{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_69233/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_69233","id":"gutenberg_69233","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69233","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Harris, R. (Raymund). Scriptural researches on the licitness of the slave trade","Slave trade -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  The original text used the character \u017f (long-form s); these have been\n  replaced by the normal s in this etext.\n\n  A few obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been\n  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within\n  the text and consultation of external sources.\n\n  All misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage,\n  have been retained.\n\n\n\n\n                             EXAMINATION\n\n                                  OF\n\n                        The Rev. Mr. HARRIS\u2019s\n\n                        SCRIPTURAL RESEARCHES\n\n                                  ON\n\n                  The Licitness of the Slave-Trade.\n\n\n                      By the Rev. JAMES RAMSAY.\n\n                               LONDON:\n\n               Printed by JAMES PHILLIPS, George-Yard,\n                           Lombard-Street.\n\n                           M.DCC.LXXXVIII.\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nThe following Examination was drawn up in the country, from a casual\nperusal of Mr. Harris\u2019s Scriptural Researches, with a view of\nputting them into the hands of any person, who might be employed in\nanswering that very extraordinary work. But on coming up to town,\nand understanding that Mr. Harris\u2019s reasoning had produced effects\non certain people, who had not studied the scriptures, or attended\nto that spirit of freedom, which runs throughout the Old and New\nTestament, and who hitherto had suffered themselves to be reluctantly\ndragged along by the present prevailing enthusiasm in favour of\nfreedom, but now eagerly seized on a pretence for abandoning the\ncause, it has been judged proper to give it at once to the publick.\nMr. Harris affects to proceed mathematically in the treatment of\nhis subject, and therefore establishes certain data. I had thought\nit sufficient to contradict their particular application, in my\nexamination of the subject; but others thinking it necessary to take\nmore direct notice of them, I have subjoined the following short\nobservations.\n\nDat. 1, 2. \u201cThe scriptures of the Old and New Testament are of equal\nauthority, and contain the unerring decisions of the word of God.\u201d\n\nObservation. Certainly: but it will not be disputed, that there are\nmany things, not indeed deserving the name of decisions, but that\npass without censure, and are seemingly allowed there, which we know\nto be forbidden to us, and which will not apply to the improved state\nof mankind. Laws must be adapted, not only to the state of society,\nbut to the present state of the improvement of the human mind, which\nwe know has been gradually advancing from the earliest ages.\n\nDat. 3, 4. \u201cIt is criminal to refuse assent to what the scriptures\ndecide to be intrinsically good or bad.\u201d\n\nObser. Suppose this. Yet may we not inquire if a thing or practice\nbe really so declared, and if it concerns our salvation, to form\na decided opinion on it? Are we not liable to mistake practices,\narising out of circumstances connected with the first formation of\nsociety, and therefore not positively censured, for such decisions\nof intrinsical goodness? Thus the eating of swines flesh was allowed\nbefore the promulgation of the law of Moses; that law strictly forbad\nit; the Christian law allows it again as at the beginning: or, the\nJews were alone restrained from the use of it; while they continued\nunder a particular \u0153conomy, and their transgression of this law was\nonly a crime, because it was enjoined them; not because it was in\nitself a thing unlawful, as murder, adultery, and the like.\n\nDat. 5, 6. \u201cEvery scriptural decision, however incomprehensible, must\nbe assented to as a declaration of the word of God.\u201d We must consider\nthe circumstances under which that decision is made; how far it is\nagreeable to our benevolent religion, and how far it is applicable\nto our conduct, before we imitate it. The drunken incest of Lot is\nnot censured. It was the means of producing two mighty nations; from\nwhich, according to the author\u2019s manner of reasoning, he ought to\nconclude it was approved of; yet I suppose he will not recommend the\nimitation to any person in these days.\n\nDat. 7. \u201cThe slave-trade must be believed to be intrinsically just\nand lawful, if the scriptures give a sanction to it.\u201d Suppose the\nslave-trade to have this sanction (which yet is not true) unless the\nauthor can shew how it can be carried on without infringing on our\nSaviour\u2019s golden rule, of doing as we would be done by; unless he\ncan instruct us how we can go to the coast of Africa, and by every\nfraudulent, violent, oppressive method, rob, murder, and enslave\ninnocent people without a crime; then are we to keep our practice, if\nnot our opinion, suspended.\n\nDat. 8. \u201cNo abuse of a lawful pursuit, can make that pursuit\ncriminal.\u201d It is lawful for a man to provide for his family; but not\nto rob and murder on the highway under such a pretence. Whenever a\nman\u2019s industry is connected with such practices, the actual exertion\nof it is a crime in him, though to provide for his family in an\nhonest way would be laudable. That there is an unlawful slavery\nnoticed in the scriptures, is clear, from the punishment that Pharaoh\nbrought on himself and \u00c6gypt, for enslaving the Jews. The author\nshould distinguish, and mark the difference between the slavery that\n(page 41) is almost commanded, and that which brings down divine\njudgments on the oppressor, and shew that his patrons of Leverpool\npractise only the first.