Romans. Cato, the censor, saw nothing more dangerous than intelligent slaves. He required his own to sleep whenever they were not employed at their labours; so fearful was he, that they might learn to think.* The anglo-Americans of the southern states, though the most intelligent and humane slave-holders of the present day, still reject with dismay, the idea of teaching their slaves to read. The colonists who are subject to the British government, behold with no less alarm, the exertions which many in the mother country are making, to enlighten the minds of their slaves, and diffuse among them, a knowledge of the christian religion.† But if slavery causes the masters to hold industry in contempt, and renders the slaves incapable of it, has not the nation a resource in the class who are neither masters nor slaves? No; for in a country where slavery is predominant, a man who is neither master nor slave, unless he chooses to 'carry his industry to some other place, must remain idle or be despised. If freemen sometimes consent to labour, it is only so far as a superior salary compensates for the contempt attached to such occupations; || and even then, a free labourer, who has accumulated a little property, either purchases slaves, or quickly disappears. The state of the proletairs, in the Roman Republic, excluded from every useful employment, either by contempt or by the competition of the slaves of patricians, is a remarkable and appalling Plutarch's Life of Cato. See the debates in the English house of commons, June 23, 1825. + Rochefoucauld's Travels in the United States. example of the degradation and misery to which the part of the nation who are not classed either among masters or slaves, are reduced by the presence of slavery. The Such are the effects of slavery on physical organization, on industry, and intelligence. Its effects on manners are still much more degrading. One of the first moral consequences which slavery produced among the Romans, was a love of idleness. From the absence of intellectual and physical activity, and from the possession of wealth acquired by pillage, arose an immoderate passion for sensual enjoyments. The gluttony and voracity of the great, were carried to an extent, of which, at this day, we can form no idea. The earth was ravaged to support their extravagance, and the riches of a province were swallowed at a meal. house of a grandee, containing a great number of slaves of both sexes, the natural effects of this circumstance, were soon manifested in the manners of the master. The Roman history furnishes some signal examples of the most scandalous depravity. Two of them are noted by M. Compte, in the brilliant period of the republic: the condemnation of an hundred and sixty wives of senators, who were convicted of a plot to poison their husbands, because they had neglected them for the society of their slaves; and a combination, too shameful for recital, discovered in the year of Rome, 539. The criminals, of whom the great This is not a translation of Simondi's words, he has given us an image of depravity, which my readers will probably excuse me from exhibiting in an English dress. er part were females, amounted to more than seven thousand; and more than half of them were condemned to death. We regret that we cannot follow the author, while he exhibits the Roman servitude progressively increasing in severity as the wealth and luxury of the masters increased; the quantity of food allowed to the slaves diminishing, and their punishments becoming more atrocious, the revolts, servile wars, private revenge of the slaves thickening the dangers both of the individual masters and of the state at large. Whenever men are condemned to labour without relaxation and without reward; when they are not masters of their own actions; and are continually exposed to contempt, to insult, and to arbitrary punishments, death without torture, loses its terrors. To render it terrible, it must be accompanied by torments, which by, their intensity, overbalance the protracted sufferings of life. Thus, the Romans when they punished their slaves with death, accompanied the execution with inflictions calculated to impress dismay on the minds of men, who enjoyed but little that could render life desirable. These inflictions could be regulated only by the caprice of the masters; for, slaves, in the eye of the law, were regarded merely as property. The punishment generally adopted, was to lacerate them with rods, and afterwards nail them to a cross. The torments of an individual thus crucified, sometimes continued many days, before they were terminated by death, unless the executioner, moved by pity, accelerated its approach. The writers who have given a description of this punishment, do not inform us, that females, or even infants of the most tender age, were exempted from its infliction. All were condemned to perish, when the master died by an unknown hand.* SCRIPTURAL RESEARCHES ON SLAVERY. Continued from page 209. We need but compare what is said (Deut. xxi. 15-17) respecting polyg amy, with Levit. xviii. 