The slave, then, may or may not be under obligation to labour for the benefit of the master. Therefore, the “obligation to labour for the benefit of the master” is surplusage also, and may be erased. So the entire definition is erased—not a word left! The fact is, Dr. Paley took some of the most common incidents accompanying the thing for the thing itself; and he would have been just as logically correct had he said, that “slavery was to be a hearty feeder on fat pork,” because slaves feed heartily on that article. In his definition Dr. Paley has embraced none of the essentials of slavery. We propose to notice the passage—“This obligation may arise, consistently with the laws of nature, from three causes: 1st, from crime; 2d, from captivity; 3d, from debt.” The first consideration is, what he means by “obligation.” In its usual acceptation, the term means something that has grown out of a previous condition, as the obligations of marriage did not, nor could they exist until the marriage was had. If he only means that the “obligations” of slavery arise, &c., then he has told us nothing of the arising of slavery itself. But as he has used the word in the singular number, and given it three progenitors, we may suppose, that, by some figure of rhetoric, not usual in works of this kind, he has used the consequent for the cause. In that case, the sentence should read, “Slavery may arise, consistently with the laws of nature, from three causes,” &c.; which is what we suppose the doctor really meant. The next inquiry is, what did Dr. Paley mean by “the laws of nature?” Permit us to suffer him to answer this inquiry himself. In the twenty-fourth chapter of his “Natural Theology,” a work of great merit, he says—