5Tf LIBRARY ®lvf0lo^ical Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J No. Case, Pj 1 ^ i No. Shelf, No. Book,-^—- / :::- ;^.;s=sss jFrotn the Rev. W. B. SPRAGUE, D.D. Sept: 1839. ^ ^Pt'Offve Vm,>„tion. Vnl. ^ * * p r . * .' ' ' * •• ,) • feS*'- " • ^ Ij- 15 “ 4 '.'< " .■ ' - ■•: ',1 . • -* * *' 'A? '<*:■ f •>■**£* ,» *»; • X •'# • V. ' -• * , Mr’.. ' ■■ i:-’ : :am ■ i' ': • - . ' • ••: V- ■■. - ' ' “'Wi , ' ivt- ■» • % .- >{■•;•• ‘ -, ■■■ ♦ 4b. I FSi '• i.- ./'*. ■ >. -*. ,i‘ ft / 5 letter F R O M ‘ — GRANVILLE SHARP, Esq^ O F LONDON, TO THE MARYLAND SOCIETY FOR promoting THE abolition of slavery, AND THE Relief of Free Negroes and Others, unlawfully HELD IN Bondage. Published by Order of the Society. B L T I M 0 R E: Prlnud by YUNDT and PATTON, In CanvEai-STREEi. m.dcc.xciii. ADVERTISEMENT. ^HE following pages contain the Pojifcript of a Letter written by Granville Sharp, Efquire^ of London, to the Secretary of the Maryland Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, Iffc. The author has calculated his obfervations, principally, for the prcfent actual ft ate of the Britifh Colonies, where Jlavery is tolerated by law. They were once more applicable to the condition of thefe States, and it is matter of deep and ferious regret, that their pertinency hi any degree continues. But the glorious American revolution, which gave to people of one complexion independence and liberty, urihappily left thofe of another to groan under the weight of the moft cruel and re- morfelefs Jlavery. The mind that can exercife unprejudiced reafon, and all who regard the Will of Heaven, will abhor the abfurd dfcrimination. Still Jlavery exijts, and, in the caje of Jlaves efcaping from their majiers, the friends of univerfal liberty are often embarrajjed in their conduct, by a confid between their principles and the obligations impofed by unwife, and perhaps unconjlitutional, laws. Senjtble of the delicacy of their Jituation and the difficulties they have to Jiruggle with, the Maryland Society have been extremely circumfped in their condud, and have endeavoured to avoid alarming the Jlave-holder, or interfering in any manner with the laws of property. The produdion, however, of a great and refpedable name, founded in reafon and revealed reli- gion, and on a fubjed daily brought into view by interejiing occurrences in the Southern States, cannot offend the enlight- ened citizens of a free country. Many will colled from his learning and deep refe arches, much ujeful information, and all will find ample matter for ferious contemplation. LETTER, kc. LETTER, &c. A REM ARK which I wrote many years ago, refped- ing the illegality of taking up “ flaves that had “ elcaped from their mailers,” had been ufeful (I was in- formed) to fome friends of humanity in America, in their endeavours to protedl thofe poor opprefled people. I can- not now find a copy of that paper, but the argument was chiefly built on a reference to a text in Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. — “ Thou lhalt not deliver unto his mailer the “ fervant which is efcaped from his mailer unto thee : “ He lhall dwell with thee, even among you, in the place “ which he JJ^all choofe” (manifellly as a freeman) “ in “ one of thy gates where it liketh him hejl : thou lhalt “ not opprefs him.” This, I obferved, was no part of the abrogate ceremonial law of the Jews ; but manifellly a moral law, becaufe the reafon of it Hill remains, fo that it mull be of indifpenfible obligation as long as the hate- ful opprelfions of flave-holders afford us any occafions of exerdfing this duty to God of protefting the Haves that efcape from their mailers ; and, confequently, I afferted, that any colonial law, which oppofes this ordinance of God, by ordering the arrelling, and delivering up run- away flaves ; or which, in any way, tends to deprive them of due legal protedlion, is, of courfe, to be deemed “ a “ corruption, null and void in itfelf,” as being contrary to the fecond foundation of Englilh law. This neceffary confequence I urged from a well known maxim of the Englilh law refpetling llatutes (a£ls of affembly, or adls of parliament) “ nec contra rationem, nec contra legem di^ vinam'* (llatuta) “ exillunt.” — (Dodl. et Stud. c. 10.) — That “ llatutes exill not aj]rainll reafon, nor ao;ainll the divine [ 4 ] divine law.'' And that “ an unjufl; law Is not law." — “ Lex injufla non ell lex.” (Prin. Leg. et Aiquit.) — And again, that “ thefe two laws,” (viz. the law of reafon, and the law divine) “ cannot abate, or turn afide.” — “ Hae duoe leges declinari not polTunt.” — (Dod. et Stud. c. 17.) But I have fince had occafion to regard thefe two fun- damental laws of the Englifh conftitution with ftill more awful attention ; and therefore I mull farther remark, that the hrft foundation, the law of reafon (as including all the laws of nature, juflice and natural right) is certainly to be deemed “ the law of God,” as well as the fecond foun- dation, the divine precepts in the holy fcriptures ; becaufe the former is defined., by high legal authority, to be “ the “ law written upon the heart of man,” (and of courfe is' the law of the Creator) which “ cannot therefore be ob- “ literated, nor changed, by time or place, but ought, “ every where, and among all men, to be maintained, “ becaufe ibe laws of nature are immutable" — “ Lex ra- “ tionis in corde fcribitur,” (which mull therefore be at- tributed to the Creator) ‘‘ ideo deleri non poteft, nec “ recipit mutationem, ex loco nec tempore, fed ubique “ et inter omnes homines fervari debit ; nam jura natu- “ ralia immutabilia funt." (Doft. et Stud. c. 2. p. 5.) This amply demonftrates the propriety of declaring the law of reafon to be the firff foundation of Englifli 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 wifdom," or of Chriji himfelf, that true “ light which lighteth every man that cometh into the “ world,” (John i. 9.) and of courfe it renders every r man obnoxious, through the knowledge of right and law, to the divine vengeance for difobcdience ! Our firfl pa- rents wilfully affumed this knowledge, contrary to an ex- prefs command of their Creator, (being deluded by the fpiritual enemy) and thereby entailed death and condem- nation on all their poflerity, laying them under an abfo- lute [ 5 ] lute neceffity to obtain redemption by a dill farther parti- cipation of the fame “ divine wifdom,” or “ word of “ God.” There is alfo another legal term or title for this firft foundation of law, viz. “ the eternal law,” which in our books is properly defined to mean exadUy the fame autho- rity as the “ law of reafon,” i. e. “ The fupreme reafon “ of divine wifdom, by which God wills that all things “ created by him, be moved and directed to a good and 4 “ proper end.” — “ I.ex seterna nihil aliud eft quam ipfa “ fumnia ratio giibernationis rerum in Deo, five ilia fumma “ ratio divinee fapientiee, qua vult Deus omnia a fecon- “ dita moveri et dirigi, ad bonum efc debitum finem,” &c. (Dodl. etStud. c. i. p. 2.) And again; — The “ law eter~ “ nal under another defcription is called a perpetual and “ conftant will to give to every one his right.” “ Lex “ seterna fub alia defcriptione dicitur perpetua et conftans “ voluntas jus fuum unicuiqiie tribuens ;” (ibid.) Here, then, we find an unmoveable foundation of juftice, of “ right,” of “ the rights of man,” of “ righteoufnefs,” of “ the law of nature,” &c. for all thefe terms are pa- rallel, and are neceflarily included in the law of reafon, or eternal law, which is, very properly, therefore, called “ the jirjl law .'' — “ Lex etiam aterna dicitur lex prima, “ et bene dicitur prima, nam fuit ante omncs alias leges : “ et omnes alise leges dirivantur ab ea.” — “ The law cter- “ nal is called the Jirfl lazu, and well it is called the firjl, “ for it was before all other laws : and all other laws arc “ derived from it.” In this folemn view of the JirJl foun- dation of Englifh law, it muft evidently be deemed a / “ witnefs of God,” as well as the fecond foundation, the written word of God in the holy fcriptures : and both foundations may well be expreflcd together by the more compendious terms of “ natural and revealed religion.” In no inftance whatever are thefe “ two witneftes of “ God” more obvioufly and undeniably refifted than in the toleration of flavery and the Have trade, becaufe they are [ 6 ■] are iniquities which militate againft both foundations, and