AN ESSAY ON SLAVERY, Proving from SCRIPTURE its Inconſiſtency with HUMANITY and RELIGION; In Anſwer to a late Publication, entitled, ‘The AFRICAN TRADE for Negro Slaves ſhewn to be conſiſtent with Principles of HUMANITY, and with the LAWS of REVEALED RELIGION.’
BY GRANVILLE SHARP, ESQ.
With an introductory PREFACE, containing the Senti⯑ments of the Monthly Reviewers on that Publication; and the Opinion of ſeveral eminent Writers on the Subject.
TO WHICH IS ADDED, An ELEGY on the miſerable State of an African Slave, by the celebrated and inge⯑nious WILLIAM SHENSTONE, Eſq.
The Lord alſo will be a Refuge for the Oppreſſed—a Refuge in Time of Trouble. Pſal. ix. 9.
BURLINGTON: Printed and Sold by ISAAC COLLINS, M.DCC.LXXIII.
PREFACE.
[]THE following Eſſay, though wrote, as the Author ſignifies, in haſte, is thought to have ſuch merit as to de⯑ſerve a publication.—The copy was ſent to one of the Writer's particular friends, whe⯑ther for his own peculiar ſatisfaction, or the preſs, is uncertain; but as the ſubject is Liber⯑ty, ſo it is expected the Freedom which is here taken cannot juſtly give him offence, or be unacceptable to the publick.
IT was deſigned to confute a piece wrote by Thomas Thompſon, M. A. ſome time fellow of C. C. C. entitled, ‘The African trade for Negro Slaves ſhewn to be conſiſtent with principles of humanity, and with the laws of revealed religion.’ Printed at Can⯑terbury.
IN order to ſhew that the Eſſay Writer has not miſrepreſented the text, nor is ſingle in his obſervations upon it, the ſentiments of the Monthly Reviewers on that pamphlet in May 1772 are here inſerted.
"We muſt acknowledge," ſay they, ‘that the branch of trade here under conſi⯑deration is a ſpecies of traffick which we [iv]have never been able to reconcile with the dictates of humanity, and much leſs with thoſe of religion. The principal ar⯑gument in its behalf ſeems to be, the ne⯑ceſſity of ſuch a reſource, in order to carry on the works in our plantations, which, we are told, it is otherwiſe impoſſible to perform. But this, though the urgency of the caſe may be very great, is not by any means ſufficient to juſtify the practice. There is a farther conſideration which has a plauſible appearance, and may be thought to carry ſome weight; it is, that the mer⯑chant only purchaſes thoſe who were ſlaves before, and poſſibly may, rather than otherwiſe, render their ſituation more tole⯑rable. But it is well known, that the lot of our Slaves, when moſt favourably conſi⯑dered, is very hard and miſerable; be⯑ſides which, ſuch a trade is taking the advantage of the ignorance and bruta⯑lity of unenlightened nations, who are encouraged to war with each other for this very purpoſe, and, it is to be feared, are ſometimes tempted to ſeize thoſe of their own tribes or families that they may ob⯑tain the hoped for advantage: and it is owned, with regard to our merchants, that, upon occaſion, they obſerve the like practices, which are thought to be allow⯑able, becauſe they are done by way of repriſal for theft or damage committed by the natives. We were pleaſed, however, [v]to meet with a pamphlet on the other ſide of the queſtion; and we entered upon its peruſal with the hopes of finding ſome⯑what advanced which might afford us ſatis⯑faction on this difficult point. The writer appears to be a ſenſible man, and capa⯑ble of diſcuſſing the argument; but the limits to which he is confined render his performance rather ſuperficial. The plea he produces from the Jewiſh law is not, in our view of the matter, at all concluſive. The people of Iſrael were under a theo⯑cracy, in which the Supreme Being was in a peculiar ſenſe their King, and might therefore iſſue forth ſome orders for them, which it would not be warrantable for ano⯑ther people, who were in different circum⯑ſtances, to obſerve. Such, for inſtance, was the command given concerning the extirpation of the Canaanites, whom, the ſovereign Arbiter of life and death might, if he had pleaſed, have deſtroyed by plague or famine, or other of thoſe means which we term natural cauſes, and by which a wiſe Providence fulfils its own purpoſes. But it would be unreaſonable to infer from the manner in which the Iſraelites dealt with the people of Canaan, that any other nations have a right to pur⯑ſue the ſame method. Neither can we imagine that St. Paul's exhortation to ſer⯑vants or ſlaves, upon their converſion, to continue in the ſtate in which chriſtianity [vi]found them, affords any argument favour⯑able to the practice here pleaded for. It is no more than ſaying, that Chriſtianity did not particularly enter into the regula⯑tions of civil ſociety at that time; that it taught perſons to be contented and diligent in their ſtations: but certainly it did not forbid them, in a proper and lawful way, if it was in their power, to render their circumſtances more comfortable. Upon the whole, we muſt own, that this little treatiſe is not convincing to us, though, as different perſons are differently affected by the ſame conſiderations, it may prove more ſatisfactory to others.’
