its close, to a certain class of lawyers. See pp. 135, 136. He says that "a distinguished advocate, defending a fugitive slave before a court, urged this as a reason why the slave should not be given up that he might be, or would be, sold by his master as soon as he should arrive in a southern state. This would be a proper and commendable motive in defending one not yet proved to be slave; but if urged as a reason why the slave, being proved such, should not be delivered to his master, it expresses, with all its kindness and tenderness, the principles of mob law." Then follows the application. Now we cannot pretend to say that no lawyer has taken this position, for there is no telling what nonsense may be said by some lawyers; but certainly, in all the accounts of fugitive slave cases, we have never met such a statement. We have, however, seen the point, which we suppose our author has misrepresented or caricatured, stated in terms something like this. It has been urged that a fugitive slave should not be delivered up on the same testimony which would be sufficient in the case of a fugitive criminal, because the latter would have a fair trial, after he had been returned to the state from which he had fled; whereas the decision of the commissioner in the case of the alleged slave, would be final. After being carried back, he would not be permitted to go before a court, and prove his freedom, but might be kept or sold by his so-called owner, according to his pleasure. Therefore, the counsel here claimed that no man should be given up as a fugitive slave, without a fair trial, in which he might require the claimant to prove that slavery was a legal institution in the state from which the fugitive had fled; and also that the fugitive was a slave, by testimony of witnesses, under oath; they have also claimed that the fugitive should have ample time to bring witnesses to prove himself a free man, to the satisfaction of a jury of twelve men. We think lawyers deserve praise rather than censure, for urging a ten dollar commissioner to be careful in deciding upon the case of an alleged fugitive, since his decision is without revision; and we rejoice that some of the free states have thrown the safeguard of law around those who are liable to be hurried away from freedom into life-long bondage, under the operation of the infamous fugitive slave law of 1850.

Our readers must have been surprised to find that one who went to the South with such strong anti-slavery sentiments as our author represents himself to have held, in former times, should become such a sudden and thorough convert. It is passing strange that some lingering affection for his former views, and his old associates in the anti-slavery struggle, does not oc

casionally break out. But the change is complete; and he writes just like one who has been an opponent of abolition principles and measures from the beginning. He believes the slaves to be in happy circumstances, compared with other men; he sympathizes with slaveholders, and with southern Christians in their complaints against the enemies of slavery; he calls the latter fanatics and radicals; he speaks contemptuously of the Declaration of Independence; mentions that negroes must and ought to be in a subordinate condition, and assumes that the Bible sanctions slavery. We must give a specimen from page 199, to overcome the incredulity of our readers. "Philemon, traveling with Onesimus, was not annoyed by a vigilance committee of Paul's Christian friends with a habeas corpus to rescue the servant from his master; nor did these friends watch the arrival of ships to receive a fugitive consigned by 'the saints and faithful brethren which were at Colosse,' to the 'friends of the slave,' at Corinth. True, these disciples had not enjoyed the light which the Declaration of American Independence sheds on the subject of human rights. Moses, Paul, and Christ were their authorities on moral subjects." Those who think the Declaration of Independence contrary to such "authorities" as Moses, Paul, and Christ, may see no absurdity in teaching that the Hebrews, when they were slaves themselves slaves in law, and in soul-a poor broken spirited race, were also the owners of slaves at the same time; or, that Moses sanctioned slavery, when he made a law that servantsnot slaves-should not be restored to the master from whom they had fled: or, that Paul, when he directed Philemon to receive Onesimus not as a servant, but as a brother, was really acting on the supposition that the former had a rightful claim to the latter as his slave, and was actually sending back a fugitive slave "to his master, and to a system of slavery under which this fugitive could, if his master required, be put to death;" or, that Christ, when he said, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," and uttered the golden rule, was not an enemy to that system under which one man may hold another as a chattel from the hour of his birth to the moment when he escapes from earthly tyranny into the presence of his God. But the relation of the Bible to slavery, has been elaborately discussed in a former number of our Journal, [see vol. viii, pp. 615-645,] and we leave it here, in order to bring this protracted paper to a close.

Before concluding, however, one question remains. Passing by the long notice of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which will probably survive the criticisms of the thirteenth chapter; and the

childish fault-finding with the conduct of British Christians, with reference to slavery and pro-slavery ministers and churches in the United States; and the covert sneer at Dr. Perkins of Ooroomiah, whose excellent sermon entitled "Our Country's Sin," has been hailed with almost unanimous applause by the Orthodox clergy of New England; we must devote a brief space to the question, "What shall we do?" We must not dissolve the Union, says our author; and in this we agree with him, although the results which he predicts would flow from that event, seem sufficiently absurd. We love the Union because of its glorious history; because its fundamental law was ordained in order "to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty;" and because we believe, with Mr. Madison, that "the idea that there could be property in men," was not admitted into the Constitution.

