the punishment, even in cases of murder, is generally a mere pecuniary fine, or temporary imprisonment. In the third place, we find laws assuming the possibility that the slave may "come to his death by moderate correction!" In the fourth place, we find, as already stated, enactments which authorize "whipping or beating with a horse whip, cowskin, switch, or small stick, putting irons on, and imprisoning." We find also, a vagueness in the laws, in their prohibiting "unusual" punishments, though a "moderate correction," may cause death! In the fifth place, we find laws which forbid any slave or any free person of color, male or female, under any pretext, to lift a finger againt any white person, on pain of death, even in defence of life itself, or for the prevention of outrages worse than murder. Finally, we see the interference even of white persons held in awe by enactments, as before quoted, punishing with imprisonment and even death at the discretion of the court, for a second offence, any free white citizen who "from the box, bench, stage, pulpit, or in any other place, or in conversation, shall make use of any language, signs, or actions having a tendency to produce discontent among free colored people, or insubordination among the slaves." Who does not see that enactments like these must render it both hazardous and odious for a white man to interfere or make himself active in bringing to trial or justice the slave masters suspected or known to have committed outrages on their slaves? Who does not know that such outrages are common, and that interference and punishment are rare? And where, now, we ask, is the "kind treatment" and the Christian deportment that can justify any man in holding human beings under this tenure? The good man commits no murder. Does he commit no outrage? Does he never use the lash or allow it to be used? "Oh! but that is necessary, sometimes;" he says! Yes, and therefore the system is sin; and even your slaveholding is sin. For free and honestly rewarded laborers do not need stripes. But you commit no murder! What if it be so. You hold human beings in a condition in which any other white man who pleases, your overseer or your neighbor, may mutilate or murder them with impunity and without danger, except perhaps the danger that you will sue him at the law, for the loss of your property, or the labor of your working animals.

Have you any right to hold human beings in such a condition, and subjected to such laws? No: You have not. You may plead that if you do not commit this great wickedness, somebody else will: in other words, that if you should repent and be forgiven, your neighbors might possibly sin on, and be punished. Be it so. It stands you in hand to escape God's judgments yourself, and to take care that your example does not lure your neighbor to ruin. "Be not partakers in other men's sins"!

Such are the chief outlines of American slavery. It is a definition furnished by its own code. We infer from it—

1. The folly of reasoning on American slavery from ancient patriarchal Jewish servitude, which comprised neither of its essential features. Did Abraham hold servants by a tenure which transfomed men to mere things? immortal souls to "goods and chattels ?" Which blotted out the moral goverment of God, annulled his laws? forbid his "worship"? proscribed "mental instruction"? put asunder whom God had joined together, repealed the 5th and 7th commandments of the decalogue? compelled promiscuous concubinage? forbade the reading of God's Book? withheld the laborer's hire? provided for the pursuit and re-capture of fugitives? and left the life of the servant without the common protection extended to other persons? or are features like these to be found in the enactments of Moses? No. The adoption in this country, of the laws of Moses, respecting servants, would be equivalent to the immediate abolition of the entire American Slave system! The measure would sweep away at once, every fundamental fact in the existence of which the American slave system consists.

2. We infer the irrelevancy and futility of every objection that can be urged in defence or palliation of slavery; or against the doctrine and duty of immediate emancipation, or against the efforts and measures of abolitionists.

It is said that mere slaveholding is not, in itself, sin: that it may be either sinful or innocent according to the temper and conduct of the master, in his treatment of his slaves, and his motive for holding them. But there is no such thing as the innocent holding of human beings under the tenure of the American slave code. That code is itself, a complicated system of legalized sin :-mischief framed by a law! Every slaveholder under that code, partakes and

