also a necessary result, since he only is naturally and justly a slave, whose powers are competent to mere bodily labor, who is capable of listening to reason, but incapable of exercising that sovereign faculty, and whose weakness and short-sightedness are so great, that it is safer for him to be guided or governed through life by the prudence of another. But let it always be remembered that 'one class of men ought to have the qualifications requisite for masters, before another can either fitly or usefully be employed as slaves.' Government, then, not only civil but domestic, is a most serious duty-a most sacred trust: a trust the very nature of which is totally incompatible with the supposed inalienable rights of all men to be self-governed. Those rights and those only, are inalienable, which it is impossible for one person to exercise for another, and to maintain those to be natural and inalienable rights, which the persons supposed to be invested with them can never possibly exercise, consistently either with their own safety, or with the good of the community, is to CONFOUND ALL NOTIONS OF THINGS, and to INVERT THE WHOLE ORDER OF Nature, of which it is the primary and unalterable law that forecast should direct improvidence, reason control passion, and wisdom command folly."

Here, then, we have a perfect demonstration of the principle on which the advocates of negro slavery, in perpetuity, rest their argument. We have seen that the civil law held men to be free by nature, meaning by nature the condition of humanity before war was known, or during that golden age of the poets, when all was supposed to be peace and affection. We know, from divine revelation, that since the expulsion of Adam from paradise, no such age has ever existed. The murder of Abel by his brother Cain, and the shameful irreverence of Ham towards his father Noah, prove distinctly that sin was ever at work, from the period of the fall. War, indeed, in its common acceptation, could not exist, until the multiplication of mankind had gone on for a considerable period. But the spirit of war, which is the spirit of selfish contention, is always active in the human heart, until it has experienced that mighty change from heaven which makes it "a new creature."

Referring the word, nature, therefore, to this supposed original condition of humanity, the civil law rested slavery upon the law of nations, or, in other words, upon the universal custom of the world. In the philosophy of Aristotle, however, the word nature signifies, not the imaginary condition of men before war was introduced, but

the constitution of the mind and temperament which is inherent from his birth in every individual, and stamps its character upon his future life, under every modification of circumstances. It needs no argument to prove that the great philosopher is right, in this use of the word, nature, because it is in the same sense that all men use it in our own day.

When, in this strictly proper application of the term, Aristotle saith that some men are slaves by nature, and others freemen by nature, he merely declares a fact which all human experience demonstrates, namely, that the natural constitution of mind and temperament qualifies the individual either to govern, or to be governed. And freedom is therefore the best condition for the one, and slavery is the best condition for the other. Hence he deduces the rule that the man who is, by nature, fitted for freedom, can not, in justice, be made a slave. And the man who is, by nature, fitted for slavery, can not, in justice, be made a freeman. For justice requires that every man should occupy that condition for which nature has designed him. To force him into any other, is to contradict and oppose the order of nature, and can not be beneficial either to the individual himself, or to the community.

Thus, then, the Southern slaveholder insists that the sound philosophy of Aristotle is altogether on his side, in the bondage of the African. For, if ever there was a race of men, fitted, by nature, for slavery, the African race must be admitted to be in that condition. Hence the negro, when set free, rarely fails to grow worse, instead of better. He is happier, safer, more contented, and more useful, as a slave, than in any other position. That there are occasional exceptions, the Southern arguer admits; and for these, emancipation is allowed, and the colony of Liberia was planted expressly for their accommodation. But for the great mass of the negro race, he contends that slavery is their proper state, on the very ground laid down by Aristotle; and claims the experience of the world, as a demonstration in his favor.

In the view of the Southern slaveholders, therefore, the general emancipation of their negroes would not only be ruinous to the masters, but cruel, to the last degree, towards the slaves themselves; because it would thrust into the dangers and difficulties of freemen, millions of human beings who are entirely unfitted by nature for freedom, and who need the protection and government of their mas ters, even more than the masters need their labor. And therefore

they resist the policy of abolition, on the very ground of humanity and affection towards their slaves, and regard it as an act of Christian duty not to cast them off, into a condition of suffering, peril and degradation, but to continue their government and guardianship as a trust committed to their hands by divine Providence, which they can not give up without making themselves accessory to the fearful consequences.

