to sell him, and keep the price for which he was sold? To say he owned the parents of said slave, will again allow the question, what equivalent was rendered said parents for a right of property in them? and whatever right may have been acquired in the parent, what right in reason can that give to the claim of property in the child ?*

But slavery is at variance with natural relations, and the duties growing out of them. The relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, are natural relations, and the first and most important relations among men. None are more intimate, none more binding, and none give rise to duties of higher obligation. But slavery controls and sets aside the whole of these at pleasure. It does not even recognize the marriage relation in the slave, although the first gift of the Creator to man. Although the man and wife are one, it separates them on the alleged claim of property. Their children, the fruit of their bodies, it claims on the same plea, and in disregard of the ties and rights of nature. It deprives the husband of the right to protect and cherish his wife, a part of himself; and the wife of the power of being obedient and faithful to her husband. It prevents the parents from performing their natural duties to their children, educating and providing for them and it makes it impossible for the children to support and minister to their parents. This is wholly at variance with natural religion, and some of the first duties it enjoins on man towards his fellow man.

But more: Slavery is at variance with the natural relations we sustain to God, and the duties we owe him; that we ought to love, and serve, and worship God, is a dictate of the light of nature. But the extent to which the master claims a right of property in the slave, and control over him, may be made to prevent his performing these natural duties. The slave may be kept ignorant of God, and his duty to him; he may be allowed no time for religious duty; he may forcibly be prevented; he may find it impossible to avoid doing what is known to be wrong. Female slaves may be compelled to unclean living, by circumstances from which they have no escape. Their tes

* See page 53, and note.

timony is not received, and the power of punishment at pleasure is in the hands of the master. If this be not against natural religion, what is against it?

Most of the special references, which I have seen, to the law of nature on this subject, have been to that application of it, called the Law of Nations. And to me there has appeared in most cases a confounding of what the light of nature and the dictates of sound reason made it the duty of nations to do which is always right, with what in fact nations have done which is often wrong. Natural or national law no doubt justifies self-defence; and so far as a just and necessary self-defence may require the injuring of another in person, rights, or property, it may justly be done; but it cannot justify us in going one hair's-breadth farther. It cannot justify an injury without a just cause, nor beyond its just claims. It may justify killing in selfdefence, but only in that case. Slavery cannot be justified on the ground of self-defence. Nations or individuals may possibly, in prosecuting just claims, oblige others to render various services; but it must not be carried beyond the requirements of equity. To infer the moral right of nations or individuals to do things from the fact that others have done them, is not only to invert the rule of morals, but to destroy it. A thing on this supposition becomes right, not because agreeable to reason and equity, but simply because others have done it. The worst crimes might, in this way, be justified.

What

What

Nations, I admit, to a great extent have practised slavery; but they have, to as great an extent, practised many other things which few will justify. They have practised injustice; they have oppressed each other. civil wars have nations waged against nations? sacking and burning of cities, and wasting of countries, and massacreing of prisoners? What butchering of inhabitants, and abuse of females? None would for a moment infer that these things were agreeable to natural law, because so common! Many of those who acted thus, possibly justified their doing so on the ground that these things were so often done. Others, disregarding or overlooking the natural injustice of the case, concluded that policy, pa

triotism, or glory required it; or revenge demanded it at their hands.

Now, as a matter of fact, the ancients justified slavery on the same ground that they justified the above practices. It was to a great extent common to consider all as enemies with whom they had no special alliance, and equally common to consider it justifiable to spoil or kill, or take captive and reduce to slavery, their enemies. Whether they had received any injury, had any just cause of complaint, was not the question; but whether they were enemies, or persons with whom they had no special engagements to be friends? and where there was just cause of complaint, the limits of a just satisfaction were seldom regarded. The more common practice was, to do injury to the utmost possible extent. These principles are wholly at variance with the law of nature and the principles of

reason.

From these monstrous perversions of the right of selfdefence, they justified slavery. From the right of destroying an enemy, they inferred the right of doing what they pleased with him; if his life were spared, the right of enslaving him of selling him. But the right of enslaving an enemy, does not follow from the right of killing in selfdefence. The very fact that he was not killed, but taken captive, proves that it was not necessary to kill him. And having spared him, the claims on him, if any just claims there be, ought to be exacted in a way consistent with natural justice and equity.

Slavery is a state of things that is at variance with the above, and many other important principles of natural religion. I infer, therefore, that natural religion is opposed to it, and gives no authority for reducing persons to that state, or continuing them in it.

Yours, &c.

59

LETTER VI.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

That it

I Now proceed to examine the teaching of Scripture, respecting slavery. That Scripture often refers to slavery I readily admit; but that it approves of it as morally right, I am satisfied is not the fact; and I hope before I close my examination to adduce proof that will satisfy the candid and unprejudiced that the reverse is the case. will satisfy all, that it will satisfy those whose whole effort is to believe slavery not wrong, whose habits and prejudices, and temporal interests, to the amount of thousands, are all on the side of slavery, is too much to expect. There is not a truth of politics, or morality, or religion, that has not been disputed on similar grounds.

It is, however, far from my purpose to charge any person with any more or any other bias on this matter, than naturally may have arisen from education, or resulted from having an interest on one side. We all know the power which early habits, and education, and example, exert on persons to reconcile them to some things and make them opposed to others. Every man who has listened to both sides of a case in controversy between his neighbours, every boy who has heard the disputes of his school-fellows, knows that people are greatly blinded and biassed by selfish feelings. A candid man will own that he is thus liable to see things in a light favourable to his own wishes and interests. So notorious is this fact, that in civil society almost universally, it is admitted that men ought not to be judges, nor even witnesses in their own case. Those who judge in a case in which they are interested, ought, if they would decide it, as the disinterested are sure to do, incline the scale a good deal more against themselves, than their interested views and feelings seem to require.

This holds good as to slavery. Scripture passages which, to those interested or prejudiced, may seem to justify slavery, may to the impartial appear most manifestly, either not to relate to the case, or come far short of justifying it; while other passages, going to condemn it, which some may either overlook or explain away, may appear, as

indeed they are, to the unbiassed, "confirmation strong as holy writ," that slavery is morally wrong.

The extent to which their previous opinions influence persons as to the meaning of Scripture, is much greater, I apprehend, than most are aware of. The history of the past, and the state of things at present, furnishes ample proof of this.

The change of the elements of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, into the real body and blood of Christ by consecration-baptismal regeneration-the doctrine of Purgatory-masses for the dead-the supremacy of the Pope, with many such matters, received now only by the most thorough-going Papists, were immediately preceding the reformation, not only almost universally believed, but considered as plainly taught in various passages of Scripture. We now are astonished that persons could be so blinded or biassed as to find in those Scriptures any support for said notions.

While the reformers broke the spell which bound the public mind to these errors, and rescued the Scriptures from that strange perversion which gave them support; we have ample proof in their history that other errors almost as great, and other perversions of Scripture almost as manifest, escaped detection-yea, were advocated by those same men. All the reformers, almost without exception, believed that heretical opinions ought to be forcibly repressed, and that uniformity in matters of faith ought to be enforced, by the civil magistrate; and considered this as fairly taught in various passages of Scripture. It would not be easy now to find the man who believes that persecution is really at all justified, much less enjoined by those passages.

It requires but little observation to be satisfied that the great confidence which many sectarians have that they are right and all others wrong, depends much more on the bias of mind with which they read the Scriptures, than on the plainness of Scripture testimony in their favour. We refer to that portion of each party that is most sectarian, most confident that they are right, and all others wrong.

The Episcopalian sees, it may be, in the office of the Apostles in the use of the term Bishop-in the direc