IN another place they obſerve, ‘ſince we are all brethren, and God has given to all men a natural right to Liberty, we allow of no Slavery among us, unleſs a perſon for⯑feits his freedom by his crimes.’
THAT Slavery is not conſiſtent with the Engliſh conſtitution, nor admiſſable in Great-Britain, appears evidently by the late ſolemn determination in the court of King's Bench at Weſtminſter, in the caſe of — So⯑merſet, the Negro;—and why it ſhould be revived and continued in the colonies, peo⯑pled by the deſcendents of Britain, and bleſ⯑ſed with ſentiments as truly noble and free as any of their fellow ſubjects in the mother country, is not eaſily conceived, nor can the diſtinction be well founded.
[vii]IF ‘natural rights, ſuch as life and Liberty, receive no additional ſtrength from muni⯑cipal laws, nor any human legiſlature has power to abridge or deſtroy them, unleſs the owner commits ſome act that amounts to a forfeiture:’ (a) If ‘the natural Li⯑berty of mankind conſiſts properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any reſtraint or controul unleſs by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the Gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will:’ (b) If an act of Parliament is controulable by the laws of God and nature; (c) and in its conſequences may be rendered void for abſurdity, or a manifeſt contradiction to common reaſon: (d) If ‘Chri⯑ſtianity is a part of the law of Eng⯑land;’ (e) and Chriſt expreſsly com⯑mands, ‘Whatſoever ye would that men ſhould do to you, do ye even ſo to them,’ at the ſame time declaring, ‘for this is the law and the prophets:’ (f) And if our forefathers, who emigrated from Eng⯑land hither, brought with them all the rights, liberties, and privileges of the Bri⯑tiſh conſtitution—(which hath of late years been often aſſerted and repeatedly contended for by Americans) why is it that the poor ſooty African meets with ſo different a mea⯑ſure [viii]of juſtice in England and America, as to be adjudged free in the one, and in the other held in the moſt abject Slavery?
WE are expreſsly reſtrained from making laws "repugnant to," and directed to fa⯑ſhion them, ‘as nearly as may be, agreeable to, the laws of England.’ Hence, and be⯑cauſe of its total inconſiſtency with the prin⯑ciples of the conſtitution, neither in Eng⯑land or any of the Colonies, is there one law directly in favour of, or enacting Slavery, but by a kind of ſide-wind, admitting its exiſtence, (though only founded on a barbarous cuſ⯑tom, originated by foreigners) attempt its regulation. How far the point litigated in — Somerſet's caſe would bear a fober candid diſcuſſion before an impartial judica⯑ture in the colonies, I cannot determine; but, for the credit of my country, ſhould hope it would meet with a like deciſion, that it might appear, and be known, that Liberty in America is not a partial privilege, but extends to every individual in it.
