OnJUJuti 
 
 ul& cryo 
 
 uk 
 
 xtVl 
 
 
Qass. 
 Book 
 
 t44k 
 
 
\ 
 
A 
 
 
 By an unknown Author, of Virginia. 
 
 THE advocates, or apologists for slavery, refer to 
 various passages in the New Testament as justifying it. 
 The fnllnwir.g may serve as a specimen. Eph. vi. 5. 
 "Servants be obedient unto them that are'your masters 
 according to* the ilesh. with fear and trembling, in sin- 
 gleness of your heart as unto Christ ; not with eye service 
 as men ^leasers, bat as the servants of Christ, doing the 
 will of God from* the heart; with good will doing service 
 as to tbe Lord and not to man; knowing that whatsoever 
 good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of 
 tha Lor. I, whether he be bond or free." Col. iii. 22. 
 "Servants, obey in ail things your masters according to 
 the flesh, not with eye service as men pleasers, but in 
 singleness of heart fearing God. 1 ' 1 Tim. vi. 1. Let as 
 many servants as are under the yoke, count their own 
 musters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and 
 his doctrine be not blasphemed." 1 Peter ii. 18. "Ser- 
 vants, be subject to your masters, with all fear, not only 
 to the good and gentle, but also to the froward; for this 
 is thank worthy, if a man for conscience towards God, 
 endure grief, suffering wrongfully." 
 
 As these passages speak of servants, and command 
 them to obey, it is thence inferred that it is not wrong to 
 hold persons in such servitude as exists among us; it is 
 inferred that Christians may consistently with the teach- 
 ing of scripture, and their professed subjection to it, 
 hold slaves. 
 
 To this mode of justifying-, or rather trying to justify 
 slavery from scripture, we have many objections. We 
 will mention several of them. 
 
 i. The kind of servitude which existed in those times, 
 and in those communities to which the epistles in ihe 
 New Testament were addressed, was. from ail we can 
 learn of ,:, so very different from negro slavery as it 
 exists among us, that we cannot argue from the one to 
 the other Were we to admit, which however we do 
 A, as will appear hereafter, that scripture justified ser 
 
r 
 
 2 
 
 vitudeas it then existed, it would not follow, that it jus- 
 tifies negro slavery as it exists among us. The one may 
 be, and from the best information we have, is, in fact, 
 so different from the other, that the same general rule 
 i^iich tolerates the one, mav condemn and render unlaw- 
 ful the other. 
 
 The kind of servitude tolerated among the Hebrews 
 was, as 1 have shown* of a very mild character; and at 
 the same time so modified with checks and limitations, 
 that it hardly deserved the name of compulsory servi- 
 tude. Servitude among the Greeks nod Romans, although 
 not so mild as among the Jews, was by no means so hope- 
 less ami debasing, as negro-slavery is among us. 1 think 
 it useless to enlarge on the points of difference. Several 
 of them however ought to he noticed. 
 
 Slaves among the ancients were mostly captives taken 
 in war. They were often persons of as much informa- 
 tion and polish, and of as good families and standing in 
 society, as those who by conquering became their mas- 
 ters. They were not confined to any one race of people, 
 but to all those with whom they might have carried on 
 successful warfare. They were not distinguished by any 
 indelible mark from their masters. They had the pros- 
 pect of being redeemed by their friends or countrymen, 
 of being exchanged, of being liberated. They were not 
 a race of people, distinguished by an indelible mark, as 
 complexion, which was at the same time a mark of de- 
 gradation. Slavery is so connected with the negro com- 
 plexion among us, that it keeps down the negro even 
 where he is freed. No respectable family will form a 
 connexion with him. He is admitted to tew civil rights 
 and privileges. This was not the case with sjavery as it 
 existed of old. The worst, the most oppressive, the most 
 bitter part of it, wa< formerly unknown 
 
 2. I object to this mode of making scripture justify it, 
 because it does not follow from the command given to 
 the servant to obey, that the master is right in holding 
 a person in servitude such as exists among us. The right 
 of the master cannot fairly be inferred from the duty of 
 the servant as set forth in scripture. It is unquestionable 
 that Christians in certain circumsfances are bound to per- 
 form duties, which vet no others have a right to exact 
 of them. Mat. v. 38, 42, will furnish us with an illus- 
 
3 
 
 tration — "ye have heard that it hath been said by them 
 of old times, an eye for an eye, and a tooih for a tooth. 
 But I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever 
 'shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other 
 also And if any man will sue thee at the law and take 
 away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And who- 
 soever shall compel thee to go with him a mile, go with 
 him hvain. Give to him that asketh of thee, and from 
 him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." 
 
 In this passage in the space of four verses we have six 
 commands, which we all are as much bound to obey, a8 
 the servant is to obey his master. But will any one pre- 
 tend that the obligation the christian is under to obey, 
 gives others a correspondent light over him in that par- 
 ticular? He is not, for instance, kk to resist evil:" does it 
 follow that any one has a right to do evil to him, bee mse 
 he must not resist? None, I apprehend, will pretend to 
 it. If any smite him on the cheek, he is kt to turn to hitn 
 the other." Does it follow that any oue has a right to 
 smite him? The christian must give to him that asketh; 
 does it follow that any one has a right to any thing he 
 may choose to ask for? He is not to turn away from him 
 that would borrow; does it follow that the borrower has 
 a right to get by borrowing as much and as often as he 
 pleases? 1 he absurdity of inferring a right in others 
 from the obligation imposed in any of these cases, is 
 manifest! 
 
 The command given to the christian to submit to civil 
 authoritv, will furnish us with a still better illustration, 
 hecause one more in point. It is enjoined, Rom. xiii. 1. 
 "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers — for 
 there is no power but of God. The powers that be, are 
 ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the 
 power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that 
 resist receive to themselves damnation." 
 
 The command here to submit to the powers that be, 
 the civil authorities (and for ought that appears the Ec- 
 clesiastical also, if there be any,) is as general and un- 
 qualified as any commands to servants to obey, that can 
 be found; and in addition it is declared that those powers 
 are ordained of God, and that to resist them exposes to 
 damnation. Now our inference has been drawn from 
 this and similar passages, not unlike the inference drawn 
 
4 
 
 from tbe command to servants to obey; it has been argued 
 that kings and civil rulers held their authority dire* - \y 
 of God, and were accountable to none but God for their 
 manner of using it. The divine nghts of kings has been 
 inferred, and extensively believed; and any attempt to 
 limit royal authority, or any resistance to it however ty- 
 rannical, has been represented as *'a resistance to God 
 in the person of his vicegerents on earth." It is but a 
 few weeks since the newspapers furnished a sample of 
 this doctrine of the divine right of kings, tVorn one of 
 the royal family of Spain "The legfifimacy of kings," 
 says the Duke Del lnfantado, "comes from God: and in 
 virtue of it, they are the absolute masters to effect in 
 their kingdoms and among their subjects whatever chan- 
 ges they think proper, without being bound to render 
 account thereof to any body on earth; or to ask the 
 consent of other sovereigns, and much less of their am- 
 bassadors." 
 
 I apprehend that few if any christians in this country 
 will admit that this doctrine can fairly be drawn from 
 those passages to which its advocates appeal as proving 
 it. They would say that the command in those passages 
 to submit to civil authority presupposed that the civil au- 
 thority would, on the whole, be beneficial in its adminis- 
 traticn; but that if it became tyrannical and oppressive, 
 so that the evils which it inflicted were more than the 
 good which it secured, it might and ought to be resisted. 
 
 The true state of the case appears to be this. From 
 the condition in which human nature now is, some kind 
 of civil authority is necessary. But it is necessary only 
 as a means of averting evils and procuring benefits. It 
 is to be "a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that 
 do well." if this object be not secured, the obligation 
 to submit to it ceases. All attempt therefore to prove by 
 these passages the duty of an absolute and unconditional 
 submission to civil authority, however tyrannical and op 
 pressive, is futile. 
 
 Now it appears to me that the case is precisely the 
 same with respect to servitude, and those passages of 
 scripture which refer to it. From the state in which hu- 
 man nature now is, we may always expect to find vari- 
 ous classes in society, some more or less subordinate to 
 others. It is convenient, if not necessary that it should 
 
5 
 
 be so. Taking the principle thus generally, we hesitate 
 not to say that it is for the interest of society that it 
 should be so. The duties growing out of these relations 
 ought to be faithfully performed. Otherwise the good 
 ends to be attained by these relations would not be se- 
 cured. Isow the scripture recognises these general rela- 
 tions as belonging to society: and it commands the faith- 
 ful performance of the corresponding duties "servants 
 obey your masters, &c." It does not with respect to ser- 
 vitude any more than with respect to government, enter 
 into long details of personal rights, and limitations of 
 authority. But in both cases we are to recollect that the 
 good of man, of society as a whole, is the object to be 
 accomplished, and the obligations to seek this is equally 
 binding on all. The opinion that the many who are 
 governed were made for the few who govern them, and 
 have no rights but at their will and with their permis- 
 sion, is not one whit more unreasonable and absurd, than 
 the opinion that those who till subordinate places in soci- 
 ety, who are servants, are made for those above them 
 and have no rights with respert to them. The duty of 
 superiors towards inferiors in society, or of masters to- 
 wards servants, is to be learned from a different kind of 
 passages than those which teach the dut) of servants; in 
 the same manner as the duty of kings and governors to- 
 wards their subjects, are to be learned from different 
 passages than those which teach the duty of subjects to 
 their rulers. 
 
 Masters are commanded (Col. iv. 1.) to "give unto 
 their servants that which is just and equal, knowing that 
 they have a master in Heaven." Eph- vi. 9. "And ye 
 masters do the same unto them, forbearing threatening, 
 knowing that ye have a master in Heaven, neither is 
 there respect of persons with him." Masters have here 
 a command addressed to them. They are commanded to 
 give to servants what is equal and right. Now the ques- 
 tion arises what is equal and right in a master to a ser- 
 vant? The answer to this question belongs to my third 
 objection against that interpretation of the command to 
 servants to obey, which draws from it a justification of 
 slavery as it exists among us. 
 
 3. Because such an inference from it, goes to set 
 a*ide a general rule given by our Saviour to regulate al ! 
 
6 
 
 tat' dealings with each other. "We are to do in all 
 things to others whatsoever we would have them to do 
 to us," ''this" our Lord tells us "is the law and the 
 prophets." Matthew vii, 12 It is against the spirit of 
 the law of love, Matthew xxii, 40. ''Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbor as thyself." "Oive no man any thing, hut 
 to love one another. — Love norketh no ill to his neigh- 
 bor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law," Rom. 
 xiii, 8 — 10. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, 
 thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," Gal. v, 14. 
 "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a 
 pure heart. and of a good conscience and faith unfeigned." 
 1 Tim. i 15 That all men are bound to love their 
 fellow-men as themselves, and as a practical rule are to 
 do to others as they would have others do to them, is 
 most manifest from these passages. This principle does 
 not break up all the subordinate relations in society — 
 it allows of them, and is perfectly consistent with the 
 commands given respcting a faithful performance of 
 the duties belonging to them, but it requires them to be 
 filled in a way that is consistent with the rights, comfort 
 and happiness of those who fill them, — it forbids what- 
 ever is incompatible with the law of love. 
 
