slaall our property, the fruit of all our labors, and affords very originated in none of these, but preceded them us shelter from the inclemency of the weather. It con- all. tains all the wealth of the past, and constitutes our only But to the authority of Aristotle, to the testimony of hope for the future. And when every thing shall have history, we superadd a still more convincing proof of been consumed, what will be our condition?" "You the existence of slavery in the earliest ages of man. Let will live," he replies, "upon wild roots and berries; US ASK OF OUR OPPONENTS TO LOOK BACK INTO THE you can roam the forest in the freedom of nature; you PAST, AND TELL US IN WHAT AGE AND AMONG WHAT will be free and you will be happy." "If that life be so PEOPLE IT ORIGINATED. UNTIL THIS QUESTION IS happy," they respond, "wherefore have you come FAIRLY ANSWERED, it is CONCLUSIVE OF THE CONTROamong us seeking the necessaries of life?" And they VERSY. Did it originate with the slave trade on the would drive this madman forth from among them to coast of Africa? with the Romans, in the age when preach his freedom to the bears. In these primitive ages, their slaves had become so numerous, that under Spartaso far from regarding this premature freedom as a bless-cus, their leader, they caused Rome to tremble in the

midst of her seven hills? in republican Greece, when the Helots outnumbered the Spartans, and were periodically massacred, to prevent their multiplication? or, in Athens, when they so far outnumbered her citizens? Did it originate under the Jewish dispensation, when Moses proclaimed, that “If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding if he linger for a day or two, he shall not be punished-for he is his money ?"

earth, all proclaim that their primitive state was a state of slavery; neither is there a nation on the globe, however free at this day, that does not bear the mark of its former chains. The celebrated voyager, Cook, tells us that he found among the different islands of the South Sea a state of things similar to that of the feudal system, and a more grinding slavery never existed on earth than was exercised under the rigor of the feudal law. The rigor of the feudal law gradually yielded to the advancing intelligence of the people, and the mild precepts of christianity restrained the abuses and ameliorated the condition of slavery. If we follow Montesquieu closely, from the beginning to the end of the Spirit of Laws, we will find that he maintains with Condorcet, "that the feudal system did not commence with the irruption of the northern hordes into the Roman empire; that it existed a long time before among

As the Hebrew people are the first of whom we have any authentic record, and slavery, in its severest form, existed among them; as we find bondmen among the patriarchs, and discover that slavery itself, in the earliest history of the first people known to us, was made a special object of the legislation prescribed by the Deity himself for the government of his chosen people, it must have existed before these earliest records, since the sub-the barbarians themselves in the fastnesses of their foject matter of legislation must have existed before the code which regulates it.

Having traced the origin of slavery to the earliest ages of man, and to the first germs of society; having shown that it originated in the very nature of things, and in the necessities of the human family, we will advance one step farther, and inquire into its MORALITY. Slavery is either moral or immoral in itself, unaffected by the passions or the prejudices of any age or clime. If immoral now, it has always been so, for the canons of morality and virtue are permanent, uniform and universal. All morality and virtue proceed from and have relation to God, and his ordinances and institutions are essentially moral, otherwise he would cease to be God. Man was created a social being, and God is the author of society, and he is the author of all its constituent branches. But we have seen that in the very infancy of society, at its first institution, or at least in the first authentic history we have of its existence, slavery existed as an integral part of the social establishment. Again, the Supreme Ruler of the universe in establishing a code for the government of his chosen people, could neither introduce, nor approve, nor tolerate any institution essentially immoral. Yet we find in almost every page of the Old Testament rules for the government of slaves, a milder law for the Jewish servants, and a rigorous law for the bondsmen. If slavery be immoral, or a crime, then not only the wisest and best of the Greeks and of the Romans, of the Egyptians and of the Arabians, of the Persians and of the Indians, of the Chinese and of the Germans, of the English and of the Americans, but the great Creator himself, has tolerated, approved, systematised, and regulated this abomination of modern philosophists.

