Christ's sake. Not only is slavery classed with them, but placed first. To infer that because they patiently bore spoiling and buffeting, that therefore those committed no sin who thus treated them, would be considered by all as a most unwarranted conclusion; and yet not a few reason thus respecting slavery. It deserves a remark, that the original word in this place is not ovλos, (douloi), which means to make a servant; but Karadovλo, (katadouloi), to make a slave-to reduce to that condition, which we insist is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, the law of love, and the moral bearings of the Scripture, both in the Old and New Testament.

The apostle James (iii. 9.) mentions it not only as a sin, but as a sin of peculiar aggravation, that men cursed their fellow men, "who were made in the similitude of God." It showed an awful irreverence and ungodliness to curse what bore God's image.

If bearing God's image made it thus sinful to curse man, does not the same reason make it peculiarly improperyea, irreverent towards God, to hold men in absolute slavery? What! hold in slavery a being that was made in the image of God?

Add to this that masters are commanded to "render or give to servants what is just and equal; and to remember that they have a Master in heaven, who is no respecter of persons.' Now what is just and equal between man and man? By what rule is it to be measured? No doubt, by the moral law-the law of love, the rule of doing as we would be done by. Self-love would lead all masters to think it very hard to be held in slavery for no crime, and very unjust and unequal for any thus to treat them. course, the rule of justice and equity requires that they should not deprive others of that freedom, which, in their own case, they so highly prize.

Of

Take another case. The apostle, in exhorting Christians to contentment and submission to the providence of God, gives it as a general rule, that they should remain in the condition or calling in which the Gospel found them, and not be given to change. He instances several cases, and among others, that of servants. He tells them, not to let the fact that they are in a state of servitude make them

discontented; but at the same time, directs them to obtain their freedom if they can, and gives as a reason for this direction-"ye are bought with a price, be not therefore the servants of man.' This passage has so evidently a reference to a passage in Leviticus, that it may well pass for a quotation. "For to me the children of Israel are servants they are my servants whom I brought out of Egypt-they shall not be sold as bond-men.”

It was a rule under the Old Testament, that from their relation to God, it was unlawful for any to hold God's people in slavery. The apostle here appeals to this rule, as making it the duty of the servant to obtain his freedom if he could. As many of them, however, might have masters who had no regard for God's word, who were Pagans, and who would not give them freedom-the apostle advises them, in such cases, to submit to their hard lot—to glorify God by patiently enduring evil, and do nothing that might cause "the way of truth to be evil spoken of." The whole case, taken together, shows clearly, that the apostle considered the condition of the slave a hard one; and one which the law of love condemned.

Some may perhaps think, that if these principles had been intended to have this bearing on this case, the apostles would in so many words have wholly forbid the practice of slavery.

In reply to this it may be asked, why did they not, when treating of marriage, wholly forbid polygamy and concubinage? They prevailed much at that time. Why did they not forbid games, plays, gladiator shows, and many such things? Why did they not directly enjoin the observance of the Sabbath, attending public worship, the baptism of children, with many such things? The most of these were plainly taught in the Old Testament, and its authority is constantly recognized; and in the Old Testament the evil of slavery is fully set forth. Their hearers are supposed to be acquainted with the teaching of the Old Testament, to be obedient to it, and to infer their duty from it. 1 Cor. x. 1-13.

There is reason to believe that the primitive Christians did thus apply the principles of the Old and New Testament to the case of slavery. We have not much, it is

true, that bears on this case. Nor have we much in their writings that bears on the question of the Sabbath, their devoting children to God in baptism, their taking no part in plays, gladiator shows, the amusement of the theatre, &c. There are, however, some passages in their writings which show their high regard for personal liberty, and deep solicitude that others should enjoy it.

We know how many among ourselves," says St. Clement, in his epistle to the Corinthians, "have given up themselves unto bonds, that thereby they might free others from them. Others have sold themselves into bondage, that they might free their brethren with the price of themselves.'

The churches of Armida not only raised all the money they could, but sold the plate and furniture of their churches, and redeemed seven thousand Persians, who were offered for sale by the Romans; and set them free, and sent them home to their people.

Sindonites, a zealous Christian, was set free twice on being instrumental in converting his master. See Cave's primitive Christianity.

The primitive Christians were accustomed, it is said, to take up collections weekly, and apply them to redeem persons from slavery, and especially their brethren. Their kindness to the poor was so notorious, that Julian ascribed their success in spreading the Gospel mainly to it. This gave them great favour with the lower classes, many of whom were in slavery.

Yours, &c.

124

LETTER XI.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,*

THERE are many other points of view in which the inconsistency of slavery with the spirit of the Gospel forces itself on our attention. Several of them I beg leave to notice.

It must necessarily happen, that much oppression and hard dealing will take place under a system which subjects one class of persons to such an extent to the uncontrolled power of another. The man who believes the Scripture account of human nature, or who has to any practical purpose looked back upon its past history or abroad upon its present population, will not need to have the point argued before him. He must see in all the guards of society, in all the protections for person and property, in all the securities of civil government, proof of the evils man is liable to from man.

I am far from charging slave-holders generally with cruel or harsh dispositions. Many of the finest examples of kindly and benevolent feeling that I have ever known, were slave-holders. Add to this their hospitable, generous, and liberal dispositions, and more excellent specimens of human nature can perhaps nowhere be found. That the slave does, in the treatment he receives, experience, to a great extent, the effects of these amiable traits of character, is unquestionable. All the accounts which I have heard, and all my observation, satisfies me, that a great melioration has taken place in the general treatment of slaves; and I have no doubt, that this kindness of feeling with respect to slaves, connected with the impression that their case is a hard one-that they have not the proper inducements to industry and faithfulness, that they are wholly in the power of the master, leads many slave-holders to indulge their slaves and wink at their faults, to the injury of the temporal interests of the masters, and not to the benefit of the ⚫ slave. I have often heard slave-holders say, and I had no reason to doubt their statement, that their slaves did not

*This and the following letter are, with various alterations, taken from an essay by the author.

clear charges-that they were positively bringing them in debt. But what can we do, said they? We must have servants. We dislike to part with those that have long been in the family, and we try to get along with them as well as we can. I have often heard them apologize for the idleness and negligence of slaves. Poor creatures, they would say, we ought not to expect as much of them as if they were working for themselves. Idle as they are, we at times wonder they do as well, considering their situation.

I have repeatedly had occasion to remark, that European and northern men, when they had to manage slaves, have complained more, and, if I mistake not, exacted more labour, and used more compulsory means in doing it, than the better class of persons raised as slave-holders. This is easily accounted for. They have been used to free labourers; who, the world over, do more work, and do it better, and with less trouble to the employer, than can be had from slaves. Their ideas of a reasonable portion of labour is taken from what they have seen done-perhaps done themselves; and knowing that it can be done, and is done, when the labourer inclines to do it, they feel strongly disposed to exact it, or complain much if it be not done: while the person accustomed to slave-labour, gets habituated to expect little, and complains less, and uses fewer compulsory means to exact that little, than the other does to get double the amount.

The female department furnishes some of the best illustrations of this matter. A female, accustomed to free servants, will, with the aid of one woman and a small boy or girl, or at most two women, manage the concerns of a large family, and have everything done in its proper time and place, and all as neat as a bandbox. But let her be transplanted into a slave-holding community, and have to carry on the same operations with slaves; and she will have double the difficulty and vexation in effecting it with her cook, washer-woman and house-maid and nurse, and perhaps two or three nondescripts into the bargain.

With all the above admissions, and many more that need not be detailed, it is still true that there is, and while human nature remains what it is, there will be, much op