\n\nDat. 9. \u201cNo private or publick advantage will ever justify the\nslave-trade, till it be proved essentially just and lawful in\nits nature.\u201d Here we are sincerely agreed; and according to the\ndistinction proposed for datum 8, he has only to set heartily to\nwork, and prove the Leverpool slave-trade to be that particular sort\nof slave-trade, \u201cwhich God hath commanded as being essentially just\nand lawful in its nature.\u201d\n\nDat. 10. \u201cNo argument drawn from abuse, can prove the intrinsic\ndeformity of the slave-trade, unless it be proved essentially\nunjust.\u201d These are words without meaning. We are not combating an\nideal slavery; but slavery accompanied with robbery, oppression,\nmisery, murder. Wherever we find slavery so attended, it becomes a\nhorrid crime, be it intrinsically never so just.\n\nDat. 11. \u201cIf abuses committed in the prosecution of a lawful pursuit\ncan be prevented, then the advantages arising from it, ought to\nhave a powerful influence against the abolition.\u201d But if these\nabuses cannot possibly be prevented (for are we to oppress and\nmurder according to law?) then the greatest advantages attending any\npractice must be abandoned, till a method shall be discovered, of\nseparating them from iniquity and blood-shed.\n\nDat. 12. \u201cIf the slave-trade is to be abolished, because of the\nabuses committed in it, then every other branch of trade, in which\nabuses are committed, ought to share the same fate.\u201d Most certainly\nin turn, in proportion to the atrociousness of each. Let us once\nget this staring monster subdued, and we will be obliged to the\nauthor for pointing out any other iniquitous traffick that deserves\nto follow immediately in the train of the Leverpool slave-trade.\nThe fallaciousness of this author\u2019s reasoning, is exceedingly well\nexposed, in the Critical Review of April, 1788, to which I refer the\nreader.\n\nFrom this view of the author\u2019s data, it will appear, that he has\ntotally confounded times and circumstances. The law of Moses was\nenacted in aid of natural religion, till the perfect religion of\nChrist should be given to the world. The doctrines of this last,\nenjoin us to consider and treat all men as our brethren; and its\neffect was gradually to take away all burthensome ceremonies, all\noppressive distinctions. Why are we then sent back to less perfect\ninstitutions for the rule of our practice? We are to go on to\nperfection, refine sentiment, and extend benevolence. What has raised\nEurope above the rest of the world, but the abolition of domestick\nslavery? What degrees of opulence and prosperity might it acquire,\nif the abominable, contracted, branch of trade in the bodies of\nour fellow creatures of Africa, were changed to a fair, equitable\nintercourse of productions and manufactures!\n\n                                                                 J. R.\n\n\n\n\nEXAMINATION, &c.\n\n\nThis gentleman professes to treat the subject seriously, and to\nsubmit his opinion to the decisions of revealed religion. No man has\na right to dispute his sincerity, as far as his own way of thinking\nis concerned; but few serious people will peruse his extraordinary\npositions, without having their reverence for their Creator shocked,\nand their benevolence to their brother affected. The Scriptures,\nfrom which he draws his conclusions, we believe to teach, that all\nmen are equally dear to their Creator, and that we owe love and good\noffices to each other. But if his deductions be fairly made, we must\nno longer entertain this opinion; for one part of mankind is to\nbe kidnapped, evil intreated, oppressed, murdered, to indulge the\navarice of another; and, page 76, Corol. 3d. \u201cHe doth not believe the\nScriptures, who is not persuaded that this doctrine is taught there.\u201d\n\nBut the author stumbles at the very threshold. Our Saviour (John v.\n39.) bids the Jews to search the scriptures; \u201cfor in them ye think\nye have eternal life; for they are they which testify of me,\u201d the\nSaviour come to free men from the bondage of sin, into the glorious\nprivilege of the sons of God. But it seems something else is meant.\nWe are to search the scriptures (see title page) for a commission\nto Leverpool captains for fitting out ships, and loading them with\npowder, shot, and cutlasses, to set the Africans on to assault,\nkidnap, and enslave each other; to be transferred over to them; to\nbe murdered by bad air, thirst, and famine, in the passage to the\nWest-Indies; where the poor remains are to be set to hard labour,\nwithout food, without cloathing, without rest, sufficient to support\nnature.\n\nIt is true (preface, page 5.) he, with all the other advocates for\nslavery, declares himself \u201can enemy to injustice and oppression.\u201d\nBut the design of his book is to shew, that the ill-treatment of\nslaves is not an object of divine animadversion; for (p. 16.) Sarah\nwas permitted without censure, \u201cto use cruel oppressive treatment\nto Hagar;\u201d and (p. 26.) Joseph is approved of by God for the\ncruel manner in which he enslaved and exchanged the abodes of the\nEgyptians. Which of these is to be believed; his general assertion,\nor his particular application? Or may we conclude, that he reserves\nto himself the feelings of humanity, and sells tyranny and oppression\nto his friends of Leverpool.\n\nIn the scriptures servants are frequently mentioned; but, in this\ndissertation, they are transformed into \u201cslave trade.\u201d The places,\nwhere traffick in slaves is related, are Joseph\u2019s brethren (Gen.\nxxxvii.) selling him to the Ishmaelites, who sell him to Potiphar;\nthe Tyrians (Ezek. xxvii. 13.) who had a market for the persons of\nmen; and Babylon, the mother of abominations, (Rev. xviii. 13.)