 There are often to be met with, in the world subor- 
 dinate places in society filled in a manner that is ir 
 reconcilable with the law of love, — a manner that pla- 
 ces the right 8 and comfort and happiness of one class in 
 society, altogether and irretrievably in the hands of 
 another. This state of things wherever and whenever 
 it exists, is wrong; and the Christian acts inconsistently 
 with the law of love; and his professed subjection to it, 
 m giving in to practices of this kind. He is not to be 
 conformed to the world in things that violate the law 
 of Christ. 
 
 The question now before us is this: Is negro slavery 
 one of those cases that cannot be reconciled with the law 
 of love ? — that is incompatible with "doing to others as 
 we would have them do to us." These are questions 
 that every man can answer for himself. They do not 
 depend on a process of abstract reasoning. Were any 
 master, by some change, to be placed with his family in 
 a state of slavery, such as the negro slave is in among 
 us, would he think it right id his master to retain him 
 
7 
 
 and his offspring in it; would he think it compatible 
 with the law of love? I feel confident that no man 
 would think it right that others should hold him and his 
 offspring in such a state of bondage! Every man then 
 that would not in a change of circumstances have others 
 hold him in slavery, is hound by that law of equity and 
 love, not to hold others in slavery. It is not many years 
 since some of our citizens were captured and reduced 
 to slavery by some of the Barbary Powers. How was 
 the public «pirit moved at the report of it? and what 
 prompt and decisive measures were taken to restore 
 them to freedom? and how was it visited with vengeance 
 on those Powers? and what a lesson were they taught 
 to respect the unalienable rights of Americans? and 
 how did the public voice approve of the strong ground 
 taken in demanding satisfaction to our injured rights? 
 
 "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to 
 dwell on the face of all the earth." The law of God, 
 the law of love, the law of doing as we would be done 
 by, is given to all. of every name and nation and com- 
 plexion; and it does appear to me most manifest that ne- 
 gro slavery among us is incompatible with that law. 
 We need but look at some of its leading features to be 
 satisfied of this. 
 
 There are many things in negro slavery as it exists 
 among us, to which we all would think it exceedingly 
 hard and unjust, to be ourselves and families subjected. 
 Now the law of "doing as we would be done b\ ," — the 
 law of ''loving our neighbor as ourselves," appears to 
 me most manifestly, to forbid that we should subject oth- 
 ers to these things. 
 
 The negro slave may, with a solitary exception, be said 
 to be stript of all his rights. The law recogises his right 
 to life, and makes some provisions to secure it from being 
 violently taken away; but even those provisions are far 
 short of what are deemed necessary to secure the life of 
 the white man. How this difference is viewed in the 
 eyes of him who "made of one blood all nations of men," 
 and declares "himself no respecter of persons," deserves 
 the serious consideration of all; and especially, of those 
 who call God their Father, and profess to take his word 
 for the rule of their conduct. 
 
 With the above exception, I hardly know the right, 
 
8 
 
 natural, civil or religious, which the slave can be said to 
 possess. All are claimed by the master; and the law of 
 the land sustains his claim. The slave is reduced to a 
 mere chattel — is held by his master as property, with 
 absolute and uncontiolled authority to use him and treat 
 him as his interest, or passion, or caprice may dictate. 
 The slave may be bought and sold at pleasure; and that 
 without any regard to his inclinations; without any re- 
 gard to long and faithful services — and without any re- 
 gard to family ties. His times of labor and of rest; the 
 kind and degree of labor, depend on the will of his mas- 
 ter. Should a master refuse the degree of rest needful 
 to support nature — should he work his slave beyond his 
 natural strength, the slave has no redress. No one is 
 authorised to interfere. The master claims the whole 
 proceeds of the labor of the slave; and that without 
 acknowledging any obligation to give any compensation, 
 more than a bare subsistence. And as to the means of 
 subsistence, the kind and quantity of food and clothing, 
 the master has it absolutely in his power. Should he 
 give what is unhealthy in kind, and insufficient in quantity 
 there is no redress. The master may punish his slave in 
 what manner and degree he please, (not immediately ta- 
 king life) for his faults, real or suspected; or for no 
 fault at all. Should a master from prejudice, or caprice, 
 or sheer cruelty, abuse and punish, and torture his slave 
 every day as much as his nature would bear; I know of 
 no law of the land, which would make it the duty, or en- 
 able any one, to interfere and stop the crying injustice. 
 The mastermay cutoff hisslave, to what extent he please, 
 from intercourse with the world. He may prevent his 
 forming family connexions; or he may break them up, 
 when formed. Where the relation of husband and wife 
 exists in good faith between the parties, and is strength- 
 ened by all the endearments of a family of children, the 
 pledges of their mutual love, the law still gives no pro- 
 tection. The master may sell the husband without the 
 wife, or the wife without the husband; the parents 
 without the children, or the children without the pa- 
 rents. He may sell them all — he may sell them all sep 
 arately; one to one man, to be removed in one direction, 
 and another to another man, to be taken in a different 
 direction; as his interest, passion or caprice may influ- 
 
9 
 
 ence. The owner may keep his slaves as ignorant as he 
 please, or as ignorant as he can. He may refuse to 
 teach them to read, and may forbid any other person to 
 do it. He may oppose their religious instruction. He 
 may prevent their attending the preaching of the gospel. 
 He may place them in situations so remote from the 
 public means of grace; and so lay his commands on them 
 as to staying at home, that humanly speaking; the slave 
 has no chance of hearing and understanding the gospel 
 to his salvation. Yea so absolute is the power of the 
 master and so cut off from all help and all defence, is 
 the slave, that the slave may be obliged to enter on, and 
 pursue sinful courses. Female slaves may be compelled 
 to unclean living. The direct power of the owner or 
 manager to enforce his wishes, by hard usage, and pun- 
 ishment in all its forms; and the want of means of de- 
 fence on the part of the slave, even as to giving testi- 
 mony against a white man, places the purity of the fe- 
 male, and the comfort and happiness of both male and 
 female, as connected with female purity and mutual 
 confidence, in the power of those over them. Whether 
 slaves be allowed to perform parental duties — educate 
 their children, or children perform filial duties, depends 
 on the will of the owner. 
 
 Jt would be easy to add to the above statement other 
 things in which the situation of the slave is most expos- 
 ed — is most hard — is such that their masters would be 
 utterly unwilling to be held in it themselves with their 
 families— is such that masters would think it righteous 
 in the sight of God and man, to run every hazard and 
 contend even unto blood, rather than continue in it, and 
 leave it a heritage of sufferings and wrongs to their 
 children. 
 
 Now the single question I would press for an answer, 
 given in the fear of God, is this: 
 
 Is the believer in the Bible, is the professor of the 
 religion of Christ, justified — can he be be justified in 
 the sight of him who is no respecter of persons? — Can 
 he be justified by that word of God, which commands 
 him to ''love his neighbor as himself?' 1 '' — by that com- 
 mand of Christ, "In all things whatsoever ye would that 
 men should do unto you, do ye even so to them," can he, I 
 "av, be justified in holding a fellow-creature deprived 
 
 B 
 
io 
 
 of rights which, in his own case, he declares unaliena- 
 ble; and for which he would think himself justified in 
 the sight of heaven and earth, in contending even unto 
 blood? — Can he be justified in giving his countenance to 
 a system, which is based on a total disregard for rights, 
 which he puts in the same scale with his own existence, 
 — a system, which opens the door for evils and oppres- 
 sions, agninit which he would think it right to defend 
 himself and family at every hazard? Can he be acquit- 
 ted before thai ''God, who is of purer eyes than to be- 
 hold iniquity," in giving in to a practice, pregnant with 
 so many evils: which presents such strong temptations to 
 iniquity, and which operates in so many ways against the 
 salvation of both master and slave? 
 
 I think it uselegs here to enumerate all the ways, in 
 which professors of religion explain the ''rule of doing 
 as we would be done by," in its application to slavery. 
 Perhaps the more common way is to apply the rule to 
 the case in a very partial manner; in a manner so par- 
 tial, as not at all to touch its most essential parts. Thus 
 the whole matter of depriving a fellow creature of his 
 rights,- or (which in its morality is the same) withhold- 
 ing them from him, is passed over. 
 
 The rule of doing as we would be done by, is not ap- 
 plied to the act of withholding his rights; hut to the 
 treatment he receives, considered as thus stripped of 
 them ! We daily meet with persons, who appear to make 
 the whole morality of holding slaves, consist in the man- 
 ner of treating them. To the treatment of slaves, sim- 
 ply considered, they, in some sort, apply the rule; but 
 to the act of holding a lelloiv creature in slavery, ron- 
 sidered separately from his treatment in that state, they 
 appear not to apply the rule at all. They take it lor 
 granted that the "rule of doing as we would be done b) ,"' 
 allows the holding of slaves, provided we treat them 
 well. 
 
 Now this to me appears, most manifestly, a partial 
 application of the rule to the case. The most important 
 part of the case is not tried by the rule at all. No 
 question is made about stripping a fellow -creature of 
 lights, or withholding them from him. And why not? 
 Is it not one of those rases in which we can suppose our- 
 selves io a change of place, and so apply the rule as 
 
11 
 
 easily, as we can to any special act of treatment towards 
 those in slavery? On tvhat authority is it withdrawn 
 from the catalogue, embraced by our Saviour in the first 
 part of his rule: "In all things, &ic. do ye, &c." 
 
 It appears to me capable, if not of absolute demonstra- 
 tion, yet of a high degree of proof, that the single act 
 of withholding from a fellow-creature, his ngh's, or in 
 other words, the holding him in slavery, is the "very 
 head and front of the offending." This is the great ori- 
 ginal sin in every case where slavery, such as exists a- 
 mong us, is found. The treatment of slaves may be 
 good or bad, kind or cruel, in all their various degrees; 
 and may of course be more or less conformable to the 
 "rule of doing as we would be done by." But the act of 
 depriving a fellow-creature of his rights, to the extent 
 the negro slave is deprived of his, or the act of with- 
 holding or refusing to restore them; or in other words, 
 the act of holding him in slavery, is at all times and in 
 all situations, a violation of the rule. For plainly no 
 man who has common sense, and understands the case 
 would be willing to be stripped of his rights, and held in 
 slavery such as the negro is doomed to. So far from 
 being willing to be treated thus, he would think it most 
 hard, he would, if he understood his natural rights as 
 most masters do, think it most unrighteous,- and would 
 think it light to make every effort to burst his bands, and 
 go out tree. Now on what principle is it, that the iule 
 "of doing as he would be done by," is not applied to 
 this case? may the professor of religion in the face of 
 the rule and in the hearing of the declaration of his 
 master, "with what measure ye mete, it shall be meas- 
 ured to you again," meet out the hard measure of sla- 
 very to a fellow creature; while he would at every haz- 
 ard, refuse it in his own case? 
 