18, Malac. ii. 14-16, Matt. xix. 9, Rom. vii. 3; and what is said (Deut. xxi. 10-14) respecting humbling a fair captive, with Ex. xx. 14, Deut. vii. 3, Matt. xix. 9, and 1 Cor. vi. 9; to be satisfied that these cases are of the same kind—that although not punishable by the judges, yet they were violations of the moral law, and sinful in the sight of God— and like divorce, were thus left on account of the hardness of their hearts. That the same was the case with slavery, so far as at all tolerated, except as a punishment for crime, is proved by the judgments on Egypt on account of it-the repeated charges not to afflict and oppress others as the Egyptians had oppressed them-the various limitations and countervailing statutes should they ever fall into the practice, and the awful visitations of wrath on that people in the time of Jeremiah (xxxiv.) for this very sin. We need but look at the statutes by which, in case they fell into the practice of slavery, the evil was limited if not totally prevented, to be satisfied, as appears to me, that if observed and enforced by the judges, nothing that *This barbarous law was executed in one instance, during the reign of Nero. Pedanius Secundus, præfect of Rome, was murdered by one of his slaves. Four hundred slaves, belonging to the family, were condemned to death; but the opposition of the people was such, that the Emperor ordered the executon to be effected under a military force. Tacitus An. Book 14, sec. 45. No other instance in Roman history, is recollected. deserves the name of slavery, could have been found among that people. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Ex. xxi. 16. Stealing has ever been a common mode of bringing persons into slavery. A large part of the Africans brought to this country were stolen. It was made a capital offence even to hold one thus deprived of his liberty. "If he be found in his hand he shall surely be put to death." "If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake; and if he smite out his man servant's tooth, or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." Ex. xxii. 26-27. This law was designed to prevent severe treatment, by giving freedom where undue severity was used. "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master to thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he shall choose, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. xxiii. 15-16. That this included fugitive slaves from the neighbouring nations, we readily admit; but we are not authorized to limit it to them. Israel were themselves fugitive slaves (Ex. xiv. 5.) This law spoke to their own case, and in its true spirit went to condemn the forcibly detaining any in slavery, as the Egyptians had detained them. We find David receiving fugitives (1 Sam. xxii. 2) whom Nabal calls runaway servants or slaves (1 Sam. xxv. 10.) Not only was David a prophet, but the prophet Gad was at that time with David, and spoke to David in the name of the Lord (1 Sam. xxii. 5.) Not one intimation is given that David did wrong. "Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof." Levit. xxv. 10. This put a complete end to slavery every fifty years. God, by Isaiah, (lviii. 6) in telling Israel what kind of a fast pleased him, may refer to this-to undo the heavy burdens-to let the oppressed go free -to break every yoke. He does particularly in that beautiful prediction respecting the Messiah, (lxi. 1) who VOL. I.-30 was to "proclaim liberty to captives, and the opening of prisons to those that were bound, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." There are however several statutes, not yet mentioned, which, taken together, appear to me most clearly to have prevented slavery, properly so called-prevented any from being held in servitude longer than six years, unless with their own consent. 1. It was clearly the intention of the law, and expressly provided by statute, that all bought servants, and those born of them while in servitude, should be circumcised and united to the visible people of God. "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant; and the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant." Gen. xvii. 13-14. "This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no uncircumcised person eat thereof: but every man servant that is bought with money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner or a hired servant shall not eat thereof." Ex. xii. 43, 44, 45. "The man that is clean and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from his people." Num. ix. 14. No one will doubt, we think, that the above statute included captives, who were held in servitude or slavery; as the Midianites, Num. xxxi. 18, and those referred to in the direction in Deut. xx. 14. On this statute I have but a remark or two to make. 1. None were considered as belonging to God's people, who were not circumcised, and kept not the passover. They were cut off, even if their parents were of God's visible people. 2. God's people might entertain an uncircumcised visiter, or they might employ him as a hireling; but not as a bought servant or slave. In the case of these, they were to circumcise them -in other words, they were limited as respected slaves, to those who agreed to be circumcised, and make a profession of the true religion. The repetition of this command respecting bought servants-the injunction, they must needs be circumcised-the distinction laid down between the foreigner or hired servant and the bought, all go to show that the law intended that they should not retain as members of their families, any who did not belong to God's visible people. It will not be supposed that they were forcibly to circumcise adult servants, and oblige them to profess the true religion; and some time no doubt would be allowed to instruct a bought servant in the true religion, and induce him to embrace it; but it appears clearly the intention of the law, that they were not to retain those who refused to profess the true religion. They were to be separated from that people, and not retained as members of their families. 