\nwho exposed to sale, slaves and souls of men. I hope none of these\ninstances are proposed to the imitation of the \u201cancient and loyal\ntown of Leverpool;\u201d for a black mark is set on them to prevent them\nfrom being followed.\n\nNow there is some difference between dealing in slaves as a branch of\ntrade, and buying the service of a domestic; even as it is not every\nman who eats meat, that is or could act the part of a butcher. In the\ncase of the Jews there was something particular. They were obliged to\nadmit their slaves to all the national privileges, to circumcision,\nthe passover, and other solemn feasts, and to instruct them in the\ntrue religion (Gen. xvii. 13. Exod. xii. 44. Deut. xvi. 11. and xxxi.\n12. Josh. viii. 35.) In buying them from the Heathen around them,\nthey recovered them from idolatry; they gave them a weekly sabbath.\nIn their treatment they were commanded to remember, that they\nthemselves had been slaves in Egypt. When they are threatened for\ntheir sins, the ill treatment of their slaves makes a capital part\nof the charge against them. But modern masters think that nothing of\nthis sort concerns them.\n\nThe Jews were intended to communicate to the world the knowledge of\nthe true religion. He who brings good out of evil made use of the\nslavery, in practice, to extend this knowledge to persons, whom it\ncould not at that time have otherwise reached. But nothing in the\nbible countenances a trade in slaves. Even the transferring them in\nordinary cases is checked as in that of wives and concubines (Exod.\nxxi. 11.) Their ill treatment was guarded against, by that law which\ngave them freedom if their master had struck out a single tooth.\n\nIndeed, among the Jews, the number of slaves must have been small.\nThey were numerous in a narrow territory, and were in general\nhusband-men, and used ploughs and other instruments of agriculture,\nand wrought in the field with their servants. Ziba, who appears to\nhave been steward to the house of Saul, had only twenty servants\nto assist him and his sons in cultivating the lands belonging to\nthe family. The Jews on their return from captivity had only one\nservant to six persons, or one in each family. The remnant of the\nGibeonites, who served the temple, was then 392. It is not therefore\nfair to consider every accidental possession of a servant, either\nas an instance, or as a vindication of the Leverpool \u201cslave trade;\u201d\nof which no ancient nation could ever form an idea. We may rather\nconclude, that though the Jews were permitted to buy slaves from the\nHeathen, they did not traffick in them; and forcibly to enslave their\nbrethren was death. (See Exod. xxi. 16. Deut. xxiv. 7.)\n\nOf Mr. Harris\u2019s data as general propositions, I shall say little\nmore; the application alone is what the present subject is concerned\nin. I shall only suggest an additional datum, as necessary to\ncomplete his principles of reasoning.\n\nDat. 13. If the slave trade, though \u201cintrinsically licit,\u201d cannot\nnow be carried on, without breaking through every human and divine\nlaw, without cheating, violence, oppression, murder, then must it be\nlaid aside, till we shall have discovered a way of carrying it on,\nagreeably to the doctrines of the gospel, by which we are enjoined to\nconsider all men as our brethren, and to deal by them as we wish them\nto deal by us.\n\nPage 16. Speaking of Abraham\u2019s possessing of servants, he calls it,\n\u201ca positive approbation, a sanction of divine authority in favour\nof the slave-trade.\u201d What a change is put on the Reader! Abraham\npossessed servants; therefore the Leverpool slave-trade has a\ndivine sanction. For if this be not meant, nothing is meant. His\nbook is published to vindicate this trade; it is dedicated to the\ncorporation, who must so understand it. Now let a man only read Mr.\nNewton or Mr. Falconbridge\u2019s, or any other eye-witness\u2019s account of\nthis trade, and what horrid impiety must of necessity be understood!\nIs there \u201ca divine sanction\u201d for all the iniquity accompanying this\nvery diabolical business, the kidnapping, chaining, murdering,\nsuffocating of millions of unhappy fellow creatures? Are such\nthings not barely permitted, but (p. 42.) approved, encouraged, and\nseemingly enjoined?\n\nAbraham was a rich, powerful, prince. As he travelled through various\ncountries, numbers must have been desirous of attaching themselves\nto his fortune, and have offered themselves for his attendants. His\nhumanity might have induced him to purchase children from unnatural\nparents, or captives from robbers. But all in his family were in a\nsituation very different from that of West Indian slaves. We learn,\nthat on the supposition of his dying childless, he intended one of\nthem for his heir; that he intrusted a servant to chuse a wife for\nhis son Isaac; that he put arms in his servants hands, and led them\nout to battle. There is nothing of West Indian slavery in all this.\n\nBut a particular stress is laid on the story of Hagar, and Sarah\u2019s\nill treatment of her. Page 19. \u201cShe obtained no favourable sentence\nfrom the Divine Tribunal for leaving her mistress, nor was Sarah\ncensured for her severity.\u201d Sarah was not present when the angel\nappeared unto Hagar, therefore she is neither praised nor condemned.\nBut that Hagar believed she had a favourable sentence, and that\nher conduct was not condemned, when assured that the Lord had seen\nher affliction, which is the scripture phrase for deliverance (Gen.\nxxix. 32. and xxxi. 42. Exod. iii. 7.), and that she should have\na son, and that her seed should be multiplied, appears from her\nacknowledgment of the vision, and returning to her mistress. Nor can\nwe imagine in what more flattering manner her affliction could have\nbeen recompensed, or how she could have been afflicted so as to have\ndeserved a recompence, and her mistress not to have been in fault. It\nwas necessary for her to return to her mistress, that her son might\npartake of the sign of the covenant, and be instructed in the true\nreligion.