holiest of men has it also, but consciously and willingly, and it then becomes his ruling principle, "Divine counsellor, his neverfailing help, a light to his feet, and a lantern to his path." (Page 513.) It is quite evident that the doctor's instinct is the same with the "unerring conscience," "the innate principle of light," "the moral sense," "the spiritual power, "the Divine reason, "the internal teaching," "the perfect light of nature," and "the Divine afflatus" of the theologico-abolition speakers and writers of the present day, which, they say, is the gift of God to every man. This strange error of some of these writers we have already had occasion to notice. But it is to be regretted, for the good credit of religious profession, that they did not acknowledge from whom they borrowed the idea; or, will they at this late day, excuse themselves, and frankly acknowledge they took it, not from Dr. Hancock, or any other modern, but as a deduction from the practices of ancient idolatry?

Since we have ventured an opinion on the subject of instinct, we trust forgiveness for the introduction of that of others.

Our desire is to present such considerations as lead to the conclusion that men are born into the world with different physical and mental aptitudes: in short, that their corporeal and intellectual organizations are not of equal power; or, if some prefer the term, that their instincts are not of equal extent and activity.

For substantially, upon a contrary hypothesis, are founded all those beautiful arguments in favour of the entire equality of man. Some whole systems of political justice are founded upon the proposition that there is no innate principle; and one class of philosophers argue that, as there is no innate principle, therefore all men are ushered into the world under the circumstance of perfect equality; consequently, all the inequality afterwards found is the result of usurpation and injustice.

Do they forget that organization itself is innate, and that dif ferent 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? Could

they 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, nonour, 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 the strong will have power over the weak.

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 that the 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 this monad in 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, áre 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 legally

propagate. But to our minds these things strangely show forth the facts that prove men are not equal."

66

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 "Who art thou not, he should suffer the consequences of sin. 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?" 1 Cor. 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 shall serve (Tay' ya avod, be a slave to) the younger.” Gen. xxv. 23. See also Rom. 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." 1 Cor. 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 thou

into 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.

LESSON V.

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, which

66

stripped 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." Luke x. 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.” 1 Tim. 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." 1 John ii. 15.