It is scarce necessary to observe, as a farther testimony of the injustice of the measure, that the Europeans, after the introduction of Christianity, exploded this principle of the ancients, as frivolous and false; that they spared the lives of the vanquished, not from the sordid motives of _avarice_, but from a conscientiousness, that homicide could only be justified by _necessity_; that they introduced an _exchange_ of prisoners, and, by many and wise regulations, deprived war of many of its former horrours. But the advocates for slavery, unable to defend themselves against these arguments, have fled to other resources, and, ignorant of history, have denied that the _right of capture_ was the true principle, on which slavery subsisted among the ancients. They reason thus. "The learned Grotius, and others, have considered slavery as the just consequence of a private war, (supposing the war to be just and the opponents in a state of nature), upon the principles of _reparation_ and _punishment_. Now as the law of nature, which is the rule of conduct to individuals in such a situation, is applicable to members of a different community, there is reason to presume, that these principles were applied by the ancients to their prisoners of war; that their _effects_ were confiscated by the right of _reparation_, and their _persons_ by the right of _punishment_."-- But, such a presumption is false. The _right of capture_ was the only argument, that the ancients adduced in their defence. Hence Polybius; "What must they, (the Mantinenses) suffer, to receive the punishment they deserve? Perhaps it will be said, _that they must be sold, when they are taken, with their wives and children into slavery_: But this is not to be considered as a punishment, since even those suffer it, by the laws of war, who have done nothing that is base." The truth is, that both the _offending_ and the _offended_ parties, whenever they were victorious, inflicted slavery alike. But if the _offending_ party inflicted slavery on the persons of the vanquished, by what right did they inflict it? It must be answered from the presumption before-mentioned, "by the right of _reparation_, or of _punishment:_" an answer plainly absurd and contradictory, as it supposes the _aggressor_ to have a _right_, which the _injured_ only could possess. Neither is the argument less fallacious than the presumption, in applying these principles, which in a _publick_ war could belong to the _publick_ only, to the persons of the _individuals_ that were taken. This calls us again to the history of the ancients, and, as the rights of reparation and punishment could extend to those only, who had been injured, to select a particular instance for the consideration of the case.