rests; that the feudal rights are of higher antiquity, than is generally supposed; that the domination of the feudal lords was not acquired by usurpation, but was derived from the primitive establishments of their people. They maintained in opposition to the Abbé Du Bos, that there were serfs among the Franks, and that SLAVERY DATES ITS ORIGIN AMONG THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH FROM ALL ANTIQUITY." But let us turn to the ENCYCLOPEDIA itself, that text book of the revolutionists, and we will find, that in despite of the bold assertion that all men are born free and equal, it declares the universality of slavery. “There is not a page of sacred history”—(we quote from the Encyclopedia,)—“ there is not a page of sacred history upon which we do not discover traces of slavery. And profane history likewise, that of the Greeks and of the Romans, and of all the most polished people of the world, is an enduring monument of that ancient injustice exercised with more or less brutality over the surface of the globe, in all times, in all places, and among all nations." The universality of slavery, then, is unquestionable, attested by all the evidences of history, sacred and profane, and admitted by the philosophists and agitators themselves. But if the converse of our proposition be true, as these enthusiasts contend, and the primitive condition of a people be a state of independence, how has it happened that they have so universally fallen into a state of slavery? Was it voluntarily and by compact? But how can we comprehend the fact of such a multitude of men, independent by nature, voluntarily degraded to the lowest and basest condition? Was it effected by force? How can we conceive that five hundred have been more feeble than a single individual, and that one man should have the power to subdue such a multitude, and that Slavery not only existed in the most remote antiquity, over the whole face of the earth, in every nation and in but it is the destiny of many among a multitude of peo- every clime? From the universality of slavery—from ple of modern times, who are imperfectly known to us. the fact that its origin may be traced beyond the earliest In Poland, in Russia, in Tartary, in Africa, there are a period of authentic narrative-from its necessity in the multitude of slaves, who were not enslaved by any right nature of things, and for the formation of society-from of conquest. Among many nations parents sell their the divine origin of society, of which, in the early children, lords their vassals, and sovereigns their sub-ages, it was a constituent and necessary branch-from jects; and in India and America there are still slaves. its approval and regulation by the Deity himself, and If we interrogate historians, geographers, voyagers, and from its freedom from rebuke among the most virtuous juris-consults-if we survey all the monuments of na- and intelligent nations and individuals, from the days tions-if we appeal to the testimony of the various na-of Abraham, the father of the patriarchs, down to Voltions of the earth, Asiatics, Africans, Americans, or Eu-taire, the leader of the philosophists and agitators of the ropeans, civilized or barbarous, hunters or tillers of the eighteenth century—we are led irresistibly to the con

clusion that what has existed in all ages and in all federal compact, which declares all men to be free and climes, without the reprobation of the wise and great-equal, and yet expressly recognizes the existence of sla what the Deity himself has approved, and governed, and ordained-cannot of itself be IMMORAL. With its abuses we have no concern: it has been abused in every age, by every people.

very, maintains and protects the natural right of the master over the slave, and makes the slave himself a constituent part of the basis of representation. All the parties to this contract are free and equal; but no one

Admitting the universality of slavery, and acknow-will be so frantic as to contend, that by this declaration ledging the agency of the Creator himself, the great founder of society, in its institution, the well ordered understanding is startled with the revolutionary and anti-social speculations of modern philosophists. It has been repeated, until the frequency and vehemence of the repetition has almost thrown the judgment from its balance, that "slavery is one of the odious institutions of man, and that it is opposed to the natural rights of man,” &c., &c. It is not true, as we have seen, that slavery is of human institution, since these very writers have admitted that it originated in the necessities of society in the primitive ages; it is not opposed to natural right, since slavery had its origin in the very nature of things, has been approved and regulated by the Author of nature, and sprung from the natural condition of man.

