more, suppose the inferior class of beings were not truly men; if they were intelligent moral agents, I suppose we should be under the same obligation to conduct ourselves towards them on the principle of reciprocity. I see no reason why an angel would have a right by virtue of his superior nature to interfere with the means of happiness which God has conferred upon man. By parity of reasoning, therefore, superiority of rank would give to man no such power over an inferior species of moral and intelligent beings." P. 205.

It would naturally be expected, that an author, who should lay such a foundation, would find, in his superstructure, no place to apologize for "domestic slavery." Most amply and opportunely has President Wayland justified this reasonable expectation. Millions will yet bless his memory, that he dared to hurl the chains of their bondage from the elements of the social system, that he dared to proclaim, from the high station in which God placed him, their right to an immediate release from the yoke of unrecompensed toil. Did our limits permit, we would quote his whole chapter on Personal Liberty, and with the more pleasure, because it is the work not of a professed abolitionist, laboring expressly to overthrow slavery, but of a good man and sound philosopher, speaking the truth at the risk of unmeasured odium to himself and the institution, which he has done much to bring to the high reputation which it now enjoys. Let us remind the reader, too, that valuable instruction may be derived from the fact that this chapter of Dr. Wayland's, impregnably as it is fortified on the rock of eternal truth, and uttered, as it is, in the calm serenity of science, has called forth from the holders of slaves a response no less bitter than the so called "harsh denunciations" which it has been our business to promulgate.*

The following, from an editorial article in the Southern Baptist, (Charleston, S. C.), may serve as a specimen of southern feeling.

"We thought it a privilege for our young men to have such an instructor, and the fact of graduating under Dr. Wayland would have been a passport to the society of the intelligent. But his Moral Philosophy, which we have for some months been so anxiously expecting, has dispelled our fond hopes, and we must not only cease to recommend Brown University to parents and guardians, but positively dissuade them from sending our young men to that institution, so long as Dr. Wayland shall be its President, or his system of ethics be taught. If Dr. Wayland had desired to clos: the doors of the University against Southeners, he could not have resorted to a more effectual expedient than that chapter of his on personal liberty. Those unfriendly to our domestic institutions have seized upon this effort of a master mind and used it as a battering ram, to beat down opposition and subvert the peculiar policy of the South. Wayland, by this single effort is made the champion of that party, whether he will or not, and he is proclaimed by the ablest editors of religious prints at the North, as the invincible of their party. Shall we send our children to one who will brand their ancestors with immorality and their country with disgrace? To one who will outrage their

"Domestic slavery proceeds," says Dr. Wayland, "upon the principle that the master has a right to control the actions, physical and intellectual, of the slave, for his own, that is, the master's, individual benefit; and, of course, that the happiness of the master, when it comes in competition with the happiness of the slave, extinguishes in the latter the right to pursue it. It supposes, at best, that the rela tion between master and slave is not that which exists between man and man, but is a modification at least of that which exists between man and the brutes.

Now, this manifestly supposes that the two classes of beings are created with dissimilar rights: that the master possesses rights which have never been conceded by the slave; and that the slave has no rights at all over the means of happiness which God has given him, whenever these means of happiness can be rendered available to the service of the master. It supposes that the Creator intended one human being to govern the physical, intellectual, and moral actions of as many other human beings as by purchase he can bring within his physical power; and, that one human being may thus acquire a right to sacrifice the happiness of any number of other human beings, for the purpose of promoting his own.

Slavery thus violates the personal liberty of man as a physical, intellectual, and moral being.

1. It purports to give to the master a right to control the physical labor of the slave, not for the sake of the happiness of the slave, but for the sake of the happiness of the master. It subjects the amount of labor, and the kind of labor, and the remuneration for labor, entirely to the will of the one party, to the entire exclusion of the will of the other party.