 I pass by for the present all the questions respecting 
 the treatment of slaves, and the bearing it may have 
 on their opinions on this subject. For the sake of get- 
 ting that part of the question separated from the other, 
 let us suppose that they are treated as well as they 
 ought to be — that the law of doing as we would be done 
 by, applied fairly to the case of their treatment, finds 
 no fault; still he is in slavery, and what is implied in 
 that? why he is stripped of all his rights — 13 entirely 
 
12 
 
 under the power of another — is held as propery with a 
 long train of disabilities, and deprivations, and liabili- 
 ties to evils and oppressions, in all their varieties. Now 
 the question returns, do the laws which Christ has given 
 his people to regulate their conduct towards their fellow 
 men, allot? of this stripping another of his rights; or 
 withholding them from him? It appears to me most 
 manifest that they do not, and \et many appear to see 
 the matter differently. It seems therefore necessary to 
 attempt a farther illustration of it. 
 
 No injuries are more pernicious, to us, no injustice is 
 more cruel than that done to our righis. This surely 
 needs no proof in the day in which we live, and among 
 the free and enlightened people of America. Injuries 
 of no other kind, are to he compared with them. The 
 reason is plain. While we are invested wiih our rights, 
 they are our armor of defence against all kinds of evils, 
 to which we are exposed from our fellow men, and 
 where an injury is received, our rights in their legitim- 
 ate operation, will procure us amends. They are an. 
 armor defensive and offensive. They afford security. 
 But where in any case, they fail to do that, they enable 
 us to procure amends, for the evil suffered. 
 
 But suppose we are injured in our just unalienable 
 rights — suppose we are stripped of them — suppose thev 
 are forcibly withheld from us, our armor of defence is 
 gone. We may be injured every day — we may he as- 
 sailed on every part. We have no help. We have not 
 the means of defending ourselves against the injury — 
 we have not the means of getting amends for it. 
 
 To illustrate this case; suppose a man or a body of 
 men, deprived of the single right of self defence, and 
 that not for any crime but to enable those, who dep rived 
 them of the right, to accomplish certain purposes with 
 them, their families, property, &c. the fact that some 
 of these persons might owing to peculiar circumstances, 
 feel but little inconvenience from the cruel measure, 
 would not alter the character of the measure, nor 
 lessen the guilt of those who passed it. The very 
 nature and tendency of the measure was to expose them 
 to oppression, and injury, and wrong, and that without 
 redress. No one act of wrong that they might meet 
 with under it nor any number of acts, would equal, in 
 
13 
 
 their armory of wronp-. th*> injustice and cruelty of the 
 single act, which stripped them «>f the nglit of self-de- 
 fence, and for the plain, simple reason, that the act 
 whirh stripped them of the right of self defence, expo- 
 sed them to all kinds of assaults and injuries, from all 
 torts of persons at all times and places 
 
 Or suppose any man or bod* of men j ut oat of 
 the protection of the Law; not for any crime t»ut simply 
 that those who did it might treat them as they please 
 and serve themselves of them. 1 o what does not their 
 outlawry expose them? They may he watched and 
 wav laid and ensnared — they may be hunted with men 
 and guns and dogs, and all kinds of offensive weapons — 
 they may be deceived and betrayed, by acquaintances, 
 relations, and friends. No person, no place, nor time, 
 is so sacred as to afford protection. Now it would take 
 nothing from the monstrous injustice of the outlawry, 
 were we to suppose that some of the outlawed, owing to 
 peculiar circumstances felt few, if any, of these evils, 
 and tor the obvious reason, that the act of outlawry ex- 
 posed to all sorts of evils It was its nature to do this, 
 and if they all did not fall on the victim no thanks to the 
 a« t, nor to those who passed it. The act of outlawry is 
 the great injury — the original sin tn the case. More or 
 less evil may flow from it, as times and other things may 
 permtt; hut it produces no good of itself, but evil, only 
 evil and that continually. 
 
 That injuries in our rights are the greatest evils we 
 are exposed to — are great mother evils, which are pro- 
 lific of others to an unknown extent, is well understood 
 by the American people. This is evidenced by the tact, 
 that both the wars which were carried on against Eng- 
 land were for rights. 
 
 The special act of injury committed at the commence- 
 ment of the revolutionary war, considered separately 
 from the rights involved, would, we may safely say, not 
 have produced war. The money drawn from us by the 
 two penny tax on tea, and the stamp act, was not worth 
 fighting about; except as it involved principle. 
 
 But had we yielded the principle that England might 
 tax us at pleasure, who can tell what taxes she might 
 have laid? what hurdens imposed? She might have 
 ground us to the dust; and made us hewers ot wood and 
 
14 
 
 drawers of water, to her wants or pride or extravagance 
 
 In the last \var for Sailors 1 rights, the case was much 
 the same. The number of sailors impressed, was not 
 so great; nor their condition on hoard the British fleet, 
 so deplorable; (they fared as the British sailors did) as 
 to make a re«ort to war indispensable; leaving out of 
 view the rights involved. But had we given up the right 
 of search and impressment, who can tell to what extent 
 it might have gone? Who can tell how many thousands 
 might have been torn from house and home and all that 
 was dear, and made to spend their lives in fighting tha 
 battles of England? 
 
 We might refer to the political questions now agitated, 
 with so much earnestness, between the national and 
 state governments, and their adherents. Rights are the 
 b^ne of contention. And they are contended for, with 
 a zeal, which proves that their worth is understood. It 
 is seen and felt and avowed, that with our rights is con- 
 nected, every thing that is dear — that it they be lost, 
 all is lost — if they be saved, all is safe. 
 
 That our rights are more important than any thing 
 else, of which we can be deprived — that we may re- 
 ceive a deeper injury in our rights, than in any other 
 way, (and of course may do a greater injury to another 
 in his rights) is on the whole well understood by the mass 
 of the people. They have been pretty well schooled oo 
 this matter. 
 
 Now to see a professor of religion, who is thus alive 
 to the worth of rights; thus alive to the deep and irre- 
 parable injury which he may receive from that quarter; 
 and who professes obedience to the command of his Lord, 
 to "Love his neighbor as himself" — "to do in all things 
 as he would be done by:" — to see him in applying this 
 rule to the case of slavery, pass over the whole matter 
 of rights, the very part where he is most alive in his 
 own case — the very part where the deepest wound may 
 be given — the greatest injustice committed, — and busr 
 himself about the quantity of bread and meat and cloth- 
 ing, which will satisfy the rule — what shall we say of 
 it! "What man seeing this, and having human feelings, 
 does not blush, and hang his head to think himself a man." 
 
 What were the rights we were like to lose at the com- 
 mencement of the revolutionary war? and to prevent 
 
15 
 
 which we entered into that tearful strife/ The right oi 
 not being taxed but with our own consent. And what 
 were the rights contended for in the last war? The 
 rights of not being subject to search and impressment. 
 These rights were in the view of the people at large, 
 worth contending for unto blood. The great bulk of pro- 
 fessing christians thought so too; and gave ample proof 
 that they approved of the war, as naht and necessary, 
 by contributing their part to support it; and many of 
 them by treading the tented held and mingling in the 
 strife of battle. 
 
 Now what are these rights, compared with the rights 
 of which the slave is deprived? They are a mere no- 
 thing! and how can the chiistian slave holder say, he 
 obeys Christ — "he does as he would be done by." 
 
 But it will perhaps be said, tne slaves don't know their 
 rights; they have never possessed them and can't esti- 
 mate their loss! Now passing a good many questions, 
 which it would be more easy to ask than to have answer- 
 ed, respecting the generosity and justice and geneial 
 morality, of withholding from a fellow creature, his 
 rights, because he is ignorant of them, or unable to as- 
 sert them; I would like to know how it is reconciled with 
 the morality of the gospel? what part of the teaching 
 of Christ or his apostles, gives the shadow of authority 
 for a course of couduct of this kind? How can it be re- 
 conciled with the rule of "doing as we would be done 
 by r 
 
 Apply the principle to the case of property. An or- 
 phan has a right to property; but owing to some untoward 
 circumstance, in which he has been placed in mtancy, 
 and kept ever afterwards; he knows but little, if auy 
 thing about his rights. The whole matter is so situated, 
 that while his right is good, his neighbor can keep him 
 from the possession of it, and, to a great degree, igno- 
 rant of his right to it; and destitute of the inioraialnm 
 needful to make the best use of it, were he in auy way 
 to get it in posnession. 
 
 What now would we say of the honesty of that neigh- 
 bor, who would take advantage in such a case? What 
 would we say of his excuse, "he does not know the pro- 
 pert} is bis;" "he does not know his rights;' 1 "he can 
 make no estimate of his lees." Aud how much would he 
 
16 
 
 wend the matter, in the eyes of every honest man, were 
 he to say, the person whose property 1 hold, not only 
 does not know that it is his; or at least I can hold it in 
 spite of him; but he is too ignorant to make a good u«*e 
 of it, if he had it; when it was notorious that he had 
 kept him in ignorance, as a means ot keeping him from 
 his rights? And were ton defrauder and oppressor to 
 plead the example of others, who acted to the same way; 
 weie he to plead that every man with a white face in 
 his neighborhood, treated every one with a yellow or a. 
 black face, as he did the orphan boy, how much would 
 he help his cause? Were he to profess the religion of 
 the Lord Jesus, and take his seat at the sacramental ta- 
 ble, while he still held on to the wages of unrighteous- 
 ness; what would we sav of his profession? what would 
 we say of his religion? Suppose he were heard to say, 
 and with great self complacency, "I am good to the or- 
 phan boy — I have, it is true, stripped him of his all, but 
 I am not cruel to him. I give him bread and meat when 
 he passes, and at limes make him presents of my old 
 clothes." 
 
 "How would public indignation brand such conduct.'* 
 ; 'Hoiv would the report of it spread from Dan to Beer- 
 sheba," and how would his name, blotted with disgrace, 
 be handed down to posterity." 
 
 Now what is the loss of property, compared with the 
 loss of liberty ? what is poverty, compared with slavery? 
 and on what page of scripture is the rule of justice, of 
 doing as we would be done by, suspended, wheu we meet 
 with a man with a black fare? 
 
