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.

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. I 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 pre sume, consider that this toleration is universal; and, if so, that slavery is right and proper everywhere, 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

Now I do not see that the scope of these passages can be misunderstood. They teach patience, meekness, fidelity, and charity-duties which are obligatory on Christians towards all men, and of course towards masters. These duties are obligatory on us towards enemies, because an enemy, like every other man, is a moral creature of God. They are demanded of Christians, because by acting otherwise they would bring reproach upon the cause of Christ. And it is to be observed, that the apostles are in every case careful not to utter a syllable by which they concede the right of the master, but they always add as a reason for these precepts, the relation in which the slave stands to Christ. The fact seems to be simply this. There are certain vices to which ignorant and ill-instructed persons, when laboring for others, are specially liable; such, for instance, are disobedience, lying, purloining, eye-service, and the like. These practices are inconsistent with the Christian character, and the apostles forbid them, referring always to the principles of love and piety which the gospel inculcates. These instructions, then, would have been appropriate (as indeed they are everywhere appropriate at this moment, and just as appropriate to free laborers as slaves) had there been no such institution as slavery in existence. They were therefore appropriate to slaves, who stood in the relation of persons doing service. These precepts seem to me to emanate directly from the principles of Christianity, and hence, in 1 Tim. vi. 3-5, the apostle sternly rebukes those that teach any other doctrine. But in this very rebuke he makes no allusion to the right of

the master over the slave; and boldly exposes the motives of those who would excite insubordination for the sake of their own personal gain. To present this subject in the clearest light, I ask, do our obligations to practise fidelity, honesty, charity, to avoid purloining, lying, eye-service, depend on the justice of the authority which the master claims over the slave? If not, the inculcation of these duties in no manner involves a concession of the claim of the master to that authority. Supposing slavery to be wrong, will this wrong justify a Christian in lying, stealing, deception, or even in rebellion against the authority by which he is unjustly held in bondage?

If this be so, the only foundation for the argument in favor of slavery from the New Testament must be found in the precepts which it addresses to masters. These are as follows:

Ephesians vi. 8: “And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." This passage immediately follows that above quoted from Ephes. vi. 5-8, and merely inculcates reciprocity of duties between master and servant.

Colossians iv. 1: " Masters, render to your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

These precepts simply inculcate on masters the duty of treating the slave as he himself would wish to be treated; and of allowing to him suita. ble means of subsistence. And this is all.

Let us now see the use that is made of these two passages. They are supposed to sanction the