may therefore be fairly deemed an infallible touchftone to difcover the treachery of pretended loyalifls ; for no man can be truly loyal to God and his country, who is fo to- tally devoid of firft principles, as to favour flavery! J.et thofe, who have ignorantly done fo, recover their credit by redoubled endeavours to reftore the honour and confti- tutional law of their country, which has been wounded by their treacherous negle£t of thefe foundations of law, whereby they will otherwife incur that indelible ftain of infamy which our common law defervedly fixes on all per- fons who betray the law of the land. “ Legem term amit- “ tentes perpetuam infamias notam inde merito incurrunt.” (3 Inft. p. 221.) But mark the authorities of our common law to this purpofe. — “ Liberty” is declared by the maxims of the firft foundation, to be ineftimable.” “ Libertas eft res in- “ eftimabilis,” (Jenk. Cent. 52.) and “ liberty is the “ greateft jewel.” (Grounds and Rudiments of Law and Equity, p. 1 96.) And, therefore “ cruel of necelTity muft “ that law be deemed which augmenteth flavery, and “ diminiflieth liberty,” — (fays the excellent and worthy chancellor Fortefeu, who in very dark times of prevail- ing beftial power, nobly afterted the fupreme immutable authority of God’s two witneflTes, as manifefted in the firft principles of our Englifli common law, or legal conftitu- tion.) “ For in behalf of liberty,” (fays he) “ human “ nature always implores,” (or folicits favour) “ becaufe “ flavery is introduced by man., and for vice ; but liberty “ is implanted by God in the very nature of juan ; where- “ fore when ifolen by man, it always earneftly longs to “ return, as does every thing which is deprived of natural “ liberty. For which reafon the man who does not favour “ liberty is to be adjudged impious and cruel.** “ The “ laws of England acknowledging thefe (principles) give “ favour C 7 ]• “ favour to liberty in every cafe — A part of this fen- tence is cited by Lord Coke as a maxim of our common law — “ Impiiis et crudelis judicandm eft qui liberiati non favetf (Co. Lit. 124.) viz. “ Impious and cruel is “ the man to be adjudged who does not favour liberty.” The oppofite condition, therefore, to liberty^ v\x. Jlavery, is properly declared by one of our oldeft Englilli authori- ties in law', Fleta, to be “ contrary to nature,” f (Fleta, 2d edit. p. 1.) which expreflion of Fleta is really a maxim of the civil or Roman law, (fee Infit. Lib. i. tit. 3. leg. 2.) and tho’ fuch appeals in the Roman code to the founda- tions of law could not reftrain the belluina poteftas of Ro- man tyranny in any of the ten kingdoms of the beaft, as clearly foretold in the feriptures, nor prevent improper ad- ditions to the code, under the name of law, yet furely the friends pf liberty may be thankful to the Juftinian code for the authority of its teftimony againft flavery : for w'hen the two firft foundations of law lhall hereafter be reftored, through God’s mercy, to their due power and effedl — w'hen thefe “ two witneffes of God lhall Hand upon their feet, and afeend into heaven,” i. e. — be eftablilhed above all human authority, and be acknowledged as the irrefiftible will of God, which mull “ be done on earth as “ it is in heaven ;” then lhall our deluded ftatefmen, law- yers, commercial politicians, and planters, be compelled to underftand that a more forcible expreflion of illegality and * “ Crudelis eiiam necellario judicabitur lex, qui fervitutem aug- mentat, et minuit libertator. Kain pro ca natura Temper implo- “ rat humana. Quia ab liomine et pro vicio introducta e(l Jsrvitus. “ Sed hbertas a Deo hominis e(l indita naturs. Quare ipfa ab ho- mine Tublata Temper redire gliTcit, ut Tacit omne quod Hbertate naturale privatur. Qtio impius et crudelis jitdicaudus ejl qui liber- “ tati non favst. Haec confiderantia anglise jura /« osuisi cafu libertati dant favorem,” (Chanc. fort, de Laiidibus Leguin Anglijc, c. 42. P- JOJ-) ^ ... . f “ Eft quidem fervitus, libertati contrarian; ; item conftitntio “ queedam de jure gentium qua quis domino” (or rather “dominio”) “ alieno «/;/»•« fubjicitur,” &c. (r'leta, 2d edit. p. i.) [ 8 ] and iniquity could not haA'e been ufed than that by which