In the next place, we are told that the slaves must not be emancipated. They cannot be emancipated to remain here. It would be to their misery and destruction. The most disastrous event to the colored people, would be their emancipation to live on the same soil with the whites." To this conclusion, it is not necessary to say, we do not assent. Neither do we see the wisdom of making a partition of our territories between the North and South, as is recommended, so that slavery may take possession of a moiety of them. Again, we must desist from efforts to secure the freedom of those servants who are brought into the free states by their masters; and we must sympathize with those excellent but unfortunate people from whom slaves run away while at our watering places and hydropathic establishments, although, we are told, these servants most dearly love those from whom they flee. It is even hinted on p. 150, that we ought to provide by law, that masters coming from the South may hold their servants as slaves in the free states as long as suits their convenience. Read as follows: "Let our people be appealed to against this injustice and unkindness. Legislation cannot well remedy the evil, especially if its only remedy be the poor donation of leave to stay a few weeks, and no more, with a slave at the North, as some of the free states have enacted. This concession makes visitors from the South feel that they are under obligations to us for that which ought not to be placed on the ground of permission." Of course, then, it ought to be placed on the ground of right, and all legal barriers to the introduction of slavery into the free states be repealed. Mr. Toombs of Georgia, expects the time to come when he can call the roll of his slaves at the foot of Bunker Hill Monument; and it is evident that the author of the

"South-Side View" has no objection. He who, having had his birth in New England, mourns over the deprivations of those who, after bringing their servants into the free states, cannot compel them to return to the condition of endless servitude in the South, has no right to complain if he is written down as guilty of dereliction to the cause of human liberty. But this is not all; for we must cease from all active opposition to slavery, and leave the South in quiet. And we must not demand, as a condition on which we will cease from all agitation of the slavery question, that the South shall put forth its efforts for the emancipation or even the improvement of the slaves. But as the aggressors, we must withdraw, repent, and leave the magnanimous South to do-just what it pleases!

sure.

But enough. It is not possible to expose the errors of this book without a detailed examination of almost every page. We have read it with candor, and treated it with fairness, if not leniency. We are confident that those of our readers who have seen the work will be surprised at the moderation of our cenIt has been our endeavor to forget the author, and to look at the book just as it is. It has two merits; one is the beautiful simplicity of its style; the other, the kindness and Christian feeling it manifests towards the enslaved. But it is almost uniformly erroneous in regard to facts, unreasonable in its censures and complaints respecting the opponents of slavery, unsound in its reasonings, unwise in its suggestions, and mischievous in its tendency. It evinces no generous sympathy with the friends of emancipation; it has ridicule for those whose sensibilities are pained on account of the hard lot of the slaves; it supports the position of the ultra defenders of slavery, that servitude-modified, but servitude still-is the best condition of the negro in this country; it maintains that it is much safer to kill a white man than a negro in Georgia; it is adapted to soothe the consciences of slaveholders; and it was written with the intention of relieving the feelings of those at the North who are grieving because they "remember them that are in bonds as bound with them." That such a book should be written, at any time, by a Northern Clergyman, would be a cause of regret; but its publication at this time, when the contest between freedom and slavery is drawing to its crisis; when the slaveholders are bent on forcing slavery into all our territories, acquiring Cuba, San Domingo, and other regions still, to give predominance to their portion of the Union, compelling the North to recognize their claim to property in their slaves, wherever they may be-in the free states, or on the high seasand even proposing to revive the African slave-trade, has car

ried grief to thousands of kind and Christian hearts. Our own sorrow is the more poignant because this unworthy task has been done by an honored minister of the Orthodox Congregational denomination. If it had been an enemy that had brought this reproach upon us, then we might have been better able to bear it; but as it is the work of one of our own respected guides, our grief is mingled with shame. Viewing the book in this light, and regarding it as a deliberate attempt to cause a reaction against the strong anti-slavery feeling and purpose evoked by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, we have given it an extended examination, and endeavored to show how hazardous it is for a flying traveler through the South, to undertake the task of allaying the anti-slavery agitation, and changing evil into good, by giving the results of his necessarily superfi

cial observations.

In taking leave of the subject, we congratulate Dr. Adams on his return to a line of authorship in which he is unsurpassed. His "Christ a Friend," just issued from the press, will be read with interest and profit, when this unblest volume shall have been forgotten, or will be remembered only with regret.

ART. VI.-REVIVALS OF RELIGION.

Revivals of Religion. National Preacher, January-March, 1841. By Rev. ALBERT BARNES.

Lectures on Revivals of Religion. By Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY. Revivals of Religion. Book V, Chap. VII, of Baird's Religion in America. By Prof. C. A. GOODRICH, D. D.

Spiritual Economy of Revivals of Religion.
Nurture. By HORACE BUSHNELL, D. D.

From Christian

The Union of the Holy Spirit and the Church in the conversion of the world. By THOMAS W. JENKYN, D. D.

WE have placed the titles of these several works at the head of some remarks we wish to make on the subject of Revivals of Religion, not so much with the intent of criticism, as to commend our theme, and as an acknowledgment of our indebtedness to their several authors.