 But passing by the injustice, and the violation of the 
 rule of "doing as we would be done by, 11 manifested in 
 withholding from a fellow creature rights, which in our 
 own case, we would defend at every hazard; there are 
 many other considerations which ought to induce profes- 
 sors of religion to loose no time in doing justice to that 
 greatly injured people. 
 
 If the American people were justified in the sight of 
 heaven, in contending to blood w ith England, for their 
 just rights, (ami most professors 01 religion appear to 
 believe they were,) what would not the negro slave l»e 
 justified in doing, in the sight of dim who is no respecter 
 of persons, to regaiu his withholden rights? That at- 
 
17 
 
 tempts at insurrection have been made, all know. That 
 thfv will he made again, unless means he used to Ho jus- 
 tice to that injured people, we have every reason to 
 fear. Blood has been shed again and again, on account 
 of these attempts; and how much and how often it may 
 be shed again, we know not. 
 
 Now a question rises here which, to me at least, has 
 something awful in it; and I most earnestly entreat the 
 attention of every conscientious person to it. On whom 
 will lie, in the sight of God, the bloo'J which is shed in 
 these attempts? Will no part of the guilt rest on those 
 who withhold from their fellow creatures their ju*t rights? 
 who refuse to restore them? and who put him to death 
 for attempting to obtain what is his ow what he 
 
 cannot get in any other way? And will '-ofessor 
 
 of religion who upholds such a sysi a sad of 
 
 obeying the command (Isaiah 58: f he 
 
 bands of wickedness, to undo t [a , ' • t 
 
 the oppressed go free, and break 
 aid and support to surh a system o 
 taker in the guilt? Will not that "judgm* i 
 begin at the house of God, 11 (1 Peter. 4 17.)-.lay a ,; 
 of the blood to his charge? If right i on the 
 the slave; if that right be forcibly withi >ldeo, iod his 
 blood be shed for attempting to regain wh viii d 
 voluntarily restored, let the upholders of I 
 look well to what awaits them, from Him tha 
 righteously! We are aware that with many, t. 
 sideration will have little weight, it ought to 
 weight with him who believeth that "God makeih in 
 sifion for blood," and has declared that "be shall ha 
 judgment without mercy, who showed no merry." 
 
 But it is said the law of the land permits slavery. Ad- 
 mit that it does. Is the law of the land to set aside the 
 law of God. Does the law of "loving our neighbor as 
 ourselves," permit it? Does the law of "doing as we 
 would be done by," permit it? I think I have shown 
 sufficiently that ft does not. Why plead the law of the 
 land? Is not the law of God, the rule by which the 
 christian ought to be governed? Are we allowed to de 
 part from the law of God, whenevei the law of the land 
 permits? I admit that the law of the land permits us to 
 hold slaves; and J may add, it permits many other things. 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 which the law of God forbids. It permits a man to be & 
 drunkard, an unkind husband, an improvident lather; it 
 permits him to be a socinian, an infidel, or even an athe- 
 ist. It permits him to withhold his aid from the support 
 of religion; to utterly neglect the worship of God, both 
 in public and private; with a whole catalogue of other 
 permissions, which would fill a page to name them. And 
 it does not require proof to shew, that many make the 
 same use of these permissions, that the objector does in 
 regard to holding a fellow creature in slavery. They 
 practice accordingly. Will any one pretend that they 
 are all right in the sight of God, because the law of the 
 land permits them? 
 
 No law of the land o! iy man to hold slaves, 
 
 any more than it oh' • neglect religion, or be 
 
 an Infidel. Any umh wh s. may act the just, and 
 
 the generous g his slaves; provided he 
 
 observes tr h have been thought need- 
 
 ful to pr' . ! <hecoiT>nu iy from being injured. Many- 
 have li . s; some are now doing it, and 
 we ' lime • come, when, at least all who 
 n-. Christ, will do it. God has in his 
 .ce opened an Asylum at Liberia and 
 at Ha .iat oppressed people: where they may be 
 At advantage to themselves, and to the hon- 
 qr of o country, and our common Christianity. 
 
 Ann ,er consideration, which ought to induce profes- 
 reWgion to lose no time in doing justice to that 
 ed people, may be found in their sufferings and op- 
 pressions. It must in the nature of the case happen, that 
 much cruel oppression and wrong, will take place under 
 any system which places one class of persons, to the ex- 
 tent that slaves are, under the power of another. To 
 say that public sentiment protects them, is little better 
 than trifling with so serious a matter — it hardly deserves 
 an answer. That public sentiment has some influence, 
 no one denies; but the question is, does it give a suitable, 
 a sufficient protection? Try the principle on anothei 
 case, in which it manifestly has much more influence. It 
 is undeniable, that public sentiment requires much more 
 of masters amon? ourselves, than it does of masters 
 towards their slaves. Little or no notice will be taken 
 of conduct towards a slave, which, if it were repeated 
 
I 
 
 19 
 
 towards a white man, would be reported all over the 
 neighborhood, and call down unqualified condemnation. 
 And yet with all this protection to the white raan, from a 
 more favorable public sentiment, what man would be 
 willing to dispense with all other protection, tor his per- 
 son, family, character and property? And still the 
 same man, who would think it an intolerable state of so- 
 ciety, to have no other protection in his own case, is per- 
 haps saying, public sentiment affords a very good protec- 
 tion for slaves! 
 
 It proves at least one thing. It proves that the rule 
 of doing as we would be done by, is not applied equally to 
 master and slave. But how can the professor ot reli- 
 gion reconcile that with the command of Christ, to have 
 but one, and to apply it "in all things ." The man who 
 is at all acquainted with human nature — who believes 
 the account of it given in the sacred volume, must, we 
 would think, at once own that no men ought to have such 
 absolute authority over others, as masters have over 
 slaves. It is not good for the master; but will greatly 
 expose him to the sins of unkindness, injustice, severity, 
 &c. and it will expose the sla\e to oppressions and 
 wrongs, in ways innumerable. 
 
 There is no man who is acquainted with the system of 
 negro slavery among us, but must know that there are 
 many cases, in which the condition of the slave is most 
 hard — when the labor is severe and oppressive — wheo 
 the food and clothing both in kind and quantity, are de- 
 fective — when the toils and labors of life, seldom meet 
 with any compensation, or even approbation from the 
 master — and when as to his spiritual concerns, it may 
 be emphatically said, 4k no man cares for his soul" — and 
 when all these personal evils, are embittered by the 
 galling reflection, — this is the doom of my kindred — it 
 awaits my children, and my childrens' children, it may 
 be, for generations to come! 
 
 Now when oppressions, and injuries, and wrong*, are 
 the natural results of a system; it is not enough that 
 the christian should not himself oppress. He is bound 
 by the law of love and justice, not to uphold or give 
 support to such a system. If he gives his support to a 
 system, which is thus fruitful in wrongs; he is account 
 able in part for the wrongs which are done 
 
20 
 
 Suppose a christian holds slaves as absolute property, 
 and treats then. well. His neighbor holds them as pro- 
 perty, and treats them cruelly. He justifies himself how- 
 ever in holding" them, by pointing; to his neighbor, who 
 pr<>iV*ses religion. N >w if we admit the right to hold 
 slaves ri* property, in what way shall cruel usage be 
 prevented? Will not every man claim the right, of using 
 his property as he pleases? The system, as it appears 
 to me, must be given up, or altered in some of its most 
 essentinl features, before the door can be closed against 
 the oppressions, and cruelties, and wrongs that take 
 place under it. Aod tines not the religion* profession of 
 th< christian? — does^he example of the Saviour, who 
 came to "open prison doors and proclaim liberty to the 
 eaptii es"?— d >es nol the i.iw of hue? — does not his du- 
 ty to « a ligtn in the world? — to do good to all men? — 
 do not his hopes of a better world, founded on the grare 
 and mercy >»( God? — do not all these considerations. g'*e 
 us r right to expect that he will take the lead in the be- 
 nevolent work "t relieving the oppressed? yea, that he 
 will account it his privilege to make sacrifices, where so 
 much evil may be prevented, and so "manv thanksgivings 
 be made to abound to God on his account? 1 ' 
 
 But oppressions and wrongs, although highly offensive 
 to God, are not the only evils resulting from slavery. 
 There are others equally, if not still more crying in the 
 sight of God. It is a natural consequence of holding 
 slaves as property, that the law cannot protect their mar- 
 riages; that it can do almost nothing to protect their 
 purity. While every man claims the right of property 
 in his slaves; while slaves may be seized and sold for 
 debt; while the owner may sell them at pleasure; their 
 marriages can have no se< urity. They can be little bet- 
 ter than a system of temporary concubinage, and that of 
 a very loose kind. 
 
 The frequent separations made by sales, and transfers, 
 and removals of slaves, must tend to weaken and destroy 
 xn slaves, the sense of obligation to marriage fidelity. 
 The entire uncertainty how long they may be allowed to 
 remain, will naturally lead to temporary connexions, 
 with a view simply to present gratification. And these 
 views and feelings in the females, taken in connection 
 with their entire dependence on the whites, and tbenat* 
 
21 
 
 ural tendency of the frmate mind, to desire the favor of 
 those above i iiern ; musi have the most pernicious effect 
 oo their puritj . That this is ihe case, is notorious. — 
 There is no ieason to ascnhe it to any peculiar constitu- 
 tional tendency in the slave. It is the natural effect of 
 the system. And any race of females, circumstanced as 
 thev are. would exhihit the same character. 
 
 But there is another view of this matter, which we 
 cannot overlook. What effect will it. have on the morals 
 of the whites, to have about them,, and under their ab- 
 solute authority, a class of females, thus deprived of the 
 strongest motive?, to purity? Females, so entirely de- 
 pendent on them, tbat threatening, and promises and 
 management, can hardly fail to make them subservient 
 to their wishes. Let any one look at the number of mu- 
 latto slaves among us. and their rapid increase, and draw 
 his own inference. Oh, how many have fallen before 
 this temptation! So many, that it has almost ceased to be 
 a disgrace to fall. Oh, how many parents, how many 
 professing parents, might trace the irreligion, and impie- 
 ty, and licentiousness, and shame, of his or her prodigal 
 Son, to the temptations found in the female slaves of their 
 own or neighbor's househol I ? slaves who knew they 
 would belong to young master, and very naturally con- 
 cluded they must gratify his wishes. 
 
 Now when we read the repeated declarations, that 
 fornicators and adulterers, shall not inherit the kingdom 
 of God; and recollect the decision of our Saviour, that 
 all intercourse beyond what takes place between ore man 
 and one woman in marriage faitb, amounts, in the sight 
 of God, to those crimes; how can the professor of reli- 
 gion, who holds c laves, and thus lays be to re the free and 
 the bond this temptation, escape a participation in the 
 guilt. 
 