\n\nHagar\u2019s case (p. 19.) is compared with an African female slave\nin the West Indies. Nothing can be more opposite. Josephus says,\nPharaoh made Abraham a present of money; and the scriptures say,\nthat he intreated Abraham well for Sarah\u2019s sake, adding immediately,\nhe had cattle, and men servants, and maid servants, as if Pharaoh\nhad presented them; among whom Hagar might have been one; or, as it\nappears she was a worshipper of the true God, she might voluntarily\nhave entered into Sarah\u2019s service. Certainly she had never been\ncooped up in a Guinea trader, nor set to plant the sugar-cane; nor\nwas she ordered to return and submit herself for her mistress\u2019s\nprofit, but for her own and her son\u2019s sake; and when that purpose was\nanswered she was dismissed.\n\nThere is therefore no foundation for the author\u2019s deduction, p. 20.\nthat \u201ca divine voice declares her to be her master\u2019s indisputable\nproperty, and the original bargain to be just and lawful in its\nnature; and that the (Leverpool) slave-trade, even attended with\ncircumstances not conformable to the feelings of humanity, is\nessentially confident with the rights of justice, and has the\npositive sanction of God for its support, however displeasing these\ncircumstances may be to his fatherly providence.\u201d Let any man make\nsense of this who can. I understand only the extreme boldness of the\nexpression. Here is a right to enslave and an approbation, and also\na censure of the exercise of this right. Here our natural notions of\nbenevolence are set in opposition to revelation, p. 42. Revelation\ncommands us to enslave our brethren, even against the suggestions\nof the feelings of humanity. Surely the writer should shew the high\npurposes answered by slavery, to gain which it is an act of piety to\nviolate our benevolent feelings.\n\nWe come now to the story of Joseph, which, p. 23, \u201cascertains\nthe inherent lawfulness of the\u201d (Leverpool) \u201cslave-trade.\u201d The\nfirst thing that strikes us in his account is, his illustrating\nhis doctrine by Joseph\u2019s political arrangements of the kingdom of\nEgypt, rather than by Joseph\u2019s own story; which, except in the\nhorrid circumstances of the middle passage, agrees entirely with the\nLeverpool slave-trade. Joseph is found at a distance from protection.\nHis enemies kidnap him and sell him to slave-brokers, who carry him\ninto Egypt, and dispose of him as an article of commerce to Potiphar.\nHis kidnappers saw, and like Guinea captains disregarded, the anguish\nof his soul. It is true, afterwards, when they believed themselves\nin danger of being enslaved in turn, they upbraid each other with\ntheir unfeeling cruelty, and charge their distress to its account.\nBut this was only because Scriptural Researches had not then been\npublished: for they, p. 20, would have proved, that \u201cthough the\naction was not altogether conformable to the feelings of humanity,\nand was even displeasing to his Fatherly Providence; and though\ndoubtless God would see, and of consequence recompense, Joseph for\nhis affliction as he had Hagar; yet this stroke in the slave-trade is\nessentially consistent with the unalienable rights of justice; has\nthe positive sanction of God in its support, nay, his approbation, p.\n16, and p. 42, even his command.\u201d\n\nBut let us examine Joseph\u2019s management of the Egyptians, not as this\nauthor, but as the scriptures represent it. In the years of plenty\nJoseph stored the extraordinary produce of each district in the\nneighbouring cities. One tenth part belonged of right to the king;\nthe rest he purchased at a low price with the king\u2019s treasures. In\nthe years of famine he sold the corn out to the inhabitants of the\ndistricts nearest to his respective store-houses at an advanced\nprice, and accumulated the money, cattle, and moveables of the whole\nkingdom, and at last made a bargain for their lands and persons. It\nis not to be supposed that any property, except money, was taken\nout of the original possessors hands; for this would have answered\nno purpose, but to distress the people and embarrass government.\nIndeed, where could the whole cattle and moveables of the kingdom\nhave been stored? When the seven years of famine were ended, Pharaoh\nwas the sole proprietor. Joseph then gives the inhabitants a charter,\nrestores them their lands and cattle, on condition of paying to\nPharaoh a second tenth of the produce of the land, which made their\ncontributions to the revenue a fifth part of their crops. It appears\nno other badge or burden of slavery was imposed, except this rent,\nwhich was a tenth part more than they had formerly paid.\n\nThe common rent of the bare land in England is estimated at one-third\nof the produce, and the farmer must supply himself with stock, except\nperhaps buildings, and also contribute largely in a variety of ways\nto the publick revenues: but by Joseph\u2019s regulation the Egyptian\nfarmer paid only a fifth part for the use of his stock and land, and\nfor the support of government. After having transferred themselves\nand property to Pharaoh, they could not have been freed on easier\nterms: and as we often see, that he who hires a farm, grows rich on a\npossession on which the owner had been ruined, probably the Egyptians\nbecame as happy under their new tenure as they had been under their\nold. In the most unfavourable light, it may be compared with the\nchange that took place at the conquest, when free tenures became\nfeudal, charged with certain services.\n\nOur translation, Gen. xlvii. 20, 21. says, \u201cSo the land became\nPharaoh\u2019s; and as for the people, he removed them to cities from\none end of the borders of Egypt, even to the other end thereof.