sion to do an act, while you inculcate upon him principles which forbid it, for the sake of teaching him to be governed by principles rather than by any direct enactment. In such a case you would expect him to obey the principle, and not avail himself of the permission. So in the present instance, were the permission proved, we, as moral creatures of God, would be bound by the principles which controlled it.

But if no such permission was ever given, if, on the question of right, the New Testament has never uttered an approving syllable, then we are left entirely to the direction of the principle; and what this principle is I have endeavored to show.

But why was this mode of teaching adopted? This question must be reserved for the next letter. I am, my dear brother, yours with every sentiment of affection,

THE AUTHOR OF THE MORAL SCIENCE.

LETTER VII.

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D.

MY DEAR BROTHER

In my last letter I endeavored to illustrate the manner in which I suppose the New Testament to have prohibited the existence of domestic slavery. It is not by any precept forbidding it, but by the inculcation of such truths respecting the character, the value, and the responsibility of man, and

his relation to his fellow-man and to his Maker, as are utterly inconsistent with the institution. The next question which naturally occurs is this, why was this mode of expressing the divine will adopted? This inquiry I propose to consider in the present letter. I fear that this correspondence is becoming wearisome by its length, and shall, therefore, in the remarks that follow, study the utmost brevity.

You will perceive at once, that I am by no means obliged to reply to this inquiry. If such is proved to have been the method chosen by Omniscient Wisdom, we all concede that it must have been chosen for the best possible reason.

The

fact is all that we need be anxious to discover. Nevertheless, if we are able to show probable reasons for the course adopted by inspiration, it may anticipate various objections that might otherwise suggest themselves.

I remark then in the first place; this mode of teaching is, in all respects, conformable to that universally adopted by the Saviour and his apostles. In the words of Archbishop Whately,* "It was no part of the scheme of the gospel revelation to lay down any thing approaching to a complete system of moral precepts-to enumerate every thing that is enjoined or forbidden by our religion, nor again to give a detailed general description of Christian duty or to delineate, after the manner of sys

* Whately's Essays, vol. 2, p. 263: London, 1833. See this whole subject treated in a masterly manner in the essay on "the mode of conveying moral precepts in the New Testament." Like every thing else from the pen of this great. and good man, this essay is full of the "seeds of things."

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 super. natural 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

many

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

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