tematic ethical writers, each separate habit of virtue or vice. New and higher motives were implanted, a more exalted and perfect example was proposed for imitation, a loftier standard of morality was established, rewards more glorious and punishments more appalling were held out, and supernatural aid was bestowed, and the Christian, with these incentives and advantages, is left to apply for himself in each case, the principles of the gospel. He is left to act at his own discretion, according to the dictates of his conscience; to cultivate Christian dispositions, and thus become a law unto himself." Nay, still farther, care was taken in the revelation of the New Testament, to guard the disciple of Christ against expecting a system of precise moral enactments. For this reason, the precepts which are given are sometimes contradictory, as when we are commanded to "let our light shine before men," and also, "not to let our left hand know what our right hand doeth." Sometimes the literal precept was extravagant and irrational, as when we are commanded "to pluck out a right eye," or cut off a right hand." Sometimes the precept was in itself insignificant, as when we are told to wash each other's feet." In all these and similar cases, it is plain that we are taught to disregard the precept itself; and looking beyond it, to adopt as the rule of our universal conduct, the principle which it is evidently intended to inculcate. If any one has any doubts on the mode of New Testament instruction in this respect, I beg him to read the essay to which I have referred.

66

I think it must appear obvious to every reflecting mind, that this is the only method in which a

universal revelation, which should possess any moral stringency, could have been given, for all coming time. A simple precept, or prohibition, is of all things the easiest to be evaded. Lord Eldon used to say, that "no man in England could construct an act of Parliament through which he could not drive a coach and four." We find this to have been illustrated by the case of the Jews in the time of our Saviour. The Pharisees, who prided themselves on their strict obedience to the letter, violated the spirit of every precept of the Mosaic code. Besides, suppose the New Testament had been intended to give us a system of precepts, there were but two courses which could have been adopted. The first would have been to forbid merely every wrong practice of that particular time, the second to go forward into futurity and forbid every wrong practice that could ever afterwards arise. If the first mode had been adopted, every wrong practice that might in after ages arise would have been unprovided for, and of course unforbidden. If the second had been adopted, the New Testament would have formed a library in itself more voluminous than the laws of the realm of Great Britain. Both of these courses would have been manifestly absurd. The only remaining scheme that could be devised is, to present the great principles of moral duty, to reveal the great moral facts on which all duty must rest, the unchangeable relations in which moral creatures stand to each other, and to God, and without any precepts in each particular case, to leave the course of conduct to be determined by the conscience of every individual acting in the presence

of the all-seeing Deity. To illustrate the practical difference of these modes of teaching, I ask, is there any danger that either you or I, acting in the spirit of the principle which teaches us, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, would violate any law of the United States? We have lived many years without even knowing what these laws are, and yet have never violated one of them. But yet the precepts which are intended to guard against such a violation are the study of a lifetime; and the number of them is annually increasing, and must increase, in order to render our rights in any

manner secure.

Now such being the mode in which it was necessary to make known to men the moral laws of the New Testament, it is plain that to this mode, the instruction in respect to slavery must be subjected. If this form of wrong had been singled out from all the others, and had alone been treated preceptively, the whole system would have been vitiated. We should have been authorized to inquire why were not similar precepts in other cases delivered; and if they were not delivered, we should have been at liberty to conclude that they were intentionally omitted, and that the acts which they would have forbidden are innocent. I cannot but consider this as a sufficient reason why no precept should be given on the subject of slavery, and why, like almost every other, certainly like every other social wrong, it should be left to the results of the inculcation of a moral principle.

There seem to me other reasons also why this mode of instruction should be adopted in this particular instance.

1. The reason of the duty to abolish slavery is found in the moral relations and responsibilities of a human being. But these moral relations and responsibilities were at this time wholly unknown. This I have attempted to illustrate in my last letter. It was certainly reasonable to postpone the inculcation of the duty until the truths were promulgated on which this duty was founded. The fundamental truths of the Declaration of Independence had, during the previous struggles of our colonial history, become fully known and universally acknowledged. On the ground of these, our Fathers declared our connection with the mother country severed. But of what use would have been such a declaration if these principles had never been either promulgated or understood. Every one sees that such an act would have been inoperative and absurd.

2. Again, slavery, at the time of our Saviour and his Apostles, was a social evil. It was established by law. The whole community enforced the law on every individual. The master could only manumit such a portion of his slaves as the law permitted. He could go to no other country and there set them free, for the whole civilized world was under the same dominion. If he set them free contrary to law, they were liable to be reduced again to a worse bondage than that from which he had delivered them. Hence it was manifest that the system could only be abolished by a change in the public mind, by inculcating those principles which would show the whole community that it was wrong, and induce them, from a general conviction of its moral evil, to abandon it.

I can also perceive other practical benefits of

great importance which would necessarily attend this method of abolishing slavery. To have incul cated the right of the slave to freedom, and the duty of the master to liberate him, absolutely and immediately, while both were ignorant of the principles on which the precept was founded, and wholly uninfluenced by these principles, must have led to a universal social war. The masters would not have obeyed the precept, the slaves would have risen in rebellion. This attempt had been frequently made before, and had been put down by horrible bloodshed. There is no reason to suppose that the same result would not have taken place again. Myriads of unarmed and ignorant slaves could never have stood the shock of the Roman legions, commanded by able generals and supported by the wealth of the empire. Hence, to have adopted the method of abolishing slavery by precept, would have defeated the great object in view, and rendered the condition of the slave worse than before. Such, in all cases except in insular situations, has been the result of servile insurrections.

The result of the abolition of slavery by the inculcation of the principles of the Gospel would be the reverse of all this. By teaching the master his own accountability, by instilling into his mind the mild and humanizing truths of Christianity; by showing him the folly of sensuality and luxury, and the happiness derived from industry, frugality, and benevolence, it would prepare him of his own accord to liberate his slave, and to use all his influence towards the abolition of those laws by which slavery was sustained. By teaching the slave his value and his responsibility as a man, and subject