of the fundamental principle which governs our political compact, it was designed to deny the right of slavery either in this free country or elsewhere. The charter itself legalizes, defends, maintains, and protects slavery. It is the confusion of ideas, which springs from this intermingling of conventional and political equality with the natural rights of man, that deludes us. It will scarcely be affirmed that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration of independence, the great apostle of democracy, and the strenuous advocate of popular rights, deeply imbued as he was with the philosophism of the eighteenth century, designed to repudiate slavery when he declared all men to be free and equal. To his understanding, the distinction was clear between the conventional or political and the natural rights of man; and he well understood that in the formation of a political compact, the slave, from his inability to contract, could be no party.

If it be true now, that men have a right to resist even unto the infliction of death those who claim their services in a state of bondage, and all men are born free and We have traced slavery as far back as the days of the equal, it must have been true in all ages from the begin-patriarchs; we have shown, that it originated in the naning of time. And if this doctrine were true in the ture of things and the condition of primitive man; we early ages of society, the fathers of the primitive fami- have observed the rules prescribed by Jehovah in the lies would have been assassinated by their descendants Jewish dispensation for its government; we will now whom they held in bondage-masters by their servants, advance to another link in the chain of testimony. lords by their vassals, sovereigns by their subjects; the foundations of society would have been broken up before the social edifice was erected, and the earth would never have been subdued or colonized.

This philosophy was the natural offspring of the French revolution and of the school of unbelievers; it is a doctrine of blood and pillage, and utterly subversive of that order, which forms the bond of social institutions. False as it is, when shall we cease to teach and to believe it? Shall we continue to dismember and overturn, by inculcating a theory which has already corrupted many of the most gifted of the sons of men, which has arrayed people against their rulers, which has covered the earth with the ruins of the social fabric, and which has turned loose upon the face of the earth a spirit of licentiousness, insubordination, and riot, that continue to shake to their deepest foundations all existing establishments?

Let us concede the stern but unwelcome truth, that the existence as well as the universality of slavery is to be attributed to the labor required in the infancy of man to subdue the earth, from which he has been doomed to reap fruit in the sweat of his brow-that it was wisely ordained by the Author of nature himself, and is therefore founded in the very nature of things, and of man. It is only when we have lost sight of this sublime truth, that we proclaim our absurd systems of equality, in a

state of nature.

In considering this question, it is essentially necessary that we should accurately distinguish between the natural condition of man, and those principles of political equality, upon which free civil institutions repose, and which like those of this country are regulated by a social compact. And the most conclusive evidence of the propriety of this distinction is exhibited in the formation of our

It is not unfrequently objected to evidences derived from the Old Testament on this subject, that the code of laws prescribed for the government of the Jewish people was peculiarly accommodated to the gross perceptions of that sensual race, and was never designed to be rigorously perfect in its morality. The obvious reply to this is, that a law prescribed by a Supreme Being for the guidance of his people must be essentially moral, and that although such institutions may not have been per fect in themselves, yet it is impossible that any portion of that law should have been immoral; for, this would be to make God the author of crime. But admitting this objection in its full force, we have still an argument remaining which is conclusive on this question. Let us suppose, that the old law was imperfect in its character and operation, still it will not be denied that when the ancient types and figures were realized, when the Redeemer appeared on earth to ransom a lost world, he fulfilled the object of his mission by perfecting the law. The code which he established was clearly the perfection and fulfilment of the old law. He would be a bold man indeed, who would contend, that the christian code under the new dispensation, as revealed and established by the Saviour, is not perfect in its morality. He came to establish the law, and to rebuke vice whereever it appeared. At no period in the history of man, did slavery prevail to a greater extent or with more rigor, than in the days of the redemption of man. A submissive world bowed at the footstool of the Cæsars, and in every province of the empire, slavery was established. Even in Judea, where the Redeemer himself taught, man was the property of his fellow man. And yet, when the princes of the earth are loudly rebuked, when the hypocrisy of the Scribes and the Pharisees is