2. But if this right in the master over the slave be conceded, there are of course conceded all other rights necessary to insure its possession. Hence, inasmuch as the slave can be held in this condition only while he remains in the lowest state of mental imbecility, it supposes the master to have the right to control his intellectual developement, just as far as may be necessary to secure entire subjection. Thus, it supposes the slave to have no right to use his intellect for the production of his own happiness; but, only to use it in such manner as may conduce to his master's profit.

3. And, moreover, inasmuch as the acquisition of the knowledge of his duty to God could not be freely made without the acquisition of other knowledge, which might, if universally diffused, endanger the control of the master, slavery supposes the master to have the right to determine how much knowledge of his duty a slave shall obtain, the manner in which he shall obtain it, and the manner in which he shall discharge that duty after he shall have obtained a knowledge of it. It thus subjects the duty of man to God entirely to the will of man; and this for the sake of pecuniary profit. It renders the eternal happiness of the one party subservient to the temporal happiness of the other. And this principle is commonly carried into effect in slaveholding countries.

If argument were necessary to show that such a system as this must be at variance with the ordinance of God, it might be easily drawn from the effects which it produces both upon morals and upon national wealth."

We more than concur in the doubt whether further arguments are necessary. But, whether necessary or not, the author proceeds to give them in great force and abundance. His general statement of the argument derivable from Scripture is extremely comprehensive and happy. We think,

feelings, and hold them up to their classmates as violators of the law of God and the rights of man? This Dr. Wayland expressly states. He charges us with the violation of personal liberty, and with transgressing that divine command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Or shall we send them to learn treason against their country, to be suspected when they come home, and be banished from their firesides if their instructor has succeeded? The individual who would send his children with a knowledge of these facts is reckless of consequences.

however, that we shall not be alone in believing that the following paragraph is marred by a flaw, which, we must be pardoned for suspecting, owes its origin to Paley.

"This very course which the Gospel takes on this subject, seems to have been the only one that could have been taken, in order to effect the universal abolition of slavery. The Gospel was designed, not for one race or for one time, but for all races and for all times. It looked not at the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but for its universal abolition. Hence, the important object of its author was, to gain it a lodgment in every part of the known world; so that, by its universal diffusion among all classes of society, it might quietly and peacefully modify and subdue the evil passions of men; and thus, without violence, work a revolution in the whole mass of mankind. In this manner alone could its object, a universal moral revolution, have been accomplished. For, if it had forbidden the evil, instead of subverting the principe; if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to resist the oppression of their master; it would instantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility, throughout the civilized word; 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, aflords 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."

Now, to us, the simple fact, that "the gospel was designed, not for one race or for one time, but for all races and for all times," seems abundantly sufficient to account for its want of express prohibitions, not only of slavery, but of gladiatorial games, duels, lotteries, &c. Its genius is not one of statutory enactment, but of constitutional principle. But to say, that the silence of the gospel on any of these subjects was part of a system of policy, adapted "to gain it a lodgment," is to accuse it of being false to its own professions, and that, in the face of the highest possible testimony to the contrary, in the lives and deaths of its first promulgators. What fact is more prominent on every page of the New Testament, than that Christ and his apostles did attack the prejudices of the age in which they lived, in their most sensitive point, and with the least possible reserve in favor of a "lodgment?" Bad as was the slavery of that age, another evil stood before it-atheistic idolatry, a system interwoven with the very frame-work of society, and guarded by every jealous lust of depraved humanity. There was wanting the whole of that ground of regard for God and his retributive justice, upon which we are now enabled to attack minor evils. But did the Apostles manifest any solicitude to pursue a line of attack which should avoid violence, and secure a quiet and peaceful diffusion of their principles? So far from this, we are bold to affirm, that they would have met

less violence, had they preferred to confine themselves to preaching "the unlawfulness of slavery" and teaching the slaves "to resist the oppression of their masters." Let the town-meeting of Ephesus, or, indeed, the whole experience of Paul, (2 Cor. xi. 24-27,) be our witness. How absurd to say that such men waved the direct application of their principles to any subject, that they might shun violence, or gain time for the establishment of their principles. No, they trusted in God. While, for reasons of everlasting obligation, they taught slaves (do) not to resist, they also taught masters to place their relation to their slaves, at once on the footing of justice and equality.*

The following passage is liable to no such objection, and must commend itself to every candid inquirer.

