so eminent, as a Christian and a scholar, should permit even an early prejudice as to a practical question, about which he allows that he is uninformed, to betray him into such views of a plain principle as logically involve him in the grossest absurdities.
That the second sense given is the proper one in which to understand the Saviour
's doctrine can admit of no dispute.
What we should have a right to claim
, if we were in the circumstances of a slave, is precisely that which we are to accord to such slave, according to the precept of the Saviour.
If we should have a right to claim political sovereignty, in those circumstances, we are bound to allow them such sovereignty, that is, release them from slavery.
This directly involves the question, Whether they are fitted for that self-government which is involved in such sovereignty?
That they are not so in virtue of their humanity merely, we have proved; and whether they are so or not, by acquirement, is a practical question which Dr. Wayland
allows that he is not competent to decide.
This question will be met in another place.
It is sufficient here to state, that the scripture so confidently relied on as repudiating the principle of slavery, is found not to reach the question of the principle at all, and, therefore, is wholly misapplied.
The patriarchal form of government, which existed