3. The effect of being circumcised and keeping the passover, was, that they were fully united to God's visible people, belonged to the congregation of the Lord, and were bound to perform all the duties, and were entitled to all the privileges, of God's covenant people. Circumcision was the token of the covenant, and made those who received it debtors to do the whole law (Gal. v. 3;) and was, at the same time, evidence of their being the children of the covenant, the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. iii. 29. The effect of circumcision in the case of the stranger, when the rule is laid down, is clearly and repeatedly stated. "He shall be as one born in the land. One law shall be to him that is home born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Ex. xii. 48, 49. Num. ix. 14; xv. 15, 16. In the sense of the law there was no difference between the native Israelite and those of other races who were circumcised and joined to the Lord. They became one people, and together formed the congregation of the Lord, the holy people, the people of the covenant. The prophets were no doubt the best expounders of the law. The following are selected from a multitude of passages that relate to this point. Isaiah, Ivi. 3-7: "Neither let the son of the stranger that hath joined himself to the Lord speak, saying, the Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold on my covenant, even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also to the sons of the strangers that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar." Ezek. xlvii. 22: “And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it (the land) by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you, and they shall be as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God.” The complete incorporation with Israel of the circumcised persons of other races, taught in these passages, is farther confirmed by many cases of families and individuals mentioned in the Scripture. Moses' father-in-law was invited to join himself to Israel, and assured that his family should share equally with Israel in all the good things God would give Israel. Num. x. 29. And we find (Judges i. 16) that he complied with the invitation, and was numbered in the genealogies of Judah, to which tribe they joined themselves. 1 Chro. ii. 55. Caleb, one of the heads of Judah, (Num. xiii. 3-6) although placed in genealogies of Judah, (1 Chro. ii. 9) into which tribe he or his father had probably married, was the son of a Kenezite (Joshua xiv. 6-14; comp. Gen. xv. 19.) He inherited. Rahab the harlot, who married the prince of the tribe of Judah, (Joshua vi. 25; Matt. i. 5) was, with her father's family, incorporated with Israel, and no doubt inherited with them. Ruth, the Moabitess, on taking God for her God, (Ruth i. 16) held the property of her husband and husband's brother, and was married as a sister by Boaz, according to the requirement of the Levitical law (iv. 10-13.) Obed-edom, the Gittite, was united to the tribe of Levi, and with his sons were porters, (1 Chro. xiii. 13, 14; 1 Chro. xxvi. 4, 5, 15.) Jether, the Ishmaelite, married into the family of Jesse, and is called an Israelite, (1 Chro. ii. 17; 2 Sam. xvii. 25.) Jarha, the Egyptian, (1 Chro. ii. 35); Ithmah, the Moabite, (1 Chro. ii. 46); Zelek, the Ammonite, (2 Sam. xxiii. 37); Ittai, the Gittite, (2 Sam. xviii. 2); Uriah, the Hittite, (1 Chro. xi. 41); Ahimelech, the Hittite, (1Sam. xxvi. 6); with others that might be mentioned, held such offices in Israel, that we must, as appears to me, admit that they were circumcised and incorpo rated with that people. The law did not allow a stranger, an uncircumcised, a heathen, to rule over them, or be a ruler among them. Deut. xvii. 15. Now it appears to me clear, that the statute (Ex. xxi. 12) not allowing a Hebrew to be held in bondage more than six years, was intended to embrace all God's visible covenanted people. I see no reason why we should make a distinction between those descended from the patriarchs according to the flesh, and those of other races, who joined themselves to the Lord, and took hold of his covenant. It appears to me, that it was the design of the law that there should be no distinction. It says expressly, that they should be as those born in the land-Israelites-and God by his prophet, (Isaiah lvi. 3-7) denies that they were separated from his people. (To be continued.) DEBATES ON THE SLAVE TRADE. In the yearly meeting of Friends, held in Philadelphia in 1783, an address to the then existing congress was agreed upon, calling the attention of that body to the subject of the African slave trade; expressing a fear that, peace being then restored, that iniquitous traffic might be resumed; and earnestly soliciting the interference of congress to discourage and prevent so obvious an evil. This address was signed by 535 Friends. The memorial, when presented was treated with respect, but that congress, not being vested with the powers of legislation, declined the promotion of any public remedy for this enormous violation of the rights of humanity. In the autumn of 1789, the same meeting prepared a petition to the newly organized government of the United States, reviving the memorial of 1783, pressing this subject upon their attention, and earnestly requestiug them to exercise such power as they possessed, toward the abolition of this destructive commerce. This memorial, and two others directed towards the same object, one of which bore the signature of Benjamin Franklin, as president of the Pennsylvania society for the abolition of slavery, were presented to | Congress, during the session of 1789 -90, and referred to a committee of seven members. That committee offered a report consisting of seven resolutions chiefly expressive of the powers, and the limitation of the powers of congress, in relation to slavery and the slave trade-and declaring, that in all cases to which the authority of congress extended, they would exercise it for the humane purposes of the memorialists, so far as they could be promoted on the principles of justice, humanity and | good policy. This report being un |