\u201d\nIn the Septuagint it is, \u201cand the land became Pharaoh\u2019s, and he\nsubjected the people to be servants to him from one end of Egypt to\nthe other.\u201d It is to the same purport in the Samaritan copy. This\nreads better, and is more probable, than that Joseph should have\nmade the whole nation, as Mr. Harris affirms, change settlements in\nsuch a manner as if the people of Kent were sent to the Orkneys, and\nthose of the Orkneys were brought to Kent. This would be such a\ntrifling with peoples lives and feelings, such a waste of property,\nsuch a perversion of all experience, and particular knowledge of the\nagriculture proper in each district, as is only applicable to the\nLeverpool slave-trade; but cannot, on such slight grounds as this\ngeneral expression is, be imagined in a man of Joseph\u2019s character,\nwith a pretended view to prevent rebellion. Or the expression in\nour translation may bear, that the people were distributed so as to\nbe near the respective store-houses, on which their maintenance was\nassigned.\n\nTherefore \u201cthe change made, p. 25, 26, in the happy condition of\nthe \u00c6gyptians, the transportation of 7 or 8 millions of every\nage, sex, condition, rank; infants, children, decrepit, infirm,\ndelicate, through the scorching sands of a parched up country,\u201d\nis the mere fiction of imagination, to palliate the still more\nshocking conduct of the writer\u2019s patrons of Leverpool. The \u00c6gyptians\noffered themselves for servants, to save themselves from starving.\nHis patrons force the Africans to be slaves, not as he says, from\n\u201ca state of absolute indigence,\u201d but reduced from plenty and ease\nto famine, nakedness, and want, by stripes, fetters, cruelty and\noppression.\n\nPage 28. It is said, \u201cJoseph, when able to relieve them, took\nadvantage of the extreme indigence of the \u00c6gyptians, to reduce them\ninto the condition of slaves, and in this acted by the immediate\ndirection of God, who made this work to prosper.\u201d Supposing all this\ntrue, yet there is nothing common between this transaction and the\nLeverpool African commerce; but the author\u2019s having given them one\ncommon name, \u201cslave-trade.\u201d The \u00c6gyptians, after a fair transfer of\nthemselves and goods, are left in full possession of their lands and\nproperty, on paying such a rent as would act as a spur to industry,\nwhile it checked that luxury which the author describes, p. 25, as\nprevailing in \u00c6gypt. The Leverpool slaves are reduced from freedom to\na base, helpless, unprofitable, wretched state.\n\nWhen this writer, p. 27, considers the four-fifths of the produce\nleft with the \u00c6gyptian farmer, as only equivalent to the keep of\na West-Indian slave, he must raise a blush on the sugar planter\u2019s\ncheek; who willingly would leave but one fifth, (the rum) both to\nsupport his plantation stock, and maintain his slaves.\n\nBut let Joseph\u2019s conduct be what the writer pleases to describe it.\nHe was not the legislator of \u00c6gypt, but the minister of Pharaoh, and\nobliged to govern himself by the prevailing customs of the kingdom.\nIt appears, he extended only the king\u2019s revenues, and gave him such\na command over the property of the people, as might enable him to\narrange the management of it to the best general advantage. This\nmight be peculiarly proper in \u00c6gypt, though not necessary to be\nimitated here. Its fertility depended on the equal distribution of\nthe waters of the Nile. It was necessary for the general benefit,\nthat there should be an indisputed power to direct the course of the\nvarious canals, which communicated the water to each district. While\nthe king had an equal interest in all, no particular part would be\nneglected. Joseph gives four-fifths of the produce, \u201cfor feed of the\nfield, and for your food, and for them of your housholds, and for\nfood for your little ones.\u201d This confines the peoples share to their\nown maintenance, and the supply of seed. We are left to conclude,\nthat every expense attending the distribution of the river, except\nperhaps manual labour, was paid out of the king\u2019s fifth part: and\nas in all good governments, the interest of the king and the people\nis one, Joseph, by his nominal purchase of the people and their\nlands, might probably have in view such an accession of power, as\nmight enable him to direct the whole to general advantage. After the\ncharter was confirmed, no ill use could be made of the power, and\nan English farmer would gladly pay one-fifth of his produce to him\nwho should stock his farm, and pay his rent, and all his publick and\nparish taxes.\n\nPage 38. \u201cThe Jews are not restrained from purchasing their own\nbrethren.\u201d The Jews were commanded to treat their brethren, when\nreduced to a six years servitude, with lenity, as hired or free\nservants, and to send them out in the sabbatical year free, and not\nlet them go away empty. The only cases in which we can suppose Jews\ncould be made to serve, are their being sold for debt, or their\npreferring the service of a master to labour on their own account.\nIn these cases, the laws of Moses take care of them, that they be\nnot oppressed, and, besides the original purchase-money of their\nservices, to have a recompence when the period is finished.\n\nIt is in this case of an Hebrew servant, that we are to look for the\ngenuine Mosaic principles of slavery. Even here the law expresses\na jealousy of the master\u2019s conduct, and guards against the abuse\nof his authority, restricting it to six years, and prescribing the\nmanner of exercising it. Therefore when the Jews are allowed to\nmake perpetual slaves of the Heathen, we are to consider it as a\nparticular dispensation respecting their situation among idolaters,\nby which, in every slave, they made a proselyte to the true religion;\nor like divorces, an indulgence to their hardness of heart, which\nwas not then capable of the purity and benevolence of the gospel, by\nwhich, marriage was made perpetual, and all men were to be treated as\nbrethren. We can infer the doctrine of perpetual slavery as little\nfrom its permission to the Jews, as we can the keeping of concubines\nfrom the practice of Abraham, or David. Divorces are permitted to the\nJews in similar expressions with the permission to hold slaves; yet\nour Saviour tells us, it was not so from the beginning. Moses (Deut.