after times, particularly in the days of Saul. Saul thought to slay them in his zeal for the children of Israel. 2 Sam XXI. 2-5. "He consumed them and devised against them, that he might destroy them from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel." From which it is manifest that they could not be the private property of individuals dispersed throughout the nation. Had they been private property, Saul could not have shewn his zeal for the children of Israel by destroying them. It is further evident from their serving in the armies of Israel, which is an employment ill adapted to the condition of slaves; also from their return with the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, which could hardly have been expected had they been slaves.

From the history of servitude now given, and from the nature and different forms of it as recorded in scriptures, it appears that there never was such a thing as slavery amongst the Jews before the Babylonish captivity, and it would be a difficult task to prove that it ever had a being in its present form in any nation, from the deluge to the times of the Greeks and Romans, who both were in the habit of enslaving their captives taken in war. It is certain that the king of Assyria did not make slaves of the ten tribes of Israel; but placed them in different parts of his empire, to live by their industry, allowed to be incorporated with his own subjects. It is also evident from the scriptures that the king of Babylon did not make slaves of the Jews, but gave them the privilege of building houses, and planting vineyards, and living by their own industry, and made a selection of the most learned and active to take part in the government of the empire.

Having now given a history of servitude from the scriptures, down to the time of the Jews' captivity in Babylon, in order to come at the main subject intended by this treatise, we shall not detain the reader with a further detail of the history of slavery, but refer him to Clarkson's Essays on Slavery, which contain a brief account of slavery among the Greeks and Romans, with a correct history of African slavery.

CHAPTER III.

SLAVEHOLDING A HEINOUS SIN.

III. We are now to prove that slavery, according to the common acceptation of the term, is a heinous sin, condemned by the word of God, and repugnant to the law of

nature.

THE MORAL LAW.

The first argument may be taken from the nature of the moral law, and its universal obligation upon mankind. In our introduction it has been shewn that the moral law is a transcript of the divine character. That it is called the law of nature, because it is discoverable in the book of nature, which exhibits to the view of mankind the various relations in which they stand to God and to one another, and as a law binds them to act agreeable to these relations, and we may now add, that the word of God is only the same law more perfectly revealed, together with a display of the economy of redemption. The moral law as a written revelation, and the law of nature as it is revealed in the book of nature, being the same as to moral obligation, it is impossible that the one can contradict or oppose the other.

To apply these principles to the business of slave-holding, it may be safely admitted, that if the practice has nothing to justify it but the civil law, while it stands opposed to the moral law, it must be criminal. Slaveholding cannot be defended in virtue of an inherent power possessed by man, antecedent to the existence of civil government, because in that state of society mankind are all equally entitled to enjoy freedom, and are all in duty bound to defend their own personal rights, and the natural rights of others, as far as is competent to them in that capacity therefore, mankind in that unorganized condition which necessarily precedes all organized states, can have no right to enslave one another, but on the contrary are bound to protect each other against any attempts which might be made to deprive them of either life, liberty, or

property, and are bound by the moral law to adopt the best method which may give strength and energy to their lawful efforts to secure their natural rights; but the wisest and best method which has yet been found to secure the natural rights of man, is for all the members of a community to concentrate by delegations their legal right of defending their private privileges into the hands of representatives, that by their agency they may better perform those duties to themselves and others which they were bound in a private capacity to have done, as far as was competent to them.

