but in the judgment of the whole community I would be regarded a criminal. So when one man steals another and offers him for sale, no one in view of the divine law can buy him, for the reason that the divine law forbids that man shall in the first place be made a merchantable article. The inquiry must be, how did you come by that man? You may catch a wild horse or steal away from its dam a young wild colt, and appropriate it to yourself or sell it. There is no law against that; but how do you get the man to sell? Now if I buy under such circumstances, I buy in violation of the divine law, and it will not do for me to plead that I bought him. I have him in possession, and that 's enough. God condemns me for it as a man stealer. My having him in possession is evidence against me, and the Mosaic law says if he be found in my hands, I must die.

Now then, when Paul said the law was made for men stealers, was it not also saying the law is made for slaveholders? I am not intending to apply this term in a harsh spirit. But I am bound as I fear

God, to speak what I am satisfied is the true meaning of the Apostle. And I am satisfied that the Apostle meant to include all who were in any way accessary to slavery, either by kidnapping, buying, selling or holding men forcibly in bondage.

CHAPTER XI.

SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES.

HAVING as I believe fully proved in the first place, that God never, either in the Old or New Testament, tolerated slavery, as I have defined it; and secondly, that he positively condemned it; I shall now proceed to shew that those who are held in bondage in the Southern States of America are the subjects of a cruel and oppressive system.

Let me repeat my definition of slavery. Slavery is a condition in which one is in the power of another whom he is compelled to serve, without the means of redress when wronged.

Southern writers say that those circumstances that are adduced as oppressions

and cruelties in slavery are the “ abuses of slavery." But I contend that these things are essential elements of slavery. If I have a proper understanding of the use of language, I should say that to abuse any thing is to detract from its use, i. e. to weaken it. If I abuse my liberty, and become licentious, I am losing my liberty and becoming a slave to my lusts. If I abuse my purity I am becoming impure; to abuse my honesty is to become dishonest. So to abuse slavery is to destroy slavery. But is it not so that the more you oppress a man the greater slave he is? This oppression therefore is not the abuse of slavery, it is the abuse of liberty, it detracts more and more from the man's liberty, and involves him deeper and deeper in slavery. Now, how comes it to pass that the more a man is oppressed the greater slave he is, if oppression be not an essential element of slavery? Take away all oppression, and what then? The man may not be out of bondage, but he is no longer a slave. Freed from oppression, he is freed from slavery. If he remain in bondage, it is for his own benefit. He has

his means of redress should he suffer wrong, and his master is bound as well as himself. He has all the liberty he wants, and he remains in bondage because it is for his own happiness. It would be folly to call such a condition slavery.

The slaveholder holds his slave by a legal tenure. He could not retain the man in servitude if the civil law and its administrators did not guard and defend his claim. The laws of the country determine the extent of the master's claims, and limit the extent of the servant's powers accordingly. To the laws, therefore, must we resort to ascertain the real condition of the servant. If they give the servant power of prosecution and means of redress, when imposed upon by the master and others, there is no slavery in the case. But if they do not, and the master have the power to compel service in his own way, just as he might an ox or a mule, the man is oppressed by the very law that places him in that condition.

What then, is the law of American slavery? The law of South Carolina defines slavery thus:

"Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, and reputed to be chattels, personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, their executors, administrators or assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever."

Does not any one see at a glance that a man or woman subjected to the operation of such a law, must be in an oppressed condition? The man who is too blind to see this is not fit to be reasoned with. Here is the essential element of slavery; a condition in which one is in the complete and entire possession and power of a master, just like a horse or a cow. Yet this is the law under which professed believers in the Bible are holding their fellow men in bondage. But why was this, and similar laws in other states enacted ? Evidently, because it was found essential to slavery. Let the law now be repealed, and another passed, in these words:"Slaves shall not hereafter be deemed, sold, taken, and reputed to be chattels," and what then becomes of the slaveholder's claims? He has none. His servant

is no longer a slave. No longer a chattel,