I MIGHT here, in the language of the famous JAMES OTIS, Eſq. aſk, ‘Is it poſ⯑ſible for a man to have a natural right to make a Slave of himſelf or of his poſteri⯑ty? What man is or ever was born free if every man is not? Can a father ſuperſede the laws of nature? Is not every man born as free by nature as his father? (a) There can be no preſcription old enough [ix]to ſuperſede the law of nature, and the grant of God Almighty, who has given to every man a natural right to be free. (a) The Coloniſts are by the law of nature free born, as indeed all men are, white or black. No better reaſon can be given for the enſlaving thoſe of any colour, than ſuch as Baron Monteſquieu has humourouſly aſſigned, as the founda⯑tion of that cruel Slavery exerciſed over the poor Ethiopeans; which threatens one day to reduce both Europe and Ame⯑rica to the ignorance and barbarity of the darkeſt ages. Does it follow that it is right to enſlave a man becauſe he is black? Will ſhort curled hair like wool, inſtead of chriſtians hair, as it is called by thoſe whoſe hearts are as hard as the nether mill-ſtone, help the argument? Can any logical inference in favour of Slavery, be drawn from a flat noſe, a long or a ſhort face? Nothing better can be ſaid in favour of a trade that is the moſt ſhocking violation of the laws of nature; has a di⯑rect tendency to diminiſh every idea of the ineſtimable value of Liberty, and makes every dealer in it a tyrant, from the director of an African company, to the petty chap⯑man in needles and pins, on the unhap⯑py coaſt.’ (b)
[x]To thoſe who think Slavery founded in Scripture, a careful and attentive peruſal of the Sacred Writings would contribute more than any thing to eradicate the error; they will not find even the name Slave once mention⯑ed therein, and applied to a ſervitude to be continued from parent to child in perpetuity, with approbation—The term uſed on the oc⯑caſion in the ſacred text is Servant; and, upon a fair conſtruction of thoſe writings, there is no neceſſity, nor can the ſervice, conſiſtent with the whole tenor of the Scripture, be extended further than the generation ſpoken of; it was never intended to include the poſterity.
THE miſtaken proverb which prevailed in that early age, that ‘The fathers had eaten four grapes, and the childrens teeth were ſet on edge,’ was rectified by the pro⯑phets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who declared to the people, that ‘they ſhould not have oc⯑caſion to uſe that proverb any more;— Behold all ſouls are mine, as the ſoul of the father, ſo the ſoul of the ſon, the ſoul that ſinneth it ſhall die;—the ſon ſhall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither ſhall the father bear the iniquity of the ſon;—the righteouſneſs of the righteous ſhall be upon him, and the wickedneſs of the wicked ſhall be upon him.’ (a) And the apoſtle Peter aſſures us, after the aſcen⯑ſion of our Saviour, that ‘God is no re⯑ſpecter of perſons, but in every nation he [xi]that feareth him is accepted of him.’ (a) It is alſo remarkable, that at that time an Ethiopean, "a man of great authority," (b) was admitted to the freedom of a Chriſtian, whatever we may think of the colour now, as being unworthy of it.
BUT admitting Slavery to be eſtabliſhed by Scripture, the command of the Sove⯑reign Ruler of the univerſe, whoſe eye takes in all things, and who, for good reaſons, beyond our comprehenſion, might juſtly create a perpetual Slavery to effect his own purpoſes, againſt the enemies of his choſen people in that day, cannot be pleaded now againſt any people on earth; it is not even pretended to in juſtification of Negro Sla⯑very, nor can the ſons of Ethiopia, with any degree of clearneſs, be proved to have deſcended from any of thoſe nations who ſo came under the Divine diſpleaſure as to be brought into ſervitude; if they are, and thoſe denunciations given in the Old Teſtament were perpetual, and continue in force, muſt we not look upon it meritorious to execute them fully upon all the offspring of that unhappy people upon whom they fell, without giving quarter to any?
MANY who admit the indefenſibility of Slavery, conſidering the ſubject rather too ſuperficially, declare it would be impolitick to emancipate thoſe we are poſſeſſed of; and ſay, they generally behave ill when ſet at [xii]liberty. I believe very few of the advocates for freedom think that all ought to be manu⯑mitted, nay, think it would be unjuſt to turn out thoſe who have ſpent their prime of life, and now require a ſupport; but many are in a fit capacity to do for themſelves and the publick; as to theſe let every maſter or mi⯑ſtreſs do their duty, and leave conſequences to the Diſpoſer of events, who, I believe, will always bleſs our actions in proportion to the purity of their ſpring. But many in⯑ſtances might be given of Negroes and Mu⯑lattoes, once in Slavery, who, after they have obtained their liberty, (and ſometimes even in a ſtate of bondage) have given ſtrik⯑ing proofs of their integrity, ingenuity, in⯑duſtry, tenderneſs and nobility of mind; of which, if the limits of this little Piece per⯑mitted, I could mention many examples; and why inſtances of this kind are not more fre⯑quent, we may very naturally impute to the ſmallneſs of the number tried with freedom, and the ſervility and meanneſs of their education whilſt in Slavery. Let us never forget, that an equal if not a greater proportion of our own colour behave worſe with all the advantages of birth, education and circumſtances; and we ſhall bluſh to oppoſe an equitable emancipa⯑tion, by this or the like arguments.
