EXTRACT OF A LETTER, &c.

A Remark, which I made many years ago, reſpecting the illegality of taking up Slaves that had eſcaped from their maſters, had been uſeful (I was informed) to ſome friends of humanity in America, in their endeavours to protect thoſe poor oppreſſed people. I cannot now find a copy of that paper, but the argument was chiefly built on a reference to a text in Deut. ch. xxiii. v. 15, 16.— ‘Thou ſhalt not deliver unto his maſter the ſervant which is eſcaped from his maſter unto thee: He ſhall dwell with thee, even among you, in the place WHICH HE SHALL CHOOSE’ (manifeſtly as [4]a freeman) ‘in one of thy GATES where IT LIKETH HIM BEST: thou ſhalt not oppreſs him.’ This, I obſerved, was no part of the abrogated ceremonial law of the Jews; but, manifeſtly, a moral law, becauſe the reaſon of it ſtill remains:-ſo that it muſt be of indiſpenſible obligation as long as the hateful oppreſſions of Slave-holders afford us any occaſions of exerciſing this duty to God of pro⯑tecting the Slaves that eſcape from their maſters; and conſequently I aſſerted that any colonial law, which oppoſes this ordinance of God, by ordering the arreſting and delivering up runaway Slaves, or which, in any way, tends to deprive them of due legal protection, is, of courſe, to be deemed a corruption, null and void in itſelf, as being contrary to the ſecond foundation of Engliſh law. This neceſſary conſequence I urged from a well known maxim of the Engliſh law reſpecting Statutes, (acts of Aſſembly, or acts of Parliament) ‘nec contra RATIONEM, nec contra LEGEM DIVINAM" (ſtatuta) exiſtunt.’ (Doct. et Stud. c. 10. p. 35. b.) —That ‘Statutes exiſt not againſt REASON, nor againſt the DIVINE LAW," and that "an unjuſt law is NOT LAW.’ "Lex injuſta non eſt lex." Prin. Leg. et Aequit.) And again, that ‘theſe two laws,’ (viz. the Law of Reaſon, and the Law Divine) "cannot abate, or turn aſide"— ‘Hae duae Leges declinari non poſſunt.’ Doct. et Stud. c. 17. p. 52.

But I have ſince had occaſion to regard theſe two fundamental laws of the Engliſh conſtitution, with ſtill more awful attention; and therefore I muſt farther remark, that the firſt foundation, the law of REASON, (as including all the laws of na⯑ture, [5]juſtice, and natural right) is certainly to be deemed the law of God, as well as the ſecond foun⯑dation (the divine precepts in the Holy Scriptures), becauſe the former is defined by high legal autho⯑rity, to be "the law written upon the heart of man," (and of courſe is the law of nature) which cannot ‘therefore be obliterated, nor changed by time or place, but ought every where, and among all men, to be maintained, becauſe THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE"—"Lex rationis in corde ſcribitur, ideo deleri non poteſt, nec etiam recipit mutationem ex loco nec tempore, ſed ubique, et inter omnes homines ſervari debet. Nam JURA NATURALIA IMMUTABILIA SUNT. Et ratio immutationis eſt quod recipiunt naturam rei pro fundamento, quae ſemper eadem eſt et ubique.’ (Doct. et Stud. c. 2. p. 5.) This amply demon⯑ſtrates the propriety of declaring the law of Reaſon to be the firſt foundation of Engliſh law; as being "the law of God, written" (as it were) ‘on the heart of man’—It is that ‘knowledge of good and evil in man,’ which may fairly be deemed a participation of "the Divine Wiſdom," or of Chriſt himſelf, that ‘true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’ (John i. 9.) and of courſe renders every man obnoxious, through the knowledge of right and law, to the divine vengeance for diſobedience! Our firſt pa⯑rents wilfully aſſumed this knowledge, contrary to an expreſs command of their Creator, (being de⯑luded by the ſpiritual enemy) and thereby entailed death and condemnation on all their poſterity, laying them under an abſolute neceſſity to obtain redemp⯑tion [6]by a ſtill farther participation of the ſame "Divine Wiſdom," or "Word of God."

