The Southern Review

ART. I.-The Elements of Moral Science. By Francis Wayland, D. D., LL. D., late President of Brown University, and Professor of Moral Philosophy. Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1867.

This work has, we are assured, long since reached the seventyseventh edition; and, for aught we know, it has, by this time, passed its one hundredth edition. We learn from the title-page, not the number, but only the character, of the present edition. We only learn that it is a 'Revised and Improved Edition.' Long indeed has it been used in our schools and colleges, in all sections of the country, to the almost entire exclusion of other books on moral science, with the exception of the last ten or fifteen years in the South. Now, this wonderful popularity proves one of two things:-the great merit of the work itself, or the low condition of moral science in this country. Let us see, then, which of the terms of this alternative is the true one. "When I commenced the undertaking,' says our author, ‘I attempted to read extensively, but soon found it so difficult to arrive at any definite results in this manner, that the necessities of my situation obliged me to rely upon my own reflection.' (Preface, p. iv.) Now, by this very candid confession, it is rendered perfectly obvious, that Dr. Wayland could not learn

He 'attempted to

the elements of moral science from books. read extensively, but soon found it so difficult to arrive at any definite results' in this way, that he resolved to lay aside his books and rely upon his own reflection.' He was, then, most truly a self-taught teacher of Moral Philosophy. If, however, he could not learn from the past, may we not doubt whether he is the best possible teacher for the present or the future? If he could not derive any definite results,' or clear and correct views, from the reading of Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Butler, or any of the great masters of the science in times past, how could he imagine that others would be more fortunate in the perusal of his pages? Was he, among all the teachers of mankind, the first to introduce clear and definite results into the elements of moral science? Or, in other words, was there no moral science (properly so-called) in existence, till Dr. Wayland made his appearance, and condescended to teach its elements both to himself and to the rest of mankind? And is this the reason why, in his controversy with Dr. Fuller, he signed himself in stately capitals:-'THE AUTHOR OF THE MORAL SCIENCE?'

Our experience has, in one respect, been exactly similar to that of Dr. Wayland. When we began to read on the subject of moral science, we soon found ourselves distracted by crosslights, and surrounded by no little confusion and difficulty. We did not conclude, however, that all this was the fault of our teachers, who should, consequently, be dismissed, and ourselves alone retained as the only suitable instructors of ourselves. On the contrary, deeply feeling a need of aid and guidance from without as well as from within, we continued to read, and reflect, and compare, and meditate, till the confusion and difficulties occasioned by our first studies gave way, and the science of morals, with all its intrinsic order, self-evidence, and fullorbed beauty, opened on our mind. This was, of course, the work of years. Fortunately, 'the necessities of our situation' did not oblige us to teach, before we had learned, 'the elements of moral science,' or to write a book on the subject. On the contrary, we could read as slowly, as calmly, as patiently, and as persistently, as the great importance of the subject demanded, all the great writers on the science of morals from Aristotle

down to the present day. We not only did read them in this manner, but we also appropriated, by close thought and protracted meditation, all the grand results at which they had arrived. Thus did we conquer, rather than fly from, the confusion and difficulties produced in our mind by a little superficial reading and a few raw reflections. If, by such obscure labors, we are not prepared to write a book on moral philosophy ourselves, we are, at least, fully armed and equipped to do justice to the one written by 'THE AUTHOR OF THE MORAL SCIENCE.'

There is not, in the work of Dr. Wayland, a single 'definite result,' or clear and correct view, which may not be found in the writings of preceding moralists. So far is he, indeed, from having introduced an era of light into the science of morals, that he has not added a single ray to its former effulgence, or cleared up a single one of its obscurities. There are, on the other hand, many indefinite results, many loose, vague, and inaccurate conclusions, in his work, which disgrace the moral science of this age and country, and which even a superficial acquaintance with the writings of his predecessors would have enabled him to correct. So far, indeed, is he from having introduced any 'definite results' of his own into the elements of moral science, that he is, in point of clearness and precision, far behind both Aristotle and Butler; and this, too, in regard to the very first and most fundamental questions of the science. To begin, in proof of this proposition, at the beginning, his book opens with these words:

'Ethics, or Moral Philosophy, is the Science of Moral Law. The first question which presents itself is, What is moral law?' Now, is Dr. Wayland's answer to this question, the first and most fundamental of his whole treatise, a direct, clear, and precise definition of moral law?' It is, on the contrary, indirect, circuitous, unintelligible, and obscure, in the extreme. He first defines law in general, and then moral law in particular. Let us, then,' says he, 'inquire first, what is law; and, secondly, what is moral law.'

'By the term law,' he continues, 'I think we generally mean a form of expression denoting either a mode of existence or

Books

The Southern Review, Volume 7