‘LIBERTY, the moſt manly and exalting of the gifts of Heaven, conſiſts in a free and generous exerciſe of all the human facul⯑ties as far as they are compatible with the [xiii]good of ſociety to which we belong; and the moſt delicious part of the enjoyment of the ineſtimable bleſſing lies in a con⯑ſciouſneſs that we are free. This happy perſuaſion, when it meets with a noble na⯑ture, raiſes the ſoul, and rectifies the heart; it gives dignity to the countenance, and animates every word and geſture; it elevates the mind above the little arts of deceit, makes it benevolent, open, inge⯑nuous and juſt, and adds a new reliſh to every better ſentiment of humanity.’ (a) On the contrary, ‘Man is bereaved of half his virtues that day when he is caſt into bondage.’ (b)
THE end of the chriſtian diſpenſation, with which we are at preſent favoured, ap⯑pears in our Saviour's own words, ‘The ſpirit of the Lord is upon me, becauſe he hath anointed me to preach the goſpel to the poor; he hath ſent me to heal the broken hearted; to preach deliverance to the captives; and recovery of ſight to the blind; to ſet at liberty them that are bruiſed; to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.’ (c)
THE Editor is united in opinion with the author of the Eſſay, that Slavery is contrary to the laws of reaſon, and the principles of revealed religion; and believes it alike ini⯑mical and impolitick in every ſtate and coun⯑try; for as ‘righteouſneſs exalteth a nation, [xiv]ſo ſm is a reproach to any people.’ (a) Hence whatever violates the purity of equal juſtice, and the harmony of true liberty, in time debaſes the mind, and ultimately draws down the diſpleaſure of that Almighty Being, who ‘is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity.’ (b) Yet he is far from cenſuring thoſe who are not under the ſame convictions, and hopes to be underſtood with charity and tenderneſs to all. Every one does not ſee alike the ſame propoſitions, who may be equally friends to truth, as our education and opportunities of knowledge, are various as our faces. He will candidly confeſs to any one who ſhall kindly point it out, any error which in this inquiry hath fell from his pen. There can be but one beatific point of rectitude, but many paths leading to it, in which perſons differing in modes and non-eſſentials, may walk with freedom to their own opinions; we may much more innocently be under a miſ⯑take, than continue in it after a hint given, which occaſions our adverting thereto; for it ſeems a duty to inveſtigate the way of truth and juſtice with our utmoſt ability.
A much more extenſive and perfect view of the ſubject under conſideration, has of late prevailed than formerly; and he believes nothing is wanting but an impartial diſ⯑intereſted attention to make ſtill greater advances. Thus, by a gradual progreſſion, he hopes the name of Slavery will be eradicated [xv]by the general voice of mankind in this land of Liberty.
THE mode of manumitting negroes in New-Jerſey is ſuch as appears terrific, and amounts almoſt to a prohibition, becauſe of its incum⯑bering conſequences, which few prudent peo⯑ple chooſe to leave their families liable to. It is much eaſier in ſeveral other colonies. In Pennſylvania a recognizance entered into in THIRTY POUNDS to indemnify the townſhip, is a complete diſcharge. In Ma⯑ryland, where Negroes are ſo numerous, I am informed, the maſter or miſtreſs may at pleaſure give Liberty to their Slaves without the leaſt obligation, and be clear of any future burden. Both theſe are exceptionable, and may be improved. Proper diſtinctions are neceſſary; for as the freedom of all gra⯑tis might be unjuſt, not only to the publick but the Slave, ſo any clog upon the owner who gives up his right at an age when he cannot have received much or any advantage from the labour of the individual, would be unreaſona⯑ble. The wiſdom of a legiſlature earneſtly diſ⯑poſed to do good, will, I hope, be directed to ſurmount every little difficulty in pointing out a ſcheme more equal and perfect, by ſteering a middle courſe; and proper care being kindly taken to aſſiſt and provide for the uſefulneſs of thoſe deſerving objects of be⯑nevolence, the approbation of Divine Provi⯑dence will I doubt not attend ſuch laudable endeavours, and crown them with ſucceſs.— [xvi]That the legiſlative body of each province in America, may give due attention to this im⯑portant engaging ſubject, and be bleſſed to frame and eſtabliſh a plan, worthy of the united juriſprudence, wiſdom, and benevo⯑lence of the Guardians of Liberty, is the ſincere wiſh of
AN ESSAY ON SLAVERY, &c.