fla'vsry is defined in the Roman code, as well as by our EnglilhFleta — i. e. that it is “ contra naturam ’’ — “ ngainjl nature’’ — for confequently it mufi: be utterly illegal, a crime which by the firft foundation of Englifii law is juftly deemed both impious and cruel ; and which, in the ftrong figurative language of God’s prophets, under the fecond foundation of our law, is compared to the guilt of cannibalifm (or eating human flelh) as I have Ihewed, in my remonftrance to the citizens of London * and therefore this unnatural crime of llavery, and the flave trade, mud; neceflarily be deemed, like all other unnatural crimes, deteftable, abominable, and damnable, both to the fouls and bodies of all that wilfully promote them ! The feverity of thefe exprellions cannot be reftrain- ed without injuRice to the high authorities on which this argument is founded. It would be an awful enquiry to trace the time when the Englifh nation was rendered obnoxious, by flavery, to the application of thefe horrible epithets, impious, cruel, he. and it is wonderful how the unnatural crime could fo long be overlooked until ufage and cuftom had eftablilhed in all the Britifh colonies, as a right, this enor- mous wrong, to the perverfion of all legal terms, efpe- cially as the fetting afide the foundations of law, is pro- perly deemed, in the Englifh conftitution, an abdication of government (“ non enim eft rex ubi dominatur volun- “ tas et non lex”) “ there is no king where will governs “ and not law,” an allowed maxim of the Englifh con- ftitution, fo long ago as the reign of king Henry II. (fee Bradon and P'leta.) We cannot therefore fuppofe that the toleration of flavery in the colonies, (which, accord- ing to the conftitutional principles of Englifh government, muft undermine the king’s right to reign there, or in any other place, where by an illegal affent he has efta- blilhed * See the parts marked witlt red ink, In the London edition of the faid remonflrance, pages 8, 9, 10. [ 9 ] bliflied a fundamental corruption of the conftltulional law ; we cannot, I fay, conceive) that the admiffion of flavery has been intentional on the part of government at home, but merely through want of a fixed attention to the two firft principles of law and religion. But the fworn judges of the colonial courts are without excufe, for permitting the evil of flavery to take root, without warning their roy- al mailers of the illegality, knowing that the kings are bound by the conllitutional law of the kingdom “ to ■*'’ “ deny jullice to no man,” without exception, (“ nulii “ negabimus aut dilferemus jullitiam,” Magna Charta ;) and knowing that they themfelves are fworn “ to do jullice “ and judgment, without refpeft of perfons — and alfo, that under a legal Englilh government there can be but one law for all defcriptions of perfons, according to two excellent maxims of the firll foundations, * and confc- quently, that without national reprobacy, there could be no fuch perfonal dillinftions in law, as flave-holder and Have, fo that they mull be bound in duty to their king and country i to prevent, in the king’s name, any fuch oppreflion as flave- holding. They ought to have known that the limited temporal permiflion which had been granted to the Ifrael- ites to hold Haves, was abfolutely annulled by a fubfequent command of God “ to let the opprelTed go free,” and “ to break every yoke,” (Ifaiah viii. 5, 6.) There is no exception to this command, which proves that a total abo- lition of flavery was at that time the declared will of God, which is mil more clearly demonllrated by a future denun- ciation agalnll the praftice of Have-holders, by the pro- phet Jeremiah, jull before the Ifraelites themfelves were to be carried into flavery, for their opprelfions and negledl of God’s laws. “ Woe be to him that ufeth his neighbour’s “ fervice without wages, and giveth him not for his work.” B Thefe * Turpis eft pars qux non convcnit cum fuo toto” — and, nihil in lege “ intolerabilius eft eandem rem diverfo jure cenferi,” (Ground and Rudiments of Law and Equity, No. 307.) C 3 Thefe are moraltlaws of eternal obligation, (though deli- vered by two prophets of the Old Teftament) becaufe the