sanctions the sin.--What 'treatment' can atone for such complacency in sin? And what can be meant by 'kind treatment' which holds human beings in such a condition? Is it 'kind treatment' because as mere animals, they are not ill-fed nor over-worked? Is it kind treatment to be held "entirely subject to the will of the master?" To be "held and taken to be goods and chattels, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever."-Kind treatment' to be denied the right of living and acting under God's government? 'Kind treatment' to be transferred to the absolute government of a human master who may sell you into the unlimited power of any other master whether wise or foolish, whether christian or infidel, whether drunken or sober? "Kind treatment' to hold all your religious privileges at the mercy or caprice of this individual! How would you like the kind treatment,' for yourself and children, of being held under such a code? A code which permits your neighbor to sell your wife and children from you when he pleases? Kind treatment' that robs you daily of your daily earnings! Kind treatment' that forbids your emerging into a condition in which your life and limbs, and the chastity of your wife and daughter can be protected, by the same laws which protect your neighbors ?-Yet this is the 'kind treatment' which every American slaveholder, of necessity, extends to his every slave, so long as he withholds emancipation, however kind he may be, in other respects. And what can be said in favor of the motive of any Christian master, in holding a human being, under this kind treatment' and under this code? What motive can there be, for such a course, that is not, at the bottom, a selfish and sordid one? From what quarter, or in view of what considerations can a holy motive be drawn for holding a human being under such a code? Is it the good of the individual? Incredible! What? For the good of a moral being to be held as a mere thing? To be transferred from his accountability to God, to the capricious control of an irresponsible human master? For his good, to live under a code which denies his religious rights, which authorizes his neighbor to require him to commit sin—which holds his domestic relations at the mercy of another-which enforces his toil without an equivalent-and leaves his life without protection! All this, for the sole benefit of the

slave! Merciful and most conscientious oppressor ! Let us be favored with thy plea.-It is this."If the slave should be freed by me, the cruel laws (against which I have never remonstrated nor voted) would instantly apprehend and sell him again into slavery, to a less kind and christianlike master."-In other words "If I should leave off sinning, somebody else would sin the more greedily: and so I must continue to oppress my neighbor a little, lest some one else should oppress him still more."-We must search further for the pure motive of holding any human being in the condition of an American slave! Can that motive be supplied by the beneficent and reforming influences of such an example, on the mass of mankind? Can it be found in the honor it confers on the Christian profession-on the support it gives to the sanctions of pure religion-on the revenue of glory it secures to our one Father and Master in Heaven! Alas! No! The pretense is all false and hollow putrid and rotten to the core. It abides not the scrutiny of impartial men. How then can it stand before the bar of the all-seeing God?

A REVIEW.-THE PRINCIPLES OF REFORM.

BY REV. BERIAH GREEN, PRESIDENT OF ONEIDA INSTITUTE.

ART. X. On Political and Ecclesiastical Reform. Lit. and Theol. Review, No. VI. THE divisions which prevail among professed christians on questions, touching the very vitals of our civil and religious institutions, seem sadly to perplex and sorely to try those confiding brethren, who have been accustomed without hesitation or fear, to tread in the foot-prints of "great and good men." The authority, on which they used to rely, they begin to regard as a feeble, perhaps a broken staff. The movements of their "great and good men," embarrass and distract them. The objects, plans and methods, which in some cases enlist the feelings and call forth the exertions of one, another regards with abhorrence. Such divisions present a problem peculiarly dark and difficult to those who have rather consented to be swayed by names, than chosen to be controlled by principles.

We know of one way only, in which minds thus embarrassed, can hope to find effectual relief. A careful survey,

and thorough examination of the principles of their accredited teachers and guides, may enable them to form a just estimation of the right and worth of their authority. The tendency and character of an action or habit, in itself doubtful, may, when contemplated in the light of the principle from which it proceeded, appear clear and certain. The conduct of any man, great or small, when thus examined becomes intelligible. On any question of great practical importance, where professed philanthropists are divided, we have to acknowledge a public benefit in any fair exposition of his principles, which a man of high authority and commanding influence may see fit to make. And if we are sure, that he presents the views and opinions of a large and respectable portion of the community, to which we belong, we cannot but feel that he has laid us under increased obligations. We cannot but thank him for the light which he has kindly shed upon the character and movements of those professed friends of humanity, who, while they claimed our sympathy and cooperation in their designs, left us in doubt of the justness and strength of their claims. We are indebted to him for the removal of our doubts. We now see, with whom, we are invited to act; and what they are intent upon doing. Under just such obligations as have now been described, has the editor of the Literary and Theological Review laid us in a paper "on Political and Ecclesiastical Reform." We will not be so ungrateful, as to withhold the thanks to which he is manifestly entitled. The train of thought, to which, as a part of his readers, he invites our attention, is certainly deeply interesting and highly instructive. If we are not greatly gratified, we certainly must be much obliged, with the annunciation of maxims, principles, doctrines;-with the description of objects, designs, methods;-with the development of spirit, which Mr. Woods makes in the article just alluded to; and in which, we suppose, he coincides with a large majority of those who assist in supporting his journal. The article of Mr. Woods, whose title we have given, deserves, we think, an attentive perusal, and a thorough examination. On some of the things which it contains, we shall suggest a few thoughts to assist our readers, so far as we are able, to form a just estimation of the aims, plans, spirit and exertions, which on high authority, are commended to our consideration, confidence and adoption.