[17]AREVEREND author, Mr. Thomas Thompſon, M. A. has lately attempt⯑ed to prove ‘that the African trade for Negro Slaves is conſiſtent with the prin⯑ciples of humanity and revealed religion.’
FROM Leviticus xxv. 39 to 46, he draws his principal concluſion, viz. ‘that the buy⯑ing and ſelling of Slaves is not contrary to the law of nature, for (ſays he) the Jewiſh conſtitutions were ſtrictly therewith conſiſt⯑ent in all points: and theſe are in certain caſes the rule by which is determined by learned lawyers and caſuiſts, what is, or is not contrary to nature.’ I have not leiſure to follow this author methodically, but will, nevertheleſs, examine his ground in a general way, in order to prevent any ill uſe that may [18]be made of it againſt the important queſtion now depending before the judges. (a)
THE reverend Mr. Thompſon's premiſes are not true, for the Jewiſh conſtitutions were not "ſtrictly conſiſtent" with the law of na⯑ture in all points, as he ſuppoſes, and conſe⯑quently his principal concluſion thereupon is erroneous. Many things were formerly tole⯑rated among the Iſraelites, merely through the mercy and forbearance of God, in conſi⯑deration of their extreme frailty and inabili⯑ty, at that time, to bear a more perfect ſyſtem of law. Other laws there are in the five books (beſides the ceremonial laws now abro⯑gated) which are merely municipal, being a⯑dapted to the peculiar polity of the Iſraelitiſh commonwealth, on account of its ſituation in the midſt of the moſt barbarous nations, whom the Hebrews were at all times but too much inclined to imitate.
THE univerſal moral laws, and thoſe of na⯑tural equity are, indeed, every where plenti⯑fully interſperſed among the peculiar laws above-mentioned; but they may very eaſily be diſtinguiſhed by every ſincere chriſtian, who examines them with a liberal mind, becauſe the benevolent purpoſe of the Divine Author is always apparent in thoſe laws which are to be eternally binding; for ‘it is the reaſon of the law which conſtitutes the life of the law,’ according to an allowed maxim of our own [19]country, "Ratio Legis eſt anima Legis," (Jenk. Cent. 45.) And with reſpect to theſe moral and equitable laws, I will readily agree with the reverend Mr. Thompſon, that they are the beſt rule by which ‘learned judges and caſuiſts can determine what is, or is not, contrary to nature.’
BUT I will now give a few examples of laws, which are in themſelves contrary to na⯑ture or natural equity, in order to ſhew that Mr. Thompſon's premiſes are totally falſe:
THE Iſraelites were expreſsly permitted by the law of Moſes to give a bill of divorce to their wives whenever they pleaſed, and to marry other women; and the women, who were put away, were alſo expreſsly permitted, by the Moſaic Law, to marry again, during the lives of their former huſbands.
ALL which practices were manifeſtly con⯑trary to the law of nature in its purity, though not perhaps to the nature of our corrupt affec⯑tions and deſires; for Chriſt himſelf declared, that "from the beginning it was not ſo," Matt. xix. 8, 9. and at the ſame time our Lord informed the Jews, that ‘Moſes, becauſe of the hardneſs of their hearts, ſuffered them to put away their wives.’
NEITHER was it according to the law of na⯑ture, that the Jews were permitted in their be⯑haviour and dealings, to make a partial diſ⯑tinction between their brethren of the houſe of Iſrael, and ſtrangers. This national partiality was not, indeed, either commanded or re⯑commended, [20]in their law—but it was clearly permitted or tolerated, and probably, for the ſame reaſon as the laſt mentioned inſtance—‘thou ſhalt not lend upon uſury to thy bro⯑ther,’ &c.—‘unto a ſtranger thou mayſt lend upon uſury,’ &c. Deut. xxiii. 19.—Again—‘of a foreigner thou mayſt exact;’ (that is, whatſoever has been lent, as appears by the preceding verſes) but that which is "thine, with thy brother, thine hand ſhall releaſe," Deut. xv. 3.