\nxvii. 14.) gives directions for the choice and duty of a king, yet\nSamuel tells the Jews, they had offended God in asking for a king.\nAnd though God condescended to give them a king in a manner which\nmore unequivocally shewed his assent, than that approbation, sanction\nand command, which the author incautiously affirms to be given to\nthe \u201cslave-trade;\u201d yet Samuel concludes them to be not the less\nguilty, for persevering in the request. We should be more careful\nthan this author shews himself, how we apply our ignorant conjectures\nto the divine conduct; as p. 16, \u201cWithout allowing the licitness\nof the slave-trade, it is impossible to reconcile the justice of\nGod with his own scriptural decisions concerning its nature;\u201d that\n(p. 32) \u201cGod, without a glaring opposition to the rights of his\njustice, could not have approved the conduct of Joseph in enslaving\nthe \u00c6gyptians, and inflicted a lasting punishment on Reuben for his\nincest, if his enslaving of the \u00c6gyptians had been a crime.\u201d These\nexpressions would be shocking from an infidel; in what an horrid\ncause doth a clergyman use them?\n\nThe minds of the Jews had been broken and debased by the Egyptian\nbondage; the law was given them as a school-master to train them\nup for the perfect religion of the gospel. Their conduct in the\nwilderness, their frequent rebellions amidst miracles, and in the\nimmediate presence of their Divine Deliverer, can only be imagined\nby those who have had opportunities of seeing how man is shorn of\nhis worth by slavery. Only two men of all who were grown up when\nthey came out of Egypt, were thought deserving to enter into Canaan.\nThat whole generation must be worn out in the wilderness; and their\nchildren must be trained for 40 years before they are permitted to\ntake possession. Their laws therefore respected the hardness of\ntheir hearts, though founded on principles which led insensibly\nto perfection. Thus while the perpetuity of the servitude of the\nHeathens condescended to the hardness of their hearts, the easy\ntemporary service of their brethren looked forward to the gospel\ntimes, not differing, but in being for a fixed period, from modern\nservitude for wages in free states.\n\nTherefore when this writer, p. 39. calls this latter service, \u201cA\nSlave Trade;\u201d the meaning of the terms is perverted. Or let him\nreduce his Leverpool slave trade to the circumstances of a Jew\nserving his brother for six years, and we shall have few objections\nto bring against it. What he calls there \u201cselling him again,\u201d was\ntransferring his service to another brother (not an Heathen) for the\nremainder of the term, as an apprentice is turned over to a second\nmaster.\n\nPage 40. \u201cIf a Hebrew servant had married a wife with consent of his\nmaster, she and her child became her master\u2019s property for ever.\u201d\nThis seems not to be candidly expressed. This wife must have been an\nHeathen slave, for Hebrew women had the privilege of the Sabbatical\nyear; but if he chose to continue with his wife, he had only to renew\nhis contract with his master. Indeed the regulation appears to have\nbeen intended as a check to the connection with slaves in the poor\nreduced Hebrews.\n\nPage 41, 42. When he speaks of the (Leverpool) \u201cslave trade having\nthe sanction of being encouraged, almost commanded, and even\nenjoined, to be prosecuted by the Supreme Legislator,\u201d he puts\nopposition to silence. But when, p. 43. he talks of \u201cthe Almighty\u2019s\nforgetting himself, when he encouraged the slave trade, if it be a\ncrime,\u201d I am happy for his sake to recollect, that the author tells\nus, till he was 27 years old, he knew not the value of an English\nexpression.\n\nPage 43. The slavery of the Gibeonites.\n\nThe land of Canaan was allotted to the Jews for an inheritance.\nThe former inhabitants, for their sins, were to be extirpated, or\nexpelled. The Gibeonites preferred slavery to this. Their services\nwere allotted first to the tabernacle, then to the temple. It appears\nfrom David\u2019s application to them, on account of the famine brought on\nthe land for Saul\u2019s massacre of them, that they were kept distinct as\na people. We may suppose that they continued to occupy part of their\nancient possessions (for we find in David\u2019s time that even Araunah\na Jebusite was a proprietor of land) and that they were in their\nturn draughted off for the service of religion; those who occupied\nthe lands maintaining those who served. There is not one common\ncircumstance between the manner of their becoming servants, and the\npresent Leverpool slave trade, and hardly any more in their treatment.\n\nPage 50. On the supposition of the iniquity of the (Leverpool) \u201cslave\ntrade,\u201d he speaks of the Almighty disturbing the course of nature,\nwhen the sun stood still at Joshua\u2019s command, to make it subservient\nto injustice and oppression, in vindication of ill-gotten property.\nHere he may be assured the horror of the expression will secure him\nfrom contradiction.\n\nPage 54. \u201cThe slave trade,\u201d (still Leverpool slave trade) \u201cis in\nperfect harmony with the principles of the word of God respecting\njustice.\u201d P. 58. \u201cThe inspired writers of the New Testament did not\nconsider it as an infraction of the principles of the gospel.