 It is not enough for the slave holder to say, he abhors 
 the crime. Is not the vice most dreadfully prevalent, 
 Under the system of slavery? And can any one deny, 
 that the system naturally tends to produce it? Does it 
 not open a door for it, and remove many of the strongest 
 restraints? And is not the christian bound to God, to do 
 all he can, to prevent evil? — to have a regard for the 
 souls of all men? Most assuredly he is. And how can 
 he stand clear in the sight of God, in giving his support 
 
22 
 
 ;o a system, which gives so great fecilities to that par- 
 ticular vice, that more than almost any other, hardens 
 the heart, and lead9 to all kinds of iniquity? 
 
 We notice as another monstrous evil, connected with 
 the system of negro slavery, that it is hostile tc that in- 
 struction of slaves, which if not ahsolutely necessary, is 
 exceedingly important to their salvation. The policy of 
 "most slave owners, is to keep their slaves in ignorance. 
 1 his extends to religious matters. Very little attention 
 i9 paid to instructing them in religion. Neither is this 
 peculiar to the irreligious part of the community. It is 
 manifest, that many professors of religion, pay almost 
 no attention to this matter. And not one in five hundred 
 pays as much attention to it, as he would feel bound to 
 pay to his own children. But few teach their slaves to 
 read God^ Word; and how few pay attention to having 
 it read to them. How many heads of families, who would 
 think themselves greatly neglectful of the salvation of 
 their children, if they did not cause them, at least occa- 
 sionally, to attend preaching, yet pay almost no at- 
 tention to induce their servants to attend! They may 
 perhaps once in six months, or once a year, tell some 
 of their servants they ought to attend preaching; but 
 what facilities do they give them to attend? Their slaves 
 have labored hard all the week, and it may be, from tour 
 to ten miles from the place of preaching Must be at 
 home that evening, or early for work next morning; have 
 no clothes fit to be seen in — wish to see a wife, a husband, 
 or child, who lives in an opposite direction — has no time 
 Jo do it in but on the Sabbath! The slave is blamed for 
 Dot attending preaching! He may deserve blame. But 
 taking the whole state of the case into view, the whole 
 fault does not always lie on the slave. The master who 
 holds him in slavery, ivho requires his constant labors, is 
 often deeply criminal in the sight of God, for the irreli 
 gion of his slaves. And that many a professor ot religion 
 will, at last, have a fearful reckoning on this matter, we 
 have no more doubt, than we have that they have a Mas- 
 ter in heaven, who is no respecter of persons! 
 
 It is often said, and not without reason, that there is 
 a growing indisposition among slaves to worship with 
 their masters, and attend on the preaching of the whites. 
 h is, by some, ascribed to the stubbornness and way- 
 
23 
 
 wardness of the slaves. Far be it from me to say, that 
 9laves are not to be blamed in this. To worship and 
 serve God, is a duty so important, that nothing unpleas- 
 ant in the circumstances of the duty, or the person offi- 
 ciating, or company of worshippers can justify a neg- 
 lect of it. 
 
 While we admit this, we are obliged at the same 
 time to say, that if the prejudices of the slave, against 
 worshipping with the whites, or attending their preach- 
 ing, grow out of a system, which, in a change of cir- 
 cumstances, would produce similar prejudices, in the 
 minds of any other body of men; then, much of the 
 blame lies on the system; and its supporters cannot 
 stand clear in the sight of impartial heaven, of a par- 
 ticipation in the guilt. 
 
 Now that this prejudice in slaves, against worshipping 
 with the whites, may be traced to the system of slavery, 
 is to me most certain. The relation between the mas- 
 ter and the slave, is not one of mutual agreement; in 
 which there is a quid pro quo (a stipulated service for 
 a stipulated reward;) but one of force on the part of 
 the master, and hard necessity, on the part of the slave. 
 The whole intercourse between them, is of the same 
 general character. It is absolute authoiity on the part 
 of the master, and necessary submission on the part of 
 the slave. Now as life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 
 piness, are unalienable rights; so the love of them ie 
 inlaid in our nature, and leaves us not, but with our 
 life. 
 
 That slaves should think their case hard, is as natural! 
 as that they should think at all. And that this should 
 lead to hard thoughts of those who forcibly hold them 
 in bondage, is equally natural. That harsh usage, un- 
 kind treatment, and frequent fault finding on the part of 
 mastei?, should greatly increase these hard thoughts, ie 
 one of the most natural things in the world. It could 
 not, humanly speaking, be otherwise. That most slaves 
 are disposed to complain of their situation — that they 
 do complain, when comparing note9 with each other* 
 will hardly be disputed by those, who have paid much 
 attention to the subject. Now with this general feeling 
 of discontent, is it at all wonderful, that slaves should 
 have little relish for joioiog with their masters in rel ; 
 
24 
 
 2"iqus worship? Suppose the roaster a professor of re 
 ligion and prays in his family. After toiling all day 
 long, the slave comes home at night, and throws him- 
 self down on some place to rest. He was called out to 
 work, it may be at day break — has toiled all day long 
 under the eye of a watchful master, or overseer — has 
 been found fault with as to his manner of doing his work 
 — his not doing it faster — has been scolded and threat- 
 ened and whipped — has been reproached as a lazy, 
 idle, and trifling fellow — has made his meal, or meals, 
 if two were allowed him, in the field, on dry bread, it 
 may be, or possibly a little meat or vegetables with it. 
 The night has closed his labors for the day. Presently, 
 he hears the horn blow, or the bell ring for prayers. 
 What now would be the reflections into which a slave, 
 of no decided religious feelings, would be most likely 
 to fall? Ah, white folks going to be religious now! 
 Massah going to pray! He take his ease all day long — 
 make poor negro do all de work — always finding fault — 
 scolding and beating poor negro. He have plenty good 
 things to eat — bacon and greens and all dat he wants; 
 and his whiskey dram too? — Poor negro, who do all de 
 work, get dry bread, glad to get a scrap of meat or a 
 bone to gnaw! Massah dress fine and clean. — poor ne- 
 negio most naked, and dirty — no time to wash cloths — 
 and indeed almost none to wash. Why should poor 
 black man be sarved so? If massah had right religion, 
 he would'nt sarve poor negro so. De shoe pinch too 
 tight for me— me don't think such prayers do good — me 
 wont go to prayers. 
 
 Suppose Sabbath comes, and word is sent out to the 
 slaves to go to preaching. What would probably be the 
 reflections of a slave, of good common sense, but not 
 under the operations of religion? Ah, white folks going 
 to be mighty good to day — and mighty fine too! Me 
 know how the fine clothes, boot, rings, and carriage, 
 are to be paid for. Hard days work a plenty, before 
 poor negio. Massah send word for me to go hear white 
 preaching. Me don't like to be among white folks — me 
 see dem all fine, and poor negro who do de work all 
 ragged. Make me feel bad— me see them talk and 
 show plenty good humor among demselves. but da don't 
 shew it to poor negro — me don't like to hear white man 
 
25 
 
 preach. He keep negro too — know how to make hio* 
 work — he sure to preach dat negro must work hard, and 
 make money for massah; but he don't tell white man he 
 no right make black man a slave. He read de f.ook to 
 suit white folks — he preach to suit white folks — right 
 religion don't do so — me don't like to go with white 
 folks. White folks so love to make black folks work and 
 wait on dem: me most 'fraid da try and do it in heaven, 
 if God Almighty let dem — me don't like to be with white 
 folks — me won't go to dare preaching. 
 
 Now I am well satisfied from a good deal of observa- 
 tion, that feelings of the kind above represented, have 
 a very general existence, and a most disastrous influence 
 on the religious interests of the slaves. And I am free 
 to declare my settled conviction, that any race of people, 
 placed in the same situation, would exhibit the same state 
 of feelings. It could not, taking human nature as it now is, 
 well be otherwise. It is the natural result of slavery, 
 upon such creatures as we are. A sense of injury, will 
 produce feelings of dislike and opposition. It will tend 
 to pioduce distrust in the religious sincerity of the mas- 
 ter. It will tend even to beget a prejudice against the 
 religion which he professes. 
 
 Most of my readers may probably have heard of the 
 dying man, who, when talked to about his preparation 
 for heaven, and his prospects of getting there, enquired 
 if such a neighbor, (his bitter enemy while living,) was 
 in heaven, and, being answered, it was hoped he was, 
 declared at once that, in that case, he did not wish to go 
 there, that it was no place for him! 
 
 Whether the relation of this be true or not, it has much 
 ©f human nature in it; and especially of human nature 
 unenlightened, and unsanctified. 
 
 The question now is, how can professors of religion 
 ar swer it to their own consciences, and to their God, for 
 giving into, and practicing a system, which among ma- 
 ny other evils, operates so directly against the salvation 
 of their fellow men? "Woe to the world because of 
 offences." "It must needs be that they come, but woe to 
 the man by whom they come." It is an awful thing to 
 lay stumbling blocks in the way of the salvation of souls! 
 To do this for the sake of worldly gain; to do it for the 
 *ake of making property for chtldren: bow awful the 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 fhought! On what fines the life, and comfort, and final 
 salvation of your child res depend? Is it not on the grace 
 and mercj of God? And what reason have you to expect 
 that grace and mercy, while you show so little to the poor 
 injured and oppressed slave? Rememher who hath said, 
 "He shall have judgmeut without mercy, who shewed 
 do mercy.'" 
 
 There is another evil growing out of the system of 
 slavery, which, tnken alone, ought to make every pro- 
 fessor of religion at once give it up. We mean the traffic 
 carried on in slaves. 
 
 We suppose that most professors of religion — we sup- 
 pose that most persons of all descriptions among us, agree 
 in condemning the slave trade, as carried on from the 
 coast of Africa. The injustice, the ciuelty, the abomi- 
 nations of it, are condemned by all. And yet, allow me 
 to ask, wherein is it worse than the trade carried on ib 
 slaves, in almost all parts of the slave holding states. 
 Who, that lives on a public road; who, that attends a 
 court house; who, that visits any place of trade, that 
 has not seen them bought and sold like any other kinds 
 of propert\ ? Who has not seen them drove in gangs a- 
 long our public roads, ofien loaded with chains? And 
 who does not know, that in this trade, little or no re- 
 gard is paid to the dearest relations of life? That the 
 husband and wife; that the parent and child, are separa- 
 ted without hesitation? that for the sake of a few dol- 
 lars, yea, tor the sake of a few shillings, the husband is 
 sold to one person, and the wife to another, and the child 
 to a third, to be removed in as many directions? Who 
 does not know, that one of the most common modes, 
 both of selling and of hiring, is to set them up, and 
 let them eo to the highest bidder, and that without any 
 regard to the hands into which they may fall. 
 