If the members of a community can and do transfer from themselves to representatives their right to freedom, that is, their natural rights to serve God according to the relations in which they stand to him, and their right to perform all relative duties to one another, slavery may be justified, if not, it must be condemned. But none are dis;

posed to plead for a transfer of their personal freedom therefore it is retained still in the hands of the people. The point is perfectly obvious, for if the members of a community have no right in an unorganized state to deprive one another of life, liberty or property, they cannot transfer a right to others which they never possessed themselves. If, then, no such right was or ever could be transferred from the people to their representatives, the representatives themselves can have no moral right to deprive any of the community of life, liberty, or property, except they forfeit their right by crimes, for civil rulers cannot exercise a pow. er which they never either had or could have. But it is self-evident, that if a people or nation can have no right to enslave one another within the limits of their own jurisdiction or territories, they can have still less without their own boundaries, or in other parts of the world, be. cause neither political divisions of lands, nor natural divisions by rivers, chains of mountains or seas, can make void the moral law. Therefore, wherever a people dele. gate a power to representatives to enslave any of the human race, it cannot be a moral power, but it is mere physical power, which is the power of force, and when physical force, stript of moral obligation, is exercised to deprive mankind of their natural rights to freedom, it is only

another name for the most cruel tyranny; so that slaveholding is contrary to the law of nature, is downright tyranny, and an usurpation of power over the rights of man.

MORAL LAW CONTRADICTORY.

Secondly-Every practice must be sinful which tends to set the moral law at war with itself; but slaveholding is of that nature. Therefore,

If slaveholding is just, it must be the master's duty to retain the slave in his service, and to prevent him from deserting it. But it is the slave's duty to desert his service if he can have a fair opportunity to escape; yea, most of slaveholders will acknowledge that were they in the slave's place, they would try to escape from their servitude; which represents the moral law to be at war with itself; first making it to be the master's duty to retain the slave in servitude, and at the same instant making it the slave's duty to desert his service; in that case moral right would be contending with moral right.

If slaveholding is lawful in the sight of God, it must be the indispensable duty of the slaves' master to pray to God that the slaves and their posterity may be kept in bondage forever. But the moral law makes it the indispensable duty of slaves to pray to God that they and their posterity may be delivered from bondage, agreeable to Paul's direction, be ye not servants of men. But when two prayers contradict one another, one of them must be wrong, because the moral law cannot contradict itself in its obligations upon men, neither does the gospel contain contradictory promises adapted to contradictory prayers.

GOD'S GREAT END.

Thirdly-Every practice must be wrong that is at variance with God's great end in making man, which was that he should glorify God and enjoy him forever; but slaveholding is of that description.

For men to be in a state of slavery is to be under the complete dominion of their masters, so as not to be at liberty to dispose of their time for the service of God or the enjoyment of him, but are liable to be prevented from reading, meditation and prayer. God commands all

men to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness," and has promised that all other things shall be added. But the slave is bound first to submit to his master's authority, come what will of the command of God, or the moral end of his creation.

The slaveholder's power over the slave is an authority which he possesses over the private relative duties of the slave, without being controlled by the laws of government. It is the usurpation of that power in which the sin of slaveholding consists. The cruel administration of that power, is only an aggravation of the crime; but the grand radical point in which the most deadly criminality lies, is the usurped office or station which he occupies. Thus the grand reason why a tyrant's throat ought to be cut, is not so much because his administration is cruel, but because he has usurpt that office or station which admits of neither bounds nor restraints to his cruelty; and such is the station of a slaveholder, that without control he can prevent the slave from answering the great end of his creation, which was to glorify God and enjoy him for

ever.

REQUIRES SIN TO SUSTAIN IT.

Fourthly-That practice must be criminal which of necessity requires sin to support it; but slaveholding is of that nature. Therefore it is itself sinful.

The practice of slaveholding can have no permanent existence in state, kingdom, or commonwealth, without restraining the slaves from learning; for if slaves should once be universally taught to read, write, and allowed to make proficiency in other branches of literature, it would be impossible to retain them in bondage, for they would then be able to plead their own cause against their antichristian masters, and keep their consciences in perpetual torment; so also liable by reading, and the use of maps, to understand the geography of the country where they reside, so as to know the most eligible route to take in attempting to escape. But to prevent by force any of mankind from the improvement of their intellectual faculties, is to invert the order of nature, is a contradiction of God's great end in giving mankind those faculties, by reducing