Now all theſe laws were ‘contrary to the law of nature,’ or "natural equity," (whatever Mr. Thompſon may think) and were certainly annulled, or rather ſuperſeded, as it were, by the more perfect doctrines of univerſal benevolence taught by Chriſt himſelf, who ‘came not to deſtroy, but to fulfil the law.’
IN the law of Moſes we alſo read, ‘Thou ſhalt not avenge or bear grudge againſt the children of thy people, but thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf.’ Leviticus xix. 18.
THE Jews, accordingly, thought themſelves ſufficiently juſtified, if they confined this glo⯑rious perfection of charity, viz. the loving others as themſelves, to the perſons mentioned in the ſame verſe, viz. ‘the children of their own people;’ for they had no idea that ſo much love could poſſibly be due to any other ſort of neighbours or brethren. But Chriſt taught them by the parable of the good Sama⯑ritan, that all ſtrangers whatever, even thoſe [21]who are declared enemies, (as were the Sama⯑ritans to the Jews) are to be eſteemed our neighbours or brethren, whenever they ſtand in need of our charitable aſſiſtance.
"THE Jewiſh inſtitution," indeed, as Mr. Thompſon remarks, ‘permitted the uſe of Bondſervants,’ but did not permit the bondage of brethren: STRANGERS ONLY could be lawfully retained as Bondmen—‘of the heathen,’ (or, more agreeably to the Hebrew word, [...] ‘of the nations) that are round about you, of them ſhall ye buy Bond men and Bond maids. Moreo⯑ver of the children of ſtrangers that do ſo⯑journ among you, of them ſhall ye buy,’ &c. —"They ſhall be your Bondmen for-ever." Levit. xxv. 39 to 46.
THIS was the law, I muſt acknowledge, with reſpect to a ſtranger that was purchaſed; but with reſpect to a brother or Hebrew of the ſeed of Abraham, it was far otherwiſe, as the ſame chapter teſtifies; (39th verſe) for, ‘If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be ſold unto thee, thou ſhalt not compel him to ſerve as a Bondſervant, but as a hired ſervant, and as a ſojourner, he ſhall be with thee, and ſhall ſerve thee unto the year of jubilee, and then ſhall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him,’ &c. This was the utmoſt ſervitude that a Hebrew could lawfully exact from any of his brethren of the houſe of Iſrael, unleſs the ſervant en⯑tered voluntarily into a perpetual ſervitude: [22]and, let me add, that it is alſo, the very utmoſt ſervitude that can lawfully be admitted among chriſtians; becauſe we are bound as chriſtians to eſteem every man our brother, and our neighbour, which I have already prov⯑ed; ſo that this conſequence, which I have drawn, is abſolutely unavoidable. The Jews, indeed, who do not yet acknowledge the commands of Chriſt, may perhaps ſtill think themſelves juſtified by the law of Moſes, in making partial diſtinctions between their bre⯑thren of Iſrael, and other men; but it would be inexcuſable in chriſtians to do ſo, and therefore I conclude, that we certainly have no right to exceed the limits of ſervitude, which the Jews were bound to obſerve, when⯑ever their poor brethren were ſold to them: and I apprehend that we muſt not venture even to go ſo far, becauſe the laws of bro⯑therly love are infinitely enlarged, and ex⯑tended by the goſpel of peace, which pro⯑claims "good will towards men," without diſtinction; and becauſe we cannot be ſaid to "love our neighbours as ourſelves;" or to ‘do to others as we would they ſhould do unto us’—whilſt we retain them againſt their will, in a deſpicable ſervitude as Slaves, and private property, or mere chattels.
THE glorious ſyſtem of the goſpel deſtroys all narrow, national partiality; and makes us citizens of the world, by obliging us to profeſs univerſal benevolence: but more eſpecially are we bound, as chriſtians, to commiſerate and [23]aſſiſt to the utmoſt of our power all perſons in diſtreſs, or captivity; whatever the ‘worſhipful committee of the company of merchants trading to Africa,’ may think of it, or their advocate, the reverend Mr. Thompſon.
CHARITY, indeed, begins at home; and we ought moſt certainly to give the prefer⯑ence to our own countrymen, whenever we can do ſo without injuſtice; but we may "not do evil that good may come;" (though our ſtateſmen, and their political deceivers may think otherwiſe) we muſt not, for the ſake of Old-England, and its African Trade, or for the ſuppoſed advantage, or imaginary neceſſities of our American colonies, lay aſide our chriſtian charity, which we owe to all the reſt of mankind: becauſe, whenever we do ſo, we certainly deſerve to be conſidered in no better light than as an overgrown ſoci⯑ety of robbers, a mere banditti, who, perhaps, may love one another, but at the ſame time are at enmity with all the reſt of the world. Is this according to the law of nature?— For ſhame Mr. Thompſon!