 Many sav they abhor the business of the negro trade, 
 and cannot respect the man who follows it, and makes his 
 gains from trading in human flesh. Too hard a name 
 cannot easily he given to the nefareous traffic; and we 
 Could wish that a hundred fold more abhorrence, were 
 felt for the man that follows it. 
 
 1 cannot however see the wide difference, which some 
 think they see, between holding slaves as property, and 
 trading in them as property. And do not those very per- 
 
27 
 
 sons, who say they ahominafe the traffic in slaves, claim 
 the right of buying and selling- a slave, when it suits their 
 plans? Do they not in tact, at least many of them, buy 
 and sell slaves? If it be not wrong in them to buy or 
 sell a slave, on what principle, is it wrong for another 
 person to Ho it? And if it be not wrong to do it once, by 
 what rule is it wrong to do it tw ice-ten times-fifty times, 
 or as some do, to make a business of it? If it be not 
 wrong to buy and sell them in any part of the country, 
 what makes it wrong for a man to buy them up. where 
 they may be had. and take them to where they are more 
 in demand, and sell them to those who wish to buy? [ 
 cannot m the principle see the difference, which many 
 speak of, and am satisfied it does not exist. 
 
 Take what is considered the mildest form, in which 
 separation and transfers of slaves, take place — that of 
 parcelling them out among children and relations. This 
 is constantly taking place among slave holders, and is done 
 without hesitation by many, who feel objections to selling 
 them. In what now i* this, better for the slave, than the 
 mode of selling them? Do they certainly get better 
 masters, in this *vay, than thev would by being sold? No 
 one will preteud thitf And are they not liable to the 
 Same separations, of husbands and wives, of parents and 
 children, of brothers and sisters, that they would be, by 
 being s<dd? Unquestionably they are. The members of 
 a white family, very seldom live so near each other, as 
 to prevent these separations. Yea separations, as wide 
 and entire are often made by the partitions of slaves a- 
 mong children and relations, as would be ma 'e by letting 
 them pass through the hands of a negro trader. That 
 more regard is paid to the connexions of slaves, in these 
 divisions of them among children, has more in promise 
 than in reality. It is not often that any of the children 
 wish to lose any thing, in the attempts that may be made, 
 to accommodate the slave. And very often a few dollars, 
 or a few shillings of supposed interest, will weigh more 
 than any consideration, of the connexions of the slave. 
 This is often the case when the connexions of the slave 
 are in the same family of owners. But it much more 
 frequently happens, that the connexions of the slave, are 
 not in the same tamily. The husband is in one family, 
 ♦he wife and children in another; the pareots, brother*; 
 
28 
 
 and sisters in the third, fourth, and fifth. Here are many 
 interests bearing on the case. No one wishes to lose id 
 the arrangement. And if one master has a heart to feel 
 for the condition of the slave, and makes an attempt to 
 prevent separations, by offering to sell his interests, or 
 buy up the interests of others; how many difficulties 
 are usually met with? Some have not the means, or 
 the inclination to buy; others do not wish to sell. And 
 not unfrequently, the love of gain, leads to an effort to 
 get a good bargain. In proportion to the solicitude 
 of one party, to prevent a separation, how often does the 
 other drive for a good bargain, if the proposition is to 
 buy of him, he will raise the price of his slave, far be- 
 yond what is fair, calculating on the necessity of the 
 case. — If on the other hand, it is proposed to sell to 
 him, not near the market price is offered. The result 
 mostly is, that the separations take place. And often 
 they are, and must, from the distance to which they are 
 removed, be final. 
 
 But as to the fact of the case, we need not exppct the 
 trade to stop, while slavery exists among us, as it now 
 does. It most assuredly, will go on. While slaves are 
 held as property, there will be trade in that property; — 
 And where a trade is attended with a profit, such as at- 
 tends the trade in slaves to the South, it wili be carried 
 on, with all that disregard to family ties — with all that 
 unfeelingness and cruelty, that now attends it. No pas- 
 sion is more unfeeling and cruel than avarice. "The 
 love of money is the root of all evil." 
 
 It is, in my view, utterly idle for any to pretend a 
 great horror, at negro trading, and all the evils that 
 are connected with it, while they hold slaves themselves, 
 and ihus support the system. Slavery itself is the tree 
 that produces the poisonous fruits; and while we cul- 
 tivate the tree, its fruits will abound among us. Let 
 those who have hearts to feel a fellow creature's woes, 
 and a fellow creature's wrongs, take the only effectual 
 mode of putting an end to the evil. Let them abandon 
 slavery altogether, and use their best efforts to extir- 
 pate it from the face of the earth. If they have no 
 heart to do this — if they can make no sacrifice, and give 
 no help to the millions that lie under the galling chains — 
 if their own ease, and their share of property in human 
 
29 
 
 flesh weighs more with them than the wrongs, and deg- 
 radation, and oppressions, and groans, of that greatly 
 injured people; let them for consistency 1 * sake, if noth- 
 ing else, leave off their pity and complaints about evils 
 and sufferings, which they not only refuse to take the 
 only effectual means to prevent; but directly contribute 
 to perpetuate and multiply, by upholding a system 
 from which they naturally spring. Fruitless pity is not 
 what the case needs — It needs not the sympathetic look, 
 or the condoling words, of the Priest and Levite "pass- 
 ing by on the other side; 1 ' but the active services of the 
 good Samaritan, who can sacrifice safety, and time and 
 property — and be the neighbor indeed, to a fellow 
 creature, who cannot help himself. Let the professor 
 of religion, remember the command of his Lord, u go 
 and do thou likewise;" not forgetting that if he imitate 
 the Priest and Levite, instead ot the good Samaritan, 
 he will disgrace his profession, and have a tearful ac- 
 count to render to his Lord. 
 
 Were professors of religion, who hold slaves, to com- 
 pare their opinions and practice with regard to slavery, 
 with their opinions and practice respecting some thinaa 
 which they condemn — with fashionable amusements tor 
 instance — with dancing, balls, horse racing, cock fight- 
 ingi gambling, & attending the theatre; 1 know not bow, 
 they could avoid seeing their own inconsistency. Most 
 professors of religion, condemn these amusements; and 
 with their preachers at their head, think it so very 
 much out of character, for a professor of religion, to 
 attend to them, or encourage their children to do it, 
 that the church member who attends any of them, 
 were it only to accompany a child, would in all proba- 
 bility have to answer for it to the officers of the church. 
 
 Ask them why it is wrong to partake in a dance? to 
 attend a ball? to go to a horse race? to take their fami- 
 ly to the theatre? Ask for the passage or passages of 
 scripture, which condemns any and each of these amuse- 
 ments? You will probably be answered, that it 19 true 
 these amusements are not in so many words, named and 
 condemned in scripture; and most likely because they 
 were not practiced, in precisely their present forms, when 
 the scripture was written; but that they are condemn- 
 ed by those passages, which command us "not to be con- 
 
30 
 
 :ormed to the world," but to '-come out and be separate,*^" 
 to go not in the way of temptation — to shun the appear- 
 ance of evil. In short, we would be told, that these a- 
 rnusements. tend to draw off the mind from religion-^- 
 that they produce and strengthen feelings, which are at 
 war with the interests of the soul — that they produce 
 vanity, love of the world, a fondness for shew an.i dis- 
 play — that they lead to laciviousness, and sensuality — 
 and tend to hardness of heart, and disregard to the 
 rights of others. 
 
 We admit all this. We admit that these amusements 
 do so naturally oppose the spirit of the gospel, that those 
 who have the care of souls, and the interests of religion, 
 ought, however unpopular it may be, and whatever re- 
 proach it may draw on them, to use their influence to 
 discountenance them. 
 
 Now compare these amusements and their effects, with 
 slavery and its effects! Compare them as to the scrip- 
 tures, which condemn them directly, or condemn their 
 principle, or condemn them on account of their tendency 
 to evil! 
 
 It will hardly be pretended that these amusements are 
 in so many words named and condemned in scripture. 
 But that there are general rules for the regulating of our 
 conduct, which condemn them, we readily admit. We 
 have noticed several of them above. Now will any one 
 pretend — will any christian pretend, that there are no 
 general principles given to regulate our conduct towards 
 our fellow men? Does not the rule, "thou shalt love thy 
 neighbor as thyself," relate as certainly to the feelings 
 and conduct we are to manifest towards our neighbor, as 
 the rule, "be not conformed to this world," relates to our 
 not joining the world in its sins and follies? Does not the 
 great practical rule given by our Lord, "In all things 
 whatsoever you would ' hal men should do unto you, do 
 ye even so unto them," apply as certainly to all our 
 dealings with our fellow men. as the rule "come out from 
 the world and be separate," applies to our separating 
 ourselves from the world, as devoted to amusements? 
 Does it not as directly condemn our depriving our fellow 
 creatures of their rights, and holding them in slavery, 
 when we would at every hazard oppose being treated so 
 ourselves, as any general rule which can be brought to 
 
31 
 
 condemn fashionable amusements? Is anyone willing t*> 
 be stript of his rights and held as a slave? Is any one 
 willing to be as much at the mercy of another, as the 
 slave is? Isrtny one willing to lie under all the disabili- 
 ties that belongs to the state of slavery —and to be liable 
 to all the evils to which the slave is liable? What man 
 is there, who would not run every risk, and hazard eve- 
 ry thin?, before he would descend to that condition, with 
 Lis family? And does not the rule of doing as we would 
 be done by, apply to this case? Does not our Lord say, 
 "In all thing*?" The man who can see in the words "be 
 not conformed to this world," a plain condemnation of 
 dancing, balls, &c. and vet can see in the rule, "In all 
 things that ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
 even so to them," nothing that touches holding others in 
 slavery, has, to say the least, a mode of seeing things, 
 which to me is not a little surprising. The application 
 of the latter rule to slavery, is so direct and straight 
 forward, and obvious, compared with that of the other, 
 to amusements; that it requires an effort to suppose, 
 that a person, who is so clear in the one case, can with 
 his attention drawn to the other, yet be blind to its ap- 
 plication. 
 