reafon, juftice and mercy of them are ftill obvious ; for “ the reafon of the law is the life of the law.” “ Ratio “ legis eft anima legis.” And therefore furely “ Woe “ is moft alarmingly due to all governments, or pretend- “ ed legal eftablifliments, which fandfion fuch notorious “ injuftice and oppreflion !” For many years the kings of England have unwaringly been induced by their minifters and privy council, for mere political reafons of finance or commerce, to fandion colonial laws which have been utterly inconfiftent with the two firft foundations of Englifh law : but thefe two witneftes of God may now, in a more particular manner, be laid to be flain and lie dead before us (viz. a political or civil death) ever fince the parliament itfelf, (after the moft earneft felicitation and reprefentation, by the people at large, of the enormous iniquity of the flave trade, for more than three years) have, at laft, refufed redrefs ! Their examination of witneftes will afford them no excufe, becaufe no other witneftes were neceftary, in this peculiar cafe, than the two fundamental witneftes of the Englilh law, which, are fo indifpenfible to conftitute a legal go- vernment, that no man can be qualified to'adt as a legif- lator (nor even to exercife the eledtion franchife) who does not acknowledge their fupreme authority. It is a teft which is now become obvioufly neceftary ! After fuch a total difregard of the very foundations of the Englifh conftitution by the legiflature, as may fairly be deemed a civil death of thefe two witneftes, we have not only to dread the infamy incurred, according to the maxim “ Legem terra; amittentes,” &c. but alfe to look for divine retribution from him who has promifed “ to “ deftroy the deftroyers of the earth,” and “ to lead in- “ to captivity thofe that led into captivity.” And indeed after the moft careful inveftigation of all the prophetical marks of the antichriftian beaft, and its image, compared with C •' ] -with preceding times, according to the beft chronological hiftories, 1 am convinced that the acdomplilhment of the tyranny (not by human means, but “ without hand,”) muft be nearly approaching ! The divine vengeance feems ready to be poured upon us ! Let not the inhabitants of Maryland and Carolina con- ceive, that becaufe their territories are not included with- in the bounds of the four great monarchies, the theatre of the prophetical examples of divine vengeance, they fliall be lefs liable to the awful effefts of it! for, be alfured, that when the ten kingdoms of bellial Roman government are deftroycd, the will of God, as exprefled in the two foun- dations of Englilh law, natural and revealed religion (God’s two witnefles) will certainly be eftablilhed “ on earth as it “ is in heaven,” according to the univerfal prayer of the Chriftian Church ; nay it will be eftablilhed “ under the “ whole heaven,” (Daniel vii. 27.) So that the only ef- fectual means of avoiding this univerfal deftruclion of be- ftial illegality is, to acknowledge, reverence and eftablilh the two firft foundations of Englilh law above all other f' authorities ; for that muft be the univerfal effedt of the kingdom of Chrift on earth. If the legillators and lawyers of Maryland and the Ca- rolinas lhall be able to fuggeft any thing like an argu- ment in oppofition to the high legal authorities which I have cited, they muft have more fubtile heads, and worfe hearts, than I am willing to attribute to any one, who is not ob- vioully aftuated by the grand fpiritual enemy of man ! G R A N V I L L E S H A R P, fi, Garden-Court., Temple, London. F INIS. V* ' • • a ' «■- i.y-,'-,' S-- ' . ■ ^...- ■’^ s .it ft "•‘r ^ t Utr ,.' . v; s,.-'.*' . ■ ; -,« ...•■ ■■- ■•y-:-, ,• * ;••♦ ‘ : " -r -, - •- r^. . , ■■'/'•■ ■-.. • • - ^ .■ V-‘' ■ . - ' ft. '^- ' j .. I ** * r ' . I H* ?V^' ■ ■ -V v».'. -? ■ •*>>=■,» •■ •< • s • Jr % . ^ . .- i r’. • , . . <- •■*• • -v*^; •«“■ . •-■ _v* ^ A. 4 y.r. ~ ,»'■■■• • . ,MK am p -liK - 'T> -. *we - -v‘^“‘ . •'■ - Ss •af'^ P’ : ■ , .. • v: >v-: r?:\, . w r'-?5. .V ., > vx • • /’ •. • - r-Y VA.-tf., .'-*_* r'^U ^ -V? -^'-» i M /iMf r • ^ W**-' - '■, ^ . v^-.y: 'V ’ X. » r. ^ .•- / ’. ■ ' !)', ■ “ . • -. , • ‘i0 A.,',: 4 m h vS;^ K,-»a. Sg’