Why, then, did you bring them from their native home? If decrepitude be the only price of manumission, there is as much humanity in it, as when an old worn-out horse is stripped of his shoes and harness, and turned adrift to die.

In mercantile transactions there is generally a debtor and a creditor account. Now, between the owner and the slave how does this account stand? On a fair adjustment, on which side is the balance due? There is no just scale of exchange. As no contract exists, so no contract can be broken. Whenever the slave can, and is disposed to make his escape, he leaves no debt undischarged. The slave-holder may be indebted to the slave, but the slave cannot be indebted to the slave-holder.

In the case of the Egyptians and the Hebrews, the Egyptians were the debtors, ("God himself being the judge,") and the balance was paid by the Egyptians, in jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. It would have been in vain for Pharaoh, or the Egyptians, to have pleaded the right of property. Israel stood indebted, in equity, to the Egyptians, (in the first instance,) for their humanity. But the obligation was abrogated, as soon as the Egyptians assumed the right of property in the persons of the Hebrews. The Hebrews had neither given nor sold themselves to the Egyptians. Neither can it be said, that the Africans have given or sold themselves to the West India planters.

That the planters are in possession, is a well-authenticated fact: and that the Egyptians were in possession of the Hebrews, was not less true. If reciprocity was the basis of intercourse, in the first instance, between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, it degenerated in the Egyptians to downright oppression and cruelty. From the period when the West India islands became possessed by Europeans and Africans; and from the terms on which the connexion first commenced, I will presume to say, that as it never could commence upon the principle now contended for, compensation to the planters for the loss of Negro slaves would be a less just demand, than would compensation be from the planters to the slaves for past services.

We will not inquire how the Europeans became possessed of the West India islands. They are now in possession of them. We may, however, ask, how did the European become possessed of the African? What kind of original title can be produced to shew how the first slave became such? and how, by fair deduction, the children, grandchildren, great, and great, great grand chil101.-VOL. IX.

dren of such slave, or slaves, became the` property of such European, or Europeans, and continue such to this day? Can that nation be said to be civilized, which takes by stratagem, and keeps by force, any human being? Is there an institute in British jurisprudence, to patronize a British subject in seizing and keeping possession, by force, any fellow-creature? Were it known to the British legislature that a British ship had been taken, and its crew made slaves, by any other nation, would not the British government demand the liberation of such crew from such government, at its peril?

In Great Britain, the sovereign has his servants; the lord has his servants; the merchant, manufacturer, &c. all have their servants; but not slaves! If there be a fag-end in British legislation, it surely is in colonial justice! So finely tuned are all the instruments of British justice, that one single act of injustice would produce discordance throughout the whole nation; even the sovereign himself must not be out of tune!

So far is possession from constituting a right (in many instances) to specific property, that it renders the holder subject to the suspicion of not having come fairly by such property. Moreover, it has often happened, that for want of a legitimate title, a man has been dispossessed of that of which he had long held possession.

Murder, manslaughter, or homicide, may be justly laid to the charge of some person or persons, for the death of all those Africans who have perished between the shores of Africa and the West India islands. Their premature death is chargeable upon those who were accessary to such death. Merchants, factors, captains, planters, and even government itself, are implicated in this long continued tragedy! Upon what scale of computation is European and African human life contrasted? If one British white subject, wilfully or accidentally slain, demands a legal investigation, how is it that thousands of intended slaves are suffered thus to perish without further inquiry?-Surely, had our late beloved sovereign, and our present sovereign, such a view of this subject as might and ought to have been laid before them by an enlightened ministry, this long continued evil would have had a remedy applied, and the tears of weeping Africa would have been dried up.

England glories in the administration of justice. If but the meanest subject come to an untimely death, an inquest is instituted, and a deodand made to God upon that, whether animate or inanimate, which was the accidental cause of such death. So

2 E

tenacious is British law of human life, that were even a poor African to suffer (within our shores) an untimely death, an inquest would be indispensable. Why, then, should not the long and strong arm of British power be stretched out to defend and protect the African human race from colonial oppression? Are black human beings less the property of God in the West India islands, than they are in that of Great Britain?

The administration of justice is in the hands of European sovereigns. They have the power of putting an end to slavery: and the nation which refuses to unite in the suppression of this nefarious traffic, deserves the detestation of all the rest. Were the importation from Africa entirely to cease, of what advantage would that be to the slaves now held in slavery by Europeans? If the British government has prohibited its subjects from the traffic in African Negroes, is it not from a conviction of its injustice? And if injustice to import, where is the justice of holding still in slavery so many hundreds of thousands of the African race, either imported, or the descendants of imported Negroes?

