would be supplied by the product of their individual labour. We need not ask which condition is most "at variance with the ordinances of God!"

Dr. Wayland has retained, for his last witness, the old trite charge that slavery impoverishes the soil; that, therefore, it constantly "migrates from the old to new regions," "where alone the accumulated manure of centuries" can 66 sustain a system at variance with the laws of nature." "Hence," he says, "slavery in this country is acknowledged to have impoverished many of our most valuable districts."

We are not aware how far Dr. Wayland has founded this statement upon facts drawn from his own observation. Has he done so at all; or has he, carelessly and without reflection, adopted it from the assertions of others notoriously destitute of ability to form an opinion with accuracy, or else too deeply prejudiced to give their opinion any value? Does he wish us to infer that the plough and the hoe, in the hands of a slave, communicate some peculiar poison to the soil; and by reason of which "the ground shall not henceforth yield her strength?" Will he please explain how the effect of which he complains is produced? If he finds it merely in the mode of cultivation, we then inquire whether the same mode would not produce the same effect, even if the plough and hoe were held by freemen? If so, then it is evident that "the impoverishment of many of our most valuable districts" is not the result of slavery, but of a bad mode of cultivation. Or, will the doctor contend that if those valuable districts had been cultivated by free hired men, the evils from negligence in the labourer would be remedied? "He that is a hireling fleeth, because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep." John x. 13.

Dr. Wayland will not deny that the "heathen round about," of whom the Jews were permitted to buy slaves, were a slave-holding people; but we have no account that their country was impoverished thereby. The Canaanites, whom the Israelites drove out from Palestine, were slaveholders; yet the country was represented as very fertile, even to "overflowing with milk and honey." The Danites found "Laish very good," Judg. xviii. 9. And the children of Judah "found fat pasture and good" about Gedar. 1 Chron. iv. 40. "For they of Ham had dwelt there of old!"

For many centuries, slavery extended over every part of Europe, yet history gives us no account of the ruin of the soil. In Greece and Rome, the numbers of slaves were extended to millions beyond

any number these States possess; but their historians failed to discover their destructive influence on the fertility of those countries.

Before the impoverishment of the soil can, with any force, be adduced as proof against slavery, it must be proved to be a necessary consequence; which, we apprehend, will be a difficult labour, since the sluggishness and the idleness of the Canaanites, and of the nations round about, left their country overflowing with milk and honey, abounding in fat pastures and good, notwithstanding their population were, to a large extent, slaves;-since, also, the servile cultivation of the soil in Greece and Rome did not impoverish it; and since slavery, which everywhere abounded in Europe, never produced that effect.

If Dr. Wayland will discover the legitimate cause of this impoverishment of the soil in the Slave States, and teach the planters a better mode of cultivation, we doubt not he will receive their thanks, and deserve well of his country, as a public benefactor.

LESSON VII.

DR. WAYLAND says:

P. 209. "The moral precepts of the Bible are diametrically opposed to slavery."

*

P. 210. "The moral principles of the gospel are directly subversive of the principles of slavery." * "If the gospel be diametrically opposed to the principles of slavery, it must be opposed to the practice of slavery; and, therefore, were the principles of the gospel fully adopted, slavery could not exist."

Dr. Wayland having conceived himself to possess a distinct faculty, which reveals to him, with unerring truthfulness, whatever is right and all that is wrong, may be expected to consider himself fully able to decide, in his own way, what instruction God intended to convey to us, on the subject of slavery, through the books of Divine revelation; yet, we cannot but imagine that St. Paul would be somewhat astonished, if presented with the doctor's decision for his approval, and that he would cry out:

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his

own master, he standeth, or falleth: yea, he will be holden up; for God is able to make him stand."

But although we cannot boast of possessing this unerring moral guide, which, of late years, seems to be so common a possession among that class who ardently desire us to believe that they have monopolized all the knowledge of God's will on the subject of slavery, yet we may venture a remark on the logical accuracy of Dr. Wayland's argument.

It seems to be a postulate in his mind that the gospel is diametrically opposed to, and subversive of, the principles of slavery. We do not complain of this syllogistic mode; but we do complain, as we have done before, that his postulate is not an axiom, a selfevident truth, or made equal thereto by the open and clear declarations of Christ or his apostles. This defect cannot be remedied by ever so many suppositions, nor by deductions therefrom. Nor will those of a different faith from Dr. Wayland, on the subject of "conscience," or "moral sense," be satisfied to receive the declarations of this his "distinct faculty" as the fixed decrees of eternal truth. His assertions and arguments may be very convincing to those who think they possess this distinct faculty, especially if their education and prejudices tend to the same conclusion.