There is alſo another legal term or title, for this firſt foundation of law; viz. ‘the eternal law,’ which in our books is properly defined to mean exactly the ſame authority as ‘the law of reaſon,’ i. e. the ſupreme reaſon of DIVINE ‘WISDOM, by which GOD WILLS that all things created by him, be moved and directed to a good and proper end.—LEX AETERNA nihil aliud eſt quam ipſa SUMMA RATIO GUBERNATIONIS RERUM IN DEO, ſive illa ſumma ratio DIVINAE SAPIENTIAE, qua vult DEUS omnia a ſe condita moveri, et dirigi ad bonum et debitum finem,’ &c. (Doct. et Stud. c. 1. p. 2.)—and again, ‘The LAW ETERNAL, under another deſcription, is called a perpetual and conſtant WILL to give to every one his RIGHT. Lex Aeterna ſub alia deſ⯑criptione dicitur perpetua et conſtans VOLUNTAS JUS SUUM UNICUIQUE TRIBUENS.’ (ibid.) Here then we find an immoveable foundation of juſtice, of right, of the rights of man, of righteouſ⯑neſs, of the law of nature, &c. for all theſe terms are parallel, or of the ſame import; and are ne⯑ceſſarily included in the law of reaſon or eternal law, which is properly called ‘the firſt law — LEX etiam AETERNA dicitur LEX PRIMA, et bene dicitur prima, nam fuit ante omnes alias leges: et omnes aliae leges dirivantur ab ea:—The LAW ETERNAL is called the FIRST LAW, and well is it called the firſt, for it was before all other laws; and all other laws are derived from it.’ In this ſolemn view of the firſt foundation of Engliſh law, it muſt evidently be deemed "a witneſs of God," [7]as well as the ſecond foundation, the written word of God in the Holy Scriptures; and both foundations may well be expreſſed together by the more com⯑pendious terms of "natural and revealed religion." In no inſtance whatever are theſe TWO WITNESSES OF GOD more obviouſly and undeniably reſiſted than in the toleration of ſlavery and the Slave Trade, becauſe theſe oppreſſions are iniquities which militate againſt both the foundations, and therefore the preſent public queſtion, whether the Slave Trade ought or ought not to be aboliſhed, may fairly be deemed an infallible touch-ſtone to diſ⯑cover the treachery of pretended loyaliſts; for no man can be truly loyal to God and his country, who is ſo totally devoid of firſt principles, as to favour ſlavery! Let thoſe who have ignorantly done ſo, recover their credit by redoubled endea⯑vours to reſtore the honour and conſtitutional law of their country, which has been wounded by their treacherous neglect of the foundations of law, whereby they will otherwiſe incur that indelible ſtain of infamy, which our common LAW deſervedly fixes on all perſons who betray the law of the land, ‘Legem terrae amittentes perpetuam infamiae notam inde merito incurrunt.’ (3 Inſt. p. 221). But mark the authorities of our common law to this purpoſe—"Liberty," is declared by the maxims of the firſt foundation, to be "ineſtimable"— ‘Libertas eſt res ineſtimabilis’ (Jenk. Cent. 52.) and ‘Li⯑berty is the greateſt jewel.’ (Grounds & Rudim. of Law and Equity, p. 196.) and therefore ‘cruel of neceſſity muſt that law be deemed, which aug⯑menteth ſlavery, and diminiſheth liberty’—ſays the excellent and worthy Chancellor Forteſcue, [8]who in very dark times of prevailing beſtial power, nobly aſſerted the ſupreme immutable authority of God's two witneſſes, as manifeſted in the firſt prin⯑ciples of our Engliſh common law, or legal con⯑ſtitution. "For in behalf of liberty" (ſays he), "human nature always implores" (or ſolicits fa⯑vour), ‘becauſe Slavery is introduced by man, and for vice; but LIBERTY is implanted BY GOD, in the very nature of man: wherefore when ſtolen by man, it always earneſtly longs to re⯑turn, as does every thing which is deprived of natural liberty; for which reaſon the man who does not favour liberty is to be adjudged IMPIOUS and CRUEL. The laws of England acknowledg⯑ing theſe" (principles,) "give favour to liberty in every caſe. ^*’—A part of this ſentence is cited by Lord Coke, as a maxim of our common law,— ‘Impius et crudelis, judicandus eſt qui libertati non favet.’ (Co. Lit. 124.)—viz. ‘Impious and cruel is the man to be adjudged, who does not favour liberty.’ The oppoſite condition, there⯑fore, to liberty, viz. ſlavery, is properly declared by one of our oldeſt Engliſh authorities in law, Fleta, to be "contrary to nature. ^†" (Fleta, 2d edit. p. 1.) [9]which expreſſion of Fleta is really a maxim of the civil or Roman law (See Inſt. Lib. 1. tit. 3. leg. 2.); and though ſuch appeals in the Roman code to the foundations of law, could not reſtrain the belluina poteſtas of Roman tyranny in any of the ten kingdoms of the beaſt, as clearly foretold in the ſcriptures, nor prevent improper additions to the code under the name of law; yet ſurely the friends of Liberty may be thankful to the Juſtinian code for the authority of its teſtimony againſt ſlavery: for when the two firſt foundations of law ſhall hereafter be reſtored, through God's mercy, to their due power and effect,—when theſe ‘two witneſſes of God ſhall ſtand upon their feet, and aſcend into Heaven,’ (i. e. be eſtabliſhed above all human authority, and be acknowledged as the irreſiſtable will of God, which muſt ‘BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN;)’ then ſhall our deluded Stateſmen, Lawyers, Commercial Politicians, and Planters, be compelled to underſtand that a more for⯑cible expreſſion of illegality and iniquity could not have been uſed than that by which SLAVERY is defined in the Roman code, as well as by our Engliſh Fleta,—i. e. that it is "CONTRA NATU⯑RAM," "AGAINST NATURE;" for conſequent⯑ly it muſt be utterly illegal, a crime which by the firſt foundation of Engliſh law, is juſtly deemed both IMPIOUS and CRUEL, and which in the ſtrong figurative language of God's prophets, under the ſecond foundation of our law, is compared to the guilt of cannabaliſm, or eating human fleſh, as I have ſhewn in my remonſtrance to the Citizens [10]of London, ^* and therefore theſe unnatural crimes of Slavery, and the Slave-Trade, muſt neceſſarily be deemed, like all other unnatural crimes, deteſt⯑able, abominable, and damnable, both to the ſouls and bodies of all that willfully promote them! The ſeverity of theſe expreſſions cannot be reſtrained without injuſtice to the high authorities on which this argument is founded.