There is not any thing that can exhibit the demoralized state of the West India colonists, more than the bastardizing of their own offspring. What are the coloured people, of whom we have heard? They are the offspring of white men. by black women. And to a state of slavery are a vast number of these unfortunate wretches abandoned disowned often by their unnatural fathers, they are doomed to reproach and contempt. No brand can be set upon the skin of a true-born African so degrading as that of a mulatto. Whilst slavery endures, these can never hold a state of equality either with whites or blacks. Would to God that such wretched fathers might never more set their feet upon our British shores, but remain within their own polluted atmosphere, till death do them part. It might have been expected, from the very great number of these mulattoes, that the white planters, &c. would have had some paternal regard for their offspring. But, alas! the contaminating principle of the colonial atmosphere precludes every feeling of this kind; and brutality (not chastity) is the order of the day! Whilst this state of things continues, awful must be the situation of the West Indies. That fabric is become tremendously portentous, Its foundation is laid in injustice, and the building is cemented with blood; and unless great skill is exercised in removing this monument of national disgrace, it will fall, and great will be the fall thereof.

The loss of human life by premature death, in the traffic of African slaves, is incalculable. Millions of Negroes have fallen victims, ere they had rendered the least benefit to the captors or planters; and thousands of Europeans have also suffered from the casualties attending this horrid employment. I will fearlessly assert, that if one substantial argument is produced; if the advocates for slavery will give me one reason for its continuance which I cannot refute, I will for ever renounce the advocacy of its abolition, and acknowledge myself a fanatic and an enthusiast reclaimed.

Every planter is a jailer, every plantation a jail, and every Negro a prisoner. Eight hundred thousand prisoners are held in awful durance by fifty thousand jailers, in spite of the remonstrance of millions of British subjects. If crime is the cause of their imprisonment, why are they not brought to trial? If not guilty of crime, why are they held in prison? If France, Spain, or Portugal mistook these Africans for beasts, or a middle link between themselves and monkeys, ought not England to have corrected this error, and to have restored them to the society of men? That I have lived to the seventy-first year of my age, and have thought so little, and have done so little, to ameliorate the condition of these slaves, I am truly ashamed. My blood runs now with the vigour of youth in their behalf. I could venture to the foot of the throne, to supplicate, not so much for mercy as justice, in advocacy of this most injured and most insulted part of the human family. That crown must be fearfully tarnished, whose sovereign lends not his aid to effect the emancipation of the imprisoned African! The voice of humanity and of justice exclaims, "Let the day be darkened that gave birth to the man who is so unjust as to advocate the cause of continued slavery."

The African is at the mercy of the European. The British and other European governments may (if they are so disposed) make such laws as to bind in heavier chains this most wretched part of the human family. They may torture or put them to death as they please. The slave has no court to which he can appeal, but that of heaven. Justice is of heavenly origin. Its emanation was not from man, but from God. Justice should be amongst men what the sun-dial is to the adjustment of time. As well may men presume to regulate and correct the sun, as to model justice to human authority. Were the question of right to be brought before a British judge and a British jury, what evidence would be

produced to prove that a black African is the property of a white European? From what source can the white man derive his title to such property?

What have the people of the United States of America whereof to boast? They rebelled against a legitimate government; cast off their allegiance to the parent empire; and, being successful, gloried in their liberty. But how selfish, to withhold from the African the right of liberty which for themselves they had obtained! The African had a more legitimate right to liberty than themselves. If difference of colour pleads any prescription, it is in favour of the African. If difference of colour is to mark a line of demarcation, the Negro had the best claim. The European was the subject of Great Britain; the African was not. The white people were professed subjects of the British empire; the black people were not. The glory of American liberty will remain tarnished, so long as the African race are held in bondage by the Americans. Give to the African the right of citizenship, and then you have only granted to him that which you have no just right to withhold.

If prescription constitute right, what shall we say to the long catalogue of house-breaking, shop-lifting, highway-robbery, sheep-stealing, horse-stealing, picking of pockets, &c.? They have all been in practice from time immemorial. What should we say to an eloquent and learned thief, who would plead that his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, all obtained a livelihood by the same practice? and that (but for the laws of men) he could see no harm in his helping himself to what his real wants require?-West India planters wanted the labour of Africans: captains of merchant-ships found out the way of kidnapping these Africans, and of exhibiting them for sale to the West India planters: a value was set upon these individually, or by the gross the planter agrees with the captain, pays for, and takes possession of such property.

Now, in the first place, did the captain, who kidnapped these Africans, become honestly possessed of them? Could he give the planter a just title to such human beings as real bona fide property, transferable to any other planter at his own discretion? And are the descendants of such Africans the continued property of such planter or planters? Upon this principle, would a man not be justly entitled to every species of stolen goods, provided he had bought and paid the price which the seller put upon such property? Every man is born alike free; and except the obligation which

a man's birth-place subjects him to, civilly or politically, (unless guilty of erime,) has an indefeasible right to such liberty in justice; and justice is one of the most prominent features in the system of civilization.

66

Should the advocates for continued slavery suffer a defeat, they will have displayed the most consummate generalship. They have marched and countermarched with the most profound skill. Every kind of fortification that either art or nature could suggest, has been resorted to, and, like a distinguished general," they will only have surrendered in the "last ditch!" It would torture investigation to develop all the subterfuges to which they have had recourse. They have threatened, they have supplicated, they have remonstrated, they have prevaricated. Such is, and such has been, their attachment to the system of slavery.

