lofty tone of his feeling. But that discourse does not very well exemplify the ordinary character of his pulpit addresses. His method was to unfold his theme by lucid explanations and arguments, and then to add a very brief conclusion, in which he threw the responsibility upon the hearers for acting in obedience to the truth which had been presented. The marked characteristic of his preaching was his habit of addressing the conscience. This he did with rare directness and strong effect. His entire freedom from every species of religious cant, and his obvious sincerity and independence, imparted peculiar force to his declarations. It was evident that he felt himself what he he wanted others to feel. He had himself thoroughly assimilated the truth which he inculcated upon his audience. pro Dr. Wayland is widely known as an author. The missionary sermon, to which we have alluded, appeared in a volume of well written discourses, which early gave the writer some celebrity. His University Sermoms are of much later date. They contain his views of Christian doctrine. One of the most,-perhaps the most original and characteristic of his ductions was the little treatise on the Limitations of Human Responsibility. He probably did not adhere to all the opinions expressed in this book,-for example, to his idea as to the power of Congress with reference to slavery in the District of Columbia. But his strong respect for the rights of the individual, and his predilection for personal, as distinguished from associated, action, is forcibly brought out. His Elements of Moral Science has proved itself a useful and popular work. The theoretical part is not marked by any special discrimination, and is, on the whole, inferior to the practical, in which the wisdom of the author has an appropriate field. His textbook on Political Economy presents only the bare rudiments of that science, and does not prentend to originality. Yet it is our conviction that, had Dr. Wayland devoted himself to the investigation of this subject, he would have made himself a master. The simple but comprehensive generalizations of this science, not less than its direct utility, were congenial with the prevailing bent of his mind. It was natural for him to give a large space in his Intellectual Philosophy to rules and practical counsels for the discipline and use of the intellect. It is another proof of the decided predominance of the practical over the speculative elements in his mental constitution. Dr. Wayland's conversation was quite attractive. His mind was always awake and active; he was quick at repartee, and his manners were courteous. If his remarks, made without premeditation in the family, or social circle, could be gathered up, they would form the most valuable monument of the character of his mind. It was, however, in the capacity of a religious counselor and friend, that the noblest side of Dr. Wayland appeared. In the administration of the college discipline, he governed with a strong hand, and students feared his displeasure. The prompt. summary measures which he sometimes took, might strike the offender, at least, as somewhat despotic. The Doctor often expressed his admiration of Homer's picture of Jupiter, wherein the god is described as shaking Olympus by his mere nod. In the exercise of authority he aimed to be as sparing of words as possible. Although he had a paternal feeling towards his pupils, the spirit of his government, combined with the perceived dignity of his character, excited a degree of fear. They looked up to him, admired him, were proud of him, but in many cases never came into any closer relation. But when the opportunity was given to him to impart religious advice and encouragement to any one, he appeared in a wholly different attitude. His whole soul was moved. He seemed then to be fully in his element. His tones and words were marked by a fatherly tenderness. He became in spirit a child. He listened with unwearied sympathy to the recital of doubts and difficulties, and the suggestions that he offered were most apposite and judicious. We are inclined to think that when he was not engaged in the direct work of recommending the Gospel to the souls of men, he felt himself to be aloof from his highest calling-to be away from home. Hence, towards the end of life, he doubted whether he had not made a mistake in leaving the pastoral office. Religion was the controlling motive in his character. His strong nature needed, and it experi enced, the tempering influence of Christian principles. Under their power, although his indignation was easily kindled, it was generally directed against things that are morally odious. His oldest colleague,* whose noble and lovely traits of character are a theme of common remark among all who have enjoyed his instructions, has paid a just tribute to the humility and magnanimity of his friend. Dr. Wayland was no sectarian. The atmosphere of sectarian animosity would have been too confined for him to breathe. In many conversations which the writer had with him on topics of religious doctrine and duty, he never sought to exert an influence in favor of the peculiar tenets of the respectable denomination to which he himself belonged. He never adverted to them in any way. Once when the subject came up without any suggestion from him, he remarked that when the various Protestant denominations came to the hand-to-hand conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, each of them would have to give up something. He left on us the impression that whilst he agreed with his denomination respecting the proper mode and subjects of Baptisin, he was not an advocate of restricted communion. But this is, perhaps, more a conjecture than an inference, and may be quite incorrect. Of this we are certain, that he was a truly liberal Christian. At the outset of these remarks, it was said that there was more in Dr. Wayland than any analysis of his mind and character would be apt to suggest. When he died, a great and good man passed away from the earth. *Professor Alexis Caswell. ARTICLE X.-THE REFORMATION OF THE SOUTH. Presidential Proclamations of Emancipation, and Amnesty. First Message of President Johnson to the Senate and House of Representatives, December, 1865. Official Report of Lieut. Gen. Grant, July 22d, 1865. The Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, passed by Congress during the session of 1864–5, and submitted to the States. Reports on Evangelization at the West, and South, and on Church Building adopted by the National Council of the Congregational Churches of the United States, convened at Boston, June, 1865. Annual Reports of the American Home Missionary Society, American Missionary Association, American Congregational Union, 1865. The American Union Commission, New York City. We have been looking about for a proper title to this Article, whose theme can be easily inferred from the references at its head. Reconstruction is the popular phrase, which is blazoned in capitals at the top of leaded editorials, and among the published resolutions of caucuses of all political parties. We demur, however, against this term, because of the idea which it contains; and if we eschew the thing we are not going to retain the word. Reconstruction is rebuilding on the old site the structure which time or violence has destroyed, and implies a retention of the original plan, and of similar materials. He who should erect a marble temple where a Bastile had been burned could not by any proper use of language be said to have been engaged in the work of reconstruc tion. Nor is this a mere quibble, for there lies at its root the great principles at stake in the discussions of this hour, and which must be settled either by the reconstruction of the South with its traditions, and laws, and ideas, as before open rebellion, or the reformation of the South in harmony with freedom, and justice, and humanity, and therefore with a true and pure republicanism. The lovers of peace and good order in the loyal States desire the restoration of civil courts, of municipal governments, of State legislatures, and of Governors elected by the people in those sections which have been engaged in an attempt to overthrow the general government, and to nationalize slavery. But no intelligent lover of liberty, no sincere patriot, desires the restoration of those ideas, and sentiments, and institutions, which caused the atrocions treason, and inspired the bloody rebellion. We are at issue with Mr. Clingman of North Carolina, who, in his published letter retailing the old slander about fanaticism, insists that the loyal people, who have saved the Republic, should not object if the Southerners select for places of authority both at home and in Congress, their former leaders, by whom they were induced to take up arms against the government, and upon whom rests the blood of our bravest and best slain in these battles for law and liberty. Mr. Clingman, formerly member of the United States Congress, and late General in the armies of the so-called and now extirpated Confederacy, guilty by his own confession of infamous treason, and only submitting to force, should understand that the Republic is not henceforth to be administered by rebels, pardoned or unpardoned, and that their only course of safety is in the modest retirement and lonely contrition of deep, thorough repentance. This resolve of the North, spoken emphatically in the recent elections, should be attentively heeded by all who would live in peace under the banner which has been restored to its ancient supremacy, despite their folly and fury. We insist on a radical change in the construction of Southern society on new institutions and new ideas, and therefore different teachers and leaders. We want |