\u201d Nor\ndid these declare their own persecution for righteousness sake, to be\nan infraction of the principles of the gospel. The keeping of slaves,\nwhich the author constantly calls \u201cthe slave trade,\u201d was a custom\nthen generally prevalent over the world. Neither were masters or\nslaves prepared for a general manumission. The spirit of Christianity\nwas suffered gradually to undermine this mass of oppression, and\nwherever the gospel has prevailed, it has in fact abolished it.\n\nWe have a similar instance of this management, in the abolition\nof the ceremonial law of Moses. The first disciples, and even the\napostles, conformed to it, though they had declared it to be an\nunnecessary yoke, and they suffered it to wear out gradually. That\nslavery was an evil, and therefore a sin in all those who inflicted\nit on others, in such a degree as to become an evil, is plainly\ndeclared in the gospel. Our Saviour tells the believing Jews, If ye\ncontinue in my word, ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall\nmake you free; or shall confer new privileges on you. If freedom\nbe a privilege or an advantage, slavery is a degradation and a\ndisadvantage. But if a man be degraded or injured for the caprice or\nprofit of another, that other, under whom he suffers such injury, is\nguilty of a sin.\n\nAgain, St. Paul, 1 Cor. viii. 21., says, \u201cArt thou called being a\nservant, care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it\nrather.\u201d Here is plainly a direction to the disciples to submit to\ntheir situation, but to prefer freedom when fairly offered; which\nin this case was its being purchased for them by the Christian\ncongregation. This is explained, ver. 23. \u201cYe are bought with a\nprice, be not (Greek become not) ye the servants of men.\u201d Avoid a\nsituation which must debase your mind. In the Revelations, xviii.\n13. slaves and souls of men are said to be articles of traffick in\nBabylon, the Mother of Abominations. This supposeth nothing very\nexcellent in slavery, to make it be approved of, and commanded to be\nprosecuted by God.\n\nWe may now account for the manner in which St. Paul applies to\nPhilemon in behalf of his servant Onesimus. He desires him to\nreceive him back into his family, not now as a servant, but above a\nservant; a profitable inmate, a brother beloved. He would not take\nadvantage of the privilege of an apostle, to withhold Onesimus from\nhis service, or consider his conversion as a bar to it, and therefore\nendeavours to effect a reconciliation between them. But from the\nmanner in which the apostle solicits this favour, it is clear the\nsituation of Onesimus in the family was desirable; for he requests\nit as a favour to Onesimus, and considers not his interposition,\nas the conferring of an obligation on Philemon. All this is very\nopposite to that West-Indian slavery with which this of Onesimus, p.\n65. is compared. For the master only is considered here; neither the\nfeelings nor profit of the slave is taken into account.\n\nPage 72, 73. I shall not dispute his exposition of doing as we wish\nto be done by, as far as it goes, of \u201ca slave\u2019s serving his master,\nas he if a master would wish to be served.\u201d But I would carry it a\nstep farther. As I, a free man, settled with my family and friends\nabout me in my native country, would not wish to be kidnapped, or to\nhave my family enslaved, separated, and carried bound neck and heel,\nand stifled in the foul air of a ship\u2019s hold, all to be sold in a\ndistant country, to toil incessantly for a man we never knew, without\nfood or raiment, except such scraps as we may procure by breaking\nthe sabbath; under the lash of any unfeeling boy, who may be set\nover us with a whip in his hand; so would not I be concerned in any\nsuch cruel oppressive inhuman treatment of others. When this author\npublishes his Second Part, it is to be hoped, this will be pressed\nhome on his Leverpool patrons.\n\nIt is curious to remark, that in these researches, in which the\nwisdom and goodness of God is so freely applied to the Leverpool\nslave trade, there is not even a distant hint given of the purpose\nwhich is to be served by slavery, to shew it to be worthy \u201cof this\ndivine approbation, the almost divine commands.\u201d When God commands\nus to love our neighbour, our heart goes along with the precept. But\nif, as this author incautiously affirms, we be commanded to exercise\nthe slave trade, bow down our brother\u2019s body in bondage, and treat\nhim ill, as Sarah did Hagar with impunity, we have no clue to trace\nout the agreement of the doctrine with divine goodness. If commanded\nor enjoined to use the slave trade as it is now carried on, we are\ncommanded, (horrid even in the supposition) to commit murder, to\nstarve, oppress, suffocate, and lead into exile, our brother, who\nnever offended us. Suppose slavery approved of in revelation, yet\nsurely robbery, murder, and oppression, are not approved there: and\nyet no man is originally reduced into a state of slavery but by such\nmethods:\u2014at least, when the advocates for slavery plead for a divine\nsanction to it, they should be able to lay down a method of making\nslaves of others, which shall be innocent, and may deserve that\nsanction.\n\nThe Jews, for their sins, were given up to captivity. Their cities\nwere to be destroyed, their princes murdered, and their people\ncarried to Babylon. The prophets invited the surrounding nations to\ncome to the slaughter, and to the spoil. Here is a divine command in\nstronger terms than can be shewn for the Leverpool slave trade, or\nany other slave trade or holding of slaves. Yet what follows. These\nvery nations thus invited, and even commanded to execute the divine\njudgments on the Jews, are destined to destruction, are made to cease\nas nations, for having obeyed the call to vengeance. Edom was amongst\nthe first in this field of blood, and slavery, and plunder. Hear the\nprophet Obadiah address him:\u2014\u201cThou shouldest not have laid hands\non their substance in the day of their calamity: thou shouldest not\nhave stood in the cross-way to cut off those of his that did escape:\nthou shouldest not have delivered up those of his that did remain\nin the day of distress. For the day of the Lord is near on all the\nheathen;\u2014as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee.