tary or acquired principles of justice and mercy, unques. exerted a paramount influence to bring about emancip But we cannot concede them an unqualified commendation this score; because a supposed commercial interest was permi ted to prevail against the decisions of public sentiment, in regard to the impolicy and wickedness of the slave-trade.

We have called the period of the adoption of the Federal Constitution a crisis in the history of slavery; because at that time the slave-power, which has since made such formidable usurpations, was a trembling petitioner for the license even to exist at all.

A reference to the "Madison Papers" will show, that a continuance of the slave-trade till the year 1808, was conceded to the clamors of South Carolina and Georgia; and we think it clear even from such fragments as remain to us of the debates of the Federal Convention, that the majority of the members of that body looked upon the extinction of the slave-trade and of slavery as synonymous. And it was universally supposed at that time, that the number of slaves could only be kept from diminishing by fresh importations. For this reason the word Slave was carefully excluded from the Constitution, that, when Human Bondage became a thing of the past, no trace of its existence, even, much less suspicion of connivance, should leave its stain upon that instrument. "I think it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there can be property in man.' So said Mr. Madison in the Convention, and in so saying he echoed the sentiments of a large majority of the members from all sections of the country. Throughout the debates on the slavery-clauses of the Constitution, it is very clear, that the advocates of slavery acted entirely on the defensive. It could not well be otherwise, since almost every statesman, eminent in those early days of the Republic, has left on record his unqualified condemnation of the system. Some of the heartiest denouncers of slavery were from Maryland and Virginia.

But in the thirty-three years which had elapsed between the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and the admission of Missouri, the posture of affairs had entirely changed. Slavery now for the first time became aggressive, and the protection of liberty which was intended to be the rule of our government, had grown to be the rare exception. By the stopping of the foreign slave-trade, and the stimulus which the domestic traffic received from the increase of territory, Maryland and Virginia had been seduced from their allegiance to higher and humane sentiments, and had already become the Guinea Coast of America. The admission of Missouri, by what was falsely termed a compromise, for there can be no compromise with what is absolutely wrong, no truce between God and Satan,-threw at

once the prestige of victory and a control of the balance of power upon the side of the slave-holders. Since that fatal and perfidious day, Freedom has been constantly driven to the wall. A small aristocracy, insignificant in point of numbers, and justly obnoxious to Christian freemen from the basis on which their claim to superiority rests, scattered over a wide extent of territory and only compact in a strenuous devotion to a common interest, have swayed the destinies of this mighty nation, and shaped its future, as far as possible, to a necessary coincidence with its mistaken and repented past.

In comparing American slavery with the modes of servitude which have existed among other nations and in other ages of the world, we find that, although agreeing with some of them in many particulars, it differs in one important point from them all. Slavery, wherever and whenever it has elsewhere existed, has been as impartial as death. There was no one whom the chances of fortune or war might not one day or other reduce to bondage. But with us, complexion has been made the criterion for determining the capacity of a human being for freedom. is a singular fact, that, while the African physiognomy and complexion are such as to unfit their unhappy possessor for taking care of himself, and such also as to render liberty a curse, yet the reward with which the American master repays any act of peculiar devotion or fidelity on the part of his slave, is emancipation!

It

The

Another distinguishing characteristic of American slavery is, that it is not only permitted but actually fostered by a nation foremost of all in receiving, publishing, and, in many respects, exemplifying the great idea of Human Brotherhood. It is congenerous with nothing in our political system, and is a constant reproach to our profession of the religion of Christ. slave-holder of ancient times, if called on for his title, appealed to what was then the acknowledged law of nations, which gave the captor power of life and death over his captive. "All that a man hath will he give for his life," and accordingly a species of contract was supposed between master and slave, the slave rendering service as an equivalent for life. It is vain to seek any such foundation for American slavery. Here the slave-holder justifies himself, either by the color of his victim, claiming to be only a fulfiller of the prophecies and an instrument of God's vengeance; or he appeals to the fact, that his inheritance of oppression was devolved upon him from his ancestors; thus endeavoring to defend the continuance of a wrong, by showing that it is of ancient date, and to give injustice a title by prescription. Called upon to produce his original title, he is forced to go back to the jus gentium of lawless savages on the coast of Africa, or is driven finally to seek refuge behind

the right of the strongest; a right accidental in its nature, and peculiar neither to white nor black, but liable to change hands, as it already has done in Hayti.

We here bring this preliminary part of our Report to a close. By presenting an outline of its history, we have hoped to give a clear and just idea of Slavery as it has actually existed in different ages and nations of the world, from the beginning to this day. But there is one part of that history which, connected as it is with Divine Revelation, constitutes a topic by itself, and demands an extended and careful examination. We refer

to what is contained in the Scriptures on the subject. We have devoted much attention to this branch of our inquiry,-deeming it of the highest importance; and we proceed to exhibit at length the train of investigation which we have pursued, with the results which we have reached.