Have not the British government hesitated to carry their own measures into effect? They have ventured to prohibit the importation of African Negroes: but the great mass of imported and colonial-born Negroes are, to this day, held as personal property by West India planters. If it were an act of mercy, or justice, in the British government to prevent, in future, the importation of Africans into the West India islands, in the plenitude of their power, have they neither mercy nor justice to exercise in behalf of the thousands of Negroes now in slavery; and, it may be, the millions yet unborn? If an act of robbery was ever committed, it was an act of robbery for one man, or a number of men, to take by force another man, or any number of men, and hold such captive, or captives, in bondage. In Exodus xxi. 16. we read, "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death;" and who can suppose that the Gospel sanctions what the Law so pointedly condemns ?

If my interrogatories are impertinent; if my assertions are untrue; if my reasoning is false; if my judgment, or my passions, are governed by erroneous principles, convict me at the public bar. If I plead not the cause of justice, mercy, or truth; or if I plead them not according to truth, let me receive the reprehension due to my presumption; and let the advocates for continued slavery bind more securely the shackles of the enslaved African. Let either youth or age, learned or unlearned, colonist or European, disprove my allega tions, and I will yield to him the palm of victory-vanquished, I will quit the field. PHILANTHROPOS.

ON THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

(Concluded from col. 360.)

As the apostle of Christ, James would, no doubt, avoid interference in temporal matters as much as possible; but the case, I think, clearly involved the principle of a union of church and state. On the other hand, with regard to civil governments, let it be observed, that no earthly power has a right to execute any judgments, but as the cause of religion and morality render it a duty. It is true, that governors may have no regard to the authority of God, and to his righteous law; they may be agents of him who is styled the god of this world; and their object may be to render themselves gods, and to cause all things to serve them; but in proportion as they rightfully exercise their powers, they do so in the cause of truth and righteousness, as the vicegerents of the King of kings, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice, which I think is sufficient to shew that civil and ecclesiastical government are essentially the same.

Now, let it be supposed that some of those Christians who zealously renounce, on behalf of the church, all claim upon the state for any thing beyond equitable protection, and deny to it the right of conferring any thing further upon it, to attain to the government of a nation, and to have the direction of its power and resources, would they, could they rigidly act up to these maxims, and hold the balance even between Christianity and a religion whose origin was from the prince of darkness, Islamism for instance?--Magistratus indicat virum.-No, if they were Christians indeed, their real latent principles would impel them to a very different course of conduct. It could not be that Christian statesmen should, as such, be neutral in the cause of the conflict between the powers of light and darkness; they would recollect who has said, "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad." If such persons had the complete control over the resources of a nation, partly composed of an ignorant nominal Christian population, and partly of Mahometans, they could not expend the national money in circulating the Koran; but would they say that therefore they could expend nothing in promoting the circulation of the holy scriptures, or for

We are sometimes very confidently referred to the case of the United States of North America, as an instance of the proper separation of church and state, Not to enter into a comparison of the present state and prospects of England and that country, with regard to religion, to me it is evident that the case is totally irrelevant, the balancings of religious parties, concurring with other circumstances, left their statesmen and legislators no choice but that of ostensible neutrality. But the principle is in fact only undergoing an experiment, and no crisis has ye: occurred to put

providing other means of Christian instruction for the people of such a nation? Are not Christian governors "God's ministers" for the purpose of raising tribute to be applied in every way which they know the welfare of the nation requires? Rom. xiii. 6. Nations, especially those professing Christianity, have national duties with regard to the cause of righteousness, and consequently with regard to Christianity, to perform. The cause admits of no neutrality; and upon the rulers it devolves to do what in them lies to procure their performance, or the responsibility remains with them.

I need not pursue the matter further, so as to approach entangled ground: my object is answered, if it has become apparent, that a civil state, righteously governed, tends towards a church state, and that a church tends to become a civil state. There is, I apprehend, a manifest natural tendency on both sides to approximate, the proper issue of which is a union. This tendency clearly shews, that there is no essential distinction between civil and ecclesiastical rule, and that the idea of a church becoming a state, or a state becoming a church, is not at all inconsistent with evangelical principles.

I will venture to add further, that the congregational system appears to me disaccordant with the principles of nature. It is too contracted to afford scope for the varieties and capacities of the human mind: some men are evidently designed by the all-wise Creator for stations of influence and authority far beyond the limits of this system. This consideration alone, in the absence of all explicit order in divine revelation, is quite sufficient to justify the rejection of the exclusive claims of the congregationalists as to the possession of a divine form and order of ecclesiastical regime.

The frightful consequences of the union of the church with the world, by which Christendom became the chief theatre for the operations of the prince of darkness, in which were produced hypocrisy, antinoinianism, and infidelity, in their most hideous forms: by which ecclesiastical domination became the most cruel and destructive tyranny, and by which avarice "with feigned words made merchandise" of the gospel of God, and of the souls and

it properly to the test. I apprehend it would require the lapse of more than another half century, before that state could with propriety be referred to for illustration of the question; before which time (so rapid is the present progress of things) we may entertain the hope that it will be otherwise settled.

+ Popery I consider to be a perfect system of antinomianism, by which the law of God is virtually set aside, and the religion of Christ by various expedients made compatible with the free gratification of the evil lusts and passions of men.