them objects of hatred, upon the ground that they are heathens, savages, destitute of the ordinary degree of humanity, and certain, if they are set free, to murder their masters; an inferior order of beings, made to be slaves, incapable of civilization, not able to take care of themselves, and, therefore, or for some other reasons, proper objects of hatred and contempt; it is only while malevolence is kept up by some such artifices, that slavery can continue to exist. Hence the great anxiety evinced by slaveholders and their friends to foster such prejudices and to diffuse them; and hence the destruction of these prejudices ought to be the chief object of those who aim at the abolition of slavery.

10. It appears, then, that while the respect which is paid to property in general originates in the sentiment of benevolence, slave property owes both its origin and its continuance to the sentiment of malevolence, a very essential distinction between these two kinds of property, a difference which puts them in decided opposition to each other.

11. All who have ceased to be influenced by those sentiments of malevolence towards the enslaved to which slavery owes its origin and its continuance, or to whom the slave-owners are not, for some reason or other, objects of peculiar sympathy, are apt to feel a high degree of commiseration for the enslaved, and a corresponding degree of indignation against the masters; a commiseration and an indignation, which reach, in general, the highest pitch, with those whose knowledge is confined to the simple fact, that the one party are slaves, and the other party masters;

but who, beyond that fact, have no personal or precise knowledge of either party. The degraded condition of the slaves, if it makes them objects of pity, is very apt, at the same time, to make them objects of contempt; while the superior condition of the masters, their wealth, authority, leisure, education, and manners, often present them to us in a very agreeable light. Hence it happens that those who have a personal knowledge of masters and their slaves, not unfrequently expend all their benevolence upon the masters, while they regard the slaves with a malevolent contempt.

12. Slavery, though generally condemned by modern forensic moralists, has found numerous apologists and defenders among the mystics. They tell the slave that since God has seen fit to place him in that condition, it is his duty to be contented with his lot. Rebellion against his master, or any attempt to evade or to shake off the burdens imposed upon him, is neither more nor less than rebellion against God. The greater part of the Christian mystical doctors insist, and, critically speaking, with apparent reason, that the Christian scriptures, and especially the apostle Paul, give countenance to slavery; and it is held, or at least, till very lately, it has been held by the highest authorities among them, that there is no inconsistency between the characters of a saint and a slave-trader.

CHAPTER III.

OF PROMISES, CONTRACTS, AND TRUTH IN GENERAL.

1. CLOSELY connected with the subject of property, is the matter of Promises, Contracts, and Truth in general. He who violates a promise, or neglects to fulfil a contract, and to a certain extent, he who tells what is not true, is sure, in so doing, to inflict a pain of disappointment, and may inflict many other pains.

2. Promises or contracts, extorted by force or threats, are not held to be binding. The very extortion of them was the infliction of an injury, and renders him who extorted them an object of malevolence and of moral disapprobation. The disappointment of such a man, instead of giving us pain, gives us pleasure.

3. Promises which cannot be fulfilled, without violating the rights of some third party, are held not to be binding. When the same motive operates with equal force to impel us, and to deter us, of course we remain inactive. Hence it is held, that no promise to do a wrong act is morally binding.

4. If a man comes to me to ask for information, and especially if I volunteer to give him information, generally speaking, to give him false information would be doing him an unprovoked injury. Hence all moral codes are agreed as to the moral obligation of telling the truth.

5. But suppose the information is asked with a design to use it as a means of inflicting injury upon me? It is sought to extort my secret, in order to use it to my harm. He who comes to me with such an intent, is himself a wrong-doer, an object of malevolence; and it is permissible for me to deceive him.

6. Suppose the party in question seeks the information with the design to use it as a means of inflicting injury upon others? Suppose that with an intention to commit murder, he asks me if his intended victim is here, or there? In such a case it is not only my right, but my duty, to deceive him; and, indeed, without waiting to be asked, to volunteer false information.

7. Such are the decisions of forensic morality; such are the practical decisions of all rational men. But the mystical moralists, in general, have decided otherwise. According to them, the reason why I am bound to keep my promises, and to tell the truth, is, because that course of conduct is pleasing to God. God has an abstract delight in truth. It has further been imagined that if I am adjured to tell the truth in God's name, that is, sworn to tell the truth; or if I call upon God to be the witness of my promise or my statements, in that case, no matter though the oath be extorted, and no matter what may be the nature of the promise, or the statement, my duty to God requires that I should keep the promise, or tell the truth, regardless of the consequences to myself or others. A little reflection is sufficient to convince us, that if truth be indeed pleasing to God merely

in its character of truth, the circumstance of an oath can make no difference in the moral obligation of speaking the truth and fulfilling promises; and hence it has been concluded that to speak the truth at all times, is an absolute duty admitting of no exceptions; and that to deceive or even to conceal, for concealment is a sort of deception, can never be permissible.

8. Some forensic speculators upon morals, proceeding by a different route, have arrived at the same conclusions. The utility of truth, that is to say, the advantages which veracity and general fidelity to engagements confer upon society, are so immense that it has been thought impossible to go too far in inculcating this duty. The means has thus come to be looked upon as equivalent, or superior, to the end; and it has been zealously maintained that men are under a moral obligation to fulfil their promises, and to speak the truth, in all supposable cases, even in cases where nothing but evil seems likely to result from it.

9. It ought here to be observed, that what is called the love or admiration of the truth, and the eulogiums passed upon veracity, do not by any means originate entirely in the moral sentiment, whether from the perception of the general utility of truth to mankind at large, or of its utility in particular cases to particular individuals. Many sentiments purely selfish contribute to make truth so great a favorite. Knowledge is power. Every increase of our knowledge enlarges our power, and gatifies the desire of superiority. The perception that we have been deceived