I HAVE much more to communicate, but no more time to write:—if I had, I could draw from the ſcriptures the moſt alarm⯑ing examples of God's ſevere judgments up⯑on the Jews, for tyrannizing over their bre⯑thren, and, expreſsly, for exceeding the li⯑mits of ſervitude juſt now mentioned. I muſt find time however to adopt one obſerva⯑tion [24]even from the reverend Mr. Thompſon, (p. 11) viz. ‘This ſubject will grow more ſerious upon our hands, when we conſider the buying and ſelling Negroes,’ not as a clandeſtine or piratical buſineſs, but as an ‘open publick trade, encouraged and promoted by acts of parliament; for ſo, if being contrary to religion, it muſt be deemed a nati⯑onal ſin; and as ſuch may have a conſe⯑quence that would be always to be dreaded.’ May God give us grace to repent of this abo⯑minable national oppreſſion, before it is too ate!
If I have vindicated the law of Moſes, much eaſier can I vindicate the benevolent apoſtle Paul, from Mr. Thompſon's inſinua⯑tions, with reſpect to Slavery; for he did not entreat Philemon to take back his ſervant One⯑ſimus "in his former capacity," as Mr. Thompſon has aſſerted, in order to render Bondage ‘conſiſtent with the principles of revealed religion,’—but St. Paul ſaid ex⯑preſsly, ‘not now as a ſervant, but, above a ſervant, a brother beloved,’ &c. So that Mr. Thompſon has notoriouſly wreſted St. Paul's words.
IN the other texts where St. Paul re⯑commends ſubmiſſion to Servants, for con⯑ſcience-ſake, he at the ſame time enjoins the maſter to entertain ſuch a meaſure of brotherly love towards his Servants, as muſt be entirely ſubverſive of the African trade, and Weſt-Indian Slavery. And though St. [25]Paul recommends chriſtian patience under ſervitude, yet, at the ſame time, he plainly inſinuates, that it is inconſiſtent with chriſti⯑anity, and the dignity of Chriſt's kingdom, that a chriſtian brother ſhould be a Slave. "Can'ſt thou be made free?" (ſays he to the chriſtian ſervants) ‘chooſe it rather, for he that is called of the Lord, being a ſervant, is the Freeman of the Lord; and, in like man⯑ner, he that is called, being free, is the ſer⯑vant of Chriſt’—‘Ye are bought with a price; BE NOT THEREFORE, THE SER⯑VANTS OF MEN.’ The apoſtle, indeed, had juſt before recommended, to his diſciples to abide in the ſame calling wherein they were called, and, "being ſervants, not to care for it:" That is, not to grieve on account of their temporal ſtate; for he was unwilling to ad⯑vance any doctrine that might ſeem to inter⯑fere with the temporal eſtabliſhments of govern⯑ment, and the ſuppoſed rights of men; yet it plainly appears, by the inſinuations, which immediately follow, that he thought it dero⯑gatory to the honour of chriſtianity, that men, who "are bought," with the ineſtimable price of Chriſt's blood, ſhould be eſteemed ſervants; that is, the Slaves, and private pro⯑perty of other men; and had chriſtianity been eſtabliſhed by temporal authority, in thoſe countries where Paul preached, as it is at preſent in theſe kingdoms, we need not doubt but that he would have urged, nay, compelled the maſters, as he did Philemon, [26]by the moſt preſſing arguments, to treat their quondam Slaves, ‘NOT NOW AS SERVANTS, BUT ABOVE SERVANTS— AS BRETHREN BELOVED.’
AN ELEGY On the miſerable STATE of an AFRICAN SLAVE, by the celebrated and ingenious WILLIAM SHENSTONE, Eſq.
- Zitationsvorschlag für dieses Objekt
- TextGrid Repository (2020). TEI. 5512 An essay on slavery proving from Scripture its inconsistency with humanity and religion in answer to a late publication entitled The African trade for Negro slaves shewn to be consistent with pri. University of Oxford Text Archive. . https://hdl.handle.net/21.T11991/0000-001A-5E0E-D