New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-01-13
Discussion on Slavery-No. s.
DR.. Wapland 10 DR.. Fuller.

In DR.. Woylands last two letters ne attempted 10
show the meaning of the assertion that Sldoery is
O moro, sca;' and " to make it clear that Slavery,
or tia holding of men 10 bondage, and obising
them to labor for our benefit, without their contract
Sf Consent is always aud every where, semper ct
ubique, moral wrong" and also to show the va
yious notifications of guilt under different circum-
stances.
"An objection TO this view of the subject is found
cd on the precept and example of the Old aud New
Testament" Before considering this objection, Or.
Waylnnd states, briefly, his own opinions thus:
81 grant, at once, thut the Hebrews held slaves
from the tine of the conquest OF Canaan, and that
Abraham and the Patriarchs had held them many
centuries before slso tina, Moses enacted laws with
special reference to that relation" Granting all
this, he believes that, "savery then as now, was
wrong, violation OF our obligations man, and
variance with the moral law OF God" God made
known 10 the Hebrews, just as much OF his moral
law as ne chose, and the law this subject belong
ed to the part which he did not choose TO make
hnown:" the Hebrews did ,crong, but not knowing
The law, they were not gully.
When the iuiquity OF the Cannanites was full,
God gave Them and their lands and possessions, by
epeetol revelation. 10 the Hebrews. the Hebrews
were authorized by dioine commission 10 invade
their territory, 10 take possession OF their houses
and fields, and stay without mercy the Inhabitants"
" But this grant was made TO people, and TO one
people ony-the Hebrews. II had respect to enc
people oniy-the Canannitea. Ii can b. Of force ut
no other time and 10 no other people" ITO Us
and TO all men il is unlawful 10 do same thing,
unless We can show the special direction"
The view which you [Or. Fuller take Of the case,
however, differs materially from this" 81 will
now proceed to examine il. Itmay be stated bri.fy
thus: Slavery was sanctioned by revelation among
rhe Hebrews; it is therefore sanctioned to u.s." This
argument, reduced 10 q syilogism will be expressed
thus:
Whatever he sanctioned 10 the Hebrews, he
sanctioned to all men aud at ali tines" Here 'the
major premi wholly untenabie." 'tEvery one,
think, knows that God has fit to enlighten our
race progre, sivey He has 6rsI given us the light
Of nature. Millions al the present day have other
light" They will b-judged by this light alone, but,
by no meaps can We say that "what the light OF
nature allows Them is allowable 10 us, yet "ths
proposition would lead US 10 precisely this conclu-
sion"
E 81. Whatever God sanctioned among the Heb.
rews, he sanctions for all men and at all times.
2. God sanctioned Slavery among the Hebrews.
Therefore,
8. God sanctions Slavery for all men and at all
times"
In the first place we will examine the major pre-
misses: q Whatever God sanctioned among the
Hebrews he sanctions for all men and at all times
This IS not selt-evideDt but If true must be prov
able BY reason, or revelation
I. Can it be proved by reGson' II can be sup.
ported only by the following argument.
"Whatever God sanctions to any men at any time,
no sanctions 10 all meu az all times.
2. The Hebrews are men. Therefore.
So Of the Patrarchal and the Mosaic dispersal
tions: they had different degrees OF lisht, bur We
cannot take their revelation !or cur Inorsl rule
Again, let the word sanction mean TO approre 0.
sosNsa6, the proposition is no more teDabe. :. Gcd
commanded the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanitee
He commanded Saul TO destroy the Ams,ekites, etc
But were these commands 10 all men and AZ ali
times I" Hence the proposition is not probable BY
reason.
ii. "Can tae proposition, whatever was sane
toned to the Hebrews, is sanctioned TO all men q.
times be prorsd froa Rerslatioa3" Precisel,
the reverse. sit is Only necessary here, to inquire
whether there were any acts sanctioned TO the He.
brews by Moses which were NOT sanctioned 10 all
mon"
take for instance the whole Mosaic code OF civ
law; its eusctmsnts its frequent capital pm
ishnens its cities of refuge It's tenure orea estate
Could any legislator 1.-THE present day simlarl
avs, and justly plead as sufficient reason that God
had sanctioned, nay enacted, such laws for Jews T.
Again, with reference 10 poly gamy and divorce, We
all believe ahem 10 be wrong "yet these sins were
were not forbidden by Moses See ",he d;scus-
aion OF our Saviour with the Jews on this subject
in Matt 10: 80, and remark with regard 10 the
decision Of our Lord this subject, the following
" ]. Our Lord au,horita:iveiy lays down the law
Of marriage, defining il TO be an exclusive engage.
mont between two parties for life.
q He not only does this, but he declares that THIS
doctrine laugh, from the creation, quoting
Genesis 2: "a, in confirmation OF his assertion
g. Notwithstanding this, Moses had sanctioned
diyoyce-that is, he had not forbidden II, and had
enacted laws fo. the regulation ofi;.
4, And moreover, tbs reason OF this is given
i, was because of the hardness of their hearts
o, their int,ac,icable disposition. 1, is there
fere clear that a practice may have been sane-
ali man .t all times, nay, which before and after
particular period rot sanctioned TO the Hebrews
themselves" Hence the proposition Is not pfo,s.
BILE by Revelation. One remark with regard 10 pa-
Iyeamy and divorce among The Hebrews. =" Moses
did NOT at once directly FORBID these wrongs" hs
permitted them, and, at the same lime "inenical.d
such principles as would, by appealing to Their rea,
son and con. ciepce gradually abolish these abuses
The resul, was he intended and at the coming
OF Chistthey had, 10 great degree ceased.
aBut, suppose ibis proposition, thar whatever was
sanctioned TO the Hebrews is sanctioned TO all men
at ell times, be granted, do not 500 In what man