[11] It would be an awful inquiry to trace the time when the Engliſh Nation was rendered obnoxious by Slavery, to the application of theſe horrible epithets, impious, cruel, &c. And it is wonderful how the unnatural crime could ſo long be over⯑looked, until uſage and cuſtom had eſtabliſhed in all the Britiſh Colonies, as a right, this enormous wrong; to the perverſion of all legal terms. We [12]cannot conceive that the admiſſion of Slavery into the Colonies has been intentional on the part of government at home, but merely through want of a fixt attention to the two firſt principles of law and religion. But the ſworn Judges of the Colonial Courts (when the oppreſſion firſt began,) were without excuſe for permitting the evil of Slavery to take root without warning their Royal Maſters of the illegality, knowing that the conſti⯑tutional law of the kingdom, is ‘to deny juſtice to no man’ without exception, (‘nulli negabimus aut differemus juſtitiam;’ Magna Charta.) and know⯑ing that they themſelves are ſworn ‘to do juſtice and judgment without reſpect of perſons,’—and alſo that under a legal Engliſh Government, there can be but one law for all deſcriptions of perſons, according to two excellent maxims of the firſt foundation; ^* and conſequently that without na⯑tional reprobacy, there could be no ſuch perſonal diſtinctions in law as SLAVEHOLDER and SLAVE, ſo that they muſt be bound in duty to their King and Country, to prevent in the King's name any ſuch oppreſſion as Slaveholding. They ought to have known, that the limited temporal permiſſion which had been granted to the Iſraelites to hold Slaves, was abſolutely annulled by a ſubſequent command of God, ‘to let the oppreſſed go free, and to break every yoke,’ (Iſaiah c. lviii. v. 5 and [13]6). There is no exception to this command, which proves that a total Abolition of Slavery was at that time, the declared Will of God: which is ſtill more clearly demonſtrated by a future denun⯑ciation againſt the practice of Slaveholders, by the prophet Jeremiah, juſt before the Iſraelites them⯑ſelves were to be carried into Slavery for their op⯑preſſions and neglect of God's laws.

‘Woe be to him that uſeth his neighbour's ſervice WITHOUT WAGES, and giveth him not for his work.’ Theſe are moral laws of eternal obliga⯑tion, (though recorded in the Old Teſtament) be⯑cauſe the reaſon, juſtice, and mercy of them are ſtill obvious; for "ratio legis eſt anima legis," and there⯑fore ſurely woe is moſt alarmingly due to all govern⯑ments, or pretended legal eſtabliſhments, which ſanction ſuch notorious injuſtice and oppreſſion! Should a total diſregard of the two firſt foun⯑dations of the Engiſh Law and Conſtitution pre⯑vail, we ſhall have not only to dread the in⯑famy incurred, according to the maxim, ‘Le⯑gem Terrae amittentes,’ &c. but alſo to look for divine retribution from him who has promiſed to ‘deſtroy the deſtroyers of the earth, and to lead into captivity thoſe that led into captivity!’ And indeed after the moſt careful inveſtigation of all the prophetical marks of the antichriſtian beaſt, and its image, compared with preceding times, ac⯑cording to the beſt Chronological Hiſtories, I am convinced that the accompliſhment and end of the tyranny (not by human means, but "without hand") muſt be nearly approaching! The divine ven⯑geance ſeems ready to be poured upon us!

[14] Let not the inhabitants of Maryland and Caro⯑lina conceive, that becauſe their territories are not included within the bounds of the four great mo⯑narchies, the theatre of the prophetical examples of Divine vengeance, that they ſhall be leſs liable to the awful effects of it! For be aſſured that when the ten kingdoms of Beſtial Roman Government are deſtroyed, the will of God, as expreſſed in the two foundations of Engliſh law, natural and re⯑vealed religion, (God's two witneſſes) will cer⯑tainly be eſtabliſhed "on earth as it is in heaven," according to the univerſal prayer of the Chriſtian church.—Nay, it will be eſtabliſhed ‘under the whole heaven,’ (Daniel vii. 27.) ſo that the only effectual means of avoiding this univerſal deſtruction of beſtial illegality, is to acknowledge, reverence, and eſtabliſh, the two firſt foundations of Engliſh Law above all other authorities; for that muſt be the univerſal effect of the kingdom of Chriſt on earth.

If the Legiſlators and Lawyers of Maryland and the Carolinas, ſhall be able to ſuggeſt any thing like an argument in oppoſition to the high legal au⯑thorities which I have cited, they muſt have more ſubtile heads and worſe hearts than I am willing to attribute to any one, who is not obviouſly actuated by the grand ſpiritual enemy of man!