But if what President Wayland says about slavery be true, then to hold slaves is a most heinous sin; and he who does so, and never repents, can never visit Paul in heaven. He necessarily is placed on a parallel with the thief and robber; and Dr. Channing has been bold enough to say so.

But has Paul ever hinted to us any such thing as that the holding of slaves is a sin? Yet he gives us instruction on the subject and relations of slavery. What excuse had St. Paul for not telling us what the Rev. Dr. Wayland now tells us, if what he has told us be true? And if it be true, what are we to think of Paul's verity, when he asserts that he has "not shunned to declare all the counsel of God?"

Did Jesus Christ ever hint such an idea as Dr. Wayland's? What are we to understand, when he addresses God, the Father, and says, "I have given unto them the words thou gavest me, and they have received them?" What are we to deduce from his remark on a slaveholder, and who notified him of that fact, when he says to his disciples, "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel?" What impression was this remark calculated to produce on the minds of the disciples? Does Dr.

Wayland found his assertion on Luke xvii. 7-10? or does he agree with Paley that Christ privately condemned slavery to the apostles, and that they kept such condemnation secret to themselves, to prevent opposition to the introduction of Christianity, and left the most wicked sin of slave-holding to be found out by a mere innuendo? Or does Dr. Wayland claim, through the aid of his distinct moral faculty infallibly teaching him the truth, to have received some new light on the subject of slavery, which the FATHER deemed not prudent to be intrusted to the SON, and, therefore, now more lucid and authoritative than what was revealed to the apostles?

The Archbishop Secker has made a remark which appears to us conclusive, and also exactly to fit the case. In his Fifth Lecture on the Catechism, he says: :

"Supposing the Scripture a true revelation, so far as it goes; how shall we know, if it be a full and complete one too, in all things necessary? I answer: Since our Saviour had the Spirit without measure, and the writers of Scripture had as large a measure of it as their commission to instruct the world required, it is impossible that, in so many discourses concerning the terms of salvation as the New Testament contains, they should all have omitted any one thing necessary to the great end which they had in view. And what was not necessary when the Scripture was completed, cannot have become so since. For the faith was, once for all, delivered to the saints,' Jude 3; and other foundation can no man lay,' 1 Cor. iii. 11, than what was laid then. The sacred penmen themselves could teach no other doctrine than Christ appointed them; and he hath appointed no one since to make addition to it."

But it may be proper to take some further notice how the author of these "Elements" attempts to prove the truth of the proposi tion that "the moral precepts of the Bible are diametrically opposed to slavery." He says, "God can make known to us his will, either directly or indirectly."

He may, in express terms, command or forbid a thing; this will be directly; or he may command certain duties, or impose certain obligations, with which some certain course of conduct is inconsistent; in which case the inconsistent course of conduct will be indirectly forbidden.

We have not followed Dr. Wayland's exact words, because we found them somewhat confused, and rather ambiguous. We prefer

to have the case clearly stated, and we then accept the terms, and repeat the question, "Has God imposed obligations on man which are inconsistent with the existence of domestic slavery?"

In proof that he has, Dr. Wayland presents the Christian duty "to preach the gospel to all nations and men, without respect to circumstances or condition." We agree that such is our duty, so far as we may have the power; and it appears to us strange how that duty can interfere with the existence of slavery, because the practical fact is, slavery brings hundreds of thousands of negroes into a condition whereby the duty may be performed, and many thereby do come to some knowledge of the gospel, who would, otherwise, have none.

Every Christian slaveholder feels it to be his duty. Is it denied that this duty is ever performed?

But if it is incompatible with the institution of slavery for the slave to be taught Christianity, then Christianity and slavery can never co-exist in the same person. Therefore, Dr. Wayland must prove that no slave can be a Christian, before this argument can have weight.

The man who owns a slave has a trust; he who has a child has one also. In both cases the trustee may do as he did who "dug in the earth and hid his lord's money." We cheerfully deliver them up to the lash of Dr. Wayland.

The author of the "Elements of Moral Science" next presents the marriage contract, and seems desirous to have us suppose that its obligations are incompatible with slavery. His words are

"He has taught us that the conjugal relation is established by himself; that husband and wife are joined together by God; and that man may not put them asunder. The marriage contract is a contract for life, and is dissoluble only for one cause, that of conjugal infidelity. Any system that interferes with this contract, and claims to make it any thing else than what God has made it, is in violation of his law."

This proposition is bad; it is too verbose to be either definite or correct. There are many things that will interfere with the provisions of this proposition, and yet not be in violation of the laws of God. Suppose one of President Wayland's pupils has married a wife, and yet commits a crime. He is arrested, and the president is his judge. When about to pronounce sentence of imprisonment for life, the pupil reads to his judge the foregoing paragraph, and argues that he cannot receive such sentence, because it will inter