"It is important to remember that two grounds of moral obligation are distinctly recognized in the Gospel. The first is our duty to man as man; that is, on the ground of the relation which men sustain to each other: the second is our duty to man as a creature of God; that is, on the ground of the relation which we all sustain to God. On this latter ground, many things become our duty which would not be so on the former. It is on this ground, that we are commanded to return good for evil, to pray for them that despitefully use us, and when we are smitten on one cheek to turn also the other. To act thus is our duty, not because our fellow-man has a right to claim this course of conduct of us, nor because he has a right to inflict injury upon us, but because such conduct in us will be well pleasing to God. And when God prescribes the course of conduct which will be well pleasing to him, he by no means acknowledges the right of abuse in the injurious person, but expressly declares, vengeance is mine and I will repay it, saith the Lord. Now, it is to be observed, that it is precisely upon this latter ground, that the slave is commanded to obey his master. It is never urged, like the duty of obedience to parents, because it is right; but because the cultivation of meekness and forbearance under injury, will be well pleasing unto God. Thus, servants are commanded to be obedient to their own masters "in singleness of heart as unto Christ;" "doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service as to the Lord and not to men." Eph. vi. 5—7. "Servants are commanded to count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." 1 Tim. vi. 1. "Exhort servants to be obedient to their own masters," &c., "that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." Titus iii. 9. The manner in which the duty of servants or slaves is inculcated, therefore, affords no ground for the assertion, that the Gospel authorizes one man to hold another in bondage, any more than the command to honor the king, when that king was Nero, authorized the tyranny of the emperor; or than the command to turn the other cheek, when one is smitten, justifies the inflictionof violence by an injurious man." p. 226.

We concur with the author, in his further discussion of the duties of masters, that a work on moral philosophy is not the

*The Apostle Paul is so emphatic on this subject, that it is worth while to mark his own language.—Οι κύριοι, τό δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἱσότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε, εἰδότες, ὅτι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον ἐν οὐρανοῖς.—Col. iv. 1.

place to decide the question of fact, whether the slaves are "competent to self government." But we are happy to believe, in the light of facts, that they are qualified to be impartially governed by the same laws with the rest of the community, better than by any system of special coercion. And these facts, we are happy to say, are fast gaining notoriety and credence, so that we must be permitted to hope that Dr. Wayland's book will pass through few more editions before he will no longer have occasion to say, "As to the question of fact, I do not feel competent to a decision."

Most gladly would we dwell on the many excellencies, every where to be met with, in what we regard as on the whole the richest human gift which has ever been conferred upon the student of Christian morals; but we must close with a single decisive paragraph.

"If the system be wrong, as we have endeavored to show, if it be at variance with our duty both to God and to man, it must be abandoned. If it be asked when, I ask again, when shall a man begin to leave off doing wrong? Is not the answer, immediately? If a man is injuring us, do we ever doubt as to the time when he ought to cease? There is then no doubt in respect to the time when we ought to cease inflicting injury upon others." P. 227.

RADICALISM-IN REPLY TO THE LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL REVIEW.

BY REV. BERIAH GREEN, PRESIDENT OF ONEIDA INSTITUTE.

It may be interesting to our readers to learn, that a few pages of the seventh number of the Literary and Theological Review, the Reverend Editor has devoted to the subject of "Radicalism." Whether the intrinsic worth of his article entitles it to the notice, we design to give it, or not, is a question we shall not stop to discuss. Its claims on other grounds to some attention, we cheerfully admit. The position, which Mr. Woods is permitted to maintain among those goodly people, who are horror struck at the thought of an immediate and thorough reformation in any respect, in our "Political and Ecclesiastical Institutions," gives to his paragraphs the value of an INDEX to what is so often and so significantly called the public sentiment.