of every slave were occupied by a hard-handed and enterprising freeman, the wealth and the power of the country would not be vastly augmented. On this question, quotations from customhouse books have no bearing. To gain light on this question, it is only necessary to inquire, whether any production of slave labor was ever able to compete, in any market, on exactly equal terms, with the same article produced by free labor,-or whether, if a free state and a slave state lie side by side separated only by a river or an imaginary line, and enjoying the same natural advantages, the wealth and prosperity of the former, are not invariably greater than those of the latter.

Mr. Hayne's last point in his defense of slavery is, that "it has never yet produced any injurious effect on individual or national character." Not satisfied with a negative proposition, he introduces the authority of Burke, to illustrate "the operation of this principle, in elevating the sentiments and exalting the principles of the people in slaveholding states." On this part of the subject, Mr. H. would do well to remember, that, according to a fable which he must have read when he was a schoolboy, every man -and the same thing is at least equally true of states and nationscarries his better qualities where they are most open to his own inspection, while his faults and his follies are on the other side, where his neighbors get the fairest view of them; and that therefore there is no subject about which individuals and communities are likely to disagree so widely in opinion, as the subject of each other's "individual or national character." He will find too, on a rigid examination, that although Burke has expressed himself in the paragraph quoted, with exquisite delicacy and beauty of language, the thing itself which he asserts, is at the best, a compliment of rather doubtful import. It is unquestionable that men invested with absolute power, are always of all men most jealous and irritable on the subject of their rights; and this is what we suppose Burke to mean when he says, that "in such a people, the haughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invincible." Mr. Hayne may call this "a pure and holy devotion to liberty," if he pleases; but that "most philosophical of statesmen," on whose authority he relies, refuses to "commend the superior morality of this sentiment," and affirms that it" has, at least, as much of pride as virtue in it." We will not to pursue a train of thought so unlikely to be edifying, but will simply give utterance to what is in our hearts. We do not believe that the world can boast of a people more generous, hospitable, brave and high-minded, than the people of our southern states. Their faults we will not enumerate; they are such faults, as in poor human nature, are ordinarily allied to such better traits of character; they are such faults as the exercise of absolute

power from childhood, inevitably generates. As for the influence of slavery on the moral habits of both the master and the slave, we think its advocates would do well, after the testimony of Mr. Jefferson on the subject, to draw their arguments from other sources.

Mr. Hayne intimates, and the same thing is said by every defender of slavery, that all the restlessness of the slaves, their desire of liberty, the spirit of insurrection that ever and anon breaks out among them, is to be ascribed solely to the northern philanthropists. We might suggest, in explanation of such a phenomenon, causes much nearer at hand. Admitting that negroes have no faculty of "abstraction," equal to the discovery of certain SELF EVIDENT truths, we can imagine that the spirit of liberty which flames so fiercely in the bosoms of their masters, might now and then, by some fatality, communicate itself to the bosom of some particularly susceptible slave. The sultan of Turkey is perhaps as highminded, as quickly alarmed by any thing that seems to invade his rights, as any of the chivalrous citizens of South-Carolina; but if, in his diplomatic controversies, and his proclamations, he should habitually entitle his determination to resist invasion, "the spirit of freedom;" if he should uniformly claim the honors of a "pure and holy devotion to liberty;" if he should contrast the "low, groveling, base and selfish feelings which bind men to the footstool of a despot," with the feelings "which attach them to free institutions;" if he should affirm that his ancestors brought with them from the wilds of Tartary to the throne of Byzantium, " as the most valued of their possessions, an ardent love of liberty;" if in proclaiming his resolve not to endure encroachment, he should say he was bent on "securing the blessings of liberty" to himself and to his posterity; if in hinting how easily "the ardent love of liberty which has always been the most prominent trait in the" Ottoman "character," might be hurried into war, he should wind off his manifesto with the proud exclamation, "You must pardon something to the spirit of liberty;"-how long would his subjects be in learning the difference between liberty and slavery? And how difficult would it be in such a case, to account for a spirit of restlessness breakiug out occasionally in plots and partial insurrections?

But the arguments in defense of slavery are not all which we feel bound to notice. As we have already intimated, the honorable senator has chosen to pause in his defense for the sake of hurling a paragraph of vulgar calumny against the spirit of benevolent enterprise, which at the present day, is pervading, and is rousing to effort, every division and denomination of the christian church. That our readers may see how a statesman in the senatechamber of a christian people, speaks of the spirit of christian benevolence, we subjoin the paragraph, omitting only one or two

pitiful political sneers with the application of which, we have nothing to do.

There is a spirit, which, like the father of evil, is constantly walking to and fro about the earth, seeking whom it may devour,' it is the spirit of FALSE PHILANTHROPY. The persons whom it possesses, do not indeed throw themselves into the flames, but they are employed in lighting up the torches of discord throughout the community. Their first principle of action is to leave their own affairs, and neglect their own duties, to regulate the affairs and duties of others. Theirs is the task to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, of other lands, while they thrust the naked, famished, and shivering beggar, from their own doors;-to instruct the heathen, while their own children want the bread of life. When this spirit infuses itself into the bosom of a statesman, (if one so possessed can be called a statesman,) it converts him at once into a visionary enthusiast. **** It is a spirit which has long been busy with the slaves of the South; and is even now displaying itself in vain efforts, to drive the government from its wise policy in relation to the Indians. It is this spirit which has filled the land with thousands of wild-and visionary projects, which can have no effect but to waste the energies and dissipate the resources of the country. pp. 27, 28.

