and places them where they will be free indeed, whether in Liberia or in Hayti, whether in the British West Indies or on the prairies of Illinois, bears a testimony against slavery, which the consciences of his neighbors cannot resist, and which he may think of with pleasure on his dying bed.

THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.*

[QUARTERLY CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR, 1833.]

Ir cannot be doubted, that much of the dispute which exists at the present time among those who are seeking the extinction of slavery, is to be ascribed to some mutual misunderstanding in regard to the import of terms. One class of philanthropists, among whom the author of this book has recently become a standard-bearer, insist on what they call the immediate, unqualified, complete abolition of slavery. Another class, whose philanthropy is equally unquestionable, think that though the immediate and universal emancipation of two millions of slaves may be better than the perpetuity of slavery, a progressive and gradual subversion of the fabric of society now existing in the southern States would be much more desirable, as respects the well-being of both the slaves and their masters, and as respects all those great interests of the human race, which are confessedly involved in the result. Between these two classes-strange to tell--has arisen contention, such as turns the very temple of our reli

* LECTURES ON SLAVERY AND ITS REMEDY. By AмOS A. PHELPS, Pastor of Pine street Church, Boston. Published by the New England Slavery Society, 1834. 18mo. pp. 284.

gious anniversaries into a scene of clamor and violence.

We set up no claim to be considered peculiarly disinterested or impartial in this controversy. It is not for us to pretend to act as umpires. Our readers all know, that our sympathies are neither with the advocates and apologists of slavery, nor with the crusaders for immediate and universal emancipation. We have taken our ground with that class of Christian philanthropists, who, reasoning not from the abstract equality of all men, as to political rights, but from the great law of love, believe, first, that abolition in almost any form, is better than perpetual and immitigable slavery; and secondly, that the immediate emancipation of two millions of slaves in the United States, would be far less beneficent, and therefore far less equitable towards the slaves themselves-whose interests and rights in the matter are first to be consulted-than some more progressive change of their relations to the other classes of society. Yet, unless we deceive ourselves, we are not committed on this subject, so as to be unwilling to learn. The subject has been much in our thoughts for years; and as we are sure, that we understand it now better than when we began to study it, so we confidently expect to learn more and more in years to come. Our discussions of this subject, as of every other, are pursued, we trust, for truth rather than for victory. And though we may be sometimes excited-unduly excited, perhaps, by the treatment we receive from men of whom we have a right to expect, if not the courteous bearing of gentlemen, that Christian candor and kindness which is far better-we

still hope, that no personal feelings of ours will lead us to pervert clear testimony, or will hinder us from acknowledging the force of argument.

The first thing necessary to the adjustment of the controversy, between the two parties of those who cherish a common enmity against slavery, is, that we have a distinct and right understanding of the terms abolition' and 'emancipation,' as they are used in this controversy. It is common with immediate abolitionists, in their arguments on the subject, to describe in the strongest terms, some of the horrors of that slavery which exists in the southern States; to deal out certain aphorisms about inalienable rights; and to infer, that every slave in the United States ought to be emancipated instantaneously, and that all slavery ought to be instantaneously abolished. What do they mean? is the first question. Do they make a right use of language? is another question.

To take an example-the authenticity of which will not be called in question-the National AntiSlavery Convention,' in their declaration of principles, argue as follows:

Those, for whose emancipation we are striving-constituting at the present time at least one-sixth part of our countrymen— are recognized by the law, and treated by their fellow-beings as marketable commodities-as goods and chattels―as brute beasts; are plundered daily of the fruits of their toil without redress; really enjoying no constitutional nor legal protection from licentious and murderous outrages upon their persons; are ruthlessly torn asunder-the tender babe from the arms of its frantic mother the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband—at the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants. For the crime of having a dark complexion, they suffer the pangs of hunger, the

infliction of stripes, and the ignominy of brutal servitude. They are kept in heathenish darkness, by laws expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal offence.

No man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother—to hold or acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of merchandise -to keep back his hire by fraud-or to brutalize his mind by denying him the means of intellectual, social, and moral improve

ment.

The right to enjoy liberty is unalienable. To invade it, is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body-to the products of his own labor-to the protection of law-and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely the sin is as great to enslave an American as an Afri

can.

Therefore we believe and affirm-That there is no difference, in principle, between the African slave-trade and American slavery;

That every American citizen, who retains a human being in involuntary bondage as his property, is, according to scripture, a man-stealer;

That the slave ought instantly to be set free, and brought under the protection of law ;

That all those laws which are now in force, admitting the right of slavery, are therefore before God utterly null and void; being an usurpation of the Divine prerogative, a daring infringement on the law of nature, a base overthrow of the very foundations of the social compact, a complete extinction of all the relations, endearments, and obligations of mankind, and a presumptuous transgression of all the Holy Commandments-and that therefore they ought to be instantly abrogated.'

We quote this passage, not to argue with it, but to inquire, What do these people mean by immediate emancipation? Take the first paragraph, on which, if we mistake not, the whole argument was supposed by the signers of that address, to depend. That paragraph seems to be the definition of that