There is therefore no foundation for the author’s deduction, p. 20. that “a divine voice declares her to be her master’s indisputable property, and the original bargain to be just and lawful in its nature; and that the (Leverpool) slave-trade, even attended with circumstances not conformable to the feelings of humanity, is essentially confident with the rights of justice, and has the positive sanction of God for its support, however displeasing these circumstances may be to his fatherly providence.” Let any man make sense of this who can. I understand only the extreme boldness of the expression. Here is a right to enslave and an approbation, and also a censure of the exercise of this right. Here our natural notions of benevolence are set in opposition to revelation, p. 42. Revelation commands us to enslave our brethren, even against the suggestions of the feelings of humanity. Surely the writer should shew the high purposes answered by slavery, to gain which it is an act of piety to violate our benevolent feelings. We come now to the story of Joseph, which, p. 23, “ascertains the inherent lawfulness of the” (Leverpool) “slave-trade.” The first thing that strikes us in his account is, his illustrating his doctrine by Joseph’s political arrangements of the kingdom of Egypt, rather than by Joseph’s own story; which, except in the horrid circumstances of the middle passage, agrees entirely with the Leverpool slave-trade. Joseph is found at a distance from protection. His enemies kidnap him and sell him to slave-brokers, who carry him into Egypt, and dispose of him as an article of commerce to Potiphar. His kidnappers saw, and like Guinea captains disregarded, the anguish of his soul. It is true, afterwards, when they believed themselves in danger of being enslaved in turn, they upbraid each other with their unfeeling cruelty, and charge their distress to its account. But this was only because Scriptural Researches had not then been published: for they, p. 20, would have proved, that “though the action was not altogether conformable to the feelings of humanity, and was even displeasing to his Fatherly Providence; and though doubtless God would see, and of consequence recompense, Joseph for his affliction as he had Hagar; yet this stroke in the slave-trade is essentially consistent with the unalienable rights of justice; has the positive sanction of God in its support, nay, his approbation, p. 16, and p. 42, even his command.”