66

Of course, my Right Reverend brother, you and I would not be likely to view the subject in the same light. Men are usually the creatures of circumstances, and rarely reason upon any subject except in accordance with the habits and prejudices which have formed the greater part of their own training. If we had been born and educated at the South, it is at least probable that we might have taken the most extreme ground on the subject of negro slavery. And even as it is, though all my notions and feelings lead me towards abolitionism, yet I can not deny that there is great force and apparently great truth in the argument of these Southern gentlemen. At all events I must admit that they become attached to their slaves, and the slaves to them, in a manner which I am not in a position to appreciate; and that, in the words of Aristotle, a mutual utility and friendship may subsist between the master and the slave, when they are placed, by nature, in that relation to each other." I must also admit that the subject is one with which they are perfectly familiar, in all its bearings, of necessity; while, to me, it is a mere matter of abstract speculation, and therefore, supposing that they have as much intellect and Christian principle as I have, they ought to understand it much better than any one, who, like myself, is a stranger to the system. Am I justified in assuming that I have a vast deal more of intellect and Christian principle, than the Southern clergy, who defend their domestic institution on these grounds, of Scripture, of law, and of sound philosophy? Can I say to them: "Stand by, for I am holier than you? Stand by, for I am more intellectual than you! Stand by, for I have more philanthropy than you! Stand by, for I have the master mind by nature, and your minds ought to be, in justice, the slaves of mine, by reason of my superiority!"

You, my Right Reverend brother, may think and say thus, if you can prove your right to such preeminence; but I must be excused if I dare not occupy a position which seems to me the very reverse of common-sense, of sound argument, and of Christian moderation.

CHAPTER VIII.

RIGHT REVEREND BROTHER: I come, now, to the statements of the ancient authors on the subject of slavery, and shall commence with Philo Judæus, a learned Jew of Alexandria, who lived in the first century of the Christian era, when slavery existed according to the old Roman law.

"There is one kind of slavery," saith Philo, "of the mind, and another of the body. Men are the masters over the bodies, and the appetites and vices over the minds." (14)

"The divine law accommodates the rules of right, not to fortune but to nature. Therefore masters ought not to abuse their power over their domestic servants, but should beware of insolence, contempt, and cruelty. For these are not the signs of a serene mind, but of tyrannical weakness; exercising arbitrary licentiousness instead of judgment." (15)

Near the latter end of the second century we have the works of the famous Tertullian, a presbyter of Carthage, whose writings were held in such esteem by the martyr Cyprian, that when he called for them he was accustomed to say: "Give me the master." Amongst the numerous treatises of Tertullian there are some against the heretic Marcion. And here we meet with a passage which shows with what abhorrence Tertullian regarded the attempt to draw away the slave from the service of his lawful owner.

แ

"For what," saith this celebrated father, can be more unjust, what more iniquitous, what more shameful than an attempt to benefit the slave in such way that he shall be snatched from his master, that he shall be delivered to another, that he shall be suborned against the life of his master, while he is yet in his house, living on his granary and trembling under his correction? Such a rescuer would be condemned in the world no less than a man-stealer." (16)

The fourth century beheld the Church freed from persecution, and her bishops and clergy held in high reverence and honor. Let us

next turn to the testimony of those eminent Christian fathers, whose authority has been universally respected to this day.

Thus Jerome, one of the oracles of the ancient Church, gives his comment on St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy, ch. 6, v. 1, "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor," etc.

"Not only the good," saith Jerome, "but even the infidels, lest the slaves might seem to have been made worse by their religion. Neither let them despise their master as only equal to themselves. If they formerly served unbelievers with a hateful fear, how much more should they serve the faithful, of whose kindness they participate." (17)

The same father remarks as follows on 1 Cor. 7: 21:

"The condition of a slave can not be opposed to the Christian religion. Say not, therefore, How can I please God, who am a slave? For God does not regard the condition, but He seeks the will and the mind. Therefore neither does liberty profit nor slavery hurt. Whoever is the slave of man is free with God, and he who is free from men is the slave of Christ. Therefore both are one." (18)

Again, commenting on Eph. 6: 5-9, Jerome saith:

"The Apostle here provides that the doctrine of God may not be blasphemed in any thing; if believing slaves become useless to their masters. For he who is about to permit his other slaves to become Christians, may begin to repent of his intention through those who have already become so. But if he sees that these have been improved, and from being unfaithful have become faithful servants, not only will he wish that his other slaves may believe, but even he himself may perhaps be a partaker of salvation." (19)

66

An ancient writer, formerly confounded with Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, gives this commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians. Through the iniquity of the world this occurred, that while one invaded the territory of another, freemen were taken into captivity, from whence they were called manu capti, and then mancipia. The same condition of things continues now. Some are redeemed, others remain slaves. But with God, he is esteemed a slave who sins. For it was by reason of sin that Ham heard the sentence: 'Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.'" (20)

The same author furnishes this comment on 1 Tim. 6: 1-2: "He" (the Apostle) "desires masters to return thanks to God for