In vindication of Slavery, an appeal has often been made to the Scriptures, as if the slave-holder had authority from God, to retain and employ his slaves, at his option and discretion. On the other hand, it has been affirmed by some, that the Scriptures, not only contain no warrant for modern slave-holding, but that slavery itself had no existence among the ancient Hebrews, or in the families of any who are recognized as God's sincere friends,-whether under the Mosaic or the Christian dispensation. Is the truth in either of these extremes? We think not.

There are those who cannot account for the toleration or permission of slavery, among the Hebrews, without impeaching the Divine character. With others, the great difficulty is, to explain the commonly received interpretations of the Word of God,—if the relation of master and slave has always implied guilt on the part of the master. And there is certainly an apparent, if not real conflict between natural and revealed religion, in some of the views which have often been presented, both on the one side and the other of the question," Whether it be morally right to hold our fellow man as a slave.”

In searching the Scriptures our object has been to ascertain, as nearly as possible, the truth and the whole truth, in answer to the question, which we regard as the grand question of all, viz.-"Do the Scriptures sanction slavery, as it exists in the United States, and as it has here been legalized?" With one voice, and without any reservation or qualification, we are prepared to answer, NO.

We are unable to find any contradiction in the Scriptures to the self-evident truth of reason, and of natural religion, that there is no natural right in the relation of master and slave.— Have we not all one Father?—Still, it may, and as we think, must be conceded, that circumstances, under the providence of the Supreme Disposer of events, may so far modify natural right or natural wrong, that, while a system or an institution may be unwarranted and criminal,—the personal guilt and innocence of individuals may be materially affected by their social position, their knowledge, their motives, feelings and purposes.

As another preliminary suggestion, we deem it important to remark, that, as the present use of words may be no guide to their etymology, and as neither present use nor etymology may determine or indicate their true meaning, at certain periods of national progress,-it is illogical and unsafe to infer what slavery was at the beginning, from what it has since become; or that slavery in any given example, is or was the same as in any other example.

Slavery, at the present day, is every where understood to imply coercion; and coercion of that kind and degree, to which, in general, none would submit, if they were not kept in subjection by laws framed for the express purpose of protecting the master, against the assertion of natural rights by the slave, and his claim to be regarded as a fellow-man and a brother. They produce as their legitimate effect, a degraded and demoralizing inferiority and disability of social condition; or, at least, their whole tendency is to aggravate and perpetuate such a condition.

Hence we may well inquire whether the Scriptures of God, "who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things, and hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth," are rightly interpreted, if supposed to contain any warrant for such laws; and thus a relation or social institution, which it would not be possible to sustain without them, can urge in its behalf the sanction of Divine approval.

Upon some subjects of importance, it is well known, the Scriptures are silent; upon others the instruction is explicit and full; while upon others still it is incidental or inferential. Of this latter kind is the witness respecting slavery. The relation of master and slave is neither required nor forbidden, by express commandment or ordinance, under the Mosaic or the Christian dispensation. And although tolerated and legalized, in the case of the Hebrews, but with most important limitations and counter-working provisions, slavery has no commendation or benediction from any of the "holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." There is thus a wide difference between the teaching of revealed truth, in regard to

the relation of master and slave, and that which pertains to civil government. Civil government is manifestly ordained of God. Loyalty in subjects is both enjoined and blessed. But the condition of the slave is always presented to us, as having no advantages but in a choice of evils; and as being most obviously, in a greater or less degree, a calamity or a curse; whatever may be inferred, in respect to the lawfulness or sinfulness of the relation of the master.

We cannot assent, therefore, to the bold statement of a very able writer in one of our religious periodicals, namely, that "slave-holding, in the scriptural view of it, belongs to a class of things indifferent, of things neither forbidden nor commanded in the word of God, which are right or wrong according to circumstances. It is like despotism in the state." *

But we would earnestly inquire, Where has God taught us, that all things are "indifferent," if neither forbidden nor commanded by any express statute or prescription? And may it not be a very important inquiry, whether we have God's permission to do, what he has neither commanded nor forbidden us?

Suppose the present incumbent of the chair of the Presidency of the United States was able to make himself a dictator or emperor; and after establishing himself in power, should evidently aim to administer his government so as to command respect and secure esteem, as one of the greatest benefactors of his race? Could it be said, that he has a right to reign over this nation, because he does reign; or because civil government is of divine authority? And if his adherents should appeal to the Scriptures, to support his despotism—in opposition to the right of the people to rule themselves-would it be enough for them to say, "The powers that be, are ordained of God?"

We may concede, that the relation of a master to his slave may not always imply guilt in the master. But the right which is assumed to belong to him, by that relation, we utterly deny. Neither are we required, if allowed, in our moral estimate of slavery, to separate the relation from its accidents or incidents, as they may be called; and which are at present associated with the right, as claimed and exercised, hardly less intimately and invariably, than if inseparable properties, or, at least, unavoidable accompaniments.

And besides, if fully granted, that personal slave-holding, as distinguished from slavery, does not always imply guilt, we are entirely sure, that no slave-holder can be safe in assuming or presuming that he himself is without sin. It is a perilous con

* Biblical Repertory, Jan. 1849, Art. I.