it, seems to me innocent. I go further: in some cases, it may be really demanded," &c.

"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life." Luke xviii. 18.

This man was rich-probably had slaves. Was it inexpedient for the Son of God to have plainly told him of its wickedness? Was not the occasion quite appropriate, if such had been the Saviour's view?

When the keeper of the prison said to Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what shall I do to be saved?" was it inexpedient in them to have mentioned this sin?

When the subject of slavery was mentioned in Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, in Timothy, Titus, and Peter, was it still inexpedient? And in the case of Philemon, "the dearly beloved and fellow-labourer," when Paul was pleading for the runaway slave, in what did the inexpediency consist? When the centurion applied to the Son of God, and boasted that he owned slaves, can we bring forward this paltry excuse?

This doctrine of Paley has been so commonly quoted, let us be excused for presenting a remark from the "Essays," reprinted from the Princeton Review, second series, p. 283:

"It is not by argument that the abolitionists have produced the present unhappy excitement. Argument has not been the cha-. racter of their publications. Denunciations of slave-holding ast man-stealing, robbery, piracy, and worse than murder; consequently vituperation of slaveholders as knowingly guilty of the worst of crimes; passionate appeals to the feelings of the inhabitants of the Northern States; gross exaggerations of the moral and physical condition of the slaves, have formed the staple of their addresses to the public."

P. 286. "Unmixed good or evil, however, in such a world as ours, is a rare thing. Though the course pursued by the abolitionists has produced a great preponderance of mischief, it may incidentally occasion no little good. It has rendered it incumbent on every man to endeavour to obtain, and, as far as he can, to communicate, definite opinions and correct principles on the whole subject. The subject of slavery is no longer one on which men are allowed to be of no mind at all. * * public mind is effectually aroused from a state of indifference; and it is the duty of all to seek the truth, and to speak in kindness, but with decision. * * * We recognise no authoritative rule

* * *

The

of truth and duty but the word of God. * * * Men are too nearly upon a par as to their powers of reasoning, and ability to discover truth, to make the conclusions of one mind an authoritative rule for others." * * *

The subject for consideration is: If the abolitionists are right in insisting that slave-holding is one of the greatest of all sins,that it should be immediately and universally abandoned, as a condition of church communion, or of admission into heaven,-how comes it that Christ and his apostles did not pursue this sin in plain and determined opposition? How comes it that the teachings of the abolitionists, on the subject of slavery, are so extremely different from those of Jesus Christ and his apostles? The mind is forced to the conclusion that, if the abolitionists are right, Jesus Christ and his apostles are wrong! We agree that, if slave-holding is a sin, it should at once be abandoned. The whole subject is resolved to one single question: Is slave-holding, in itself, a crime before God?

The abolitionists say that it is; we assert that it is not; and we look to the conduct of Christ and his apostles to justify our position. Did they shut their eyes to the enormities of a great offence against God and man? Did they temporize with a heinous evil, because it was common and popular? Did they abstain from .even exhorting masters to emancipate their slaves, though an imperative duty, from fear of consequences? Was slavery more deeply rooted than idolatry? or more deeply interwoven with the civil institutions? more thoroughly penetrated through every thing human-their prejudices, literature, hopes, and happiness? Was its denunciation, if a sin, attended with consequences more to be dreaded than death by torture, wild beasts, the crucifix, the fagot, and the flame? Did the apostles admit drunkards, liars, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, robbers, murderers, and idolaters to the Christian communion, and call them "dearly beloved and fellow-labourers?" Did the Son of God ever intimate of any such unrepentant man, that he had "not found so great faith, no, not in Israel?"

What are we then to think of the intellect of that man who shall affirm that Jesus Christ and his apostles classed the slaveholder with the worst of these characters? Yea, what can such a man think of himself? Did the apostles counsel thieves and robbers how they should advisedly conduct themselves in the practice of these crimes? Were those who had been robbed carefully

gathered up and sent back to some known robber, to be robbed again? And, on such occasion, did any of the apostles address such robber in the language of affection, saying, "I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus and toward all saints?"

No one in his senses will deny that the Scriptures condemn injustice, cruelty, oppression, and violence, whether exhibited in the conduct of the master towards his slave or any other person :crime being the same, whether committed in the relation of master and slave, husband and wife, or the monarch and his subjects. It may so happen that great crimes are committed by persons in these relations. But what is the argument worth which asserts it is very wicked to be a schoolmaster, because some schoolmaster whipped his pupil too much, or another not enough, or a third, in an angry, wicked state of mind, has put one to death?

Who has ever asserted that marriage was not a Divine institution, because some in that state live very unhappily together, and others have conspired against the happiness or life of those whom the institution made it their duty to protect?

Dr. Wayland's proposition, when analyzed and freed from verbiage, is this: the teaching of moral principles, subversive of the abuse of a thing, is proof that the teacher is opposed to the thing itself! and, if true, we say, is as applicable to every other institution among men, as to slavery.

LESSON IX.

DR. WAYLAND says, p. 213

"It is important to remember that two grounds of moral obligation are distinctly recognised 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 from us, but oecause such conduct in us will be well-pleasing to God. And when God prescribes the course of conduct which will be wellpleasing 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 man.' Eph. v. 5-7.

"Servants are commanded to count their masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 1 Tim. vi. 1. 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 honour the king, when that king was Nero, authorized the tyranny of the emperor; or the command to turn the other cheek when one was smitten, justifies the infliction of violence by an injurious man."

Added to the foregoing, we find the following note:

"I have retained the above paragraph, though I confess that the remarks of Professor Taylor, of the Union Theological Seminary of Virginia, have led me seriously to doubt whether the distinction, to which it alludes, is sustained by the New Testament." Why then did he retain it?

In his preface to the fourth edition, which is inserted in the present, after expressing his acknowledgments for the criticisms with which gentlemen have favoured him, he says

"Where I have been convinced of error, I have altered the text. Where I have only doubted, I have suffered it to remain; as it seemed profitless merely to exchange one doubtful opinion for another."

We beg to know what doubtful opinion would have been introduced by the deletion of this, which he acknowledges to be doubtful? Why did he not go to the Bible, and inquire of Jesus

Christ and the apostles for advice in such a case? "And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Matt. xiv. 31.

In Matt. xxi. 21, we find that the doubting mind is destitute of Christian power; and the same in Mark xi. 23. Jesus, speaking to his disciples, says to them, Luke xii. 29, "Neither be ye of a doubtful mind." Does any one imagine that Luke would have left any thing in his book that he thought doubtful? But we find in Rom. xiv. 1, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." This surely needs no comment. The poison of doubt is rejected in 1 Tim. ii. 8; and the apostle in Rom. xiv. 23, says, "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." How awful is the condition of him who shall attempt to preach a doctrine, and that an important one too, as the doctrine of the Bible, of which he doubts! A doctrine in which he can have no faith! Who shall say it would not be a palpable attempt to change the meaning and alter the sense of the Scripture from its true interpretation?

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you." Deut. iv. 2.

"But there be some that trouble you, and pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say we now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal. 1. 7-9.

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. * * * For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto those things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life." Rev. xxii. 16–19.

"Every word of God is pure. * * * Add not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Prov. xxx. 5-6. We have not seen the remarks of Professor Taylor; but we can easily imagine that a professor of theology, free from the delirium of abolitionism, would not have found it a difficult labour to prove