 And as to the tendency of these amusements, to world- 
 ly affections, to vanity, to sensuality &,c. I feel confi- 
 dent, that it is not equal, yea, I think not to be com- 
 pared with the tendency of slavery, to hardness of 
 heart, injustice, oppression, licentiousness and a whole 
 train of kindred evils Let any one examine into the 
 effect of attending dancings, balls, the theatre.&c.on those 
 persons, who are devoted to them, and estimate the 
 proportion, whose irreligion has been confirmed, whose 
 worldly spirit has been strengthened, and whose parity 
 has been lost through their influence; and compare it 
 with the multitudes, who through the influence of sla- 
 very, have been formed to a harsh, unfeelling, over- 
 bearing,oppressive, &, licentious character? Is it not a 
 fact, that the general manner of treating slaves, (owing 
 chiefly to the absolute authority of the master, and the 
 necessary subjection of the slave,) is positive, rough, 
 and unfeeling; compared with the manner of treating 
 any other persons? In the case of hired servants, rough, 
 a,nd cruel treatment, will soon leave the master to do hi^ 
 
32 
 
 own work, and wait on himself— hired servants will not 
 bear it. This very circumstance will tend to beget re- 
 spect for the feelings of those, in the lower places of 
 Society — it will lead to a mildness of manner — a regard 
 for the rights and feelings of those about us. The effect 
 will be creditable to the master, and beneficial to so- 
 ciety. But in the case of slavery, the matter is other- 
 wise. The slave must submit to all things, and bear all 
 things. However unreasonable the requirements — how- 
 ever rough their treatment — however abusive the lan- 
 guage used towards them, tnev must submit to it, and for 
 the most part, without a complaint. Can any one who 
 takes a fair view of the condition of slaves, considered 
 as absolutely under the power of their masters, — as not 
 protected in their family relations by law — as subject 
 to separation at the pleasure of their owners — as de- 
 prived of the best protection to their purity, and conju- 
 gal fidelity — can any one, who takes a full view of the 
 subject, in all its bearings, doubt that greater evils flow 
 from it than from dances, balls, and the whole round of 
 fashionable amusements? I feel very confident that all 
 these amusements put together, do not produce one 
 ter;th part of the vice, that slavery does; nor do one tenth 
 part as much, to vitiate the morals of society. 
 
 Now to me there appears a manifest inconsistency in 
 professors of religion and ministers of the gospel, making 
 such an outcry against these amusements, while they 
 give into the practice of slave holding. The fault is not 
 in opposing amusements, but in allowing themselves to 
 indulge in a practice, ten fold more injurious to morals 
 and religion. The advocates of amusements can say, ia 
 palliation of their practice, if injury be done, it is done 
 to ourselves only. "We force no one to join us" — k 'all 
 is voluntary.'' 1 Can the slave holder say as much re- 
 specting slavery? Is the slave allowed to choose in the 
 matter? If the professor of religion replies, that he is 
 not sure that slavery is wrong, cannot, and do not many 
 say the some of their favorite amusements? But does 
 that satisfy the professor. Will he allow his fellow pro- 
 fessor to take the lead in all these amusements, and yet 
 admit him to all the privileges of the church? Suppose 
 a preacher of the gospel were to join in these amuse- 
 ments, and say "he was aot sure they were wrong," that 
 
33 
 
 vhe could without injury to himself, participate in thera,^ 
 "that the law of the land allowed of them, 1 ' that he 
 claimed his right to join in them"— that if any thought 
 them injurious to him, he uould be free to abstain from 
 them; 1 ' what would be thought of the religion of such a 
 preacher, by most, if not all, classes of professing chris- 
 tians? And yet wherein does it differ from what takes 
 place respecting slavery? I have shown, I think, to the 
 satisfaction of the candid, and unprejudiced, that slavery 
 is as much opposed to the 'Maw of God" — the law of "do- 
 ing as we would be done by," as the amusements above 
 referred to, are to the command, k, to come out from the 
 world and be separate 1 ' — to conform not to it. That the 
 tendency of slavery is more injurious to society than a- 
 musements, appears to me sufficiently manifest, from the 
 brief view given of it above. Now to see professors of 
 religion, opposing the one, even to shutting out of the 
 church its advocates, while they practice the other, all 
 their lives long, and bring up their children to do so too, 
 is, to me, a roost glaring inconsistency. That it is viewed 
 in the same point of light, by multitudes, in the church, 
 and out of the church, is undeniable. 
 
 Or take these amusements, in which the love of plea- 
 sure is connected with the love of ill gotten gains— as 
 cock fighting, horse racing, card playing, &c. Over and 
 above the tendency of these practices, to produce vanity, 
 love of the world, and all those passions, which dancing, 
 balls, &c. are charged with producing; they are charged 
 with leading to covetousness, injustice, fraud, cruelty, 
 and a whole train of kindred evils. Their tendency to 
 these evils is obundantly dwelt on, to prove that they 
 are opposed to the spirit of the gospel, and are sinful in 
 the sight of God. Cock fighting, and horse racing, are 
 said to be cruel to the animals- and connected with bet- 
 ting, they, as well as gambling, lead to covetousness, 
 fraud, injustice, and a crowd of evils. We have no 
 doubt that this is their character, and that they ought to 
 be opposed. 
 
 But now, I ask, are not the same evils chargeable on 
 negro slavery, and in a much greater degree? Horse 
 racing and cock fighting are cruel! Admit it. The cru- 
 elty, however, is chiefly confined to the hour of the race 
 and the fight. At other times, those kept animals are 
 usually well provided for. Were it not that we wish to 
 avoid giving offence, we would sav, thai the race-horse 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 and the game cock, are usually much better taken cart 
 of, than very many slaves. But is there no cruelty in 
 depriving our fellow creatures of their rights, and that 
 for no crime? Is there no cruelty in keeping them from 
 generation to generation, in a state of absolute subjec- 
 tion? Is there no cruelty in making them drudges all 
 their lives long, and their children after them, and that 
 without any compensation but food and raiment, and that 
 of the coarsest kind, and often in scant measure? Is 
 there no cruelty in treating them as property, and sacri- 
 ficing the most intimate relations, the strongest endear- 
 ments of life: as pleasure, interest, passion, or caprice 
 may influence? Is there no cruelty in so shutting them 
 up in slavery, as to leave no door to escape — no chance 
 of rising in society — no opportunity of providing for 
 those, who are bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh? 
 Is there no cruelty in all this? (And the half is not told.) 
 What then is cruelty? Are all our sensibilities to be 
 stirred up at the sufferings of a game cock in the pit, or 
 the race horse on the turf, and no notice taken of the 
 wrongs and oppressions of our kind, prolonged from gen- 
 eration to generation? And this from the professed fol- 
 lowers of the compassionate Saviour? — of him who would 
 Dot break the bruised reed? — who came to proclaim de- 
 liverance to captives, and who commanded his followers 
 u to do in all things to obers as they would have others to 
 do unto them," yea. "to be merciful as their Father in 
 heaven is merciful? Tell it not in Gath and publish it 
 Dot in the streets of Askelon; lest the enemies of our re- 
 ligion, have indeed cause of triumph." 
 
 But cock figh'ing, horse racing, card playing, &c. lead, 
 it is said to covetousness. injustice, fraud, and a whole 
 train of similar evils. We readily admit it; and join io 
 condemning them, as injurious to morals and religion. 
 Ann ive may ask, is not slavery productive of the same, 
 with evil passions and practices, and that in a much 
 greater degree? The gambler instead of following some 
 honest business for a livelihood, covets and seeks the 
 properly of his neighbor, in a way that gives no just 
 return for value received. Very well: the evil is a great 
 one. How is it with the slave holder?— Does he render 
 a fair return to the slave for what he takes from hnn? 
 He takes more than property -r more than the product of 
 labor, from the slave — he takes from him his liberty — 
 
35 
 
 his right to seek his own happiness — the right to enjoy 
 the fruit of his labor — and provide tor himself and 
 children. Is there no coveting and taking, what of 
 right belongs to another? 
 
 But the gambler uses unfair means to get the property 
 of others? Admit it. He cheats his neighbor, it may 
 be, out of it. Now we wish to know, how much worse 
 it is, to cheat our fellow men out of the fruit of their 
 labor; than to take it from them by force? Is the slave 
 voluntary in giving up the fruit of his labor? No one 
 will pretend that he is. It is a case of galling necessity. 
 Resistance would only add to his suffering! 
 
 The gambler can say in palliation of his practice, 
 that he meets his neighbor on fair ground. They both 
 agree to put so much at stake. His neighbor, has as 
 good a chance to win, as he has If he does cheat his 
 neighbor, his neighbor would, if he could, cheat him. 
 There is no force in the matter. He obliges no man to 
 play, and lose. Can the slave holder say as much in 
 palliation of holding slaves, and taking from them the 
 fruit of their labor? Has the slave had any choice in 
 the matter? Has he had any chance to win the game? 
 None at all. He is retained in slavery, as his fore- 
 fathers were reduced to it, by force — he i9 obliged to 
 work and toil all his life long for another; and the fruit 
 of his labor, is claimed by the strong arm of power. Is 
 there nothing of injustice in all this? Is there nothing 
 of coveting and taking, what does not belong to us? 
 And yet it may be that the professor of religion together 
 with his preacher, will apply the threatenings of God's 
 wrath against the workers of iniquity, to the cock tight- 
 er, the horse racer, the card player, and the frequenter 
 of other fashionable amusements; while they hold their 
 fellow cieatures forcibly in slavery — take from them all 
 the fruit of their labor— and expose them to all the evils 
 and vice, to which their condition as slaves makes them 
 liable. Who can help thinking of those whom our Sav- 
 iour rebuked for "straining at a gnat while they swal- 
 lowed a camel?" For "tything mint and rhue, and all 
 manner of herbs, while they omitted the weightier 
 matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith?" Whether 
 professsors of religion, who hold slaves, will see the 
 inconsistency or not, it is seen and noted by others; and 
 that to the no small discredit of religion, and their pro- 
 
36 
 
 fession of it. The evil already done, the evil now do- 
 ing", by such departures from the spirit of the gospel, 
 and such evading- the plain rales of conduct, k, cnmmand- 
 ing- us to do a9 we would be done by," tends to lower the 
 standard of morality, and to create doubts as to the 
 truth of the gospel, which the zeal of professors for it, 
 manifested in declarations against amusements, will not 
 remove. But it may be asked, what would I have the 
 professor of religion to do with his slaves? I answer 
 let bim take measurps without delay, to restore to them 
 those rights, of which they have heen so long deprived. 
 Let him at once consider them as of right free, and en- 
 titled to ?he fruit of their labor. Let him consider 
 them as persons, who in the sight of heaven, are enti- 
 tled to rights and privileges, which the laws of the 
 land have put in his power; but which the laws of God, 
 and the command of Christ, and his profession of reli- 
 gion, oblige him most conscientiously, as a steward of 
 God, to regard and restore to them. Let him view him- 
 self as solemnly bound bv the command of Christ, not 
 to care only for his own things, but also for the things of 
 others-tor the things of the slave. Let him lose no time in 
 imparting to the slave, such information as may enable 
 him to choose for himself the place where he had best 
 settle, ihe mode of lmng he had best pursue. And let 
 him allon them fair wages for their labor, while they 
 may cootioue with him. 
 