Here is no equivocation, no indefiniteness in the application of the censure. What is said about the Indians, and about efforts "to instruct the heathen," shows clearly enough where the malediction was designed to fall. When he speaks of "the spirit of false philanthropy," he means the spirit which is now moving all the churches of Europe and America, to great and growing efforts for the diffusion of light and happiness throughout the world.

Who is the honorable Robert Y. Hayne? What does he profess to be an infidel or a christian? Is he an avowed and shameless hater of religion? Is he of the school of Thomas Paine and Frances Wright? Or is he, by profession, of the school of Jesus and his apostles? Whatever he may be, this is true; exalted by the suffrages of a nominally christian people to a high place of honor and influence, he has lifted up his voice in that high place to traduce, and by falsehood to defame the great body of evangelical christians of every name in the nation. We say, by falsehood, direct, inexcusable falsehood; for even if it should be pleaded that he believed the stale calumnies which he was repeating, such a plea in such a case, has no validity, whatever may be its truth. The case is such, that if he knew no better, he ought to have known, and his ignorance or error is no excuse. What name describes the assertion that the supporters of foreign missions and of kindred benevolent efforts " are employed in lighting up the torches of discord throughout the community?" What is it to say that "their first principle of action is to leave their own affairs, and neglect their own duties, to regulate the affairs and duties of othWhat is it to say that "they thrust the naked, fam

ers?"

ished and shivering beggar from their own doors?" What is it to say that they are making efforts to instruct the heathen," while their own children want the bread of life?" What is, notoriously, the character of these assertions? What the plain English term for such figures of speech? Can the plea of ignorance or error afford one shadow of excuse to any intelligent and high-minded man, who will lend his name and authority to secure currency for calumnies like these;―calumnies at once so vile, and so palpably untrue? Are the projects with which benevolence has filled the land, "wild and visionary?" Can they "have no effect but to waste the energies and dissipate the resources of the country?" What are these projects? One is the Bible Society, which proposes to supply the country with printed copies of the word of God. Is this a wild and visionary project? Another is the Sunday School Union, which proposes to establish in every town and village, a Sunday school, with its library and its multiplied salutary influences. Is this a wild and visionary project? Another is the Home Missionary Society, which lends efficient aid to secure for many a village of the growing west, the blessings of permanent christian institutions. Is this a wild and visionary project? Another is the Education Society, which, seeing the many evils that result where ignorant and fanatical men rush uncalled into the ministry of the gospel, is striving to train, in colleges, and schools of theological science, a pious, learned, and efficient clergy. Is this a wild and visionary project? Another is the Foreign Missionary Society, which proposes-by the same process which was so successful in the days of the apostles, by the same process which, in our own day has already spread over so many islands of the Pacific, the beauty of a new creation,* and which has so often taught the barbarian to abandon the weapons of savage war for the implements of industry, and to substitute for the fierce war song, the hymn of christian praise,by the same process which, when it has been fairly and perseveringly tried, has never failed of success-to send out to lands of barbarism and moral death, that pure and spiritual religion to which our own country is indebted for whatever makes her "the glory of all lands." Is this a wild and visionary project? Mr. Hayne may affirm that it is. But philosophy contradicts him; experience contradicts him; and to the enterprise at which he thus sneers, the book of God gives its sanction, and imparts the infallible assurance of an ultimate and universal triumph.

But Mr. Hayne is an economist, and exclaims against the "waste" and "dissipation," which these things involve. How does the printing of bibles and Sunday school books-how does the education

*We would refer Mr. Hayne, for some information on this subject, to an article in the [London] Quarterly Review, No. lxxxv. p. 1—54.

of pious young men for the ministry-how does the establishment of churches and the settlement of pastors-how does even the sending abroad of the blessings of the gospel, waste the energies or dissipate the resources of the country? Would it be better if the money contributed for these objects were expended for objects of luxury and vice? It has appeared to our poor judgment, that the tide of luxury, and of vice indigenous and imported, which the rapid growth of our wealth is spreading over the land, is doing more to waste our energies and to bring ruin on this nation, than Sunday schools, and bibles, and even foreign missions can ever do.

If we have seemed to use language too strong and direct, we have only to say in vindication, that when a man of elevated standing utters such calumnies, not against any one sect, or any one institution, but against all the benevolent efforts of all christendom, we have no idea that duty requires us to speak mincingly. Where is the denomination of christians which has not embarked in all these "wild and visionary projects?" Where is the denomination of christians on which this honorable senator has not attempted in this paragraph to throw insult and dishonor?

ART. X.-REVIEW OF BELLAMY ON THE PERMISSION OF SIN. The Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin. BY JOSEPH BELLAMY, D. D. New-York, 1811.

In a former part of this number, we entered on an examination of the writings of Dr. Bellamy. To the view there presented of his work on True Religion, we had originally subjoined a few remarks, on his treatise respecting the permission of sin. But as this subject has of late excited new interest in the public inind, we have thought best, upon more reflection, to give to those remarks the distinctness and prominence of a separate discussion.

Dr. Bellamy, in accounting for God's permission of sin, has not adhered throughout to any one hypothesis. On the contrary, he has at different times, reasoned on at least two different hypotheses, according to the nature of the difficulties, which were presented to his view. These are

1. That sin is the necessary means of the greatest good.

2. That the system or plan which God adopted (not the sin which was incidental to it, as a certain consequence,) is the necessary means of the greatest good.*

*The term incidental is here used in the sense assigned to it by Johnson, viz. "falling in beside the main design." It implies no uncertainty as to the result, for such a" falling in" may be uniform as well as fortuitous." In using the term on a former occasion, we, in common with Dr. Taylor, guarded against any misconception on this point, by stating that "all events, sin not excepted, take place according to the eternal purpose of God." Yet occasion has been VOL. II. 67