a thing to be justified, a right thing, but because to submit and to suffer wrong was, under all the circumstances, better- better for them, situated as they were than to resist. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." Does this justify Nero? On the same principle, the Christian disciple was bidden to turn the other cheek to the hand that had already smitten, since it was better, on the whole, better at least for him, as a Christian, - to suffer outrage patiently. than to take his defence into his own hands. Does this justify acts of personal assault and violence? They who defend slavery on this ground, must, on the same principle, if they reason consistently, defend any system of civil oppression and tyranny, however arbitrary and unjust, and any personal violence inflicted by lawless. and angry men upon the victims of their ferocity.

In the well-expressed language of an able writer and moralist, Dr. Hickok: "This obedience was by no means required on the ground that slavery was righteous, and the master's authority morally valid. It would be more prudent for the slave to obey, and tend most to cultivate his piety. He was required to be obedient 'not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward;' even obedient where cruelty and wickedness led to the 'buffeting' of the slave 'for doing well.' It was expedient to obey; just as, when you cannot escape from a tiger, it is expedient not to provoke him. It by no means justifies the usurped authority. It was better for the slave to obey; and especially it would serve to augment piety, and recommend the religion of Him, who in his humiliation was smitten and 'opened not his mouth.””

Why not directly forbidden. But why, it may be asked, was not the system directly forbidden, or at least declared to be unjust and morally wrong, if such is indeed its true character? I reply, it is really forbidden by the

spirit and the precepts of Christianity - really, though not directly and explicitly. The rule to do unto others whatsoever we would that they should do unto us, as really forbids that involuntary servitude which exacts of a fellowbeing unrequited service, and robs him of all his dearest rights, as if the practice of such a wrong were mentioned by name, and specially prohibited. A reason doubtless existed for not thus designating it in so many words. It was a social evil, incorporated into the whole fabric of civil society and government. To have singled out the evil, and by direct precept to have prohibited it, would have been, perhaps, neither the wisest nor the surest mode of redress. It would have been a direct interference of Christianity with civil government. In the language of Dr. Wayland: "If it had forbidden the evil, instead of subvert ing the principle,—if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to resist the oppression of their masters, it would instantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility, throughout the civilized world. Its announcement would have been the signal of servile war; and the very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed. The fact, under these circumstances, that the gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended to authorize it."

The Mode of Redress. We have been occupied in the preceding pages with the discussion of the moral character of this institution of slavery. It is no part of the business of the moralist, strictly speaking, to point out the best methods of redressing the wrongs and evils of society. This it is for others to do. One thing, however, I may properly say in this connection. Whatever measures are

adopted, looking to this end, must necessarily be gradual in their operation, in order wisely and well to accomplish their purpose. The social fabric is not to be rudely shaken, nor its whole structure radically changed in a day. Time is requisite, and the slow growth of principle. Much is to be hoped from the progress of society, and the gradual prevalence of more enlightened views, and of a loftier and purer morality. In proportion as society advances, and Christianity obtains a firmer hold on the mind and heart of the race, this system, so utterly at variance with all just notions of right and duty, and so repugnant to the feelings of common humanity, must and will gradually disappear, as the shadows from the mountain side, and the mists from the bosom of the lake, when the sun mounts the heavens in his strength.

Progress of European Society. If we look at the sociai organization of the European nations, we find them, in the course of centuries, passing through a series of changes, from the state of absolute servitude of the laboring classes, to that of more or less perfect equality and freedom. For some two centuries or more after the Norman conquest, the greater portion of the cultivators of the soil in England were serfs, or villeins, as they were then termed, bound to the soil, and owing service to the proprietor thereof. The peasant belonged to the soil, and, with all his family and descendants, from generation to generation, was at the disposal of the lord of the manor. These unlimited labor-rents were gradually, during the succeeding centuries, commuted into more definite services, and the peasant acquired legal right, or copyhold, as it was termed, to the lands which he cultivated. It is only about two hundred years since the cultivator of the soil in England ceased to be held in personal thraldom.

In many parts of Germany, serfdom still exists; in others;

the peasant is no longer attached to the soil, but, instead of unlimited service, pays his landlord some definite amount of labor as land-rent; in other cases, this is commuted for rent in grain or money, and the servitude becomes almost nominal.

In Russia, the serf was little better than a slave, except that his service was limited. He was bound to work for the owner of the soil a certain number of days in the week, laboring for the rest of the time, for his own subsistence, on lands allotted for the purpose. Nor was it until the accession of the present government that this system was abolished.

Sentiment of Paley. Soon after the close of the struggle by which the American Colonies became independent of England, Archdeacon Paley, referring to the system of slavery, and to the part which the English government had taken in upholding it, made use of the following language, in his work on Moral Philosophy: "The great rev. olution which has taken place in the Western world may probably conduce (and who knows but that it was designed) to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny; and now that this contest, and the passions which attended it, are no more, there may succeed perhaps a season for reflecting, whether a legislature which had so long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire the most extensive that ever obtained in any age or quarter of the world." Could this excellent moralist, after the lapse of three quarters of a century, be permitted to look upon this Western world as it now is, and behold the present greatness and prosperity of the country that was then just commencing its career, as he beheld with astonishment this dark blot still upon our escutcheon, would he not, and with justice, repeat, with reference to our own nation, the

question then so forcibly put, with reference to the British government, "whether a legislature that had so long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire" so extensive and powerful?

CHAPTER III.

DUTIES PERTAINING TO PROPERTY.

MAN has not only the right to life, and to liberty, but also to property, or the possession and enjoyment of whatever he may, by his own industry or good fortune, or the gift of others, have honestly acquired. Prominent among the duties, therefore, which we owe to our fellow-men, that is, to society, are the duties which have respect to property. The principal topics to be considered are the right of property, the uses of such an institution, the modes in which it may be acquired, the different kinds of property, crimes against property, and the various limitations of the right of property.

§ I. FOUNDATION OF THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY.

Labor and not Law. Whatever man produces as the result of his own skill and labor, is properly his, and no one else has the right to take it from him. It is his property by a natural right. There is need of no law, or social organization and compact, in order to this. His title to use, possess, and enjoy what he has himself produced, by