 The law of God requires that a return be made to 
 persons, detrauded or injured. The wrongs which 
 slaves have already endured, the services and labors 
 which they have performed, ought, to say the least, to 
 secure to them, all the helps needful, to enable them to 
 choose intelligibly a future residence and something to 
 begin with. 
 
 In the dispensations of providence, there are now open- 
 ings for the comfortable settlement of slaves, which 
 are among the higns of the times. The island of St 
 Domingo is now altogether in the hands of the blacks. 
 The climate is delightful and well suited to the habits of 
 that people. The government is one under which, a? 
 much peace and security and comfort may be enjoyed, 
 as is found under most governments. There is room ou 
 that island for twice as many inhabitants, in addition to 
 its present population, as there are slaves in the United 
 States. Emigrants from this country, are cheerfully ret 
 
37 
 
 ceived. The voyage is short. Their passage from out- 
 sea board, would cost hut a few dollars apiece. 
 
 The western coast of* Africa opens a vvitle field for 
 emigration, There is vacant territory on that coast, or 
 territory which could he procured for a mere t rifle, that 
 would settle ten, yen twenty times as many negroes a9 
 are in the United S'ates. While the climate is unhealthy 
 for whites, experience has sufficiently proved, that it is 
 not more unhealthy, nor even as much so, to the blacks, 
 as our southern Stales, are to the whites. 
 
 The expense of a removal to, and settlement on, that 
 coast, could soon he provided tor. Were masters to 
 gi\e their slaves fair wages tor one year, (and when 
 they have had (heir labor for twenty or thirty years, it 
 would he a small return,) it would enahle a considerable 
 number of them, to remove to that country. All could 
 not of'Course go at once. A part could soon go. Others 
 could remain and work for their present masters, or oth- 
 er persons, for a fair hire, for a shorter or longer time, 
 until they were ready. This would at once give masters 
 time to conform to the new state of things themselves; 
 ami allow ot a similar preparation on the part of the 
 slaves. There is no difficult?, I am satisfied; in the 
 ca«*e, which could not he removed, were persons really 
 willing and disposed to do justice to that people. Jf 
 the members of a church, it the professors of religion 
 in a neighborhood, were to agree, that for Christ's sake 
 and the credit of religion, they would act thus towards 
 their slaves — were they to agree as a band of brothers, 
 as the members of Christ's visible body, that they would 
 give mutual aid, to each other, the thing could be done 
 with ease. And I am persuaded that many, who are not 
 professors of religion, would join in the good work — 
 God would be glorified — the benevolence and efficacy of 
 religion, be acknowledged, and great good be done to 
 our fellow men. 
 
 But it will be objected, are we to give up our proper- 
 ty — are we to beggar ourselves and children? Whoever 
 heard the like? 1 reply, that the sacrifice is not one 
 whit greater, nor half so great, as thousands have been 
 called on, in every age of the church, to make for the 
 sake of Christ and religion. It is little, compared with 
 what many are now called on to make, on embracing the 
 gospel. When the Lord Jesus told the young man, to 
 sell all that he had and distribute to the poor, and deny 
 
38 
 
 Himself and take up his cross and follow him," the young 
 man thought the sacrifice too great. He went away 
 "sorrowful.'" We hear of him no more! What professor 
 does not condemn the young man, for refusing to make 
 the sacrifice? And will the same professor refuse to make 
 the sacrifice, which the Saviour's rule "of doing as he 
 would be done by," requires at his hands? 
 
 When the apostles went forth and preached the gospel, 
 to the Jews and the Gentiles, what multitudes, if they 
 embraced it, were obliged to suffer "the loss of all things" 
 for Christ's sake. Thousands had their living by arts 
 connected with superstition, some like Demetrius and 
 the craftsmen, had their gains, by making shrines and 
 images for gods and goddesses — m.»ny served in the tem- 
 ples as priests — and almost all had many instruments of 
 idolatry, which Christianity altogether forbid. The 
 books alone of tnose, "who used curious arts," in the sin- 
 gle city of Ephesus, (Acts 19. 19 ) were worth fifty 
 thousand pieces of silver. These were burned — and the 
 loss fell on that part of the new converts, to whom they 
 belonged." Tbe loss of property, was but a small part of 
 the sacrifice, which many had to make, and now have 
 to make, when they embrace th^ gospel. How many 
 have been cast off by friends and kindred? How many 
 followed with rage and persecution? How many exposed 
 to the faggot and the stake? Many in every age, have 
 been deterred by these trials, from obeying the gospel, 
 to life everlasting — they have, in saving themselves 
 from these trials, lost their souls; while those, who lost 
 their lives for Christ's sake, have found them safe in the 
 keeping of God. 
 
 It is yet a law of Christ, that it is "through tribulation, 
 his faithful followers must enter the kingdom." The 
 Hindoo who embraces the gospel, looses his cast, and 
 is counted by his friends as the filth of tbe world, and as 
 the offscouring of all things." The Mahommedan who 
 renounces the false prophet, and embraces Christianity, 
 is by the laws of Mahomedism, liable to death — and we 
 know that there are not wanting instances, and late in- 
 stances, of that law being put into execution. 
 
 The Jew who embraces Christianity, is liable to be 
 cast off, by his nearest and dearest friends, and be deni- 
 ed even the necessaries of life. But we need not go so 
 far from home. Many, yea, many a hearer of the gos- 
 pel among us, feels the importance of religion, but he 
 
39 
 
 would have to do so many things, which he now neg 
 lects — to leave off so many practices, which he now in- 
 dulges in — mortify so many lusts, which he now cher- 
 ishes — and meet with so many trials, from his old com- 
 panions in sin — and in short, he would have to enter a 
 course so entirely different, from his whole former prac- 
 tice and habits, that he cannot find it in his heart to com- 
 ply. He hopes that some allowance will he made in his 
 case — that he will be excused for not making so great 
 sacrifices! How many in every age, for similar rea- 
 sons, have either "gone away sorrow fnl" from the gos- 
 pel, having no heart to make the sacrifices, which it re- 
 quired; or have hoped that those duties, which they did 
 not do, those commands, which they did not obey, would 
 be overlooked, on account of their obedience and zeal ia 
 other matters. That the number has been great, yea, 
 very great, we have no doubt. "Many will say Lord, 
 Lord, have we not eat and drunk in thy presence, and 
 thou hast taught in our streets: to whom he will answer, 
 J nevei knew you, depart from me all ye workers of in- 
 iquity." 
 
 We say then, and we say it with confidence, that the 
 sacrifice (if a sacrifice it ought to be called, to do an act 
 of justice to a fellow creature) which we believe that the 
 word of God, the credit of religion, and the state of 
 things among us, call on all, but especially professors of 
 religion to make, h ith respect to slaves; is not so great, 
 as many in every age of the church, as many are now 
 called on to make, for the sake of religion. And are 
 christians in this country, who, through the blessing of 
 God, have privileges and advantages, which no other- 
 people ever possessed — who have the finest country in 
 the world — the best government — the most civil and re- 
 ligious privileges — are they to have no trials at all? 
 Nothing to prove the truth of their love, and the sin- 
 cerity of their obedience? Are thev to enter the king- 
 dom, without tribulation? What justifies such an expec- 
 tation? If there e\erwere christians on the face of ihe 
 earth, who were bound to respect the rights of others, they 
 are the christians in the United States: For God hath giv- 
 en them to know their rights, and possess them — "and to 
 whom much is given from them much will he required." 
 If ever there were christians, who were bound "to do 
 good and to cooiinumcate" — "to do good to all men" — to 
 
40 
 
 be lights in Ihe worlrT'-and a "salt ia the earth,' they are 
 those of our country. ''The lines have fallen to them in 
 pleasant places, and they have a goodly heritage. 1 ' 
 
 By one of these mysterious providences, through which Goo 
 prepares trials in every age, for his, eople, he has prepared a trial 
 for their love to him, and a proof of their obedience to his Ilws; 
 tor christians among us. As the sin of Israel l'or sparing the Phi- 
 listines and Canaanites, contrary to Gvd's command, prepared a 
 trial for their chil Iren; so the sin of our forefathers . m bringing 
 to this country and reducing to slaver}, the negro rare, has pre- 
 pared a trial for us. Israel was proved b^ the spared Canaanites 
 whether tbey would obey the voice of the Lord; and we are tri- 
 ed with respect to our slave , whether we wdl obey the "law of 
 loving -.our neighbor 'as -ourselvps" — Whether we will " do as we 
 would be done by" — Whether the possession of right and privile- 
 ges and blessings, enjoyed by no other people, will induce us to a 
 more sacred regard tor the rights of iijthers —and make our haud 
 more liberal, in imparling our blessings 1o all our fellow men. 
 
 The trial i= well adapted to <>ur sanation a« a free and highly 
 favored people— one that accords with the = pint of the use. The 
 trial before the christian world now, i* not a temptation to t>ross 
 idolatry; the spirit of the age prevent* that from being a tempta- 
 tion: there is almost no tendency that way— nor is it a temptation 
 to christian superstition : The age of' that hrfs : passed : b'st one, if 
 not a leading. trial, now is, respecting civil and* religious rights. 
 The age is an age of liberty. New lights have broke on the hu- 
 man mind, respecting these subjects . Many know and contend 
 for thcirown rights; but are unwilling to acknowledge the rights 
 of others! The oppressions and unjust Usurpation of ow part of 
 mankind over the other, is seen and owned, yet how hard do many 
 find it, to let go unjust authority — to restore to others rights, 
 which have long been withheld from them! What excuses, what 
 parleying, wha.tsubstitut^s; as being good to them &c. What 
 complaining that they are not allowed to go on as their fathers 
 did— What holding on to authority, and winking hard against the 
 light! Ah, here i? one of the trials of the age— not peculiar to 
 our own country? but assuredly trying many amoue us, and by 
 the trial, showing how hard many find it, to obey Christ, when 
 sacnfic< B he in the way. 
 
 I hardly know a more painful view of human nature, than is 
 presented to us, in the unwillingness of those, who in any way, 
 fair, or foul, have others under their power, to allow them then 
 natural rights. How unwilling was England to restore to us our 
 rights? How reluctant is Spain to admit the rights of her former 
 colonies? How does the Tnrk strive to retain the Greek in 
 chains? And how do the legitimates of Europe, the Holj Alli- 
 ance, exert all their power, to withhold from the people, their 
 long lost rights' The professor of religion among us, pities the 
 sufferings of the injured people, and reprobates, the ungenerous, 
 unjust, and cruel conduct of these rulers; and yet many perhaps 
 hold hard on a fellow creature, more oppressed than those with 
 whom ho sympathises. Oh religion, how art thou wounded in the 
 house of tbv friends. 
 
 Tin: ejsd.