\u201d\n\nThe reason is plain, though instruments in God\u2019s hands to punish\na wicked people; yet in the execution of his justice, they only\nsatiated their own hatred, cruelty, and avarice. Let therefore the\nLeverpool slave trade be not only approved of, but even, as he says,\ncommanded by God; yet if the corporation, in prosecuting the infernal\nbusiness, be actuated by avarice, or any other unworthy motive, and\nuse cruelty, oppression, and inhumanity in the course of it, (and\nlet those who use the trade lay their hands on their hearts, and let\nthem, if they dare, deny the charge), then, sooner or later, divine\nvengeance will find them out, and plunge them into ruin with all\nthose who encourage or abet them in it.\n\nPage 75. Corol. 1st. \u201cThe Scriptures declare the slave trade to be\nintrinsically good and licit.\u201d Not in any other manner than Jewish\narbitrary divorces, plurality of wives, or their original desire of a\nking; all of which we know to have been wrong from the beginning.\n\nCorol. 2d. \u201cHe is highly criminal who refuses assent to the\nintrinsick licitness of the slave trade, declared in the Scriptures.\u201d\nI hope not, if he cannot find it there, and resolves not to meddle\nwith it, till he has discovered it.\n\nCorol. 3d. \u201cHe who acquiesces not in the licitness of the slave\ntrade, disbelieves the Scriptures.\u201d Answered in Corol. 2.\n\nCorol. 6th. \u201cThe abuses of the slave trade not an inducement to the\nLegislature to abolish it.\u201d If the slave trade be, as it certainly\nis, inseparably connected with murder, oppression, and every iniquity\nthat has from time to time drawn down divine vengeance on guilty\nnations; and if the Legislature be instructed in the nature of it,\nand be called on to put a stop to this murder and oppression, and\ncannot possibly do it but by the abolition of the slave trade,\n(were the slave trade even commanded in the clearest terms, which\nis not the case, but the contrary) then is the Legislature obliged,\nand called on by every motive of religion and prudence, to put an\nimmediate stop to it, that it may not bring ruin on the state.\n\n\n                                FINIS.\n\n\n\n\n_Books by J. Ramsay._\n\n\nAn ESSAY on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the\nBritish Sugar Colonies. 4s. Boards.\n\nA REPLY to the Personal Invectives and Objections contained in two\nAnswers, published by certain anonymous Persons, to an Essay on the\nTreatment and Conversion of African Slaves, in the British Colonies.\n2s.\n\nAn INQUIRY into the Effects of putting a Stop to the African Slave\nTrade, and of granting Liberty to the Slaves in the British Sugar\nColonies. 6d.\n\nA LETTER to James Tobin, Esq. late Member of His Majesty\u2019s Council in\nthe Island of Nevis. 6d.\n\nA MANUAL for African Slaves. 2d.\n\nOBJECTIONS to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, with Answers. Second\nEdit. enlarged. 9d.\n\n\n_Also lately published by the same Author_,\n\nA VOLUME of SEA SERMONS; sold by Rivingtons, St. Paul\u2019s Church-yard.\n\nESSAY on a SEA OFFICER\u2019s DUTY; sold by Robinsons, Paternoster-Row.\n\n\n\n\nTRACTS\n\nON THE\n\nSLAVE TRADE,\n\nPublished by J. PHILLIPS, George-Yard, Lombard-Street.\n\n\nAn ESSAY on the Impolicy of the African Slave Trade, by T. Clarkson.\nIn Two Parts. 2s. 6d. boards.\n\nAn ESSAY on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species,\nparticularly the African, translated from a Latin Dissertation, which\nwas honoured with the First Prize in the University of Cambridge, for\nthe Year 1785. Second Addition, with Additions, by T. Clarkson. 3s.\nboards.\n\nA DESCRIPTION of Guinea, its Situation, Produce, and the general\nDisposition of its Inhabitants; with an Inquiry into the Rise and\nProgress of the Slave Trade, &c. By Anthony Benezet. A new Edition.\n2s. boards.\n\nAn ACCOUNT of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa, by Alexander\nFalconbridge, late Surgeon in the African Trade. 9d.\n\nOBSERVATIONS on a Guinea Voyage; in a Series of Letters, addressed to\nthe Rev. J. Clarkson, by James Field Stanfield, late a Mariner in the\nAfrican Slave Trade. 4d.\n\nA LETTER to the Treasurer of the Society instituted for the Purpose\nof effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. From the Rev. Robert\nBoucher Nickolls, Dean of Middleham. A new Edition enlarged. 4d.\n\nREMARKS on the Slave Trade, and the Slavery of the Negroes, in a\nSeries of Letters, by Africanus. 2s. 6d.\n\nWEST INDIAN ECLOGUES, dedicated to the late Lord Bishop of Chester,\nby a Person who resided several Years in the West-Indies. 2s.\n\nA SUMMARY VIEW of the Slave Trade, and of the probable Consequences\nof its Abolition. 2d.\n\nA LETTER from Capt. J. S. Smith, to the Rev. Mr. Hill, on the State\nof the Negroe Slaves. To which are added an Introduction, and Remarks\non Free Negroes. By the Editor. 6d.\n\nA CAUTION to Great Britain and her Colonies, in a short\nRepresentation of the calamitous State of the enslaved Negroes in the\nBritish Dominions. By Anthony Benezet. 6d.\n\nTHOUGHTS on the Slavery of the Negroes. 4d.\n\nA SERIOUS ADDRESS to the Rulers of America, on the Inconsistency of\ntheir Conduct respecting Slavery. 3d.\n\nThe CASE of our Fellow-Creatures, the Oppressed Africans,\nrespectfully recommended to the serious Consideration of the\nLegislature of Great-Britain, by the People called Quakers. 2d.","title":"Examination of the Rev. Mr. Harris's scriptural researches on the licitness of the slave trade","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":7757}