most abominable and oppressive tyranny. Yet the New Testament utters no precepts in regard to forms of government, or the special duties of rulers. It further. It commands men everywhere to goes obey the powers that be, so far as this could be done with a good conscience towards God. But it at the same time inculcates those truths concerning the character, rights, responsibilities, and obligations of man, which have been ever since working out the freedom of the human race; and which have received, as I believe, their fullest development in the principles of the American Declaration of Independence. Indeed, in no other manner could the New Testament have become a system of religion for the whole human race, adapted to meet the varying aspects of human depravity. If it had merely taught precepts, whatever was not forbidden must have been taken as permitted. Hence, unchecked wickedness would soon have abounded, and the revelation of God must have become a nullity. But by teaching principles of universal application, it is prepared to meet every rising form of moral deviation, and its authority is now as all-pervading as at the moment when it was first delivered. Our Saviour, as it appears to me, carries out this principle to the utmost, when, setting aside as it were all other precepts, he declares that our whole duty is summed up in these two commandments, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself; for this is the law and the prophets." That is, I suppose him to mean that cherishing these principles in our hearts and car

rying them out into all our actions, we shall do the whole will of God without any other precept.

I have thus, my dear brother, endeavored, in as distinct a manner as I am able, to develop my views on the subject of expediency. I have done it with great diffidence, because I know it is one from a misconception of which great misunderstanding is likely to arise. It seemed, however, to be required by the nature of our discussion; and I hope that what I have suggested may throw some little light upon the subject. I know of but few points in casuistry which at the present moment require a more thorough examination. It is from a misconception here that Jesuitism has arisen on the one hand, and fanaticism on the other. The Jesuit, whether Protestant or Catholic, believes himself at liberty to use any devices whatever, to accomplish a good design; or, in other words, he declares that the end sanctifies the means. The fanatic, provided his end be good, considers himself at liberty to deride the dictates of reason, and use the means which have the least possible tendency to accomplish the end which he has in view. He declares that he has no regard for consequences. He seems, however, to forget that the end which he has in view is a consequence, and that it must be a consequent, that is, an effect of certain causes, which, in the providence of God, are ordained to produce it. If, therefore, he has no regard to consequences, and sets in action causes without regard to their effects, he is as likely to produce any other end as that which he intends. I think, besides, it may sometimes be observed that while men are so entirely reckless of the consequences of their con

duct upon the cause which they espouse, they are not at all unmindful of the consequences to themselves, and not unfrequently pursue the same courses which shrewd, selfish, and intriguing men adopt, to advance, by means of a cause, their own personal interests.

But I am wandering from the subject immediately before us, and will therefore close by assuring you that I am, with the greatest personal esteem and Christian affection, yours very truly,

THE AUTHOR OF THE MORAL SCIENCE.

LETTER VI.

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D.

MY DEAR BROTHER

You will at least give me credit for being an indefatigable correspondent. I hope, however, that you are not wearied either with the number, or the length, of my replies. Although I have commenced my sixth letter, I believe that I have alluded to no topic on which both you and our brethren at the South have not placed reliance, in the construction of their argument in favor of slavery. I rejoice that my labor is drawing to a close. But one more subject remains to be considered; it is the argument derived from the New Testament. With this I shall close my remarks, after having asked your attention to some incidental

reflections which could not so well have been interwoven with the main body of the discussion.

I

In my letter on the Old Testament argument in favor of slavery, I suppose myself to have shown, that the Mosaic law contains nothing more than the permission of slavery; that this permission was granted specially and exclusively to the Jews; and that we could not assume it as a law for ourselves, without claiming every other permission that was granted to them, and subjecting ourselves to every precept that was enacted for them. cannot but believe that you, as a preacher of the New Testament, will agree with me in this view of the subject. I am confident that you would hardly reason with a man who should endeavor to enforce any other Mosaic usage, or plead any other Mosaic license, on the same grounds that are used to sustain the institution of American slavery. Indeed, I can hardly suppose that any of our Southern brethren place any great reliance on this part of the argument. I feel assured that they will not, if they reflect on the consequences which it necessarily involves.

I think, then, that the Scriptural argument in defence of slavery is narrowed down to the limits of the New Testament. Let us, then, endeavor carefully to inquire whether this institution is supported by the instructions of the Saviour and his apostles. You say that "slavery was at least tolerated by Christ and his apostles," and hence you argue that it is no wrong; and, therefore, I presume, consider that this toleration is universal; and, if so, that slavery is right and proper every. where, or, as you well remark, semper et ubique.

You do not, I know, thus generalize the doctrine; but I do not see how such generalization is to be avoided. The New Testament was not given, like the Mosaic law, to one people, but to the whole race; not for one period, but for all time. If, therefore, it tolerates slavery really and truly-if this is the doctrine of our Saviour, it justifies this institution to all men ; and Pagans, Christians, and Mohammedans who have united in abolishing it, have greatly erred in supposing it to be at variance with the clearest principles either of natural justice or of Christian duty.

It is then important to us as disciples of Christ, to ascertain in how far the New Testament really upholds what the natural conscience of man, from at least as far back as the time of Aristotle, has declared to be a violation of the plainest dictates of natural justice. I will not detain you by inquiring into the meaning of the word tolerate. It may perhaps convey a stronger sense than the facts will warrant I will at once come to the passages in the New Testament in which this subject is mentioned. By calmly considering these, we may, I think, ascertain what foundation is furnished for the superstructure which has so frequently been erected upon them.

1. Slaves are frequently alluded to by our Saviour in the Gospels. Several parables are founded upon this relation. But as the object of these parables is to enforce some duty which had no respect to slavery, no one will for a moment pretend that this sort of allusion has any bearing upon the question. Our Lord illustrates the wisdom of men in temporal, contrasted with their folly