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