“That civil liberty became a benefit, only after the establishment of civil society, when man had the protection of law, and the multiplied facilities for subsistence; that, previous to this, absolute freedom would be an injury to a person destitute of flocks, herds, lands, and servants.” “The common possession of all things is said to be of the natural law; because the distinction of possessions and slavery were not introduced by nature, but by reason of man, for the benefit of human life; and thus the law of nature is not changed by their introduction, but an addition is made thereto.” _St. Thomas Aquinas, 1, 2, q. 94 a 95 ad 2_. And the same father says again, _2, 2 q. 57 a 3 ad 2_—“This man is a slave, absolutely speaking, rather a son, not by any natural cause, but by reason of the benefits which are produced; for it is more beneficial to this one to be governed by one who has more wisdom, and the other to be helped by the labour of the former. Hence the state of slavery belongs principally to the law of nations, and to the natural law, only in the second degree, not in the first.” But a man having the natural right to _sell_ himself proves that he has the same right to _buy_ others. The one follows the other. But, suppose the laws of Japan do not permit voluntary slavery for life, or, rather that they have no law on the subject; but that they have a law, that whosoever proves himself to be so degraded that he cannot, or will not sustain himself, but is found loitering, begging, or stealing, shall be forcibly sold a slave for life,—is not the same good effected as in the other case, although the individual may be too debased to perceive it himself? And is it difficult to perceive, that the same deteriorating causes have produced both cases? The doctrine of the church is that “death, sickness, and a large train of what is called natural evils, are considered to be the consequences of sin. Slavery is an evil, and is also a consequence of sin.” _Bishop England_, p. 23. And St. Augustine preached the same doctrine, as long ago as the year 425. See his book, “_Of the City of God_,” liber xix. cap. 15. He says—“The condition of slavery is justly regarded as imposed on the sinner. Hence, we never read _slave_ (as one having a master) in Scripture before the just Noe, by this word, punished the sin of his son. Sin, not nature, thus introduced the word.” And St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, A.D. 390, in his book on “_Elias and Fasting_” c. 5, says—“There would be no slavery to-day had there not been drunkenness.” And so, St. John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, A.D. 400, Hom. 29, in Gen.: “Behold brethren born of the same mother! Sin makes one of them a servant, and, taking away his liberty, lays him under subjection.”